Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 22 February 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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                                                                                               22 February 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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, 22 February 2011 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 - 14 December 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 (record of voting required)

CP1/11      26 Canara Avenue, Phillip Bay (deferred)

CP2/11      16 Howell Avenue, Matraville

CP3/11      16 Ellen Street, South Coogee

CP4/11      Reporting variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP1) for the month of December 2010 and January 2011

CP5/11      Notification of Development Applications - response to Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Woodsmith

CP6/11      Affordable Rental Housing SEPP Review and Submission

CP7/11      Late Night Trading DCP

CP8/11      Planning Proposal - Semi-Detached Dwelling Houses

 

General Manager's Reports

GM1/11     Review of the 2009-13 Management Plan - December 2010 Quarterly Report

GM2/11     Audit Committee 2010 Self Evaluation

 

Director City Services Reports

CS1/11      Buildings for Our Community - Clovelly Surf Club Project - Grant Funding

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF1/11      Budget Review - December 2010 Quarter

GF2/11      Investment Report - December 2010

GF3/11      Investment Report - January 2011

GF4/11      Internal Reporting System - Public Interest Disclosures Act

GF5/11      Councillors' Access to Information

GF6/11      Short term lease of 1 Jersey Lane, Matraville by Kindaburra Children's Centre  

 

Petitions

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM1/11     Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Notley-Smith - Email and/or online alert service

NM2/11     Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Notley-Smith - Proposed Establishment of Open Space Consultative Committee

NM3/11     Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Notley-Smith - Belmore Road, Randwick

NM4/11     Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Notley-Smith - Green Money Scheme

NM5/11     Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Full and Open Competition Policy at Randwick City Council

NM6/11     Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Land & Environment Court Judgement - Kensington Bowling Club Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council

NM7/11     Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Parking Supply Shortages - Boat Trailers and Unregistered Vehicles

NM8/11     Motion Pursuant to Notice from Councillor Notley-Smith - Review of Development Application fees

NM9/11     Motion Pursuant to Notice from Councillor Notley-Smith - Tree Watering

NM10/11    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Notley-Smith - Tree Guards

NM11/11    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Notley-Smith - Reducing set-back from Intersections  

Closed Session (record of voting required)

CS2/11      T01/11 Professional Consultancy for the Indoor Multi Purpose Fitness Facility at the Des Renford Aquatic Centre, Maroubra

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.

 

CS3/11      T03/11 - Randwick City Council Coastal Walkway Upgrade - La Perouse

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                                                                                               22 February 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP1/11

 

 

Subject:                  26 Canara Avenue, Phillip Bay

Folder No:                   DA/446/2010

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting held on 23 November 2010, Council considered Development Application (DA/446/2010) seeking consent to demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy with garaging, boundary adjustment with number 24 Canara Avenue, and associated works (SEPP 1 objection to floor space ratio control).

 

It was resolved at the 23 November 2010 meeting:

 

“(White/Belleli) that this application be deferred to the next available meeting at the request of the applicant in order to hold further discussions with Council officers.”

 

A meeting was held on the 18 January 2011 and attended by the applicant and his building designer. At that meeting Council Officers outlined the issues of concern raised by the external Planning Consultant that assessed the application. The applicant was advised that if they were prepared to make amendments, Council would reassess the changes and report the matter back to Council; otherwise they should advise Council if they wished the application to be considered on the current design. The applicant subsequently indicated that they did not wish to amend the application.

 

Key Issues

 

Floor space ratio

The proposal has a FSR of 0.7:1 well in excess of the maximum allowable under RLEP 1998 of 0.5:1. The applicant has relied on the development to the north of the site at 17 Lindsay Street as a precedent in support of the breach of the FSR standard. However, a search of Council’s records indicates that the adjoining development to the north at 17 Lindsay Street has an FSR of 0.5:1 and larger site area of 502m2. The applicant has also referred to a recent dual occupancy development on the corner of Paterson and Windsor Streets. This dual occupancy development has an FSR of 0.471:1 which complies with the development standard. The high FSR of the proposed development is a function of a smaller site in comparison to the two sites referred to above and is indicative of a built form that is oversized having regard to the smaller proportions of the subject site. The non compliance with the setback provisions of the DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies is also an indication of the unsuitability of the proposed development.

 

Landscaped Area

The Director City Planning Report No. CP69/10 dated 23 November 2010 questioned the proposal’s compliance with the landscaped area requirement of the LEP. The landscaped area provision has been reviewed and it is considered that the proposal complies with the standard reserving 42% of the site as landscaped area. Although, due to the minimal setbacks of the proposal much of it is contained in leftover spaces and includes areas such as a very narrow strip between the two driveways to Canara Avenue.

 

Private Open Space

The Director City Planning Report No. CP69/10 also referred to the private open space provision as not complying with the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The figure provided in the report was based on the total landscaped area as the applicant did not indicate the specific areas of private open space for each dwelling. If it is proposed that the private open space for dwelling 2 be located in behind its garage, then that area only comprises 16m2 and would not comply with the preferred solution in the DCP.

 

Definition of attached dual occupancy

Should Council consider that the proposal is appropriate and suitable for the site, then consistent with the recent legal advice in relation to the definition of an attached dual occupancy, the storage area that connects the two dwellings should be conditioned so that its structurally dependent on the walls and slabs of the two wings of the building that contain each dwelling.

 

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.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council does not supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clause 20F of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to Floor Space Ratios, on the grounds that the proposed development does not comply with the objectives of the above clause, and will adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     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. 446/2010 for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a attached dual occupancy, at No. 24 Canara Avenue, Phillip Bay for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the 2A Zone.  In particular, it contravenes Clause 10(1) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidated) in that the bulk and scale of the development contravenes objectives (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 10(1).

 

2.     The proposed development does not comply with Clause 20F(1) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidated) in that the proposed development significantly exceeds the allowable floor space ratio for attached dual occupancy development.

 

3.     The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of Section 4.1 of the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP in respect to private open space, being deficient in minimum areas and the provision of adequate space for each of the proposed dwellings.

 

4.     The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of Section 4.2 of the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP in respect to exceedance of the allowable floor space ratio for attached dual occupancies.

 

5.     The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of Section 4.4 of the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP in respect to the provision of setbacks to boundaries.

 

6.     The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of Section 4.5 of the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP in respect to providing reasonable levels of visual and acoustic privacy.

 

7.     The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of Section 4.7 of the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP in respect to the provision of garages that are not visually intrusive and that do not detract from the appearance of dwellings of the local streetscape.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

The Director of City Planning Report No. CP69/10 dated 23 November 2011

 

 

 

 


The Director of City Planning Report No. CP69/10 dated 23 November 2011

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP90/10

 

 

Subject:                  26 Canara Avenue, Philip Bay

Folder No:                   DA/446/2010

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing structures and construction of two storey attached dual occupancy with garaging, boundary adjustment with No. 24 Canara Avenue, and associated works (SEPP 1 objection to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Archivision

Owner:                         Mr R V Taaffe & Mrs C J Taaffe

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.Executive Summary

 

The application proposes demolition of the existing structures on the site and construction of an attached dual occupancy on a corner allotment, being land at the corner of Canara Avenue and Adina Avenue. The proposal includes two dwellings of two storeys with associated garages fronting both streets.

 

The proposal includes one SEPP1 objection to justify a variation to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 for floor space.  The application seeks a floor space ratio of 0.7:1 compared with the development standard of 0.5:1.  The proposal suggests compliance with the 40% landscape provision in the Randwick LEP although the nature of the information provided makes this difficult to verify.  The application includes minimal information regarding the proposal and minimal justifications regarding non compliances with the Randwick Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancy.  There are a number of non-compliances with this DCP including provision of adequate private open space, privacy, landscaping provision, driveway widths and setbacks.

 

The proposal was notified to 18 dwellings and was on exhibition for 14 days from 21 June to 5 July 2010.  No objections to the proposal were received.

 

In this case, it is recommended Council refuse the application (DA/446/2010).

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal includes the demolition of an existing dwelling and associated detached garage. The proposal is for the construction of two (2), two (2) story masonry dwellings. Dwelling 1 contains a kitchen, lounge, dining, laundry and toilet on the ground floor and four (4) bedrooms on the first floor (plus two (2) bathrooms).  Dwelling 2 contains a kitchen, lounge, toilet and laundry on the ground floor and three (3) bedrooms and two (2) bathrooms on the first floor. A double garage is provided to dwelling 1 and a single garage to dwelling 2.  The application includes a boundary adjustment with 24 Canara Avenue to increase the site area of the subject site so that it exceeds 450m², the minimum area for an attached dual occupancy.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview39856.png

 

The site is located in Phillip Bay surrounded by the suburbs of Matraville to the north, La Perouse to the south, Little Bay to the east and Botany Bay to the west. The area is characterised by low density masonry dwellings.  Although much of the housing stock is ageing, there is a clear emerging character in the area of slightly higher density and more modern designs.  The locality is dominated by parkland to the north of the suburb and the foreshore of Botany Bay to the west.

 

4.    Site History

 

The proposal was submitted to Council 16 June 2010.  An original application for a dual occupancy on the site was submitted in December 2009.  The proposal was subsequently withdrawn as a result of the issues raised during the assessment process.  An amended application was submitted in May 2010 for two detached dwellings on the site. This proposal was also withdrawn as the application was not permissible under the zoning for the site.

 

The current application includes a “storage” room that links Dwelling 1 and Dwelling 2 in an attempt to classify the two dwellings as an “attached” dual occupancy.  The initial assessment of the application identified a number of areas of concern at a meeting and in a subsequent letter, dated 3 September 2010.  A letter was received from the applicant on 12 October 2010 responding to these issues.  The letter contained additional justification for the proposal and some minor alterations to the open space and landscaping of the proposal.

 

5.    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1- Development Standards

 

A SEPP 1 objection has been provided by the applicant to justify the variation to the development standard of the FSR.  The prescribed FSR under clause 20F of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 is 0.5:1 and the proposed FSR is 0.7:1.

 

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 below:

 

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.”

 

It is considered that the proposal is unsatisfactory and compliance with the development standard is reasonable and necessary for the following reasons:

 

•      The excess floor area results in a building that fails to meet reasonable criteria for bulk and scale.  This includes variations to a number of setback requirements such as side and front setbacks.

•      The increase size results in a poor arrangement of garaging being forward of the primary building line and requiring wide driveway crossings that dominate the street frontage.

•      The proposed development is of such a size that there is an inability to provide reasonable landscaping outcomes around the development and within the front setbacks.

 

The proposal has not demonstrated why imposing the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in this application.  The development has a number of inconsistencies with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and the objectives of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (the Act). The SEPP 1 objection provided does not appropriately justify 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 to the FSR control is not consistent with the aims of SEPP No.1 as it would detract from the objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) in that the resultant development would not promote the orderly use and development of the subject land.  The development has not provided the required levels of amenity in terms of private open space and landscaping.  The approval of the scheme would promote further undesirable precedents undermining the ability to properly manage the development of 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”.

 

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 development standard will ensure the Council’s ability to provide for the economic and orderly use of land is maintained.  The development standard seeks to ensure the preservation and enhancement of the character of the area, and this will be undermined by way of precedent if the development standard is varied in this manner.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

Preston C J expressed the view that an objection under SEPP 1 may be well founded and 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 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 because it intends to protect the character of the area, the amenity for future residents, the amenity of adjoining dwellings, the integrity of the streetscape, particularly in terms of built form.

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 is reasonable to achieve the underlying objective of the standard.

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 FSR 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 considered to be appropriate for the locality as the area is characterised by low density residential development. 

 

This proposal does justify the abandonment of the development standard in relation to these terms.  The proposal does not promote the orderly and economic use of development.

 

6.    Community Consultation

 

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy to 18 dwellings surrounding the site. The application was also placed on exhibition from 21 June to the 5 July 2010. No submissions were received.

 

5.1 Objections

There were no responses to the proposal received from surrounding residents.

 

7.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The following comments were received from Council Technical Services Department.

 

Landscape Comments

While there is no significant vegetation within the site, there are two semi-established Cupaniopsis anacardiodes (Tuckeroo’s) of between 3-5 metres in height on Council’s Canara Avenue verge, which are both covered by the provisions of Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO) due to their location on public property.

 

The most western tree is the largest, most dominant and more healthy of the two; however, the plans propose a new double width crossing in this same location which would necessitate its removal.

 

There is no scope to relocate or re-design this crossing and garage elsewhere to allow retention of this tree due to the power pole immediately to its west, in line with the western site boundary, and the close proximity to the corner of Adina Avenue to its east and the associated line of sight requirements.

 

Given that the other, lesser tree to its east will remain in-situ, with further replacements able to provided along the currently vacant Adina Avenue frontage, consent has been granted for removal of this street tree on this occasion, but in recognition of the fact that it is only being removed in order to accommodate the development of private property, the applicant must cover removal costs as well as a loss of amenity fee.

 

A landscape plan detailing how the appearance and presentation of the development will be improved has not been submitted as required, with conditions in this report specifying the level of treatment that is expected.

 

Drainage Comments

Onsite detention of stormwater is not required for this application as the site is not in an on-site detention area.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

The following environmental instruments apply to the application. An assessment against their provisions is provided in section 8.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP)

The site is zoned residential 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 10 Zone 2A (Residential)

The proposed development should be in keeping with the stated objectives of the zone which are identified in the RLEP as:

 

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

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

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

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

(e)    to encourage housing affordability, and

(f)    to allow people to carry out a range of activities from their homes, where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the environment of the locality.

 

The proposed development significantly exceeds the allowable floor space in the RLEP and in doing so, results in a development that compromises various amenity outcomes for the site.  These include, but are not limited to, a lack of productive landscaping around the development, the provision of inefficient private open space, diminished solar access and reductions in appropriate privacy for low density development.

 

The increased density on the site is also reflected in the nature of the development. Whilst the allowable floor space is similar to that allowed for a single dwelling, the proposal would result in 7 bedrooms, three bathroom, two living areas, two kitchens, two dining areas and garage parking for three cars, despite the allotment only just exceeding the 450m² allowed for dual occupancies.  This outcome is inconsistent with the zone objectives applying to the surrounding area.

 

Clause 20B Minimum allotment sizes

 (1)The minimum allotment size for allotments resulting from the subdivision of land, other than for the purpose of public utility undertakings or roads, within Zone No 2A is 400 square metres and each allotment must have a frontage of at least 12 metres.

 

The proposed dual occupancy has a total site area of 457.98m2 which satisfies the total area required. The minimum frontages of 12 metres are also satisfied.

 

Clause 20E Landscaped area

 (1) Development, otherwise than for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No 2A must provide a minimum of 40% of the total site area as landscaped area.

 

The proposal allows for 168m2 of open space which is a percentage of 36.68. The additional information received 12 October 2010, states that “minor changes has resulted in compliance with the 40% minimum”.  The applicant states that the alterations have resulted in a 42.22% of landscaped area by changing the pathways around the building to “stepping stones” set in gravel.  The landscape “concept” is not dimensioned and cannot be verified.  It also includes various areas, such as a narrow grass strip on the driveway, which would not be included as landscaping. The absence of clarification leaves some doubt as to whether a further SEPP 1 Objection would be required for a variation to the landscaping development standard.

Despite the changes, there is little opportunity for the landscaping to provide vegetation of substance as it is generally provided in narrow setbacks between the proposed building and the property boundaries and not with direct access from a habitable room.  Although achieving the numeric requirements, it is not considered that the development achieves the objectives for landscape provision.

 

Clause 20F Floor space ratio

 (1) The maximum floor space ratios for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zones Nos 2A, 2B and 2C is 0.5:1, 0.65:1 and 0.9:1, respectively.

As the proposal is for a dual occupancy development a floor space ratio of 0.5:1 applies.  As identified in Section 5 of this report, the floor space ratio proposed for the development is 0.7:1.  The SEPP 1 assessment process concluded that the variation is excessive and should not be supported in this application.

 

Clause 20G Building heights

(1) The maximum height for a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2A or 2B is 9.5 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level.

(3) The maximum height for any external wall of a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2A or 2B is 7 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level.

 

The proposal is for a building height of 7.66m and a wall height of 5.56m.  The proposed height of the building complies with the LEP controls.

Randwick local Environmental Plan 1998 (consolidation) (RLEP)

 

8.1      Relevant Policy Controls

The following development control plan applies to the application. An assessment against its provisions is provided in section 8.

 

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. 

 

Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Clause

Standard

Provided

Compliance

Landscaping

40% of the site landscaped area

42. 22% as amended

Cannot be verified

25m2 of private open space provided.

168m2

No

Minimum dimension of 3m x 4m and minor level change.

Main area is approx 8x 3m

No

Open space behind the building line.

 

Yes

20% of the site area is permeable

 

Yes

Floor area

Maximum FSR .0.5:1

0.7:1

SEPP 1

Provided

Height, Form and materials

External wall height maximum 7m

5.56m

Yes

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

 

Yes

External wall height 7m .

5.56m

Yes

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

 

Yes

Building setbacks

The front set back is the average of the setbacks of the adjoining dwelling houses and where there is no adjoining dwellings, front setback is 6m.

The established building line is 6m. The proposed is 4.7m for Canara Avenue.

For Adina Avenue there is no established set back. The proposed is between 1- 1.9m. The proposed lounge window for Dwelling 2 is only 2.3 metres from the street boundary.

No

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

The development proposes development to the boundary.

No

Side boundary:

900mm for any part of the building over 1m above ground level and up to one level in height

 

1.5m for any part of a building, there height of which is two levels at that point;

 

3.0m for any part of a building, the height of which is more than two levels at that point.

Side boundary to Adina Avenue is less than 1.5metres where there is a two level building height.

The new side boundary setback is 1 metre where a 1.5 metre setback is required.

No

Visual and Acoustic privacy

Habitable room windows with a direct outlook to another dwelling’s habitable rooms within 9 meters are offset by more than 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing installed bellow 1.5m above floor level.

 

Yes

Where a direct view is available into the private open space of an existing dwelling, outlook from windows, balconies, stairs, landings, terraced and decks is obscured or screened within 9m and beyond a 45 degree angle from the plane of the wall containing the opening.

For dwelling 2 the stair and study window will look directly onto the balcony of the adjoining property to the rear and their private open space.

No

Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more above floor level or fixed obscure glazing to any part of the window less than 1.5m above floor level.

The window on the second level of dwelling 2 at the stairwell appears to be less that 1.5m above floor height, more detail is required for this window.

No

Safety and Security

Front doors are visible from the street

 

Yes

Dwellings have at least one habitable room window overlooking the street

 

Yes

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

 

Yes

Garages, Carports and driveways

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

The proposal includes two driveways, the driveway servicing Dwelling 1 will comply, the other may not as it is less than 1 metre from the rear boundary.

No

Driveways have a maximum width of 3 metres at the boundary.

The driveway for Dwelling 1 has a width of 6.5 metres.

 

Driveway gradients do not exceed 1 in 6.

 

Yes

Where vehicular access is available only from the front of the allotment, carports and garages are located behind the building line.

The garage to Dwelling 1 is located in front of the building line.

No

Driveways, car parking structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the site.

The driveway occupies roughly 43% of the site frontage. However as the site is a corner allotment the boundary also addresses the street corner.

No

Fences

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

 

Yes

Fences in front of the building line or on street frontages are no higher than 1.8m and are designed so that the upper two-thirds are at least 50% open.

 

Yes

 

Development Control Plan –Parking 1998

The Development Control Plan- Parking states that for a dual occupancy development, each dwelling with three or more bedrooms is required to provide 2 parking spaces. The proposed development has provided two car parks for Dwelling 1 and a single car space for dwelling 2. The proposal does not comply with this control.

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Environmental Assessment"

The following is an assessment of the application with regard to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, including those environmental planning instruments, policies or principles listed in section 7 above.

 

The proposed development has a number of deficiencies that result in a less than satisfactory outcome for the development.  The proposal for living areas within 2.5 metres of the street boundary, in this low density area, is contrary to the objectives for landscaped front setbacks.  It will also lead to privacy and amenity impacts for future occupants being such as minimal distance from passing pedestrians with no opportunity for screening for privacy.  The variation to the building setback would result in an undesirable precedent and cannot be justified in these circumstances.

 

The variations to setbacks, increased driveway widths, poor landscaping outcomes and non-compliance with private open space criteria result from the development being too large.  The variation being sort to the FSR control cannot be justified on the basis of the inability to meet the other planning controls that assist in measuring the overall performance of the development.

 

The  Environmental assessment section should deal with Section 79c as set out below

 

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.

 

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 for details.

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

Appropriate standard conditions are recommended to address the relevant clauses of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.  

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 addressed within the body of this report.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the 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 established residential neighbourhood. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed building structures. 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

The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in 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, subject to the recommended conditions. The development is considered to be within the public interest, subject to compliance with the conditions of consent.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The design of the proposed dual occupancy appears to dominate both streetscapes and has minimal consideration for the amenity impacts of the proposal.  The design of the attached dual occupancy is such that they are only linked by a small and obscure external wall and hence challenges Council’s definition of the term and places into doubt the validity of the whole proposal.  The SEPP 1 provided for the floor space ratio fails to adequately justify the variance to the floor space. As a result, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

The application proposes significant non compliances in relation to the Randwick DCP. The impacts on adjoining properties and in particular 24 Canara Avenue would be significant and have not been raised as the current occupant owns both 24 and 26 Canara Avenue.  The proposed two storey dual occupancy that will occupy over half of the length of the side boundary will have significant impact on the privacy of both the dwellings and the private open space. The non compliance of surrounding dwellings has been used to justify this proposal which does not encourage the realisation of Council’s objectives both in the DCP and in the Local Environmental Plan.

 

The proposal is on a site area of 457.98m2, the minimum site area for a dual occupancy is 450m2, however as this site is located on a corner allotment the provision of useable open space, the inability to protect privacy and the impact on the streetscape is significantly increased.

 

The proposed double garage fronting Canara Avenue dominates the streetscape.  The facade that continues down the length of the site facing Adina Avenue dominates the streetscape.  The linking wall between the dwellings, which adds to this built form, serves little purpose to the dwellings.  The proposal is an over development that has less than satisfactory urban design outcomes and does not achieve minimum requirements for safety, privacy or open space amenity.

 

Therefore, it is recommended for refusal.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council does not supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clause 20F of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to Floor Space Ratios, on the grounds that the proposed development does not comply with the objectives of the above clause, and will adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     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. 446/2010 for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a attached dual occupancy, at No. 24 Canara Avenue, Phillip Bay for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the 2A Zone.  In particular, it contravenes Clause 10(1) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidated) in that the bulk and scale of the development contravenes objectives (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 10(1).

 

2.         The proposed development does not comply with Clause 20F(1) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidated) in that the proposed development significantly exceeds the allowable floor space ratio for attached dual occupancy development.

 

3.         The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of Clause 20E(1) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidated) which requires the provision of 40% of the site as landscaped area.

 

 

4.         The proposed development does not comply the requirements of Section 4.1 of the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP in respect to private open space, being deficient in minimum areas and the provision of adequate space for each of the proposed dwellings.

 

5.         The proposed development does not comply the requirements of Section 4.2 of the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP in respect to exceedance of the allowable floor space ratio for attached dual occupancies.

 

6.         The proposed development does not comply the requirements of Section 4.4 of the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP in respect to the provision of setbacks to boundaries.

 

7.         The proposed development does not comply the requirements of Section 4.5 of the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP in respect to providing reasonable levels of visual and acoustic privacy.

 

8.         The proposed development does not comply the requirements of Section 4.7 of the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP in respect to the provision of garages that are not visually intrusive and that do not detract from the appearance of dwellings of the local streetscape.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                               22 February 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP2/11

 

 

Subject:                  16 Howell Avenue, Matraville

Folder No:                   DA/1045/2010

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two storey attached dual occupancy with basement level garage, swimming pool, pool house and shade hut to rear with associated works

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Erol Ozdirik - Classic Plans

Owner:                         Sandra Skene

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The subject application is referred to Council for determination as the proposed development involves variation to the FSR development standard under the LEP by more than 10% (being 12%). Council officers only became aware after the assessment was completed that one of the parties involved in the development is related to a Council employee. As such a peer review of the merits of the application and the assessment of the Council Officer was undertaken by an external Planning Consultant which is attached to this report.

 

The subject application is for demolition of the existing structures on site and construction of a two-storey attached dual occupancy with basement level garage, swimming pool, pool house and shade hut to rear with associated works.

 

The site is located on the northern side of Howell Avenue, Matraville, and has a frontage width and land area of 15.24m and 766.4m2 respectively. The locality is predominantly characterised by lower density detached residential developments.

 

The application was notified from 2 December 2010 to 16 December 2010 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process.

 

The site is located within Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) under RLEP 1998. The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of Residential 2A Zone, in that the development will deliver lower density residential housing, which is compatible with the desired character of the locality.

 

The proposal has a floor space ratio of 0.56:1, which equates to 428.9m2 GFA. The proposal does not comply with the maximum permissible FSR of 0.5:1 under RLEP 1998. The applicant has submitted an objection under SEPP No. 1 justifying that the breach will not result in significant adverse amenity or visual impacts on the area. The scale, proportion and massing of the proposed dwelling house are considered to be appropriate to the site and the surrounding built environment. The objection has been assessed and is supported.

 

The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

The proposed development satisfies the relevant legislation, State policies and Local planning controls, and is recommended for approval. 

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposed development includes the following components:

·      Demolition of existing structures on site.

·      Construction of a two-storey attached dual occupancy with basement and ground floor garages. Dwellings A and B will be located on the ground and first floor levels respectively.

·      Construction of an in-ground swimming pool, a pool house/games room and a shade hut in the rear private open space areas.

·      General landscape works.

 

The building incorporates the following floor space elements:

·      Basement: parking for 2 vehicles for Dwelling B

·      Ground floor (Dwelling A): parking for 1 vehicle, 3 x bedrooms, living and dining areas and amenities

·      First floor (Dwelling B): 3 x bedrooms, living and dining areas and amenities

·      Outbuildings: pool house/games room and shade hut

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot 1637 in DP 191788, No. 16 Howell Avenue, Matraville. The site is located on the northern side of Howell Avenue and is rectangular in configuration. The land slopes from the south-east to the north-west with a cross fall of approximately 1.56m (from RL 37.3m to RL 35.74m). The dimension and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Site Area

Northern, rear boundary

15.24m

 

Southern, street boundary

15.24m

 

Eastern, side boundary

50.29m

 

Western, side boundary

50.29m

 

 

 

766.4m2

At present, the site is occupied by a single-storey detached dwelling with driveway access along the western boundary. To the east of the site is a single-storey detached dwelling (No. 18 Howell Avenue). To the west of the site is a part one- and part two-storey detached dwelling (No. 14 Howell Avenue). The site adjoins the rear private open space of a detached dwelling fronting Beauchamp Road. The locality is predominantly characterised by lower density detached residential developments.

 

Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. Front elevation of the existing subject dwelling.

2. Adjoining dwelling at No. 18 Howell Avenue.

P5220009

P5220017

3. Adjoining dwelling at No. 14 Howell Avenue (left) and the existing driveway of the site (right)

4. The eastern side boundary of No. 16 Howell Avenue.

P5220012

P5220016

4.    Site History

 

A previous application DA/244/2009 for demolition of existing structures on site and construction of an attached dual occupancy with outbuildings, swimming pool and general landscape works, was approved at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 28 July 2009. The application was subject to a number of deferred commencement conditions which required changes to the finished levels of the swimming pool coping and the ridge heights of the outbuildings, reducing the height of side and rear boundary fencing and providing details of the proposed external finishes of the building works.

 

The deferred commencement conditions were:

 

1.     The design of the rear private open space, swimming pool and outbuildings shall be amended in the following manner:

 

(a)    The coping level of the swimming pool shall be reduced by 1,000mm from RL 36.895m AHD to RL 35.895m AHD.

 

(b)    The ridge height of the pool house / games room shall be reduced by 1,000mm from RL 40.450m AHD to RL 39.450m AHD.

 

(c)    The ridge height of the shade hut shall be reduced by 1,000mm from RL 40.445m AHD to RL 39.445m AHD.

 

Note:

Nothing in this condition permits or implies any increase in the gross floor areas (GFA) or footprints of the proposed outbuildings; nor any changes to the location, form, floor areas and design of the proposed dual occupancy building on the site. The provision of additional stairs, steps and/or pathways within the rear courtyard must not reduce soft landscaped areas / permeable surfaces to less than 20% of the site area.

 

Scaled revised drawings, including plans, elevations, cross sections and long sections, and relevant landscaped area and permeable surfaces calculations, demonstrating compliance with the above requirements shall be submitted. The drawings shall clearly indicate the existing and proposed ground lines, the extent of excavation and backfilling, the design details of retaining wall structures and any new steps or stairs required.

 

2.     Fixed screening devices shall be installed on the side elevations of both the ground and first level rear decks for a minimum distance of 1500mm, as measured from the rear wall of the building.

 

The screens shall be installed above the deck balustrades up to the underside of the corbelling. The screens shall be constructed with 35mm wide timber or metal slats, horizontally positioned, and spaced at a maximum of 35mm, or another appropriate design that effectively restricts cross viewing to the private open space of the adjoining properties.

 

Scaled amended plans demonstrating compliance with the above shall be submitted.

 

3.     The design of the side and rear boundary fencing shall be amended in the following manner:

 

(a)    The fencing along the eastern boundary of the site shall have a height of not more than 2200mm, as measured from the existing ground levels.

 

(b)    The maximum height of fencing along the western and northern boundaries of the site shall be not more than 2000mm, as measured from the existing ground levels.

 

(c)    On sloping sites or at changes in ground levels, the maximum height of the fence may exceed the abovementioned specified height by up to 150mm maximum adjacent to any required “step-downs” or changes in ground level.

 

(d)    Revised scaled drawings demonstrating the height, alignment, design and materials of the side and rear boundary fencing shall be submitted.

 

4.     The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building and associated structures are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the streetscape.

 

        Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures of the external walls, roof tiles, window frames, doorways, balustrades, fencing and screening devices (i.e. a schedule, brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted.

 

Note: The date by which deferred commencement conditions were to be satisfied has since lapsed. The applicant is therefore seeking to obtain consent for the same development as that previously approved by Council with a minor modification to include a fire escape stair from the basement garage level at the front of the site and those modifications required by the above deferred commencement conditions.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The subject application was notified from 2 December 2010 to 16 December 2010 to 21 adjoining and nearby properties in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process.

 

5.1 Support

No supporting letters have been received for this application.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

Development Engineer and Landscape Development Officer

The subject application has been referred to Council’s Development Engineering Section for assessment. The comments provided are extracted below:

 

An application has been received for the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of an attached dual occupancy at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Dwg No 0032/09 Sheets 1-4 Issue B by Classic Plans dated 15/11/2010

 

Landscape Comments

These plans are almost identical to the previous application (refer DA/244/2009) with the only notable change being that the finished levels of the rear yard including the proposed pool, pool house/games room and shade hut have been slightly lowered, with comments and conditions remaining unchanged; as shown below.

 

There is no objection to the applicant removing the larger, most eastern of the two, 3-4m tall Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrushs), from Council’s Howell Avenue nature strip during excavations for the eastern most vehicle access (dwelling B) as shown, at their cost, with the remaining, most western tree to be protected and retained as part of the works, with a refundable deposit also needing to be imposed as security for compliance.

 

While the two 4-5 metre tall, single trunk Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palms) within the western half of the front yard, between the internal driveway and entry path are desirable site features, they are not significant in any way, and as such, can be removed in order to accommodate the proposed works, subject to suitable replanting being undertaken in this same area of the site, with the same also applying to all other remaining vegetation in this front portion.

 

Along the eastern side setback, close to the northeast corner of the existing dwelling, there is a 5m tall Syzygium luehmannii (Small Leafed Lilly Pilly), which has been heavily under-pruned/canopy lifted, with all lateral growing branches completely removed so that it does not even provide any screening or privacy between this dwelling and the adjoining property to the east, 18 Howell Avenue.

 

There is already insufficient space to accommodate this tree even in its current surroundings, and as the entry ramp and stairs for the proposed basement level will involve significant excavation and construction works in this exact area of the site, there are no objections to its removal as shown.   

 

Further to the north, beyond the northeast corner of the existing dwelling, actually within the rear yard of the adjoining property to the east, 18 Howell Avenue, close to the common boundary, there is a mature, multi-trunk Metrosideros excelsa (Pohutukawa), of about 6 metres in height with a canopy spread of similar dimensions, which partially overhangs into the subject site.

 

This species is in general decline along the east coast due to a combination of pest attack and old age, with large quantities having been removed from public streets and parks over the last 10-15 years.

 

Despite already appearing in poor condition, both Council and the applicant have a common law responsibility to ensure it is not impacted, with the plans showing that a distance of about 3 metres will be provided between its trunk and the access stairs from the basement.

 

While excavations may be performed at a slightly closer setback than this, the measures listed in this report are deemed sufficient to ensure that the incursion of the western side of its root plate will be an amount that this tree can sustain, with the remainder of the site adjacent this tree needing to be retained as undisturbed deep soil, as this will ensure the ongoing transfer of air and moisture to its root system, which is necessary for its survival.

 

Back in the rear yard of the subject site, about halfway along the western boundary, there is a large Magnolia grandiflora (Bull Bay Magnolia), of approximately 10 metres in height, which is covered by the TPO, is a mature example of the species, and is also easily the most established tree at this site.

 

However it has had all lower growing, lateral branches pruned off back to the main trunk to a height of 4 metres above ground level to provide a clearance away from the existing garage/storeroom, as it growing almost hard up against its southeast corner, which has severely affected its form and visual appeal.

 

Further, clause 4.b.vii of Council’s TPO also states that trees growing within 2 metres of a permanent structure such as this are exempt, and can be removed without needing to obtain any form of consent from Council.

This tree can already be removed, irrespective of this application, and as it is also in direct conflict with the proposed works, the necessary approval has been included in this report, with new perimeter planting recommended in the interest of amenity for both occupants and neighbours alike.

 

The Schefflera actinophylla (Umbrella Tree) located to the west of the tree described above, is as an environmental weed which needs to be removed as part of the works.

 

All other vegetation throughout the rear yard, as well as on adjoining properties, close to common boundaries, was observed to be either insignificant, and too small for the TPO, or not affected by the proposed works, with conditions relating to these not required.

 

Drainage Comments

Onsite detention of stormwater is required for this application.

 

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

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

The site has a land area of 766.4m2 and a master plan is not required.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

 

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

The site is identified as being within Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) under RLEP 1998. An attached dual occupancy is a permissible use under the land use table of the clause. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of Zone No. 2A in that the development will deliver lower density residential housing, which is compatible with the predominant character of the locality.

 

Part 2b – Principal Development Standards

a. Clause 20B Minimum allotment sizes

Sub-clause (4) provides that “the minimum allotment size for the erection of an attached dual occupancy within Zone No. 2A is 450 square metres and each allotment must have a frontage of at least 15 metres.”

 

The proposed dual occupancy adopts a vertical arrangement where one dwelling sits on top of the other. The subject site has a land area and frontage width of 766.4m2 and 15.24m respectively. Accordingly, the development complies with the provisions of Clause 20B.

 

b. Clause 20E Landscaped area

Sub-clause (1) provides that development, other than for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2A must provide a minimum of 40% of the site as landscaped area.

 

The site has an area of 766.4m2 and a minimum landscaped area of 306.56m2 is required. The proposal provides a total landscaped area of 359.3m2, which equates to 46% of the site, and complies with the LEP control.

 

c. Clause 20F Floor space ratios (FSR)

The maximum floor space ratios for buildings other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house within 2A zones is 0.5:1.

 

The site has an area of 766.4m2 and a maximum gross floor area (GFA) of 383.2m2 is permissible. This proposal has a total floor space ratio of 0.56:1 (428.9m²) which exceeds the allowable maximum permitted for this site as stipulated in the control. A SEPP 1 Objection to this standard has been lodged by the applicant for consideration.

 

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

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

 

Pursuant to Clauses 20F of RLEP 1998, the maximum FSR within 2A Zones is 0.5:1 respectively. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor space ratio

Proposal

0.56:1 (428.9m2 )

LEP development standard

0.5:1 (383.2m2)

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

12% excess (45.7m2)

 

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).

 

FSR - Clause 20F

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

 

“To operate together with controls for building height and landscaped area to limit the size and site coverage of a building having regard to the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area”.

 

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

 

-      The size and scale of the proposed development is consistent with other developments in the immediate locality and not out of keeping with developments on adjacent sites taking account of RLEP and DCP expectations for development on the site. As such the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area is not unsustainably impacted.

 

-      The site coverage of all buildings on the site allows for retention of well in excess of the required landscaped area on site, indicative of a reasonable balance between the relevant design controls.

 

-      The environmental amenity and aesthetic character of neither the streetscape nor the surrounding area will be enhanced as a result of the elimination of the games rooms and attic areas.

 

-      The outdoor pool house/games room located adjacent to a similar structure on the adjoining property to the west and sufficiently setback to the rear boundary. As such the structure will have minimal impact on adjoining properties.

 

-      The desire to include such facilities adjacent to the swimming pool area is not an unreasonable expectation on the part of the owner in terms what should be permitted as part of the proposed development.

 

-      The attic space does not produce any discernable additional impact of the building when viewed from adjoining properties or the streetscape and deletion of this area would not tend towards a greater achievement of the stated purpose of the floor space limitation.

 

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

 

·       The proposed built form has incorporated staggered wall planes, balconies, window openings and screening devices, which will appropriately articulate the external facades. The above design measures will minimise the visual scale and bulk of the structures, despite non-compliance with the FSR development standard.

 

·       The proposed development fully complies with the maximum building and external wall heights provisions specified in the LEP. Howell Avenue accommodates a mixture of single- and double-storey detached dwellings of varying architectural character. The proposed ridge height is RL 46.485m and is commensurate with that of the adjoining dwelling at No. 14, being RL 46.95m. The design scheme is considered to be compatible with the existing streetscape.

 

·       The proposal includes a detached pool house/games room, which accounts for 39.5m2 GFA. The outbuilding is single-storey in height and does not add to the visual bulk of the main dwelling.

 

·       The development scheme has provided suitable landscaped area and permeable surfaces on the site. Specific conditions are also recommended which requires planting to be provided to the whole of the site to enhance its amenity and visually soften the proposed structures on the site.

 

·    The proposal is deemed to satisfy the performance requirement, namely, that the development will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy or visual bulk and scale will not become a distracting visual element in the area; and is not considered excessive in respect to bulk and scale.

 

·       The development will maintain the desirable attributes of the established residential area and will not unreasonably compromise the amenity of existing residents.

 

As such, it cannot be argued that this development will be substantially out of keeping with the established character of the locality; and for the above reasons, the proposed FSR of the development is considered acceptable.

 

Comment:

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 objection has addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The objection has appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. As such, it is considered that the objection is well founded.

 

Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

FSR Comments:

The variation from landscaped area standards is not inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as they would not detract from the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the resultant development would promote the orderly use of the land, and would not result in significant adverse environmental or social impacts.

 

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

 

Matter 3

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

 

“(a) whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

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

 

FSR Comments:

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 allow the best use of the site and the delivery of an accessible garage suitable for mobility impaired persons.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

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

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development 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 standard 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 FSR 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 A zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

d. Clause 20G Building heights

Sub-clauses (1) and (3) specify the maximum overall and external wall heights of 9.5m and 7.0m respectively in Residential 2A Zone.

 

The proposal has maximum overall and external wall heights of 9.5m and 7.0m respectively, which comply with the development standards.

 

Part 3 – Miscellaneous Provisions

 

a. Clause 21 Subdivision – consent requirements

The proposal does not include land subdivision.

 

b. Clause 22 – Services

The Council may grant consent to the carrying out of development on any land only where it is satisfied that, when relevant to the proposed development, adequate facilities for the supply of water and for the removal or disposal of sewage and drainage are available to that land.

 

The proposal will require additional services. A specific condition is recommended to require the applicant to make all necessary arrangements with the service authority for any adjustments to the utility services connections. The proposal will comply, subject to conditions.

 

c. Clause 40 Earthworks

The proposal involves excavation for the foundation footings and swimming pool structures. Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposal and raised no objections on drainage grounds. In addition, specific conditions are recommended to require appropriate soil retention measures to be implemented during works on the site. Subject to the above conditions, the proposed excavation is not considered to adversely impact on the stability and future use of the land.

 

8.1 Policy Controls

a.   Development Control Plan No. 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. 

 

Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Clause

Standard

Check

y/n

Landscaping

40 % of site provided as landscaped area

The proposal provides a total landscaped area of 359.3m2, which equates to 46% of the site.

Yes

25m² of private open space provided.

Private terraces are provided for each dwelling:

 

Dwelling A (G/F): 34.83m2

Dwelling B (1/F): 34.83m2

Yes

Min. dimensions of 3m x 4m & minor level change

The private terraces have dimensions of approximately 9.95m x 3.5m.

Yes

Open space behind the building line.

The principal private open space of each dwelling is located on the rear elevation of the building.

Yes

20% of the site area is permeable.

A total of 221.6m2 of soft landscaped area, which equates to 28.9% of the site, is provided.

Yes

Floor area

LEP requirement for dual occupancies is 0.5:1. 

0.56:1. Does not comply; refer to the justifications provided in the “SEPP 1” section of this report.

No. Refer the justifications provided in the “SEPP 1” above in Section 8, PART 2B – Principal Development Standards, (b. Clause 20F Floor Space Ratios).

 

Height, Form & Materials

External wall height maximum 7m

The building has a maximum external wall height of 7m.

Yes

External wall height to the rear maximum 3.5m.

Shade hut:

2.66m at maximum

Pool house / games room:

3.26m at maximum.

Yes

Cut or fill maximum 1m.

The cut and fill for the driveway access, basement and swimming pool will exceed the maximum 1m.

No. However, suitable conditions have been included to ensure that excavations are appropriately supported. See comments below.

 

No excavation within 900 mm of a side boundary.

The excavation for the outbuilding, driveway and side fencing are within 900mm of the side boundaries.

 

No. However, suitable conditions have been included to ensure that excavations are appropriately supported. See comments below.

 

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

The excavation for the outbuilding, swimming pool and rear boundary fencing are within 4m of the rear boundary for the proposed side and rear boundary fencing.

No. However, suitable conditions have been included to ensure that excavations are appropriately supported. See comments below.

 

The length of a 2nd storey maximum 12m less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

n/a

n/a

The 2nd storey addition to a semi respects the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

n/a

n/a

Excavation

The proposal requires excavation along the eastern boundary to accommodate the driveway. Council’s Development Engineers have assessed the vehicular access design and raised no objections subject to conditions. Standard conditions have also been recommended to ensure suitable soil retention measures are incorporated into the development.

 

The proposed swimming pool requires excavation at approximately 1.1m from the rear boundary. As discussed above, the proposal will be required to have the pool coping level reduced in order to minimize cut and fill in the rear courtyard areas. It is considered that the proposal is satisfactory, subject to the recommended deferred commencement and standard conditions.

 

Building setbacks

 

Front setback average of adjoining dwellings or 6m

The dwelling is generally setback 6m from the front boundary.

 

 

There is an entry portal structure that encroaches upon the 6m setback line by approximately 250mm. It is considered that the above design element will improve articulation of the building and that the degree of encroachment is minor in nature. The proposal is considered satisfactory in this regard.

Rear boundary setback at least 4.5m

Dwelling

The dwelling is setback 19.6m from the rear boundary.

 

Pool house/ games room

The pool house/ games room has nil setback from the rear boundary.

Dwelling – Yes

 

Pool house/ games room – No, refer to comments below.

Side setbacks be 900mm at ground level.

Dwelling

Eastern boundary: 1.775m

Western boundary: 0.965m

Complies.

 

Shade hut

Eastern boundary: 0.9m

Complies.

 

Pool house / games room

Western boundary: nil setback.

 

Dwelling - Yes

 

Shade hut – Yes

 

Pool house / games room - No. See comments below.

 

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

Dwelling

Eastern boundary: varied setback of 2.65m to 3.8m.

 

Western boundary: varied setback of 0.965m to 1.445m.

 

Eastern boundary - Yes

 

Western boundary – No, partial non-compliance. See comments below.

 

 

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

n/a

n/a

Setbacks of main dwelling

 

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

 

The upper level of the dwelling has a setback of 0.965m to 1.445m from the western boundary, and does not comply with the preferred solution of 1.5m. Notwithstanding, the proposal is considered satisfactory based on the following reasons:

 

·    There is a 3.5m wide driveway along the eastern boundary of the adjoining property at No. 14 Howell Avenue. There is sufficient separation between the subject and adjoining dwellings for natural lighting and ventilation purposes.

·    The proposal does not include excessive window openings on the western elevation, and therefore will not result in unreasonable privacy impacts.

 

Setbacks of outbuildings

 

The proposed pool house/games room has nil setbacks from the western and northern boundaries, and also does not comply with the DCP preferred solutions. Notwithstanding this, the proposal is considered satisfactory based on the following reasons:

 

·    There is an existing garage located to the rear of No. 14 Howell Avenue, which abuts the shared boundary with the subject site. The proposed pool house will effectively screen against the blank side wall of the adjoining garage. The zero setback of the pool house from the western boundary is not considered to result in significant shadow impacts on No. 14.

·    The pool house has a width of 4.19m and directly abuts the northern, rear boundary. As previously discussed, a specific condition is recommended to reduce the extent of backfilling and hence the external wall height of the outbuilding. Subject to the above condition, the proposal will not result in unreasonable visual impacts on the northern neighbour.

 

 

Whilst the side setbacks to part of the development do not comply with the preferred solution requirements of the DCP, it is considered that the development will still comply with the relevant objectives and performance criteria of the DCP.

 

Fencing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Front fence – height of 1.8m with the up two thirds at least 50% open. Fence constructed of Low masonry & wrought iron.

 

Eastern side boundary fence – The maximum height of the fence (beyond the driveway fence) is 2.2m with the driveway portion of the fence being at a   maximum height of 2.4m.  The fencing along the boundary of the driveway is constructed of masonry and beyond the driveway the fence is constructed of masonry retaining wall with colorbond or slatted timber.

 

Western side boundary fence - The proposed fencing along the western boundary has a maximum height of 2m and is constructed of masonry retaining wall with colorbond or slatted timber.

 

Rear boundary fence - The rear boundary fence has a height of up to 2000mm and is constructed of masonry retaining wall with colorbond or slatted timber.

 

The proposed front fence will integrate positively with the existing fencing form within the streetscape and the height of the side and rear boundary fencing are acceptable to provide adequate levels of privacy and security to the rear yard of the subject site and adjoining properties. The higher section of the fence along the eastern boundary adjacent to the driveway is considered appropriate to minimize visual and acoustic impacts of the driveway and parking facilities and should not significantly impact on the streetscape.

Fences in front of the building line or on street frontages up to 1.8m and upper 2/3 is at least 50% open.

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

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

Ground floor

The proposed ground floor side windows will be partially screened by the boundary fencing, and therefore are not considered to result in adverse privacy impacts on the neighbours.

 

First floor

The windows attached to the walk-in-wardrobe, bathroom and laundry areas will be constructed with obscured glazing.

 

The bedroom windows will be constructed with standard clear glass glazing. However, given the low intensity use nature of the bedrooms, the design is not considered to result in unreasonable privacy impacts.

Also, it is expected that internal privacy measures will be used within the bedrooms.

 

Yes

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

The rear-facing decks will primarily overlook the rear yard of the subject site. Fixed screening devices are provided on the side elevations of the decks for a minimum distance of 1.5m measured from the rear wall of the building with sliding shutters beyond to the ends of the decks.

 

Yes, reasonable levels of privacy will be maintained to the adjoining properties.

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

Discussed above.

Not required.

Safety & Security

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

Yes.

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

Study, Play room/bedroom 3 & office.

Yes

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

To be required by condition.

Garages & Driveways

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 space, for dwellings with 2 bedrooms or less, or 2 spaces, for dwellings with 3 bedrooms or more.

Both Dwellings A and B contain 3 bedrooms. Under the Parking DCP, a total of 4 car spaces are required.

 

The proposal provides 3 car spaces (being 2 at the basement and 1 at ground floor) and does not comply with the DCP preferred solution. Refer to comments below.

Parking spaces have a min. dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m.

Complies.

Driveway minimum width of 3m and side setback 1m.

Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the access design and raised no objections subject to conditions.

Driveway maximum width of 3m at the boundary.

Complies.

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

Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the access design and raised no objections subject to conditions.

Garages and carports to rear lanes set back 1m.

n/a

Parking and access is provided from the rear.

n/a

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

Dwelling A – The garage for Dwelling A is incorporated within the design of the dwelling.

 

Dwelling B – Parking is located within the basement.

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

Approximately 38%. Does not comply, refer to comments below.

The DCP requires the provision of 4 car spaces in the development. The proposal will result in the shortfall of 1 car space. The driveway leading to the ground floor garage has a length of 6m and is capable of functioning as a hard-stand parking space. Additionally, the surrounding local streets have ample supply of kerb side parking. Therefore, the proposal is considered satisfactory in this regard.

 

The driveway and garage structures will occupy approximately 38% of the allotment width, and exceed the preferred solution by 3%. The proposal includes two single driveways on either side of the allotment. The above design treatment will minimize the visual impacts on the streetscape by avoiding a double-width hard-paved area in the middle section of the site. Furthermore, the entry to the basement garage is not visible from the public domain. The breach against the preferred solution is minor in nature and is considered to be satisfactory. The objectives and performance requirements will be satisfied.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

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

Refer to the “BASIX” section of this report.

 

Private open space receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am - 3pm on 21 June.

There will be some additional overshadowing to the rear yard of the subject site; however, the additional overshading is not considered to be unreasonable.

North-facing living areas receive at least 3 hrs sunlight 9am - 3pm 21 June.

Complies.

Solar access to existing or future solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained 9am - 3pm.

The proposal will not overshadow any potential roof mounted solar panels on the adjoining properties for more than 3 hours on the winter solstice.

 

North-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am - 3pm 21 June, or not further reduced.

Complies.

Principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am- 3pm 21 June, or not further reduced.

It is not considered that the additional overshadowing will have any unreasonable impacts on the neighbouring dwellings. Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

b.   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 more than $200000

$1,297,230

1.0%

$12,972.30

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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 “DCP” 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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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, which are otherwise not addressed in this report, are discussed in the paragraphs above.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the dominant residential character 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 has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. 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

No submissions have been received.

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

The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

Building Sustainability Index: BASIX

SEPP 2004.

 

The proposal is for a new two storey attached dual occupancy with basement level garage, swimming pool, pool house and shade hut to the rear of the property. The applicant has provided a BASIX certificate in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP. The provision of a certificate indicates that compliance with the current targets set for energy and water conservation have been met by the development. The certificate also identifies the measures to be shown on Development Application plans to ensure these targets are maintained through to construction.

 

The plans have been checked and they are consistent with the requirements indicated on the submitted BASIX certificate for DA stage. Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP:BASIX have been included in the recommendation section of this report.

 

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.

Key Action:       Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and performance requirements of relevant State and Local planning instruments and guidelines.

 

The scale, proportion and massing of the proposed dual occupancy are considered to be appropriate to the site and the surrounding built environment.

 

The proposal will not result in significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of solar access, privacy, noise, traffic generation and visual bulk and scale, subject to conditions.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council support the objections under State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1988, relating to Clause 20F – Floor space ratios, on the grounds that the proposed development is consistent with the objective of the clause 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 consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/1045/2010 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two storey attached dual occupancy with basement level garage, swimming pool, pool house and shade hut to rear with associated works at No. 16 Howell Avenue, Matraville, subject to the following conditions:

 

 

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

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plan numbered 0032/09 Sheet 1 of 4 to 4 of 4 (all issue B), dated 15/11/2010 and received by Council on the 26 November 2010, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.     The schedule of material, colours and finishes shall be in general accordance with the documentation prepared by Classic Plans and received by Council on 26 November 2010.

 

3.     There must be no encroachment of the structure/s or associated articles onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place.

 

4.     Street 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.

 

5.     The finished ground levels external to the building are to be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised (other than for the provision of approved paving or the like on the ground) without the written consent of Council.

 

6.     Eaves, gutters, hoods and similar structures or attachments are required to be setback from the side boundaries of the allotment a minimum distance of 500mm and details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate details.

 

7.     Any gate openings shall be constructed so that the gates, when hung, will be fitted in such a manner that they will not open over the footway on Howell Avenue or a public place.

 

8.     External lighting to the premises shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to nearby residents.

 

9.     The outbuilding (pool house/games room) must only be used for the purposes specified in the development consent and the outbuilding must not be used for separate residential accommodation or as a separate residential occupancy at any time.

 

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

 

11.   Open-able windows to a room, corridor, stairway or the like with a floor level more than 4m above the external ground/surface level, must be designed and constructed to reduce the likelihood of a child accessing and falling through the window opening.

 

Options may include one or more of the following measures:

 

i)      The window having a minimum sill height of 1.5m above the internal floor level,

ii)     Providing a window locking device at least 1.5m above the internal floor level,

iii)     Fixing or securing the window (e.g. by screws or a window locking device) to restrict or to be able to secure the extent of the opening to a maximum of 125mm,

iv)    Installing a fixed heavy-duty gauge metal screen over the opening (e.g. A metal security screen or metal security mesh and frame system, but not standard fly-screen material),

v)     Other appropriate effective safety measures or barrier.

 

The following condition/s are imposed to satisfy the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

12.   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.

 

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

 

13.   In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $1,297,230, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $12,972.30.

       

        The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a construction 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 imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency.

 

14.   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.

 

15.   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.

 

16.   The following provisions are to be implemented in accordance with the relevant BASIX Certificate and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate documentation (as applicable), to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority:

 

·           Stormwater management (i.e. rainwater tanks)

·           Water efficiency (i.e. triple A rated taps and showers, dual flush toilets and water re-use)

·           Landscaping provisions

·           Thermal comfort (i.e. construction materials, glazing and insulation)

·           Energy efficiency (i.e. cooling & heating provisions and hot water systems)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

18.   External paths and ground surfaces are to be constructed at appropriate levels and be graded and drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in the entry of water into the building, or cause a nuisance or damage to the adjoining premises.

 

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

 

19.   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.

 

20.   In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

21.   Prior to the commencement of any building works, the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)     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.

 

A copy of the construction certificate, the approved development consent plans and 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.

 

b)     a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) must be appointed to carry out the necessary building inspections and to issue an occupation certificate; and

c)     a principal contractor must be appointed for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, an owner-builder permit may be obtained in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and the PCA and Council are to be notified accordingly; and

d)     the principal contractor must be advised of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority; and

e)     at least two days notice must be given to the Council, in writing, prior to commencing 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.

 

22.   The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or other 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 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).

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

24.     The relevant requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 must be complied with, in accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor (and a copy of any relevant Certificate of Insurance) or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to commencement of works.

 

25.     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.

 

26.     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 relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and conditions of development consent must be satisfied prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

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

 

28.     The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.  The smoke detectors located within the stairway, corridors or the like must be interconnected.

 

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

 

29.     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.

 

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

 

30.     The demolition of buildings and the removal, storage, handling and disposal of building materials must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, the NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·          Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 & Regulations

·          WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

·          WorkCover NSW Guidelines and Codes of Practice

·          Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·          The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

·          Relevant DECC/EPA Guidelines

·          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.

 

31.     A Demolition Work Plan must be prepared for the development in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures.

 

The Demolition Work Plan must include the following information (as applicable):

·          The name, address, contact details and licence number of the Demolisher /Asbestos Removal Contractor

·          Details of hazardous materials (including asbestos)

·          Method/s of demolition (including removal of any asbestos)

·          Measures and processes to be implemented to ensure the health & safety of workers and community

·          Measures to be implemented to minimise any airborne dust and asbestos

·          Methods and location of disposal of any hazardous materials

·          Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

·          Date the demolition works will commence

 

The Demolition Work Plan must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA), not less than two (2) working days before commencing any demolition work.  A copy of the Demolition Work Plan must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

If the work involves asbestos products or materials, a copy of the Demolition Work Plan must also be provided to Council not less than 2 days before commencing those works.

 

Note it is the responsibility of the persons undertaking demolition work to obtain the relevant WorkCover licences and permits.

 

32.     Any work involving the demolition, storage or disposal of asbestos products and materials must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

 

·          Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

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

·          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.

·          On sites involving the removal of asbestos, a 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.

·          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 2005.

·          A Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council and the Principal certifying authority upon completion of the asbestos related works which confirms that the asbestos material have been removed appropriately and the relevant conditions of consent have been satisfied.

 

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.

 

33.     A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer, building surveyor or other suitably qualified independent person must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works, in the following cases:

 

·          excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are proposed to be located within the zone of influence of the footings of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

·          new dwellings or additions to dwellings sited up to shared property boundaries (e.g.  additions to a semi-detached dwelling or terraced dwellings),

·          excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are within rock and may result in vibration and or potential damage to any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

·          as otherwise may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The report (including photographs) are required to detail the current condition and status of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon the adjoining premises, which may be affected by the subject works.  A copy of the dilapidation report is to be given to the owners of the premises encompassed in the report/s before commencing any works.

 

34.     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.

 

          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.

 

35.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 E of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that the adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times.

 

a)     If the development involves an excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, the person having the benefit of the development must, at the person’s own expense:

i)      protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation, and

ii)      where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage.

b)     The condition referred to in subclause a) does not apply if the person having the benefit of the development consent owns the adjoining land or the owner of the adjoining land has given consent in writing to that condition not applying.

 

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

 

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.

 

37.     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 requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and NSW DECC Guidelines must be satisfied at all times.

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery, pile drivers and all plant and equipment must be minimised, by using appropriate plant and equipment, silencers and the implementation of noise management strategies.

 

A Construction Noise Management Plan, prepared by a suitably qualified person is to be implemented throughout the works, to the satisfaction of the Council.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of works.

 

The Construction Noise Management Plan is to be prepared in accordance with the NSW DECC Construction Noise Guideline.

 

38.     A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or compliance certificate is to be obtained at the following stage/s of construction to demonstrate compliance with the approved setbacks, levels, layout and height of the building to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·        prior to construction of the footings or first completed floor slab (prior to the pouring of concrete),

·        upon completion of the building, prior to issuing an occupation certificate.

 

The survey documentation must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy is to be forwarded to the Council, if the Council is not the principal certifying authority.  

 

39.     Temporary toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site throughout the course of demolition and construction, to the satisfaction of WorkCover NSW and the toilet facilities must be connected to a public sewer or other sewage management facility approved by Council.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

41.     A Construction Site Management Plan is to be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

·      location and construction of protective fencing/hoardings to the perimeter of the site;

·      location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·      location of building materials for construction;

·      provisions for public safety;

·      dust control measures;

·      site access location and construction

·      details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·      protective measures for tree preservation;

·      provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·      location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·      details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·      construction noise and vibration management;

·      construction traffic management details.

 

The site management measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and amenity to the satisfaction of Council.  A copy of the Construction Site Management Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.  A copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

42.     Sediment and erosion control measures must be provided in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

Details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures shall include; a site plan; indicating the slope of land, access points & access control measures, location and type of sediment & erosion controls, location of existing vegetation to be retained, location of material stockpiles and storage areas, location of building operations and equipment, methods of sediment control, details of drainage systems and details of existing and proposed vegetation.

 

43.     Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works and the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)       Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials, construction equipment or5 other activities 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.

 

b)       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.

 

c)       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.

 

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 and Regulatory Services section.

 

 

e)       Any part of Council’s road, footway or nature strip which is damaged as a result of the work must be repaired or replaced to Council’s satisfaction.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and to maintain public safety and amenity:

 

44.     Swimming pools are to be provided with childproof fences and self-locking gates, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations.

 

The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a fence having a minimum height of 1.2m, that separates the pool from any residential building situated on the premises and from any place (whether public or private) adjoining the premises; and that is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with AS 1926.1 - 2007.

 

Gates to pool area shall be a maximum width of 1 metre, and be self-closing and latching; the gate is required to open outwards from the pool area and prevent a small child opening the gate or door when the gate or door is closed.

 

Temporary pool safety fencing is to be provided pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

A ‘warning notice’ must be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, detailing pool safety requirements, resuscitation techniques and the importance of the supervision of children at all times.

 

45.     Spa pools are to be provided with a child resistant barrier, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations.

 

A ‘warning notice’ must be erected  in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, detailing pool safety requirements, resuscitation techniques and the importance of the supervision of children at all times.

 

46.     Swimming pools are to be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the following general requirements: -

a)       Backwash of the pool filter and other discharge of water is to be drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation; and

b)       All pool overflow water is to be drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in a nuisance or damage to premises; and

c)       Water recirculation and filtrations systems are required to comply with AS 1926.3 – 2003:  Swimming Pool Safety – Water Recirculation and Filtration Systems; and

d)       Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents; and

e)       The pool plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

i.      before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on any Sunday or public holiday; or

ii.     before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on any other day.

 

47.     Written notification must be provided to Council advising of the installation and completion of the Swimming Pool (or Spa Pool), to satisfy the requirements of the Swimming Pools Act 1992, prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate.

 

          Council’s “Notification & Registration of a Swimming Pool” form must be completed and forwarded to Council prior to any Occupation Certificate being issued for the pool.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

49.     The air conditioning plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

·       before 8.00am or after 10.00pm on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 10.00pm on any other day.

 

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

 

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

51.     A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s approval, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services.

 

52.     There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

53.     The installation of rainwater tanks shall comply with the following noise control requirements:

 

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

 

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

 

b)     Plant and equipment associated with rainwater tank(s) are to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

c)     The operation of plant and equipment associated with the rainwater tank(s)  are to be restricted to the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises:

●        before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on weekends or public holiday; or

●        before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that adequate provisions are made for the management of waste from the development:

 

54.     Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage and removal of waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council and details are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

55.     A demolition and construction Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be development and implemented for the development, to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the commencement of works.

 

The Waste Management Plan must provide details of the type and quantities of demolition and construction waste materials, proposed re-use and recycling of materials, methods of disposal and details of recycling outlets and land fill sites.

 

Where practicable waste materials must be re-used or recycled, rather than disposed and further details of Council's requirements including relevant guidelines and pro-forma WMP forms can be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre or by telephoning Council on 9399 0999.

 

Details and receipts verifying the recycling and disposal of materials must be kept on site at all times and presented to Council officers upon request.

 

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

 

56.     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)   $1000.00   -      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 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.

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

 

57.     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 a concrete vehicular crossings and laybacks at kerb opposite the vehicular entrances to the site.

 

b)       Remove any redundant concrete vehicular crossing and layback and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

58.     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.

 

59.     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:

 

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

 

61.     The design alignment levels issued by Council and their relationship to the footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

62.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $671.00 calculated at $44.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid to Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

63.     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.

 

64.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Notice must be issued to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the construction certificate being issued.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to occupation of the development.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

b)       A layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, 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.

 

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

 

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

i.        Roof areas

ii.       Paved areas

iii.       Grassed areas

iv.      Garden areas

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

68.     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.

 

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

 

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

b. To an infiltration system designed in accordance with Council's requirements (subject to a satisfactory Geotechnical Engineers report).

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Notes:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

80.     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.

 

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

 

Notes:

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

b.  The linen plans shall indicate the location and dimensions of the detention/infiltration areas. 

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

 

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

 

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

b.     Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

c.     Volume of storage available in the detention areas;

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

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

f.      Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

84.     Prior to the credited certifier issuing an occupation certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to contact Council’s Manager of Waste in regards to meeting Council’s requirements for waste services to the dual occupancy

 

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

 

85.     Landscaping shall be provided to the whole of the site to enhance its amenity and reduce the impact of the development upon both the streetscape and neighbouring properties.

 

86.     Prior to the commencement of site works, the Concept Landscape Plan by Classic Plans, drawing number 0032/09, sheet A, issue B dated 15/11/10 must be developed further by a qualified professional in the Landscape/Horticulture industry, which shall be submitted to and approved by the PCA, and must include the following:

 

a.     A predominance of species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions;

 

b.     A planting plan and plant schedule which nominates all proposed planting, including botanic names, sizes at maturity, quantities, pot size at the time of planting and location;

 

c.     Suitable accent/feature species within those garden areas around the perimeter of the front yards of both proposed dwellings, including 1 x 100 litre tree (pot/bag size at the time of planting) which will attain a minimum height at maturity of between 4-7 metres, in the lawn area of the eastern proposed dwelling;

 

d.     At least 2 x 25 litre (pot size at the time of planting) trees within deep soil zones in the rear yard, selecting those species which will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity;

 

e.     Suitable perimeter screen planting along those parts of both the eastern and northern boundaries as shown, using species that will achieve at least the same height as common boundary fencing in these areas.

 

87.     The PCA must ensure that the landscaping is installed in accordance with the approved plans and relevant conditions of consent, prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate, with the owner to maintain it in a healthy and vigorous state until maturity, in accordance with these plans.

 

88.     The nature-strip upon Council's footway shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu Turf or similar. Such works shall be installed prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

Street Tree Removal

 

89.     Approval is granted for the applicant to remove and dispose of (at their own cost) the most eastern of the two existing Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush’s), from Council’s Howell Avenue nature strip, towards the eastern site boundary, during excavations associated with the proposed vehicle crossing as shown, but must satisfy themselves as to the location of all site services prior to the commencement of any works on public property.

 

90.     The approval provided above is subject to the applicant submitting a payment of $650.00 (no GST) to Council, being compensation for the loss of amenity caused by removal of this semi-established public tree for no other reason than to accommodate the development of private property.

 

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

 

The applicant must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 (quoting the receipt number), and giving at least four working weeks notice to arrange for planting of the replacement street tree upon completion of all works.

 

Tree Removals within site

 

91.     Approval is also granted for removal of the following trees, subject to full implementation of the approved landscaping:

 

a.     The two separate, single trunk Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palms) within the western half of the front yard, between the internal driveway and entry path, in order to accommodate the proposed works and new landscape treatment in this area of the site;

 

b.     Along the eastern side setback, one Syzygium luehmannii (Small Leafed Lilly Pilly), both due to its inappropriate location near the northeast corner of the existing dwelling, as well as to accommodate the proposed basement, ground and first floor works as shown;

 

c.     One large and mature Magnolia grandiflora (Bull Bay Magnolia) in the rear yard, due both to its inappropriate location close to the southeast corner of the existing garage/storage shed, as well as to accommodate the new retaining wall and pool house/games room as shown;

 

d.     One Schefflera actinophylla (Umbrella Tree) to the west of the tree described in point ‘c’ above, along the western boundary, as this species is recognised as an environmental weed in the Randwick LGA.

 

Pruning of neighbours tree

 

92.     Permission is granted for the selective pruning of only those lower growing branches from the western aspect of the Metrosideros excelsa (Pohutukawa), which is located in the rear yard of the adjoining property to the east, 18 Howell Avenue, close to the common boundary, only where they overhang into the subject site and need to be pruned in order to avoid damage to the tree, or; interference between the tree and works, either during the course of construction or upon completion.

 

93.     This approval does not imply any right of entry onto a neighbouring property nor does it allow pruning beyond a common boundary; however, where such measures are desirable in the best interests of correct pruning procedures, and ultimately, the ongoing health of this tree, the applicant must negotiate with the neighbour/tree owner for access to perform this work.

 

94.     All pruning must be undertaken by an Arborist who holds a minimum of AQF Level V in Arboriculture, and who is also a registered member of a nationally recognised organisation/association, with all pruning to be performed to Australian Standard AS 4373-2007 'Pruning of Amenity Trees.

 

Protection of Street Tree

 

95.     In order to ensure retention of the most western of the two Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush’s) on Council’s Howell Avenue nature strip, towards the western site boundary, to the east of the existing vehicle crossing in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.     All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application must show the retention of this street tree, with the position and diameter of both its trunk and canopy to be clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.     The Construction Certificate plans must provide measurements confirming that the eastern edge of the most western vehicle crossing will be setback a minimum distance of 1.5 metres from its trunk (measured off its outside edge at ground level).

 

c.     Any new services, pipes, stormwater systems or similar that need to be installed over public property, must be done so along either the sites side boundaries; or, a distance of 3 metres to the east of its trunk.

 

d.     This tree is to be physically protected by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing which shall be located a minimum distance of 2 metres to its east (measured off the outside edge of its trunk at ground level), as well as along the kerb to its south, the proposed crossing to its west, and the pedestrian path to its north, in order to completely enclose this tree for the duration of works.

 

e.     This fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of demolition and construction works and shall remain in place until all works are completed, to which signage containing the following words shall be clearly displayed and permanently attached: “TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ), DO NOT ENTER".

 

f.      The applicant is not authorised to perform any works to this street tree, and shall contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 should pruning or any similar such work appear necessary, with the applicant required to cover all associated costs with such work, to Council’s satisfaction, prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate.

 

g.       Within the TPZ, there is to be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble.

 

h.       Any roots encountered during excavations associated with the most western vehicle crossing must be cut cleanly by hand, and the affected area backfilled with clean site soil as soon as practically possible.

 

i.        A refundable deposit in the form of cash, credit card or cheque for an amount of $1,000.00 (no GST) shall be paid at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development, in order to ensure compliance with the conditions listed in this consent, and ultimately, preservation of this street tree.

 

The refundable deposit will be eligible for refund following the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate, subject to completion and submission of Council’s ‘Security Deposit Refund Application Form’, and pending a satisfactory inspection by Council’s Landscape Development Officer (9399-0613).

 

Any contravention of Council's conditions relating to the tree at any time during the course of the works, or prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate, may result in Council claiming all or part of the lodged security in order to perform any rectification works necessary, as per the requirements of 80A (6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Protection of neighbours tree

 

96.     In order to also ensure retention of the Metrosideros excelsa (Pohutukawa), located beyond the northeast corner of the existing dwelling, actually in the rear yard of the adjoining property to the east, 18 Howell Avenue, close to the common boundary, in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

a.     All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application must show the retention of this tree, with the position and diameter of both its trunk/s and canopy to be clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.     All plans must show that a setback of 3 metres will be provided between the point where the trunk/s of this neighbouring tree meet the common boundary, and the proposed access stairs and storage space, with no other excavations, works or similar to be performed beyond this point.

 

c.     In order to maintain acceptable rates of air and moisture to its root system, the area between the basement and site boundary, for the full spread of its canopy must remain as undisturbed, deep soil, with existing levels/grades in this same area to be retained as existing.

 

d.     Fencing along this boundary, beneath the extent of its canopy, must be a type which does not require a continuous strip footing, with only localised pad footings to be utilised in this instance.

 

e.     Within the 3 metre exclusion zone specified in point ‘b’ above, there is to be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble.

 

f.      Any roots encountered during excavations or any other associated works must be cut cleanly by hand, and the affected area backfilled with clean site soil as soon as practically possible.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1      Demolition, building or excavation work must not be commenced until;

·          A Construction Certificate has been obtained from Council or an Accredited Certifier

·          Council or an Accredited Certifier has been appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority for the development

·          Council and the Principal Certifying Authority have been given at least 2 days notice (in writing) prior to commencing any works.

 

Failure to comply with these important requirements is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.  Alternatively, Council may issue a penalty infringement notice (for up to $1,500) for each offence.

 

A2      A local approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Certification Services section prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:-

 

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

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

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

 

For further information please contact Council’s Building Certification Services on 9399 0944.

 

A3      Specific details of the location of the building/s should be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed building work will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

A4      This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

A5      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:

 

1.View

Peer Review from Willana Associates

 

 

 

 


Peer Review from Willana Associates

Attachment 1

 

 



Ordinary Council                                                                                               22 February 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP3/11

 

 

Subject:                  16 Ellen Street, South Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/975/2010

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to dwelling

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                G Kirk

Owner:                         G Kirk & J  McGhee

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

 

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application details alterations and additions to an “existing semi detached dwelling” to provide for a first floor addition. As per Council’s legal advice a semi-detached dwelling house in the Residential 2A Zone should be classified as an attached dual occupancy.

 

As the proposal is now classified as an attached dual occupancy and not a dwelling house the development standards contained in the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) now apply. The proposal has a floor space ratio of 0.63:1 and exceeds the maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1.

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal includes a SEPP 1 Objection that exceeds the standard by more than 10%. If the proposal was assessed under the provisions of the DCP – Dwelling Houses the preferred solution for floor space ratio would be 0.59:1

 

The application details alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling including a first floor addition. The main issue is the potential for any impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The application details alterations and additions to the dwelling including at the rear ground level a store and open plan living area leading to a deck, minor internal alterations to the front portion of the dwelling, a new upper level, containing a bedroom, two bathrooms, study and family room with a balcony at rear. The installation of a carport within the existing front yard, a new front fence, part side fence and an inground swimming pool and garden store within the rear yard. The proposed works will provide for 192m of additional floor area to the dwelling.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject property is on the eastern side of Ellen Street and has a street frontage of 10.135m, a depth of 45.72m and an area of 463m. The site is relatively level with a slight fall across the site from the north to south.

 

The locality is residential and contains a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings.

 

4.    Community Consultation

 

The application has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Notification. No submissions have been received in response to this notification.

 

5.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

 


Clause 20E Landscaped area

Development other than for the purpose of a dwelling house within a 2A zone must provide a minimum of 40% of the total site area as landscaped area. The proposal complies with this clause with 56% of the site provided as landscaping.

 

Clause 20F Floor Space Ratios

The maximum floor space ratios for buildings other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house within 2A zones is 0.5:1. This proposal has a total floor space ratio of 0.63:1 which exceeds the maximum in the control and a SEPP 1 Objection to this standard has been lodged by the applicant for consideration.

 

Clause 20G Building Heights

The maximum height for a building other than a dwelling house within a 2A zone is 9.5m from any point on ground level with a maximum external wall height of 7m. The proposal complies with both these controls in this standard with an overall height and external wall height of 7m.

 

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

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

 

Pursuant to Clauses 20F of RLEP 1998, the maximum FSR within 2A Zones is 0.5:1 respectively. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor space ratio

Existing building

0.2:1

Proposal

0.63:1 (286m2 )

LEP development standard

0.5:1 (228m2)

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

25% excess (59m2)

 

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).

 

FSR - Clause 20F

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

 

“To operate together with controls for building height and landscaped area to limit the size and site coverage of a building having regard to the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area”.

 

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

 

-      The proposal complies with the controls for height and landscaped area.

-      The proposal fits within the character of the area.

-      The proposal is not out of scale and has complying site coverage.

-       The proposed floor space ratio is below the floor space ratio limit within the DCP.

 

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

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling, in particular the upper level addition will not be out of keeping with the nature of the surrounding development which includes numerous examples of similar upper level additions to other semi detached dwellings that are of consistent bulk and scale and large two storey free standing dwellings.

 

The proposed development will not result in any unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining dwellings or the locality in general.

 

The degree of non compliance with the control is not unreasonable.

 

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 objection has addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The objection has appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. As such, it is considered that the objection is well founded.

 

Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Matter 3

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

“(a) whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

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

 

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 allow the best use of the site.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

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

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

Second

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standards is relevant to the subject development. As discussed above, the proposal is considered to satisfy the underlying purposes of the floor space ratio standard.

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. The proposed floor space ratio will not result in detrimental streetscape or amenity impacts on the locality. The resultant built form and scale are compatible with the surrounding residential premises and represent a suitable development.

 

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 FSR development standards have not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council.

 

Each development application received by Council is assessed with regard to its merits. There has been no precedent established by Council’s assessment decisions, which in effect would abandon the development standards prescribed in the LEP.

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 zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

5.2      Policy Controls

Development Control Plan Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies

 


Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Clause

Standard

Check

y/n

Landscaping

40 % of site provided as landscaped area

56%

Yes.

25m² of private open space provided.

68m2 +

Yes

Min. dimensions of 3m x 4m & minor level change

5m x 13.5m

Yes

Open space behind the building line.

Yes

20% of the site area is permeable.

37%

Yes

Floor area

(Site area 463m2) maximum FSR 0.59:1 

0.63:1

See below

 

The resultant floor space ratio of the dwelling exceeds the preferred solution of the DCP and therefore an assessment must be made as to whether or not the proposal will comply with the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP. In the immediate locality there are a number of substantial two storey semi detached and free standing dwellings which are of similar bulk and scale to that proposed by this development. Whilst the preferred solution of the DCP is not complied with it can readily be demonstrated that development will not be out of keeping with the established character of the locality which satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

 

Height, Form & Materials

External wall height maximum 7m

7m

Yes

Cut or fill maximum 1m.

No more  than 1m

Yes

No excavation within 900 mm of a side boundary.

No

Yes

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Minor only for the new wall surrounding the swimming pool

Yes

Building setbacks

Front setback average of adjoining dwellings or 6m

No change to dwelling see comments below in relation to carport

Yes

Rear boundary setback at least 4.5m

13.5m to rear deck

Yes

Side setbacks be 900mm at ground level.

900mm to both side boundaries

Yes

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

2440mm to southern and up to northern side boundary.

No to northern side boundary, see comment below.

 

The upper level of the dwelling is sited in part up to the northern boundary and 1220mm for the remainder. There are no major objections in this instance as the setback to the front portion of the dwelling maintains the party wall between the two dwellings and whilst the remainder of the upper level does not comply with the preferred solution being directly to the south of the adjoining semi it will not result in any significant adverse impact upon the adjoining dwelling by restricting access to sunlight and fresh air, especially in comparison with a complying setback of 280mm more.

 

 

Privacy

Generally the proposal will not result in any significant loss of privacy to the adjoining properties in that the windows to the upper level southern elevation are to the bedroom and bathrooms and the louvred window to the stairwell will look directly upon the roof of the adjoining dwelling rather than into any private living areas. Conditions of consent is recommended to require the provision of a fixed privacy screen to the northern elevation of the upper level balcony to maintain a reasonable level of privacy to the adjoining property and to require that the window to the family room in the southern elevation to have a sill height of 1500mm.

 

 

Garages & Driveways

 

 

 

 

1 space, for dwellings with 2 bedrooms or less, or 2 spaces, for dwellings with 3 bedrooms or more.

1 space, not practical due to site constraints to provide any additional parking.

Yes

Parking spaces have a min. dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m.

Complies

Yes

Driveway width minimum of 3m and side setback of 1m

Existing driveway

Yes

Driveway maximum width of 3m at the boundary

Existing driveway

Yes

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

Existing driveway

Yes

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

The proposed carport is located to the front of the building up to 450mm from the front boundary. There are no objections to the erection of a carport at this location as there are a number of other similarly sited structures in the street, including the adjoining semi detached dwelling and an argument cannot be sustained that the provision of a carport in this location will detract from the appearance of either the dwelling or the streetscape overall.

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

50% of the width of the site

Does not comply, however the open nature of the structure and the symmetry of the structure in comparison with the similar carport to the adjoining dwelling will not result in the carport dominating the building or detracting from the streetscape.

Fences     

The proposal includes a new front fence of a combination of masonry with timber infill picket infill, nominated as being 50% open, and incorporating entry gates. There are no objections to this style and height of fence as it will be consistent with the existing fencing form in the immediate locality.

 

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

New dwellings comply with 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

See BASIX

n/a

Private open space receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am - 3pm on 21 June.

Slightly reduced

Yes, minimum solar access maintained.

North-facing living areas receive at least 3 hrs sunlight 9am - 3pm 21 June.

Yes

Solar access to existing or future solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained 9am - 3pm.

No impact to solar collectors.

North-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am - 3pm 21 June, or not further reduced.

No significant additional or unreasonable impact to north facing windows of the adjoining dwelling.

Principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am- 3pm 21 June, or not further reduced.

Slightly reduced

Remaining solar access complies with the minimum of the DCP.

 

6.    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 more than $200000

$ 390 955

1.0%

$ 3 909.55

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that the application to carry out alterations and additions to the existing dwelling be approved subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation:

 

A.       That the Council support the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause 20F of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to floor space ratio, on the grounds that the proposed use complies with the objective of the clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly

 

B.       That Council as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/975/2010 for substantial ground and first floor alterations and additions to existing dwelling, construction of hard stand car park space to front of dwelling, swimming pool to rear/fencing and associated works at 16 Ellen Street, South Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

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

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA100, DA101 & DA300, all issue B, dated 26/1/11 and received by Council on the 3rd February 2011, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

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.       Metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted (e.g. colourbond) and form part of the colour scheme and external finishes for the development.

 

4.       There must be no encroachment of the structure/s or associated articles onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place.

 

5.       Open-able windows to a room, corridor, stairway or the like with a floor level more than 4m above the external ground/surface level, must be designed and constructed to reduce the likelihood of a child accessing and falling through the window opening.

 

Options may include one or more of the following measures:

i)        The window having a minimum sill height of 1.5m above the internal floor level,

ii)       Providing a window locking device at least 1.5m above the internal floor level,

iii)       Fixing or securing the window (e.g. by screws or a window locking device) to restrict or to be able to secure the extent of the opening to a maximum of 125mm,

iv)      Installing a fixed heavy-duty gauge metal screen over the opening (e.g. A metal security screen or metal security mesh and frame system, but not standard fly-screen material),

v)       Other appropriate effective safety measures or barrier.

 

6.       To maintain a reasonable degree of privacy to the adjoining properties a privacy screen must be installed to the northern elevation of the rear upper level balcony to a height of 1800mm above floor level.

 

7.       The privacy screen is to be of fixed louvres or obscured glazing, any opening are to be no greater than 25mm with the total area of openings no more than 25% of the area of the screen. Obscured glazing is to be installed in the opening within the blade wall to the southern side of the balcony to maintain privacy to the adjoining property. Details of the privacy screen are to be provided with the Construction Certificate, and the screen to the northern side of the balcony and obscured glazing within the southern side of the balcony are to be installed prior to the use and occupation of the balcony.

 

8.       To maintain a reasonable degree of privacy to the adjoining property the window to the family room within the southern elevation is to have a sill height of 1500mm above floor level. Details are to be provided with the Construction Certificate application.

 

The following condition is imposed to satisfy relevant requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

9.       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.

 

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

 

10.     In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $ 390 955 the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $ 3 905.55.

 

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a construction 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 imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency.

 

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.     The following provisions are to be implemented in accordance with the relevant BASIX Certificate and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate documentation (as applicable), to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority:

·           Stormwater management (i.e. rainwater tanks)

·           Water efficiency (i.e. triple A rated taps and showers, dual flush toilets and water re-use)

·           Landscaping provisions

·           Thermal comfort (i.e. construction materials, glazing and insulation)

·           Energy efficiency (i.e. cooling & heating provisions and hot water systems)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

16.     External paths and ground surfaces are to be constructed at appropriate levels and be graded and drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in the entry of water into the building, or cause a nuisance or damage to the adjoining premises.

 

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

 

17.     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.

 

18.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

19.     Prior to the commencement of any building works, the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)    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.

 

A copy of the construction certificate, the approved development consent plans and 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.

 

b)    a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) must be appointed to carry out the necessary building inspections and to issue an occupation certificate; and

 

c)    a principal contractor must be appointed for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, an owner-builder permit may be obtained in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and the PCA and Council are to be notified accordingly; and

                                        

d)    the principal contractor must be advised of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority; and

 

e)    at least two days notice must be given to the Council, in writing, prior to commencing building works.

 

20.     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 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).

 

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

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

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

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

 

22.     The relevant requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 must be complied with, in accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor (and a copy of any relevant Certificate of Insurance) or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to commencement of works.

 

23.     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.

 

24.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

26.     Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the new upper level.

 

27.     The demolition of buildings and the removal, storage, handling and disposal of building materials must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, the NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change (formerly EPA) and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·          Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 & Regulations

·          WorkCover NSW Guidelines & Codes of Practice

·          Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·          The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

·          Relevant DECC/EPA Guidelines

·          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.

 

28.     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.

 

29.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 E of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that the adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times.

 

a)     If the development involves an excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, the person having the benefit of the development must, at the person’s own expense:

i)      protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation, and

ii)      where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage.

 

b)     The condition referred to in subclause 1) does not apply if the person having the benefit of the development consent owns the adjoining land or the owner of the adjoining land has given consent in writing to that condition not applying.

 

 

30.              A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer, building surveyor or other suitably qualified independent person must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works, in the following cases:

 

·           excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are proposed to be located within the zone of influence of the footings of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

·           new dwellings or additions to dwellings sited up to shared property boundaries (e.g. additions to a semi-detached dwelling or a terraced dwelling),

·           excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are within rock and may result in vibration and or potential damage to any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

·           as otherwise may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The report (including photographs) are required to detail the current condition and status of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon the adjoining premises, which may be affected by the subject works.  A copy of the dilapidation report is to be given to the owners of the premises encompassed in the report/s before commencing any works.

 

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 between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and Public Holidays.

 

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 requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and NSW DECC Guidelines must be satisfied at all times.

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery, pile drivers and all plant and equipment must be minimised, by using appropriate plant and equipment, silencers and the implementation of noise management strategies.

 

A Construction Noise Management Plan, is required to be developed and implemented throughout the works, to the satisfaction of the Council.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of site works.

 

The Construction Noise Management Plan is to be prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of the DECC Construction Noise Guideline.

 

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

 

 

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.

 

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

 

34.     A Construction Site Management Plan is to be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works.  The site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

·       location and construction of protective fencing/hoardings to the perimeter of the site;

·       location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·       location of building materials for construction;

·       provisions for public safety;

·       dust control measures;

·       site access location and construction

·       details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·       protective measures for tree preservation;

·       provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·       location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·       details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·       construction noise and vibration management;

·       construction traffic management details.

 

The site management measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and amenity to the satisfaction of Council. 

 

A copy of the Construction Site Management Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.  A copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

The sediment and erosion control measures are to be in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to the satisfaction of Council and details are to be provided in the Construction Site Management Plan. 

 

35.     Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works and the following requirements must be complied with:

a)     Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials, construction equipment or other activities 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.

b)     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.

c)     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 and Regulatory Services section.

 

d)     Any part of Council’s road, footway or nature strip which is damaged as a result of the work must be repaired or replaced to Council’s satisfaction.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and to maintain public safety and amenity:

 

36.     Swimming pools are to be provided with childproof fences and self-locking gates, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations.

 

The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a fence having a minimum height of 1.2m, that separates the pool from any residential building situated on the premises and from any place (whether public or private) adjoining the premises; and that is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with AS 1926.1 - 2007.

 

Gates to pool area shall be a maximum width of 1 metre, and be self-closing and latching; the gate is required to open outwards from the pool area and prevent a small child opening the gate or door when the gate or door is closed.

 

Temporary pool safety fencing is to be provided pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

A ‘warning notice’ must be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, detailing pool safety requirements, resuscitation techniques and the importance of the supervision of children at all times.

 

37.     Swimming pools are to be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the following general requirements: -

a)    Backwash of the pool filter and other discharge of water is to be drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation; and

b)    All pool overflow water is to be drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in a nuisance or damage to premises; and

c)    Water recirculation and filtrations systems are required to comply with AS 1926.3 – 2003:  Swimming Pool Safety – Water Recirculation and Filtration Systems; and

d)    Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents; and

e)    The pool plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

i.      before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on any Sunday or public holiday; or

ii.     before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on any other day.

 

38.     Written notification must be provided to Council advising of the installation and completion of the Swimming Pool (or Spa Pool), to satisfy the requirements of the Swimming Pools Act 1992, prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate.

 

Council’s “Notification & Registration of a Swimming Pool” form must be completed and forwarded to Council prior to any Occupation Certificate being issued for the pool.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

40.     The installation of rainwater tanks shall comply with the following noise control requirements:-

 

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

 

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

 

b)     Plant and equipment associated with rainwater tank(s) are to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

c)     The operation of plant and equipment associated with the rainwater tank(s) are to be restricted to the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises:

●     before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on weekends or public holiday; or

●     before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1    Demolition, building or excavation work must not be commenced until;

·          A Construction Certificate has been obtained from Council or an Accredited Certifier

·          Council or an Accredited Certifier has been appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority for the development

·          Council and the Principal Certifying Authority have been given at least 2 days notice (in writing) prior to commencing any works.

 

 

Failure to comply with these important requirements is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.  Alternatively, Council may issue a penalty infringement notice (for up to $1,500) for each offence.

 

A2      A local approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Services section prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:-

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

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

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

 

A3      Specific details of the location of the building/s should be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed building work will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

A4      This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                               22 February 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP4/11

 

 

Subject:                  Reporting variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP1) for the month of December 2010 and January 2011

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 December 2010 to 31 January 2011 eighteen (18) were approved during this period with seven (7) of those under delegation by Council officer and twenty (11) 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 December 2010 to 31 January 2011 (A3 document).

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                               22 February 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP5/11

 

 

Subject:                  Notification of Development Applications - response to Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Woodsmith

Folder No:                   DA/446/2010

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting held on 23 November 2010, Cr Woodsmith put forward the following motion pursuant to notice in relation to notification of development applications, as follows:

 

‘That:

 

a)     letters to neighbours informing them of a development application should be registered;

b)     the registered letters should go to adjoining neighbours on each side, that is; directly in front and across the street, directly behind and on the right and left hand sides of the development; and

c)     all other letters to be sent via ordinary post.’

 

Council subsequently resolved that:

 

“(Woodsmith/Nash) that a report to come back to Council on the options available to Council to establish proof of delivery of DA notification letters to affected residents.”

 

This report outlines the options and cost implications in relation to the delivery of notification letters.

 

Issues

 

Proof of delivery

Australia Post has advised Council that the only means by which there can be proof of delivery of a notification letter is to send via registered post. There are two types of delivery confirmation offered by Australia Post. Firstly, a signed receipt of delivery made by the person that the letter has been addressed to or by a family member, or secondly, the person that the letter is addressed is only one able to sign for the letter. Australia Post has also advised that there are no Councils currently in Sydney sending DA notification letters by registered post.

 

Cost of registered post

The cost associated with the registered post letter that does not require a delivery confirmation to be provided to Council for each letter $3.02 per letter and if a delivery confirmation is required then it is $4.97 per letter. There is also an additional cost to have Council’s envelopes pre-printed with a registered post barcode. As Council sends approximately 40,000 letters out on any year, a pre-printed envelope would be necessary in order to efficiently process such a large number of letters. As such, the costs of sending out letters by registered post in any one year would range from $120,000 (without delivery confirmation) to $198,000 (with delivery confirmation) as opposed to the current cost of $20,800.

Inconvenience to residents and applicants

The sending of notification letters by registered post does have significant implications for residents that are not at home to receive the letter. The delivery of letters by Australia Post usually occurs during daytime hours when a high proportion of residents may not be at home to sign for the letter. This would result in them having to attend the post office to obtain the letter and may reduce their time to comment on the DA depending on when they collect the letter. This scenario may lead to a large number of requests for extensions of time to the exhibition period and increase the overall processing times for DAs.

 

The limiting of registered post-letters to only adjoining residents is also problematic from a procedural point of view and staff resources, in that the Administration officer would need to separate these letters from the batch print and envelope them in different manner resulting in a less efficient process. Also, if the adjoining properties are residential flat buildings containing a number of dwellings, there may still be a significant amount of letters required to be sent by registered post. It should also not be assumed that the most affected residents are always situated immediately adjoining the site as impacts may arise (as in the case of view loss) quite a distance from the site and can be more severe.

 

Court precedents

There are a number of authorities in the Land and Environment court that establish a Council’s responsibility in the relation to notification of development application. The Court has held that Councils obligations to notify a development application is discharged by having in place a process that involves the generation of a notification letter and the posting of the letter. The provisions of the EP&A Act do not require personal service. In Sisic v Rockdale City Council, Justice Pain held that:

 

“Such a requirement would be onerous in terms of time and monetary resources for Councils to undertake given the large number of such notices they must send out. Further this would add uncertainty to the development assessment process because if a council was unable to personally serve an affected individual there could be no certainty about the validity of the development consent.”

 

In view of the legal precedents on this issue and the implications for potential challenges to development consents arising from setting a new standard for notification, it would be prudent for Council to seek formal legal advice prior to making any decision to implement this new process.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       An informed and engaged community.

Direction 2a:      Effective communication methods and technology are used to share information and provide services.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The ongoing additional costs to Council for the delivery of notification letters by registered post would increase by $100,000 (to $180,000 per year).

 

Conclusion

 

The only means by which Council can ensure that a notification letter is personally delivered is to send it by registered post. The monetary costs associated with such a decision are quite substantial and would create an inconvenience for affected residents in having to attend a post office if they are not at home when the postal officer arrives. This may also lead to numerous requests for an extension of time to make a submission and unreasonably delay the processing of the DA.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council not send DA notification letters by registered post.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                               22 February 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP6/11

 

 

Subject:                  Affordable Rental Housing SEPP Review and Submission

Folder No:                   F2004/07991

Author:                   Asanthika Kappagoda, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Executive Summary

 

This report seeks the Council’s endorsement of the submission attached, in response to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Review Paper which is on public exhibition until 1 March 2011.

 

The Paper has been prepared to help inform and facilitate a review of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (AHSEPP), taking into account issues that have been raised from Councils, social housing providers, the community and others involved in the development of affordable rental housing.  These issues include the density, location and design of affordable in-fill and boarding house developments.

 

The key points and issues in the Paper and submission are summarised below.  The submission generally supports the AHSEPP Review given that the need for more affordable housing is a critical issue for Randwick City. A number of concerns are raised including potential amenity impacts of medium density infill and boarding house development in low density zones

 

Background

 

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) which commenced in July 2009 forms part of the NSW Government’s response to growing concern about the long term decline in affordable housing across the state. This issue is set to continue, driven by an aging population, changes in household composition trends and general population growth pressures; issues which are pertinent to the Randwick Local Government Area.

 

The AHSEPP aims to create opportunities to make it easier to develop low cost housing in NSW such as secondary dwellings, town houses, residential flat buildings, boarding houses and other low cost accommodation. Such approaches include:

 

·      Allowing medium density residential development (such as townhouses, villas and low rise residential flat buildings) in all residential zones (including low density residential).

·      Providing floor space incentives for residential flat buildings in zones where they are currently permissible.

·      Making secondary dwellings (granny flats) permissible in all residential zones with the opportunity to gain approval through the streamlined Complying Development process.

·      Providing incentives for the development of ‘new generation’ boarding houses

·      Enabling the provision of supportive accommodation for tenants who require specialised services and facilities.

·      Streamlining approvals for NSW Government housing projects of up to 20 units.

·      Simplifying approvals for new style group homes in residential areas.

·      Implementing a compensatory payment system if loss of low cost housing.

 

It is noted that the AHSEPP has had moderate success in Randwick City resulting in the take up of mostly secondary dwellings and boarding houses.

 

Key points

The Paper contains a number of suggested responses to issues raised by stakeholders with regards to each section of the AHSEPP.  Suggested responses articulated in the Paper that are relevant to Randwick City and key points in the submission are summarised as follows:

 

Low rise infill development

·        Reduce density in low density areas from 0.75:1 to 0.5:1.

·        Introduce low-rise housing design guidelines.

·        Review public transport criteria to take into account frequency of services and weekend timetabling.

·        Permit affordable infill development in the B4 Mixed Use and S1 Special Purposes Zone.

·        Reduce minimum floor area of budget studio apartments from 35 square metres to 25 square metres.

 

Council response

·        Potential impacts of medium density affordable infill housing development on the residential amenity and character of low density areas.

·        Council’s preference for higher density affordable housing development focused around our town centres.

·        Need for affordable housing developments to be of universal design to meet the changing mobility requirements of the community.

·        Support for the consideration of public transport service frequency and weekend timetabling to better cater to the needs of students and key workers.

·        Support for the inclusion of affordable housing in the B4 Mixed Use Zone.

·        Potential adverse impacts of permitting infill affordable housing developments in the SP1 Special purposes zone.

 

Secondary dwellings

·        Extend complying development provisions to lots less than 450 square metres.

·        Facilitate dual key apartments within residential flat buildings and multi-unit housing.

·        Require replacement car parking in cases where the secondary dwelling displaces existing car parking.

 

Council response

·        Support for complying development provisions provided that residential amenity is maintained

·        Support for dual key apartments

·        Support for replacement car parking pertaining to secondary dwelling garage conversions.

 

Boarding houses

·        Extend complying development provisions to include boarding house development.

·        Encourage councils to continue to monitor boarding houses and investigate compliance issues.

 

Council response

·      Potential adverse impacts of allowing boarding houses as Complying Development

·      Potential impacts of large boarding houses in low density zones.

·      Clarification sought on the extent of Department of Planning support for the monitoring of boarding houses.

 

Residential development – Land and Housing Corporation

·      Increase threshold for residential development that is approved by Housing NSW from 20 to 30 units.

 

Council response

·      Need for rigorous merit based assessment of Housing NSW developments greater than 20 units.

 

Retention of low cost rental accommodation

·      Invite submissions on Part 3 and Guidelines which may be considered to be unclear.

·      Invite submissions from Councils interested in using contributions in their local housing program so that options to ensure that funds are used most effectively are considered.

 

Council response

·      Need for affordable housing contributions to be reallocated more equitably into the local area.

 

Additional Issues Raised in the Submission

·      Need for inclusionary zoning mechanisms to be included in the land use planning framework to facilitate the dedication of a set dwelling yield in a proposed development for the purposes of affordable housing.

·      Low car parking requirements throughout the AHSEPP which will exacerbate existing on-street car parking and traffic issues.

·      Need for development standards pertaining to boarding houses to better address impacts of bulk and scale.

 

Detailed comments on these issues are included in Attachment 1

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4:     Excellence in urban design and development.

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

Outcome 6:     A Liveable City.

Direction 6d:    A strategic land use framework that provides for our lifestyle changes and for a continuing yet low rate of growth across our City.

Direction 6e:    Housing diversity, accessibility and adaptability to support our   diverse community is enhanced.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There are no financial impacts to Council.

 

Conclusion

 

A state wide planning approach to increase the amount of affordable housing in NSW is supported. However such an approach should be contingent to achieving good environmental outcomes where the negative impacts on residential amenity and character of surrounding residential areas is minimised.

 

Higher density to facilitate affordable housing is more suitable around our town centres which have good access to employment and public transport services, and where greater height and lower parking levels of parking provision can be supported.

 

These issues are identified in the attached submission together with recommendations and suggested improvements to the AHSEPP.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council endorse the proposed submission in response to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Review Paper.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Affordable Rental Housing SEPP Submission

 

 

 

 


Affordable Rental Housing SEPP Submission

Attachment 1

 

 

Affordable Rental Housing State Environmental Planning Policy Review SUBMISSION

 

 

Introduction

 

Randwick City Council welcomes the Department’s initiative to review the Affordable Rental Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (AHSEPP) to take into consideration issues raised by stakeholders since its initial implementation.

 

The Council acknowledges that the issue of declining household affordability is complex and one which requires careful planned involvement and intervention in the housing market. Lack of affordable housing is a recurring and critical theme in the Randwick City where housing costs are amongst the highest in NSW. This issue is compounded by the fact that the Local Government Area (LGA) has high numbers of students, key workers and an aging population – key groups typically comprising low to medium income households who require more affordable accommodation options.

 

To date the application of the AHSEPP has had a moderate success in Randwick City resulting in the take up of mostly secondary dwellings and boarding houses. Given the difficult economic climate in which the AHSEPP was introduced, this is considered to be a positive step in the right direction.

 

As an overarching comment the Council would like to reiterate its support for a state wide planning approach to increase the amount of affordable housing in NSW. However it is asserted that such an approach should be contingent in achieving good environmental planning outcomes. To this end it is believed that successful affordable housing developments are achieved when potential negative impacts on residential amenity and the character of surrounding residential areas are minimised.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the AHSEPP Review and accordingly the following comments are provided.

 

General Issues

 

Inclusionary zoning

 

The AHSEPP Review proposes to examine the financial feasibility of additional incentive schemes to those offered by the ASHEPP to assist in the delivery of affordable rental housing. The Review flags a number of potential approaches including inclusionary zoning and voluntary planning agreements.

 

Randwick City Council currently utilises negotiated voluntary planning agreements to secure affordable housing units in the LGA. The planning agreement framework applies to large-scale master planned redevelopment sites exceeding over 10,000 square metres. Negotiated outcomes typically result in the dedication of a percentage of dwelling yield of the development site to affordable housing. This has resulted in about 15 affordable housing units in the LGA.

 

While the Council acknowledges the positive contribution made to the existing stock of affordable housing, negotiated agreements are limited in use given that the ‘voluntary’ nature of such does not guarantee the consistent generation of affordable housing units.  Furthermore there are no mechanisms in the LEP to enforce the dedication of a set dwelling yield for the purposes of affordable housing.

 

In consideration of these issues, the Council strongly supports the development of inclusionary zoning mechanisms which are supported through model local provisions in the Standard Instrument. Evidence suggests (Green Square, Ultimo/Pyrmont, Willoughby) that inclusionary zoning mechanisms far outweigh a density bonus scheme and voluntary planning agreements, in terms of effectiveness, transparency and affordable housing units generated. Mandatory inclusionary housing requirements should be applied as consistently as possible across local or regional areas.

 

Comments

 

4.0 Infill development

 

4.1  Density  - Floor space incentives

 

The AHSEPP Review highlights that the floor space ratio for low rise infill development is to change from 0.75:1 to 0.5:1 on 30 June 2011 as currently provided for in the AHSEPP.

 

Randwick City welcomes the reduction in the floor space bonus from 0.75:1 to 0.5:1 for infill affordable housing development. 

 

Incentives based on a density bonus scheme should be an optional mechanism for Councils to consider, as increases beyond local built form limits potentially have a significant impact on urban design outcomes.

 

Further to the Council’s previous submission on the Department’s Affordable Rental Housing Proposals in 2008, concerns are reiterated about the appropriateness of permitting medium density infill development such as townhouses and multi-unit dwellings in low density zones, and the compatibility of such housing with the character of low density areas. Locating medium density infill development in low density localities has the potential to pose significant impacts on residential amenity in particular traffic generation, parking, streetscape and visual appearance.

 

The location of medium density infill development should be based upon appropriately planned zones and not result in ad hoc development in unsuitable areas.

 

Increased density to cater for affordable infill housing would be better placed around town centres which have a wide range of services and good access to public transport. Randwick City’s town centres’ existing built form and character are conducive to achieving greater density with lower levels of parking provision.  Furthermore, increasing densities around existing town centres reflects sound planning principles and aligns with the Sydney Metropolitan Plan and Randwick City Council’s City Plan objectives of creating liveable and sustainable neighbourhoods.

 

4.2 Design of low rise infill development

 

The AHSEPP Review proposes to give better guidance to development proponents of low rise affordable housing development by releasing a set of low rise housing design guidelines with the inclusion of setback and private open space standards.

 

 

Randwick City Council welcomes the introduction of the draft Urban Design Guidelines for Low Rise Affordable Rental Housing which will provide suitable design guidance for development proponents and the Council alike in the assessment of affordable infill housing proposals.  The Council further supports the proposed additional development standards which will provide regulation on key design matters such as setbacks and private open space. The proposed standards’ consistency with the Codes SEPP is also noted. This suite of design guidelines and development standards will provide more certainty for stakeholders and reduce complexity in the development and planning process.

 

One area of suggested improvements to the guidelines is the inclusion of basic universal design criteria for all affordable housing developments (e.g. continuous pathways, reinforced bathroom walls to facilitate grab rails etc). Similarly to the Sydney Metropolitan area, Randwick City has an aging population which is set to significantly increase over the next 20 years. Many members of the local community who are aged are currently amongst the key low income groups in the LGA who need affordable accommodation that also meets their mobility challenges and changing life circumstances.

 

Including provisions to encourage affordable housing of universal design would offer many benefits to the local community. It would add to the diversity of housing choice, extend ‘usability’ of housing, reduce costs associated with retrofitting dwellings and allow people to ‘age in place’.  Studies have shown that costs associated with including basic design criteria at the construction stage are generally low, incremental in nature and in some cases negligible[1]. It would furthermore reduce government health and community sector spending in terms of reduced welfare, medical and nursing costs.

 

4.3 Proximity to Public transport criteria

 

The AHSEPP Review proposes the review of public transport service frequency criteria to include weekend and evening time tables, which will concentrate affordable housing development closer to accessible locations and services.

 

The AHSEPP Review also proposes to permit variations of public transport locational criteria of up to 10% under SEPP No 1 – Development Standards to create greater flexibility in the measurement of distance between developments and public transport services.

 

Randwick City Council supports the review on the locational requirements with respect to public transport with a view to extend consideration to frequency of services and weekend timetables.

 

As aforementioned, the LGA has high numbers of students and key workers whose public transport usage patterns are variable and dependant on changing semester timetables and shift work. These groups are more susceptible to earning low to moderate incomes, are less likely to rely on private cars as a means of transportation, and also tend to face transport difficulties outside route bus service times.

 

The Council acknowledges that setting higher frequency transport requirements may reduce the amount of eligible areas capable of being developed. However this will be counterbalanced by the concentration of new affordable housing infill developments in accessible areas closer to frequent services, therefore catering to the diverse working schedules of these key groups.  

The Council further supports a review of provisions to increase flexibility with respect to proximity of development to public transport services, as long as this variation is reasonable and merit based under SEPP No.1 – Development Standards. Permitting variations in the distance from public transport of up to 10% would capture those sites in strategic locations with high levels of access to public transport, services, and employment but which just fall out of the 400m locational requirement.

 

 

4.4 Allow Infill Affordable Housing in Other Zones

 

The AHSEPP Review proposes to permit infill affordable housing in the B4 Mixed Use and SP1 Special Purpose Zone, to increase opportunities for affordable housing development.

 

B4 Mixed use Zone

 

Randwick City supports the inclusion of infill affordable housing in the B4 Mixed Use Zone. As outlined throughout this submission, the creation of opportunities to locate affordable housing in close proximity to places of work and public transport services is consistent with the Council’s strategic planning and policy framework which favours growth that is focused around our town centres.

 

The Council notes that an implication of permitting infill affordable housing in a mixed use area (at higher densities as a result of planning incentives), is the potential net loss of other compatible uses (such as retail and commercial) which may become less financially attractive. This loss could have significant implications on the function and character of mixed use areas.

 

To address this issue Randwick City supports a provision that requires the assessment of proposals to take into account the local planning framework which regulates a mix of residential and non-residential uses in the B4 Mixed Use Zone.

 

Special Purpose SP1 Zone

 

Randwick City Council strongly objects to the review proposals to permit affordable housing in the Special Purpose Zone. The intent of the Special Purpose Zone is to cover those uses that are generally not provided for in other zones due to their unique nature and/or specialised activities. It is not intended to cover residential land uses which can easily accommodated in residential, business and mixed use zones.

 

Randwick City has a number of sites that are zoned Special Uses under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) (RLEP). These range from correctional centres and cemeteries to health and education institutions. The Council has undertaken careful strategic analysis of such sites to ensure that their Special Uses Zoning is reflective of their specialised nature.

 

Some of the LGA’s special use sites (such as the University of New South Wales) contain a residential component. These residential uses are both ancillary and associated with the primary use of the site and have been determined based on a ‘fine grain’ master planning process which also looks at a number of other planning considerations in a holistic manner.

 

Concerns are raised that the inclusion of infill affordable housing coupled with the AHSEPP’s planning incentives would render many ‘special use’ sites as residential redevelopment sites. This is contrary to previous Departmental direction and conventional planning practice and furthermore would derogate from the intents and purposes of the Special Uses Zone. Based on these concerns, it is maintained that infill affordable housing should not be permitted in the Special Uses Zone, unless, a provision stipulates that such development is both ancillary and associated with the primary use of the site.

 

4.6 Budget studio accommodation

 

The AHSEPP Review proposes the reduction in the minimum floor area of a studio apartment from 35 square metres to 25 square metres. This is in response to industry stakeholders interested in providing budget accommodation, 

 

Randwick City strongly opposes the reduction in the minimum floor area of studio accommodation from 35m2 to 25m2 based on concerns about the potential impacts on the amenity and well-being of future occupants. 

 

The proposed reduction in minimum floor space by almost one third is too substantial to justify. This issue is pertinent as the implications of living in small and potentially cramped self contained conditions have not been considered nor analysed in the Review document.

 

The minimum floor area of 25m2 is noted to be a significant departure from SEPP 65 requirements for the floor area of studio apartments. It also raises environmental sustainability issues such as restricting opportunities for cross-flow ventilation. The ability to achieve a ‘high quality’ living environment for a studio apartment of this size is accordingly questioned.

 

While the expansion of diversity and amount of rental housing stock at the lower end of the market is supported, the Council strongly contends that the well-being of future occupants and the quality of their living environment should not be compromised in the process of developing affordable accommodation.

 

5.0 Secondary dwellings

 

5.2 Secondary dwellings in multi-unit developments

 

The AHSEPP Review proposes to facilitate ‘dual key’ apartments in the form of secondary dwellings within residential flat buildings and multi-dwelling housing. This will create an additional option of affordable housing.

 

Randwick City supports the introduction of ‘dual key’ apartments on a single strata lot in residential flat buildings subject to the development of appropriate controls under the AHSEPP.

 

Dual key apartments are an important source of affordable housing and similar to conventional secondary dwellings in that they provide for flexibility at different life stages. This form of development would be well placed in the LGA which has a number of higher density residential apartment developments located around our town centres with good access to public transport services.

 

The Council notes that provisions for dual key apartments should aim to minimise adverse impacts on neighbours with a focus on parking and waste management.

 


5.3 Minimum lot size

 

Complying development

 

The AHSEPP Review proposes to expand the complying development provisions for secondary dwellings on any sized lots to ensure consistency with the Exempt and Complying provisions developed for small lots under the Codes SEPP.

 

The Council cautiously supports the introduction of complying development provisions to streamline the assessment process for secondary dwellings on smaller lots, given the smaller and narrower character of many lots in the LGA. It is noted, however, that greater scrutiny is required for those secondary dwellings proposed on smaller lots, to ensure site suitability and residential amenity is not compromised.

 

While extending the complying development provisions to smaller lots would ensure consistency with the Codes SEPP and enable a greater take up of secondary dwellings, it is essential that controls proposed focus on maintaining adequate residential amenity through the implementation of appropriate landscape area, setbacks etc.

 

5.4 Carparking

 

The AHSEPP Review proposes that replacement car parking be provided in cases where secondary dwellings displace existing car parking that has been provided in accordance with previous development consent. This is to address concerns raised by Councils about the loss of car parking as a result of secondary dwelling garage conversions.

 

Randwick City Council welcomes the inclusion of provisions to require replacement car parking in cases where a secondary dwelling displaces existing car parking that has already been provided with the previous DA consent.  However car parking is a broader issue that should be addressed throughout the entire AHSEPP, well beyond the scope of secondary dwellings. This issue is discussed in greater detail later in this submission.

 

6.0 Boarding houses

 

6.5 Complying development

 

The AHSEPP Review proposes the introduction of complying development provisions for boarding house development to streamline the approval process.

 

Randwick City Council strongly opposes the introduction of complying development provisions for boarding house development, based on the potential for this form of accommodation to generate adverse impacts on residential amenity. This issue is particularly pertinent to our low density areas.

 

Randwick City has the third highest number of boarding houses in metropolitan Sydney and the Council has long recognised the important role this form of development plays in provision of low cost housing. Despite their benefits, some boarding house developments have also presented a number of undesirable issues within our residential areas with amenity impacts ranging from noise, privacy issues, and rubbish.

 

In consideration of these issues the Council is currently preparing a Boarding House Development Control Plan (DCP) as part of the Comprehensive DCP. In addition to the provisions of the AHSEPP, other requirements being considered for inclusion in the DCP are: locational criteria, site planning, building form, social and noise and amenity impacts, access for people with disabilities, and most importantly operational controls.

 

The Council does not support the introduction of complying development for boarding houses on the grounds that it has the potential to exacerbate existing amenity issues due to the absence of a rigorous assessment process as afforded under Part 4 of the EP&A Act. Concerns are also raised that permitting boarding houses as complying development would also result in increased regulatory costs to Councils.

 

Using complying development as an incentive to facilitate an increase in boarding house development is not considered to be acceptable on planning grounds given the potential impacts on the wider community. Furthermore the Council asserts its opposition to large boarding houses in low density zones on the basis of potential adverse impacts on residential amenity and the character of low density areas.

 

Boarding house developments should continue to be assessed on merit under Part 4 of the EP&A Act. This process affords a comprehensive assessment of the likely impacts of the development based on environmental, social and economic considerations, which is integral to maintaining residential amenity and fostering social harmony in our LGA.  It is also important to ensure that specific BCA and fire safety assessment is carried out of all boarding houses via a development application process, to ensure that the fire safety of occupants of these buildings is not compromised.

 

6.7 Compliance issues

 

The AHSEPP Review proposes to encourage Councils to continue monitoring boarding houses including the investigation of potential illegal operations.

 

Randwick City Council welcomes the Department’s proposal to encourage Councils to monitor existing boarding houses in their areas to ensure compliance with their conditions of consent, noting that additional resources may be required.

 

Further clarification is sought as to what sort of encouragement the Department is proposing to Councils. Will it be financial or in the form of guidelines?

 

9.0  Residential development – Land and Housing Corporation

 

9.1 Consideration of stakeholder views in assessment

 

The AHSEPP Review proposes improved notification and consultation associated with social housing proposals by Housing NSW.

 

Randwick City Council supports the review proposals to improve notification and consultation with the community with respect to Housing NSW Social Housing projects.  Further detail would be appreciated and should involve at a minimum a review of the time period provided for consultation. Offering the community the opportunity to make a meaningful and well informed contribution to the development process will allow social housing providers to ascertain an indication of local acceptance of the project at an early stage which is important in sustaining harmonious and sustainable outcomes for the local community.

 

 

9.2 Expanding the self-assessment provisions

 

The AHSEPP Review proposes to increase the social housing threshold to be developed by Housing NSW from 20 to 30 units.

 

Randwick City Council strongly opposes the proposed increase in the threshold for Housing NSW self-assessment provisions from 20 to 30 units.  A housing development of this size is not considered to be a ‘small scale’ development.

 

A development of this threshold should be subject to the same rigorous environmental assessment as that of a non-public housing DA under Part 4 of the EP&A Act. This is because design issues and potential impacts to the surrounding area would be no different to a proposal of a similar scale lodged by other parties.

 

Facilitating a social housing development of this scale is contrary to the ‘salt and pepper’ approach of mixing a range of affordable housing and private dwellings to encourage social inclusion and reduce stigmatism based on tenure. The larger the scale of social housing development the more likely the community is going to object.

 

Another potential issue that was also raised in our 2008 submission has to do with subdivision. Randwick LGA has a number of housing estates on large lots. Should the proposal to exempt DAs of 30 units or less be adopted, it could potentially act as an impetus for the creation of new allotments to facilitate separate DAs for social housing developments.

 

11.0 Retention of low-cost accommodation

 

11.1 Interpretation of low rental

 

Clause 41(1) of the AHSEPP refers to residential flat buildings operating as low rental since 28 January 2000. The AHSEPP Review identifies that rental records are not generally kept for this length of time and date of construction can be more readily determined. Accordingly it is proposed to amend the subject Clause so that it does not apply to buildings constructed after 28 January 2000.

 

Further clarification is sought regarding Clause 41(1) of the AHSEPP which relates to developments classified as low-rental residential buildings as at 28 January 2000.  It is noted that this Clause only protects a finite supply of affordable housing. The subject date coincides with the last major amendment to SEPP 10. It is questioned why the date of repeal of SEPP 10 has not been included instead?

 

11.3 Calculation of contributions

 

The AHSEPP Review invites submissions on aspects of Part 3 of the AHSEPP – Retention of Existing Affordable Housing, which may be considered to be unclear.

 

Randwick City Council supports the review of the calculation of contributions for the loss of affordable housing (Part 3 of the AHSEPP).

 

While it is noted that the main factor affecting the contribution is the number of low rental dwellings lost, the formula should also take into account potential affordable accommodation gained in a redevelopment.

 

We suggest that the calculation formula is amended as follows:

 ‘C = N*R*0.05’

 

Where N = (number of new affordable dwellings – number of low rental dwellings lost)

 

 

11.4 Application of contributions

 

The AHSEPP Review invites comments from Councils interested in using contributions in their local housing program.

 

The Council supports the practice of levying affordable housing contributions on developments to mitigate against the loss of low rental housing.  However, it is strongly argued that funds raised by local Councils should be reallocated more equitably back to the local area to make up for the local loss of affordable housing e.g. through a local affordable housing program.

 

While we acknowledge the important role of the Boarding House Financial Assistance Program in increasing the supply of low cost accommodation for the most vulnerable tenants across the state, we are of the opinion that this is a state government funding responsibility which should not be ‘topped’ with funds collected by local Councils to compensate for the net loss of accommodation.

 

Additional Comments

 

Car parking

 

One of the Council’s main concerns with regards to the AHSEPP are the very low car parking requirements for affordable housing developments which in turn has the potential to exacerbate existing on-street car parking and traffic issues throughout the LGA. This issue is particularly relevant to many of our low to medium density areas where public transport service patterns are inefficient and consequently car reliance is high.

 

The Council acknowledges that the reduction in car parking requirements for all forms of development permitted under the AHSEPP is an incentive to facilitate a take up of affordable housing. However concerns are raised that once infill affordable housing units are sold to the private sector after 10 years, the demand for on street car parking is likely to increase, placing pressure in certain areas of our LGA where on-street parking is in high demand. Local traffic is likely to increase as a result when residents compete for limited car spaces. 

 

A suggested mechanism to reduce conflict with regards to on street parking is to introduce a provision in the AHSEPP which stipulates that no residential parking permits are to be allocated for the life of the development. This is an approach being investigated for our Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre, an area focused around the University of New South Wales and Health Campus, where affordable housing opportunities are encouraged and on-street parking is constrained.

Clause 22: Secondary dwellings - development may be carried out with consent

 

Randwick City Council draws attention to the wording of Clause 22(3)(a) which refers to the floor area of a secondary dwelling and principle dwelling not being more than the maximum area allowed for a dwelling house on land under an environmental planning instrument. 

 

The Council does not regulate floor area for dwelling houses in the RLEP. Rather, guidance for floor area of dwelling houses is provided by the floor space ratio controls in the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy Development Control Plan (DCP). When assessing secondary dwellings under the SEPP’s clause, the absence of floor area controls in the RLEP causes confusion and it does not give the Council the strength to enforce the floor area controls in the DCP. This in effect renders all secondary dwellings assessed under this Clause to a maximum of 60 square metres, as this is the only mechanism that the Council can enforce.

 

To reduce confusion and to create more certainty for the Council and development proponents, it may be desirable to amend this Clause to also refer to floor area controls in a DCP.

 

In addition, further clarification is sought as to whether the numerical standards contained in this Clause are able to be varied under SEPP No.1 – Development Standards.

 

Boarding house development

 

Concerns are raised that the development standards relating to boarding houses which compliment the FSR density bonus controls, do not provide for a reasonable level of amenity given the additional bulk and scale permitted under the AHSEPP. 

 

For instance, Clause (29) (2) (b) (Land scaped Area) stipulates that landscape treatment of the front setback area should be compatible with the existing streetscape in which the building is located. The development standard does not recognise that additional density would require greater landscape treatment to soften the impact of the development in low density areas.  To this end appropriate setback controls should also be incorporated into the AHSEPP to address amenity impacts.

 

Conclusion

 

Randwick City Council is supportive of a state wide policy framework that protects and promotes the development of affordable housing across the metropolitan area. The Council is of the opinion that an approach to achieve high quality affordable housing should be contingent with sound environmental planning outcomes. 

 

As highlighted throughout this submission, the Council strongly supports affordable housing particularly within and around our town centres, which have the capacity to support higher densities and are well connected to public transport and other services. It is the Council’s opinion, that density bonuses should be an optional mechanism given the potential significant impacts on residential amenity and character of low density areas and urban design outcomes.


Ordinary Council                                                                                               22 February 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP7/11

 

 

Subject:                  Late Night Trading DCP

Folder No:                   F2011/00082

Author:                   Asanthika Kappagoda, Senior Strategic Planner     

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of relevant issues associated with late night trading premises and to examine how potential impacts may be managed through a Development Control Plan (DCP), in response to a Mayoral Minute (MM80/10) (Mayor, Cr M Matson) and Notice of Motion (NM54/10) (Cr Bowen).

 

Concerns related to the impacts of such premises on the amenity of our residential areas and public safety are echoed in the ‘Last Drinks Campaign’, which highlights the correlation between alcohol related violence and extended operating hours of licensed night trading premises.

 

Planning controls pertaining to development proposals for late night trading should aim to minimise adverse impacts, while recognising vibrancy and diversity in suitable locations and provide more certainty for the Council, community and development proponents in the development process.

 

Potential planning controls discussed in this report include the setting of base trading hours (with opportunities for extended trading hours subject to merit based assessment), identification of a zone based hierarchy of night trading areas and an overview of requirements for the submission of a management plan.  It is important to note that provisions of a DCP would provide a guide for future developments but has no retrospective effects on the existing premises.

 

The inclusion of development controls and guidelines pertaining to night trading premises is recommended as a dedicated chapter in the Comprehensive Development Control Plan. 

 

Background

 

At the ordinary Council meeting on 14 December 2010, in response to Mayoral Minute MM80/10, Council resolved as follows:

 

‘RESOLUTION: (Mayor, Cr M Matson) that:

 

(a)    Randwick City Council writes to the Coalition of Concerned Emergency Services Workers to offer support for the Last Drinks campaign;

 

(b)    Council inform the State Government that it intends to make petition under the The Liquor Act 2007 to seek the imposition of 1am lock outs on the Coogee Beach Palace hotel and the Coogee Bay Hotel in accordance with Last Drinks campaign objectives;

 

(c)    commence the drafting of a DCP for late night trading reflecting the objectives of the Last Drinks Campaign; and

 

(d)    an interim report to come back to the February ordinary Council meeting to discuss the proposed draft DCP for late night trading.’

 

This report addresses parts (c) and (d) of the above resolution.

 

Last Drinks Campaign

The ‘Last Drinks Campaign’ was initiated in March 2010 by a ‘Coalition of Concerned Emergency Services Workers’, based on concerns relating to rising levels of alcohol related violence in and around late trading (early morning) licensed venues. The Campaign primarily focuses on bringing about further restrictions on late night licensed premises, which are contended to be the prevailing cause of alcohol related violence against emergency services workers across the State.

 

The launch of the Campaign was accompanied by the “Last Drinks Paper” (Appendix 1) which, in citing a number of published studies, identifies the correlation between licensed venues’ hours of trading and the number of assaults in the vicinity of such premises. 

 

The Paper articulates the occupational health and safety concerns of emergency service workers and calls for the introduction of a number of measures to reduce the potential for alcohol related violence including:

 

·           Reduced opening hours across the State (trialled for a period of 12     months).

·           Introducing a 1am lockout for all hotels across the State.

·           Development of Model Management Plan to be adopted by all licensed          venues.

·           Prohibition of the sale of alcohol shots, mixed drinks with more than 30ml of alcohol and ready mixed drinks stronger than 5 percent alcohol by volume after 10pm.

·           Engagement of NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) to evaluate the impact of these measures on violent crime.

 

The concerns raised in the Last Drinks Campaign are pertinent to Randwick City where alcohol related anti-social behaviour is a continuing issue for the Council, law enforcement and the community, particularly in the BOSCAR identified ‘hotspot’ of Coogee.

 

The potential, however, to incorporate a number of the aforementioned Campaign recommendations via a development control framework is somewhat limited. Measures such as introducing lockouts and limiting the sale and strength of alcoholic drinks, for instance, would require a state-wide policy approach and/or intervention by the Casino Liquor and Gaming Control Authority, and therefore are beyond the scope of a DCP.

 

Notwithstanding this, there is potential to reflect the overarching intent of the Campaign in the objectives of a DCP. Other measures such as reduced operating hours can only be applied to new premises or applications to intensify an existing premise.

 

The inclusion of performance standards such as hours of operation and management plan requirements would provide the mechanism in which to assess the likely impacts of new or amended late night trading proposals and afford greater certainty to stakeholders in the development process. These issues are discussed further in this report. 

 

Night Trading Premises in Randwick City

Currently a number of night trading premises operate in Randwick City including over 180 licensed venues comprising hotels, pubs, clubs, restaurants, cafes and bars. Other night trading premises in the LGA include food outlets (including BYO), convenience retailers and service stations.  The majority of these premises operate in an orderly manner without incident and with minimal adverse impacts on the surrounding area.

 

The greatest concentration of night trading premises can be found in the General Business Zones of Coogee, Randwick and Kingsford (and to a lesser degree Maroubra). The Spot which is zoned Local Business is also a well known dining precinct with a number of licensed and unlicensed restaurants.  With the exception of Coogee the majority of these areas are understood to have a low to moderate intensity of activity at night with a focus on low impact uses such as restaurants and cafes, which in some instances are anchored by the presence of a hotel. Other business zoned precincts located in Clovelly and La Perouse also contain a number of restaurants.

 

Coogee is the most well known night trading precinct in the City drawing locals, visitors and tourists alike to the beachside entertainment establishments such as the large scale licensed hotels, cafes and restaurants. The area is also the most problematic in terms of alcohol related anti-social behaviour which has given rise to concerns regarding public safety, amenity impacts and conflicts between stakeholders.

 

Benefits of Night Time Trading

Night time trading premises offer a number of positive cultural and economic benefits to the City. They facilitate opportunities for social interaction and contribute to the diversity, vibrancy and identity of several destinations such as The Spot. Night trading premises such as service stations, convenience stores and the like also service the late night retail needs of the community.

 

Premises that trade at night play an integral role in the economic strength of the City by providing important sources of employment to the local community and contributing to the tourist based economy. Well frequented and well managed premises can also assist in improving late night public surveillance therefore contributing to the safety of the public domain.

 

While well managed and well located premises contribute positively to the activity and character of the City, where premises are not well managed, they have the potential to adversely impact on surrounding land uses, public amenity and the City’s reputation.  These issues are discussed in more detail as follows.

 

Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour

The impact of night trading premises (particularly in Coogee) has been a matter of concern for the Council, law enforcement and local residents for a number of years. These concerns stem from alcohol related disturbances and anti-social behaviour and the correlation of such with the hours of operation of premises; concerns echoed in the Last Drinks Campaign.

 

Empirical and anecdotal evidence highlights that anti-social behaviour in Coogee alone on the weekends often includes noisy and rowdy behaviour, street fights and vomiting and urinating in public places; all of which can cause adverse impacts on the amenity of residential areas, well being of the local community and safety in the public domain. Other impacts noted include littering, vandalism to public and private property, and noise disturbances as customers leave premises and congregate in the public domain. The extended hours of operation of large scale licensed hotels in the area (with historical conditions to operate for lengthy periods of time) are often attributed to be the catalyst for many of these issues.

 

Alcohol induced anti social behaviour has also been linked to a broad range of unlicensed uses in the area which remain open beyond traditional hours such as shops and food outlets. While such premises offer a number of benefits to mitigate the impacts of alcohol intoxication through the service of food and non alcoholic drinks, concerns have been raised by the Council, law enforcement and the community of their inadvertent contribution to the congregation of intoxicated patrons in the public domain, who would otherwise disperse after a night out. It is when intoxicated patrons congregate, that the potential for anti-social behaviour is likely to increase.

 

Benefits of a DCP Approach

The Safer Randwick City Plan is the existing policy approach pertaining to late night trading premises in Randwick City, in particular for premises located in Coogee. It outlines a number of actions to mitigate the impacts of anti social behaviour such as establishing maximum hours of trading for food premises in Coogee. This is discussed further in this report.

 

Currently Randwick City assesses and regulates night trading premises on a merit based case by case basis.  There are no specific development controls or guidelines to facilitate good management practices and manage competing activities and land uses.

 

A comprehensive DCP approach pertaining to late night trading has the following potential implications:

·           The Council could deliver greater certainty to development proponents and the community about the Council’s expectations regarding night time trading premises such as appropriate operating hours and standards for management.

·           Stakeholders would be able identify a set of performance standards and objectives in which to assess proposals against.

·           There would be more consistency in the determination of night trading proposals.

·           There would be less likelihood for stakeholder conflict and misunderstanding in the development process.

·           The Land and Environmental Court may give more weight to Council decisions with a strong policy base that is reasonable and consistently enforced. 

 

These issues and implications can partially be reduced or mitigated through the preparation of a Late Night Trading DCP with a focus on contextual and operational considerations such as the establishment of appropriate hours of operation and the requirements for a Management Plan which outlines safety and mitigation measures. A DCP pertaining to night trading premises should be applicable to a wide range of uses that operate at night which have the potential to cause adverse impacts. 

 

While a Late Night Trading DCP could provide a level of control, it should be noted that a development control framework has limited scope to address the issue of alcohol induced anti-social behaviour.

 

A holistic approach is required which draws on a wide range of measures in conjunction with cooperation and commitment from three tiers of government, business proprietors, law enforcement and the community to mitigate adverse impacts of anti social behaviour and crime as a result of alcohol intoxication. 

 

It is also essential that the Council continues to work closely with stakeholders on programs and actions to reduce anti-social behaviour including participation in the Eastern Beaches Premier’s Crime Prevention Partnership and the Eastern Beaches Liquor Accord. A broad range of educational and community awareness programs should also be consistently implemented to encourage patrons to behave in a responsible manner.

 

Existing Planning, Policy and Regulatory Framework

The existing planning and regulatory framework entails a shared responsibility between the State Government and local Councils with regards to the control and regulation of late night trading premises.

 

The State Government is responsible for the development and implementation of laws and policies which relate to licensed premises such as the introduction of the Liquor Act 2007 and issuing of liquor licenses. Local Councils’ responsibilities and functions are as a consent authority for the development of land under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).  The Council also exercises regulatory functions to ensure that conditions of the development consent are being adhered to.

 

Specific aspects of the planning and regulatory framework relating to the operation of licensed night trading premises in Randwick City are outlined as follows.

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The EP&A Act provides the planning and regulatory framework for the assessment of night trading premises, including those premises that are licensed.

 

Under Part 4 of the Act, the Council as consent authority is responsible for the assessment of new premises and alterations and additions to existing premises (including proposals for extended or altered trading hours).

 

Matters of consideration include the nature of premises proposed, potential adverse impacts on residential amenity, and the safety and well being of the local community. Existing hours of operation of surrounding premises, potential noise impacts, resident complaints and concerns raised by local police may also be considered as part of the assessment process.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan

The Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) is the principle planning instrument which governs land use and development in the Randwick Local Government Area (LGA).  The RLEP permits a variety of premises (which have the potential to operate at night) in the General Business and Local Business Zones. Such uses include hotels, restaurants, cafes, service stations and shops which service the cultural, entertainment and retail needs of the local community. Development standards control the bulk and scale of development.

 

The zoning, land use designations, and development standards control the use of the land and the bulk and scale of development. More specific requirements can then be set out in the DCPs.

 

Development Control Plans

The Council’s existing suite of DCPs do not contain specific requirements to regulate a broad number of uses that trade at night nor specific requirements on how such premises should be operated or managed.

 

The Council in part relies on the provisions of the Footpath Dining and Trading Development Control Plan which contains controls related to operation and management of outdoor footpath dining applications including hours of trading for outdoor areas.  The DCP takes into account impacts on neighbouring residential properties and accordingly applies restricted hours where impacts are deemed to be greater. It does not relate to the operation and management of a broad range of uses which trade at night; nor does it relate to proposals for indoor trading.

 


Development Conditions of Consent

The Council currently applies a range of Conditions of Development Consent to control the physical and operational aspects of night trading premises. These include:

 

·           Hours of operation

·           Management plan requirements

·           Standard conditions with respect to noise emissions

·           Controls on the provision of alcohol in respect to outdoor dining proposals

·           Complaint management

·           Controls with respect to public entertainment

·           Public safety

 

These conditions generally vary as part of a merit based assessment process, and are dependant on a range of factors identified earlier in this report (e.g. location, safety of the public domain, potential residential amenity impacts etc). As part of its regulatory functions, the Council also enforces compliance with development conditions including responding to complaints from residents relating to an alleged breach of a venue’s consent conditions.

 

While development conditions are regularly implemented, as outlined earlier in this report, a clear policy direction by way of development controls and guidelines could potentially create greater certainty for the Council, business proprietors and the community regarding the Council’s expectations for the operation of night trading premises.  It furthermore has potential implications for the Council with regards to Land and Environment Court matters, as a strong policy base that is consistently adhered to would give the Council greater weight in its decision making process.

 

A Safer Randwick City

The Council’s crime and safety plan A Safer Randwick City contains a broad number of strategies and actions to reduce crime and foster a safe living environment, including measures to reduce alcohol related assaults and anti-social behaviour in Coogee. Proposed actions include the installation of CCTV, the implementation of a 1am lockout and imposition of a maximum 12 midnight trading hour for food premises in Coogee.

 

While many of the proposed actions are beyond the scope of a DCP, there is potential for controls which stipulate maximum trading hours for different uses to be included in a Late Night Trading DCP. This issue is discussed further in this report.

 

Liquor Act 2007

Introduced in 2008, the Liquor Act 2007 is the biggest reform to alcohol regulation and licensing in NSW in 25 years. The primary objective of the Act is to control the sale, supply and consumption of liquor while facilitating the balanced development of the liquor industry through a flexible and practical regulatory system.

The Liquor Act imposes requirements on licensees (eg. responsible sale, service, supply and promotion of liquor; prohibition of minors on licensed premises; etc) and provides a vehicle for the imposition of conditions on licences to achieve the objectives of the Act.

The Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing (OLGR) and the NSW Police Force actively enforce the regulatory requirements under the Act. The Casino Liquor and Gaming Control Authority (the Authority) deal with all liquor related applications (including issuing of liquor licenses), complaints and disciplinary proceedings.

Under the Act the Authority has increased powers to make orders with respect to certain localities or specific premises including lock outs, earlier closing times and the ban on the sale of alcohol shots after a certain hour. Such measures have been imposed on certain establishments in Newcastle and are noted to be amongst the key recommendations of the Last Drinks Campaign.

The Liquor Act operates ‘hand in hand’ with the EPA & Act with regards to licensed premises. Once an applicant has obtained development consent for a brand new premise, an application for a liquor license can be made. A licensed venue must operate in accordance with development consent conditions. In those instances where a premise has a historical consent (e.g. Coogee Bay Hotel) which does not stipulate hours of operation, then the liquor license can introduce hours of operation.

 

The introduction of the Liquor Act has brought about significant changes to the framework in which applications for the grant of liquor licenses are determined and how noise and disturbance complaints are assessed. Some of these are summarised as follows:

 

Community Impact Statement

A Community Impact Statement (CIS) is now required for certain liquor license applications, including those who seek to amend conditions in an existing license such as extended operating hours. The CIS is prepared by the applicant and gauges the potential impacts of the proposed development. It also includes the results of community consultation (including that of the Council).

 

The Authority generally only approves those liquor license applications when it is satisfied that the overall social impact of a development will not be detrimental to the community. The Council has the opportunity to provide input by way of submissions to the Authority as part of this process.

 

General Bar License

The Act has introduced the General Bar License to make it simpler and cheaper to open and operate small bars, as opposed to large scale hotels. At $500, the License is considerably cheaper than a ‘hotel license’ and only applies to those premises that do not operate gaming machines nor provide for takeaway sales of liquor. The General Bar License does impose restrictions on the size of a premise including patron numbers.

 

On-Premises License

An On-Premises License refers to a license for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises where the alcohol was purchased. The Act has expanded the range of businesses that can apply for this license to include cafes, restaurants and the like. A condition of issuing the license is that the primary purpose of the activity being carried out on the premises must not be the sale or supply of alcohol.  

 

While these changes to the legislation have made it easier for restaurants and the like to serve alcohol, this is not considered to be a major issue for Randwick City as the consumption of alcohol is generally ancillary to the primary use of such premises.

 

Proposed Development Control Plan

The main challenge in preparing appropriate development controls for night trading premises is to manage and minimise conflicts arising from their operation, and maintain residential amenity and safety of residents, workers and visitors, without undermining the viability of night time economies.

 

DCP provisions need to balance the rights of the community to live in a safe and peaceful environment, the rights of development proponents to run their businesses in a responsible manner and the rights of residents and visitors to enjoy a vibrant night time environment.

 

Other Council DCPs

In determining potential development controls to manage night trading premises, the policy approaches of Woollahra Municipal Council, Waverley Council, and Willoughby City Council were reviewed to gain a better understanding of how the control of night trading premises is undertaken via a development control plan framework. These Councils were selected based on their similar characteristics to Randwick City.

 

None of these Councils have a DCP solely dedicated to night trading premises. Rather, the Councils rely on a range of retail and commercial development DCPs to control the design of a premise and apply a range of development conditions such as hours of operation, management plan requirements, noise mitigation etc. This is consistent with the approach currently undertaken by Randwick City.

 

Of note is Waverley Council DCP 2010 which provides more certainty regarding hours of operation through the inclusion of a range of base trading hours and extended trading hours for retail development, which are subject to a year long trial period. This approach could be adapted to the context of Randwick City as discussed further in this report.

 

City of Sydney Late Night Trading Premises Development Control Plan

The City of Sydney Late Night Trading DCP 2007 (CoS DCP) was also reviewed for the purposes of this report.  The Council was notified of the CoS DCP via the Councillor Bulletin in October 2010.  This DCP in its existing form is considered best practice and used as a model to formulate night trading policy in other Councils such as North Sydney. It is not retrospective nor does it derogate from existing consents.

 

The CoS DCP manages adverse impacts of night trading premises through controls that set limits on late night trading hours and requirements for a plan of management. 

This issue and a discussion of the merits of including and/or adapting key controls to the context of Randwick City, (including the potential to reflect the objectives and measures of the Last Drinks Campaign) are discussed in Appendix 2. The CoS DCP is also included for information in Appendix 3.

 

Potential Controls

Based on the review of the CoS DCP and the contextual aspects of Randwick City, a Late Night Trading DCP could potentially include:

·           Objectives that focus on achieving good residential amenity, vibrancy and diversity, and public safety.

·           A night trading precinct framework which aligns with the RLEP General Business and Local Business Zone hierarchy.

·           Night trading limitations for businesses in residential zones.

·           The designation of night trading uses in accordance with their level of impact (e.g. High impact – licensed hotels, Low impact – convenience stores etc).

·           Matters of consideration currently considered in the assessment process: proximity to residential uses, hours of operation of surrounding businesses, size and patron capacity, measures to promote safety, security and crime prevention both of the premises and public domain etc.

·           Base and extended indoor and outdoor trading hours for high impact and low impact uses.

·           Trial periods and/or reviewable conditions for extended hours and/or an increase to patron numbers.

·           Plan of Management requirements covering security, public safety, patron numbers, noise emission, crowd control, complaints management, waste management etc.

 

Work Required/Timing

The preparation of a Late Night Trading DCP would entail considerable staff resources for research, drafting and consultation based on the sensitivity of the subject matter.

 

It would require input from various Council departments including Regulatory, Environmental Health and Development Assessment. Consultation with key stakeholders such as the Eastern Beaches Liquor Accord, Law enforcement and local businesses is also essential.

 

The Strategic Planning Department is currently undertaking a review of the Randwick City planning framework which will result in a comprehensive LEP and DCP. The work plan for the LEP/DCP Review does not account for the additional resources required to prepare a separate Late Night Trading DCP.

 

In view of this issue, it is recommended that development controls and guidelines for night time trading be included in the Comprehensive DCP. This would allow the opportunity for any other DCPs which interrelate (such as the Footpath Dining DCP) to be reviewed concurrently, which would result in greater consistency in the development controls, structure and wording of the document.

 

It is proposed that research, consultation and drafting of controls and guidelines for night time trading be undertaken in early 2011. Once drafted it is recommended that controls and guidelines on night time trading be included as a dedicated chapter in the Comprehensive DCP, which is anticipated to be placed on public exhibition in early 2012.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

Outcome 6:     A Liveable City.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

Preparation of a DCP would require staff resources for preparation, reporting, exhibition and completion. It would require 1 planner to undertake 8 weeks of research and drafting and approximately $5000 for costs of preparation, design and advertising.

 

Conclusion

 

The management and mitigation of the conflicts that arise from night trading premises (particularly alcohol related crime and anti-social behaviour) is an issue that will continue to challenge the Council, law enforcement and the community of Randwick City.

 

A DCP policy framework in which to plan, manage and regulate night trading premises is a mechanism which could potentially minimise adverse impacts and provide more certainty for the Council, community and development proponents in the development process.

 

Given the amount of work involved including consultation with key stakeholders and the need to ensure consistency with the existing and proposed policy framework, it is recommended that controls for late night trading premises be formulated in early 2011 and a dedicated chapter on late night trading be included in the comprehensive DCP.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council endorse the preparation of a DCP for late night trading in line with the general approach suggested in this report.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Appendix 1 - Last Drinks Campaign

 

2.View

Appendix 2 - DCP Review

 

3.View

Appendix 3 - CoS Late Night Trading DCP

 

 

 

 


Appendix 1 - Last Drinks Campaign /

Attachment 1

 

 







Appendix 2 - DCP Review

Attachment 2

 

 

APPENDIX 2

 

City of Sydney Late Night Trading DCP Review

 

The City of Sydney Late Night Trading DCP (CoS DCP) applies to new premises or existing premises that seek extended trading hours or an intensification of their use. It is not retrospective, nor does it derogate from existing consents.

 

The philosophy underpinning the DCP is that extended trading hours are a privilege and not a right and will only be approved in circumstances where an ongoing commitment to good management and safety has been demonstrated.

As such approvals for extended hours of operation (and increased patron numbers) are subject to a series of successful trial periods.

 

The DCP identifies a ‘constrained’ range of operating hours for night trading in areas located in close proximity to residential areas. It also allows more flexible extended trading hours for premises in areas that already have or have been historically characterised by night trading activity.

 

It should be noted that proposed amendments to the CoS DCP were revoked by the Department of Planning in 2010 on the basis that reviewable condition controls contained within were deemed overly restrictive. This matter does not impact on the review of the original document.

 

Objectives

 

The CoS DCP includes a broad range of objectives which provide the overarching framework in which to assess a proposal against. These objectives are based on achieving good amenity for land uses by identifying appropriate locations; implementing plans of management; encouraging vibrancy in select areas; promoting a mix of uses; providing for the potential extension in operating hours for premises with sound management; and ensuring consistency in assessment of night trading premises.

 

Comment

 

The objectives in a Late Night Trading DCP for Randwick City could be modelled on those of the CoS DCP but further tailored to the context and character of the LGA. Objectives should focus on enabling night trading in appropriate locations and recognising vibrancy and diversity of activity, provided there are minimal adverse impacts on the amenity of surrounding residential areas.

 

The intent of the Last Drinks Campaign has the potential to be reflected in a Late Night Trading DCP through objectives that focus on ensuring public safety through the responsible management of night trading premises.

 

Land use categories

 

The CoS DCP categorises night trading premises based on their likely impact to surrounding uses as follows:

 

Category A: High impact premises including hotels; nightclubs; registered clubs; restaurants with capacity over 120 patrons and which provide for the consumption of alcohol; and/or karaoke venues.

 

Category B: Low impact premises generally under 200 square metres including licensed restaurants with less than 120 patrons; cafes; theatres; convenience stores; takeaway food shops and the like.

 

The use of land use categories recognises that different night time premises have varying levels of impact. For instance a convenience store (Category B) is less likely to create the same level of impact on residential amenity and public safety as a large scale licensed hotel (Category A).

 

Planning controls such as hours of operation are based around these 2 categories.

 

Comment

 

Planning controls in a Late Night Trading DCP for Randwick City would need to recognise that different uses have varying levels of impacts. Distinguishing between high impact and low impact night trading premises through the use of categories (as per the CoS DCP) would allow the Council greater flexibility to tailor planning controls (such as hours of operation) in accordance with the likely impact of a particular use or activity.

 

Night time trading areas

 

The CoS DCP takes a place-based approach and designates three types of late night trading areas, each of which is accompanied by a character statement.

 

The trading hour controls for the aforementioned Category A and B premises vary in accordance with the area they are located in.

 

Proposals located outside of the designated areas are assessed on their individual merits including the matters of consideration outlined further in this report. The specific night trading areas are:

 

·      Late night management areas  - Precincts that have historically been the focal points for night time activity, entertainment and recreational activity, with a high concentration of night trading premises (many of which have 24 hour trading). They are often regional destinations well served by frequent public transport services at night, with their focus on main streets or tourist locations e.g. parts of Oxford Street, Darlinghurst Road, China Town and parts of King Street.

 

·      City Living Areas - Precincts with a distinct night time character which accommodate a range of commercial, retail, cultural, tourism and entertainment uses with wide variations in operating hours. These precincts include concentrations of apartment buildings and other residential development in close proximity to existing areas of night time activity. Concentrations of late night trading premises are not encouraged in these areas e.g. Parts of Chinatown, Parts of King Street and the Rocks.

 

·      Local Centre Areas – Precincts that are primarily located along shopping streets and retail spines and often have an active and vibrant night time character. The intensity of activity is distinctly lower than the other categories and there is a stronger presence of low impact premises such as cafes and restaurants.  Trading hours are reduced compared to the City Living and Late Night management areas. Local centre areas are typically zoned Mixed Use or Business and comprise a mix of uses. Examples include Glebe Point Road, Macleay Street in Potts Point and Botany Road in Green Square.

 

Comment

 

The 3 identified night time character areas within the City of Sydney do not directly correlate to similar type character areas in Randwick City. 

 

The City of Sydney’s geographical area and mix of uses is conducive to accommodating designated late night activity areas. Large areas of commercial zoned land for instance, can suitably accommodate high impact night time activity as it is less likely to generate adverse impacts on residential amenity.

 

Randwick City by contrast with its predominant residential and suburban character is devoid of comparable high activity areas. Furthermore the RLEP’s General Business and Local Business Zones are commonly buffered by residential uses, therefore increasing the likelihood of adverse impacts on residential amenity.

 

While the CoS designation of night trading areas would be difficult to apply to the context of Randwick, a zone based hierarchy of controls could be developed to align with the RLEP General Business and Local Business Zones, taking into consideration the varying characteristics of the town centres and local centres. Consideration would also be given to those groups of shops and restaurants which have historical consents to operate in residential zones. 

 

A Late Night Trading DCP could focus on the active commercial strips of the General Business Zones such as the town centres including Coogee; and to a lesser degree those of the Local Business Zones such as The Spot and also the residential zones. 

 

Planning controls formulated for these zones (such as hours of operation) would need to be tailored in consideration of specific issues such as proximity to residential and sensitive uses, existing hours of operation of surrounding businesses, cumulative impacts of existing business, existing crime and anti-social activities and proximity to public transport.  Controls would also need to be formulated for those night trading uses located out of the business zones.

 

Further research is required to determine and map a zone based hierarchy of night trading precincts within the City.

 

Matters for consideration

 

The CoS DCP outlines a number of matters of consideration that are to be taken into account in the assessment of night trading premises including applications for extension of hours of operation.

 

These include: location (including proximity to residential uses); nature of business; hours of operation of surrounding businesses; size and patron capacity; likely impact on diversity and concentration of similar establishments; proximity to public transport; submission of a management plan; measures to ensure safety; security and crime prevention both of the premises and public domain.

 

Once these factors are determined, then late night trading may be permitted in appropriate circumstances, in particular if the premise is located in an existing night time entertainment area as opposed to areas in close proximity to residential areas where impacts are more difficult to manage.

 

 

 

Comment

 

As outlined earlier in the accompanying Council report, the Council’s assessment officers currently consider a wide range of matters in the assessment of night trading premises. Such matters are similar in scope to those listed in the CoS DCP such as proximity to residential uses, nature of business proposed, hours of operation of surrounding businesses, size and patron capacity, management plan requirements, measures to ensure safety, security and crime prevention both of the premises and public domain etc.

 

To facilitate greater transparency, a Late Night Trading DCP could list the range of matters currently considered in the assessment process. This would translate existing practice into a policy basis and create more certainty for stakeholders regarding the contextual and operational issues considered in the merit based assessment of proposed premises.

 

Trading hours

 

Similar to the approach employed in the Waverley DCP 2010, the CoS DCP framework for hours of operation is built on the concept of base and extended trading hours.

 

Base hours are standard operating hours that are permitted for night trading premises. Once a development application is approved a premise is permitted to operate within these hours without the need for periodical approvals. Applicants can generally expect that base hours will be approved provided that the proposed development is in accordance with the provisions of the DCP. Low impact uses such as cafes are generally afforded a greater range of base operating hours.

 

The CoS DCP contains a second category of maximum extended hours of operation. The range of extended hours varies and is dependant on the type of use, specific location of the premises and likely impact. For example a licensed hotel that is located in a Late Night Management Area is afforded a greater range of extended hours of operation (provided it complies with other assessment criteria in the DCP). Conversely the same use would have constrained extended hours of operation if it were located in a Local Centre Area. Extended hours are only granted upon merit based assessment and subject to periodic trial periods.

 

Comment

 

The incorporation of a framework of base and extended operating hours would be central to the function of a Late Night Trading DCP for Randwick City, as trading hours are the prevailing point of contention with regards to night trading premises in the LGA.

 

The determination of a suitable range of base and extended operating hours is a complex matter and one which requires careful consideration of specific locations, different types of uses, indoor and outdoor trading, weekday and weekend trading, existing hours of operation of surrounding premises and potential impact on local economies.

 

Trading hour controls should not be overly onerous such that it stifles the viability of local businesses.

 

In light of Garlick vs Randwick City Council, controls related to the hours of operation should not be applied retrospectively nor derogate from existing consents. Trading hour DCP controls would generally apply to new premises, proposals to intensify a use, or for extended hours only.

 

Base operating hours

 

Randwick City currently applies the following maximum range of base operating hours to most night trading development proposals:

 

General Business Zone – up to 11pm

Local Business Zone – up to 10pm

 

A similar range of base operating hours could be translated into a DCP.

 

Consideration also needs to be given to the Codes SEPP which stipulates the following range of operating hours as complying development for commercial premises (where there is no existing condition relating to hours of operation):

 

Monday to Saturday: 7am to 10pm

Sunday and public holidays: 7am to 8pm

 

The DCP controls relating to base operating hours should not be more restrictive than those of the Codes SEPP.

 

Extended hours of operation

 

The Council currently grants extended hours of operation on a periodical trial basis, only where a proposal can demonstrate ongoing commitment to good management and safety. The Council has the discretion to refuse an application for extended hours if a proposal is deemed to perpetuate existing residential amenity and public safety issues.

 

Following approval if a premise is poorly managed, the Council has the ability to mitigate amenity impacts by reducing trading hours (at the conclusion of a trial period). This practice affords the Council significant powers to control the operations of problem premises and introduces a strong incentive for operators to manage their premises in a safe and responsible manner to avoid future restrictions on operating hours.

 

This existing approach could be translated into a DCP.

 

In terms of determining an appropriate range of extended hours of operation, consideration should be given to the range of matters outlined earlier in this report (e.g. location, potential impact on local economies etc) as well as the A Safer Randwick City Plan of which actions include limiting trading hours to midnight for new food premises in Coogee. Consideration could be also given to seasonal variations such as summer months in tourist areas and reducing hours of operation for premises on Sundays.

 

Trial periods and Renewable Conditions

 

The CoS DCP imposes trial periods for development that proposes extended hours of operation or an increase in patron numbers. This approach enables the flexibility for the Council to review the conditions of consent and respond to issues such as adverse impacts on neighbourhood amenity. If the Council determines that a trial period has been unsatisfactory then the development reverts to the base trading hours.  Premises are only permitted an additional 2 hours of additional operating hours per trial period.

 

In 2010 the City of Sydney proposed amendments to the CoS DCP to reflect EP&A legislative changes which facilitate the imposition of reviewable conditions for

proposals to extend hours of operation and increase patron numbers; in effect giving as little as 14 days notice for a review of conditions. Following a media campaign and concerns raised by business proponents the proposed amendments were subsequently revoked by the Minister of Planning on the grounds that the controls relating to reviewable conditions were deemed too onerous. This has potential implications for Randwick City.

 

Comment

 

Currently Randwick City applies a combination of trial periods and/or reviewable conditions for proposals for extended hours and/or an increase to patron numbers.

 

The benefit of applying renewable conditions is that the Council has the ability to review the conditions periodically for high impact premises, and once the duration period has lapsed, a development application must be lodged to renew existing approved hours or to seek an extension to these rates. This allows the Council to assert greater control on the operation of premises thereby encouraging the continual implementation of good management practices.

The traditional trial period approach does not afford the same degree of control for the Council. Once a trial period concludes, the conditions become part of the consent. This in effect means that should a venue become problematic once the trial period has lapsed, the Council is unable to change the conditions of consent and compliance action becomes difficult.

 

The use of reviewable conditions versus trial period approach is potentially another point of contention in light of the CoS DCP proposed amendments issue.

 

Further research may be required into the legal ramifications of incorporating a reviewable condition versus trial period approach in a Late Night Trading DCP.

 

Plans of management

 

The CoS DCP requires the submission of a Plan of Management for proposals which have the potential to adversely impact on neighbourhood amenity. In essence this captures most large scale licensed premises and proposals operating within extended trading hours.

 

The Cos DCP provides a comprehensive list of issues a Plan of Management should cover including: locality description, security, numbers, noise emission, trading hours, waste management). A Plan of Management is also required to detail what actions will be taken to ensure that premises will be responsibly managed (eg. crowd control procedures).

 

Comment

 

The submission of a Plan of Management is a regular condition imposed for all new licensed premises and proposals for extended hours of operation in Randwick City. Plans of Management are required to outline operational and contextual aspects including measures in which to mitigate adverse social and safety impacts.

 

The requirement for the submission of a Plan of Management would be an integral component of a Late Night Trading DCP. It would ensure that proponents of new licensed premises and proposals for extended hours of operation consider and address any potential impacts that may arise from their operation during late night hours including impacts on neighbourhood amenity and safety.

 

Plans of Management would form the basis in which to assess impacts of a proposal and would also set an agreed performance level thus providing a stronger base for compliance action should key measures be disregarded. Operators would be required to review their Plans of Management at the conclusion of a trial period and make revisions that are necessary to ensure a high level of amenity and safety.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Appendix 3 - CoS Late Night Trading DCP

Attachment 3

 

 
































Ordinary Council                                                                                               22 February 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP8/11

 

 

Subject:                  Planning Proposal - Semi-Detached Dwelling Houses

Folder No:                   F2007/00569

Author:                   Asanthika Kappagoda, Senior Strategic Planner     

 

Introduction

 

This report details a planning proposal to amend the definitions of ‘dwelling house’ and ‘attached dual occupancy’ under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP), to provide that  semi-detached dwellings (where each attached dwelling is on a separate lot) falls within the definition of ‘dwelling house’.

 

The planning proposal has been prepared in response to legal advice that under the RLEP, semi-detached dwellings fall within the definition of attached dual occupancy development in the 2A Zone.  This legal interpretation is contrary to the RLEP intentions which never intended for development standards for dual occupancy development to apply to semi-detached dwellings.

 

The majority of semi-detached dwellings which are located on their own Torrens Title lots were built in early to mid 20th Century. These dwellings are generally located on small allotments and many of them already exceed the FSR standard for attached dual occupancy in RLEP which was introduced in 1998.

 

Under State Government requirements any SEPP 1 variations over 10% require the Council’s determination. This in turn has resulted in a number of unnecessary delays in the processing of semi-detached housing development applications, as these have to be reported to the Council.

 

The proposed amendments to the definitions will result in greater clarity as to what constitutes a semi detached dwelling. 

 

Existing definitions

The Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) does not contain a specific definition for semi-detached dwellings.

 

The terms ‘dwelling house’ and ‘dual occupancy’ are presently defined in Clause 49 of RLEP as follows:

 

dwelling house means a building containing one (but not more than one) dwelling’

 

‘attached dual occupancy’ means a building containing two (but not more than two) dwellings”

 

Legal advice

Given the ambiguity with respect to how semi-detached dwellings are defined, the Council received legal advice in 2010 which confirmed that semi-detached dwelling houses in the Residential 2A Zone falls within the classification of attached dual occupancy in accordance with the aforementioned definitions.

 

This advice relies on the fact that ‘semis’ tend to be constructed with a common dividing wall between two dwellings and as such are not structurally independent of each other.  Furthermore the lack of reference to ‘allotment’ in the land use definitions means that the fact that two dwellings are constructed within the one building is determinant in the classification of semi-detached housing as attached dual occupancy development. 

 

The legal advice is based on a Court of Appeal decision by Justice Tobias that remains the relevant authority with respect to Calleja vs Botany Bay City Council (2005).

 

SEPP 1 Objections

The aforementioned legal interpretation is contrary to the intent of the RLEP in that development standards pertaining to dual occupancy development were never intended to apply to semi-detached housing. The FSR standard of 0.5:1 for attached dual occupancy development under RLEP is far more restrictive than the performance based FSR control relating to dwelling houses in the Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancy DCP.

 

Further, most ‘semis’ are on small Torrens title allotments constructed prior to the second World War, and already exceed the FSR standard in the RLEP for dual occupancy. The FSR exceedence for such dwellings is often well over 10% in their existing form, which has resulted in the requirement for SEPP 1 objections to be lodged for a large number of DAs which are often for very minor changes to these dwellings, and at an additional cost to the community.

 

The new classification has resulted in increased processing delays for applications that would otherwise be relatively straight forward. The Department of Planning Circular on the use of SEPP 1 requires that applications relying on development standard variations of over 10% are to be determined at a Council meeting. The new classification of semi-detached housing has therefore resulted in a marked increase of applications dealt by the Council given that up to 95% of these applications have a variation greater than 10%.

 

Departmental Advice

In recognition of this issue the Council wrote to the Department of Planning (DoP) in December 2010 requesting an exemption from the directive in the Circular on SEPP 1 so that applications for alterations and additions to semi-detached housing in Randwick City are not required to be reported to the Council for determination. A response is yet to be received.

 

The DoP had previously informally advised that the preparation of an amendment to RLEP would be suitable given the aforementioned issues relating to increased reporting on semi-detached dwelling applications and the fact that the new Comprehensive LEP is likely to take at least 12 months and up to two years to complete including gazettal.

 

Standard Instrument

The Standard LEP Instrument introduces standardised definitions for all Councils in NSW to incorporate into their new Comprehensive LEPs. 

 

While the Standard Instrument’s definitions for semi-detached dwellings and other residential development provides greater clarity about this form of land use, it is not recommended that this definition be included in the RLEP at this time as it is unclear about what the impacts it would have on the operation of the RLEP in particular impacts on other land zones, definitions and planning controls.

 

The Strategic Planning Department are currently undergoing a review of the planning framework for Randwick City which will result in a Comprehensive LEP and DCP.  As part of this process land use permissibility and implications of specific land uses will be considered for each zone including semi-detached dwellings.  It is considered appropriate that consideration of semi-detached and all other dwellings be undertaken at that time such that all residential land uses are reviewed in a comprehensive approach.

 

Proposed definitions

In consideration of the aforementioned issues and to ensure that semi-detached dwellings falls within the definition of a ‘dwelling house’, the Council sought legal advice which highlighted that both the dwelling house and attached dual occupancy definitions in RLEP would need to be amended to change the focus from the ‘building’ in which the dwelling is contained to ‘allotment’.

 

Accordingly the following amendments to the definitions are proposed:

 

“dwelling house means a dwelling which is the only dwelling erected on an allotment of land (not being an individual lot in a strata plan) and which may or may not be attached to another dwelling on the immediately adjoining allotment by a common wall on the common boundary of the allotments”

 

“attached dual occupancy means a building containing two (but not more than two) dwellings erected on the same allotment of land (not being an individual lot in a strata plan)”

 

It is recommended that the attached planning proposal which incorporates the aforementioned definition amendments be forwarded to the DoP for Gateway determination (to determine if the Council can proceed).  This would create greater clarity in the development and planning process and furthermore is likely to result in a reduction in processing time for certain semi-detached housing alterations and additions applications.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

Direction 6d:      A strategic land use framework that provides for our lifestyle changes or a continuing yet low rate of growth across our City.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed amendments to the definitions for dwelling house and attached dual occupancy, will result in greater clarity in RLEP and address its intentions as to what constitutes a semi-detached dwelling and the relevant applicable standards.  This is also likely to result in a considerable reduction in SEPP1 objections and time saving in the application and reporting process.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the process to prepare a local environmental plan as an amendment to the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) to amend the definitions of ‘dwelling house’ and ‘attached dual occupancy’ in accordance with s.54 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act), be commenced;

 

b)     the Planning Proposal (attachment 1) in accordance with s.55 of the Act be adopted; and

 

c)     the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Minister of Planning requesting a Gateway determination in accordance with s.56 of the Act.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Planning Proposal

 

 

 

 


Planning Proposal

Attachment 1

 

 

 

 

PLANNING PROPOSAL

 

 

Proposed amendment to Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 Consolidation:

Clarifying the definition of ‘dwelling house’ and ‘attached dual occupancy’

 

 

22 February 2011

 

 


Planning Proposal

Attachment 1

 

 

Contacts

 

Karen Armstrong

Manager – Strategic Planning

Karen.armstrong@randwick.nsw.gov.au

9399 0895

 

Asanthika Kappagoda

Senior Strategic Planner

asanthika.kappagoda@randwick.nsw.gov.au

9399 0849

 

c/o

The General Manager

Randwick City Council

30 Frances Street

Randwick  NSW  2031

 

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Proposal

Attachment 1

 

 

Introduction

 

This planning proposal has been prepared in response to legal advice that under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP), semi-detached dwellings fall within the definition of attached dual occupancy development.  This legal interpretation is contrary to the RLEP intentions which never intended for development standards for dual occupancy development to apply to semi-detached dwellings.

 

The majority of semi-detached dwellings in Randwick City which are located on their own Torrens Title lots were built in early to mid 20th Century. These dwellings are generally located on small allotments and many of them already exceed the FSR standard for attached dual occupancy in RLEP which was introduced in 1998.

 

Under State Government requirements any SEPP 1 variations over 10% require the Council’s determination and cannot be determined under delegations. This in turn has resulted in a number of unnecessary delays in the processing of semi-detached housing development applications, and additional costs to applicants as these have to be reported to the Council.

 

It is acknowledged that the Standard LEP Instrument’s standardised definitions for semi-detached dwellings and other residential development provides greater clarity about this form of land use. However the inclusion of the standardised definition for semi-detached dwellings may not be suitable in the RLEP as it is unclear about the potential impacts of such on the operation of the RLEP, in particular impacts on other land zones, definitions and planning controls. The comprehensive suite of Standard Instrument residential definitions are currently being reviewed for inclusion in the Comprehensive LEP; (preparation is underway but is at least 24 months from implementation).

 

The proposed amendments to the definitions of RLEP will result in greater clarity as to what constitutes a semi detached dwelling. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Proposal

 

Part 1 – Objectives/ Intended Outcomes

 

To amend the definitions of ‘dwelling house’ and ‘attached dual occupancy’ in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 (Consolidation), to provide that semi-detached dwellings (where each attached dwelling is on a separate lot) falls within the definition of ‘dwelling house’. 

 

Part 2 – Explanation of Provisions

 

 Part 5 of the Randwick LEP 1998 contains the following definitions for ‘dwelling house’ and ‘attached dual occupancy’:

 

dwelling house means a building containing one (but not more than one) dwelling’

 

‘attached dual occupancy means a building containing two (but not more than two) dwellings”

 

This planning proposal seeks to amend the definitions of ‘dwelling house’ and ‘attached dual occupancy’ to:

 

“dwelling house means a dwelling which is the only dwelling erected on an allotment of land (not being an individual lot in a strata plan) and which may or may not be attached to another dwelling on the immediately adjoining allotment by a common wall on the common boundary of the allotments”

 

“attached dual occupancy means a building containing two (but not more than two) dwellings erected on the same allotment of land (not being an individual lot in a strata plan)”

 

This will clarify that semi-detached dwelling (where each attached dwelling is on a separate lot) falls within the ‘dwelling house’ definition. The proposed wording reflects legal advice the Council obtained on this matter.

 

 

Part 3 – Justification

 

A1. Is the planning proposal the result of any strategic study or report?

 

There has not been a formal planning study prepared in relation to this proposal.

 

A2. Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?

 

As the existing definitions for dwelling house and attached dual occupancy are contained within the Randwick LEP 1998, an amendment to the LEP is the only option available. Changes to the definition cannot be achieved via a DCP, guidelines or conditions of consent.

 

The Council has sought the Department’s consideration of varying its SEPP 1 delegations for reporting to the Council as a potentially alternative approach. 

 

 

A3. Is there a net community benefit?

 

This proposal does not involve a rezoning and therefore the Net Community Benefit Test is not applicable.

 

B1. Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy (including the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and exhibited draft strategies)?

 

The planning proposal is consistent with the vision, land use strategy, policies, outcomes or actions of the Metropolitan Strategy or the draft East Subregional Strategy.

 

B2. Is the planning proposal consistent with the local council’s Community Strategic Plan, or other local strategic plan?

 

The Randwick City Plan (adopted in 2006 and updated in 2010) establishes a strategic framework for the next 20 years. This planning proposal is consistent with the vision ‘’a sense of community’ and the relevant key outcomes, being:

 

Outcome 4:   Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4b: Develop and implement effective processes and strategies to manage   the impact of new and existing development.

 

B3. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable state environmental planning policies?

 

This planning proposal is consistent with all applicable state environmental planning policies. Refer to Appendix 1.

 

B4. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s.117 directions)?

 

This planning proposal is consistent with all applicable s.117 directions. Refer to Appendix 2. The relevant directions are:

 

Direction 3.1 Residential Zones

As this planning proposal is a minor technical amendment to the definitions it  will not impact on the variety and design of housing, use of existing infrastructure and services or reduce the consumption of land for housing.

 

Direction 7.1 Implementation of the Metropolitan Strategy

The planning proposal is consistent with the vision, land use strategy, policies, outcomes or actions of the Metropolitan Strategy or the draft East Subregional Strategy.

 

 

 

 

 

C1. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal?

 

Amending the definitions for ‘dwelling house’ and ‘attached dual occupancy’ has no impact on any ecological community.

 

C2. Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?

 

Amending the definitions for ‘dwelling house’ and ‘attached dual occupancy’ has no other environmental impact.

 

C3. How has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?

 

Amending the definitions for ‘dwelling house’ and ‘attached dual occupancy’ will have positive economic effects in that it is likely to reduce delays caused by unnecessary application of SEPP 1.  It will also have positive social effects as it will reduce public confusion on the increase in DA’s for semis being reported to the Council.

 

D1. Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?

 

The proposal has no impact on public infrastructure.

 

D2. What are the views of State and Commonwealth Public Authorities consulted in accordance with the gateway determination, and have they resulted in any variations to the planning proposal?

 

Given the nature of this planning proposal, it is not intended that any other State or Commonwealth agency will be directly consulted.

 

Part 4 – Community Consultation

 

Council proposes that the planning proposal will be exhibited in accordance with the requirements of section 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and/ or any other requirements as determined by the Gateway process under section 56 of the EP&A Act.

 

This is considered a ‘low impact planning proposal’ requiring an exhibition period of 14 days. Public notification of the exhibition will include a notice in the local newspaper and a notice on Council’s website.

 

Given the minor nature of the planning proposal, it is not intended to directly notify any business, land owner or other State or Commonwealth agency. 

 

During the exhibition period, the planning proposal, gateway determination and other relevant documentation will be available on Council’s website and hard copies will be available at Council’s Administration Building and libraries.

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1: State Environmental Planning Policies

                    (at 1 February 2011)

 

Policy

Comment

SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

N/A

SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

N/A

SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

N/A

SEPP (Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment) 2007

N/A

SEPP (Major Development) 2005

N/A

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

N/A

SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

N/A

SEPP No. 71 - Coastal Protection

N/A

SEPP No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

N/A

SEPP No. 64 - Advertising and Signage

N/A

SEPP No. 55 - Remediation of Land

N/A

SEPP No.32 - Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land)

N/A

SEPP No.19 - Bushland in Urban Areas

N/A

SEPP No.33 - Hazardous and Offensive Development

N/A

SEPP No.4 - Development Without Consent (Clause 5B)

N/A

SEPP No.1 - Development Standards

Consistent

Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment Area)

N/A


Appendix 2: Section 117 (2) Directions (at February 2011)

 

Direction

Comment

1.    Employment and Resources

 

1.1    Business and Industrial Zones

N/A

1.2    Rural Zones

N/A

1.3    Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries

N/A

1.4    Oyster Aquaculture

N/A

1.5    Rural Lands

N/A

2.    Environment and Heritage

 

2.1    Environment Protection Zones

N/A

2.2    Coastal Protection

N/A

2.3    Heritage Conservation

N/A

2.4    Recreation Vehicle Areas

N/A

3.    Housing, Infrastructure and Urban Development

 

3.1    Residential Zones

Consistent

3.2    Caravan Parks and Manufactured Home Estates

N/A

3.3    Home Occupations

N/A

3.4    Integrating Land Use and Transport

N/A

3.5    Development Near Licensed Aerodromes

N/A

4.    Hazard and Risk

 

4.1    Acid Sulfate Soils

N/A

4.2    Mine Subsidence and Unstable Land

N/A

4.3    Flood Prone Land

N/A

4.4    Planning for Bushfire Protection

N/A

5.    Regional Planning - Not applicable to the Randwick City LGA

 

6.    Local Plan Making

 

6.1    Approval and Referral Requirements

N/A

6.2    Reserving Land for Public Purposes

N/A

6.3    Site Specific Provisions

N/A

7.    Metropolitan Planning

 

7.1    Implementation of the Metropolitan Strategy

Consistent

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                               22 February 2011

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM1/11

 

 

Subject:                  Review of the 2009-13 Management Plan - December 2010 Quarterly Report

Folder No:                   F2009/00516

Author:                   Anne Warner, Manager Corporate Performance     

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this Report is to update Councillors and the community on the implementation of the 2009-13 Management Plan.

 

Issues

 

This is the December 2010 Quarterly Review of the 2009-13 Management Plan.

 

The December Quarterly Report is presented in two parts. The first outlines some of the highlights for the Quarter, while the second provides comments for each of the 2010-11 Management Plan actions. The highlights section for this quarter also contains some of the relevant information gained from the Community Satisfaction Survey undertaken in 2010, as per the City Plan themes.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1a:      Council has a long term vision based on sustainability.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of the December Quarterly Report is to inform and update Council and the community on the progress of all actions as set out in the adopted Management Plan 2009-13. In addition, given that the Management Plan is based on the 20 year Randwick City Plan and that Council’s reporting format is based on outcomes rather than organisational structure, the December Quarterly Report also provides a level of accountability against our long term vision for the City of Randwick.

 

Recommendation

 

That the information contained in the December 2010 Quarterly review of the 2009-13 Management Plan be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Highlights of the RCC Quarterly Report December 2010

 

2.

RCC December 2010 Quarterly Report

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

  


Highlights of the RCC Quarterly Report December 2010

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Highlights of the Randwick City Council

Quarterly Report December 2010

 

The following highlights are outlined as per the themes and respective outcomes of the 20 year Randwick City Plan.


Highlights of the RCC Quarterly Report December 2010

Attachment 1

 

 

RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT

» Leadership in Sustainability

-   Information services: Our major business systems have now been migrated and are being managed in‑house. These include the document management system, the Land Information System, Financials, HR/Payroll, Time & Attendance, Works & Assets, Library Management, Record Keeping and GIS systems. The new application has improved performance and reduced operating costs for the Council. Other essential Council business applications were moved from an expensive managed service to in-house computers, saving money and increasing Information Services' responsiveness to internal and external customers.

-   Customer service requests: A total of 9,038 service requests were received, with 90.5% (8,179) completed within agreed timeframes.

-   Investments: Returns on investments have stabilised following the market fluctuations associated with the global economic crisis over the previous 2‑3 years. Improved returns following increases in official cash interest rates

-   GIS and mapping services: 13 cartographic maps have been produced, including open space zoning maps and the Coastal Walkway. Two new map layers were created, including treatment zones for the Woomera Creek restoration project. Six map layers were updated, including bus shelters and road restorations.

-   The 2010 Community Satisfaction Survey[2] showed that:

o   Overall satisfaction with the Council has risen steadily since 2006 (mean rating[3] 3.7 in 2010, 3.64 in 2008, 3.62 in 2006).

o   Performance gaps[4] for every measure were lower in 2010 than they were in 2006, many by a significant margin.

A SENSE OF COMMUNITY

» A vibrant and diverse community

» An informed and engaged community

-   Children and families:

o   Over 1000 parenting calendars have been distributed.

o   Occupancy remains at 100% at Moverly Children’s centre.

-   Community events:

o   160 carers and people with a disability attended the Enchanted Evening Ball at the Prince Henry Centre.

o   Over 300 people attended the Community Open Day at the Prince Henry Nursing and Medical Museum.

o   Over 100 older people and their carers attended the Playreading "Shafana and Aunt Sarrinah."

o   Playwriting and Performance Workshop held at maximum capacity.

o   Therapeutic Gardening workshop held at maximum capacity.

o   Seniors Christmas Party held at the AJC.

-   Community services:

o   Art workshops held with a local Aboriginal artist working with young people to produce designs for RTA boxes. Designs submitted to RTA for approval.

o   Planning completed for a program of workshops including art/hip hop activities for young people.

o   Funding recently secured for peer mentoring program with the Shack Youth services, commencing early 2011.

o   Domestic Violence Information session successfully held.

o   Successfully completed bus shelter posters, bookmark and postcards project as part of the Anti‑Violence community campaign. Assisted in planning and implementation of White Ribbon (anti-violence) community event.

o   Council staff in conjunction with the Eastern Sydney Multicultural Access Project (ESMAP) held seven Healthy Living Workshops for older people from a multicultural background. Over 500 people attended the series of workshops which focused on major health issues affecting older people.

o   An Information Day for Chinese Speakers was successfully held at the Bowen Library to assist local residents from a Chinese background become aware of and understand the range of community services. 18 service providers provided information about their services. The event included a presentation by the Eastern Suburbs Business Enterprise Centre on establishing a small business. Around 60 people attended.

-   Access: Additional accessible parking spaces approved for installation between Arthur Lane and Belmore Rd, and at Vicar Street, Coogee.

-   Cultural projects:

o   Several meaningful cultural partnerships have been brokered including Randwick Art Society, Sydney Improvisational Music Association and The Way We Wear ‑ recycled fashion.

-   Internal and external communications:

o   15 communications plans and approx. 100 communications products produced. At least 19 media releases were issued and 35 speeches /MC notes prepared for the Mayor and/or Councillors. Around 20 events/initiatives photographed for publicity purposes.

o   195 publications or communications products and 39 advertisements from throughout the Council reviewed and edited for public release.

-   Community engagement:

o   Consultation framework developed for the seven years of the Buildings for our Community program.

o   Reactivated the Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre Urban Renewal Working Group.

o   Worked with the other IAP2 award winners in developing a showcase on best practice community consultations, using the Buildings for our Community consultations.

o   Exhibition period for Prince Henry Centre draft Plan of Management commenced November 2010 with a public hearing. A report by an independent facilitator and a briefing to La Perouse precinct meeting were included in the exhibition period.

-   The 2010 Community Satisfaction Survey showed that:

o   Residents’ rating for their quality of life in Randwick City has remained high at 4.32.

o   The response to the statement ‘Randwick Council area is a good place to live’ remains high at 4.42.

o   The response to the statement ‘I feel a part of my local community’ remains steady at 3.92.

o   Nineteen per cent of respondents participate in some form of volunteer work. Of these, sixty per cent volunteer at a local school or college, with a sporting organisation or with a church / religious organisation / charity.

o   Analysis of the response on community centres and halls showed that the community’s satisfaction with these facilities exceeds its expectations (performance gap3 of -0.37).

o   Satisfaction with festivals and events in the Randwick City area also exceeds expectations (performance gap3 of -0.25).

o   More people are using the Randwick Council website, with 41% of the respondents having used it in the last 12 months, compared to 40% in 2008 and 26% in 2006.Considerably more women than men used the website in 2010 (45% of women and 36% of men) and women had higher satisfaction with the website (3.92 mean rating2) than men (3.82).

o   Satisfaction with the Council’s provision of information on community services rose to a mean rating2 of 3.51, from 3.25 in 2006 and 3.48 in 2008.

PLACES FOR PEOPLE

» Excellence in urban design and development

» Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities

» A liveable City

» Heritage that is protected and celebrated

-   Urban Design Awards: Successful 2010 Urban Design awards event held, with a high quality of entries and awards. The winners, highly commended and people's choice winner can be viewed on our website.

-   Building development:

o   92.80% of DAs determined under 60 days (net time)

o   In the financial year to date 112 construction certificates and 65 complying development certificates assessed and determined, in a median period of 19 and 12 days respectively.

-   Health, Building & Regulatory Services: Investigated and acted upon 507 Customer Action Requests in a median period of 4 days. Implemented a review of HBRS department, including the expansion of functions to include Ranger Services.

-   Coastal walkway: Concept development of Coastal walkway underway for Randwick, Coast and St Michaels golf courses. Preliminary concept design has been submitted for the walkway through Randwick Golf Course.

-   Malabar headland:

o   Coastal walkway route options have been assessed and preferred option is being detailed for consultation.

o   Council continuing to work with the Federal govt as land owner on site management issues and also on community access/recreation potential via a western walking track, with research continuing on preferred routes.

-   DRAC:

o   Attendance numbers at DRAC 6% higher than the same period last year.

o   Learn to Swim and all programs continue to show growth.

o   Pool water quality has been maintained to better than Health Department recommendations at all times.

-   Parks and sports fields:

o   Heffron Park fields 53 and 54 were fully renovated with a new turf grass surface.

o   Bangor Park Concept design has been developed and 2 phases of consultation completed.

o   Detailed design for Chifley Sport Reserve has commenced. Design consultants have submitted the 50% completion drawings for Council review.

-   Library events:

o   Lionel Bowen Young Writers Awards ‑ over 450 entries were received from 43 local schools. Partnered with the UNSW, NIDA and Juvenilia Press. A successful awards ceremony attended by over 150 people was held at UNSW.

o   Legacies for a Better World: Seniors on Sustainability ‑ 22 seniors completed the five-week writing program. Their prose and photographs were published in a book, launched in November.

o   Offered the first public library intergenerational poetry workshop with poet Libby Hathorn to celebrate National Poetry Week.

o   The Big Bang Science Club for 8 to 12 year olds was launched.

o   Successful Overdrive digital library competition in association with the Southern Courier.

-   Maintenance of public infrastructure:

o   Completion of Anzac Pde paving works and projects under footpath defects.

o   All maintenance of parks including grass cutting, weed spraying, litter cleaning and playground maintenance has been undertaken in accordance with maintenance schedules. The streetscape maintenance program is being reviewed with the expansion of the streetscape gang.

o   Refurbishment of staff amenities and toilet/disabled toilet facilities at Council's nursery.

o   Road program implementation is progressing ahead of schedule.

o   The majority of the projects within the footpath program have been completed.

o   All programmed maintenance for public place cleaning has been met. Extra manual street sweeping service will commence in the new year for a period of six weeks to address the problem areas.

 

-   Public health and safety:

o   In the year to date, Council has received and completed 12 applications for CCTV footage required by Police for the investigation of criminal incidents. Council officers have assessed and provided comments in relation to 37 Liquor Licence Application (year to date) made to the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority.

o   The Council is implementing a comprehensive food safety program, including regular training workshops, and is also participating in the pilot program "Scores‑on‑the Doors" in conjunction with the NSW Food Authority.

o   In the year to date, a total of 646 animal type Customer Action Requests have been investigated with 93% actioned within agreed timeframes.

-   Comprehensive LEP/DCP: The Special Uses, Industrial Uses and Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre Discussion Papers have been completed. The Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre Discussion Paper is currently on exhibition. A community update was prepared for the 2011 community newsletter and rates notices.

-   Heritage projects:

o   Library staff  held two family history training seminars in November and December 2010, showing members of the public how to use the library's Ancestry.com family history database, supplied by Proquest. The planning for the heritage festival program for April 2011 has been finalised.

o   Restructuring of the website configuration for local history content is underway. The uploading of content will be an ongoing project.

-   The 2010 Community Satisfaction Survey showed that:

o   Levels of satisfaction continue to rise (since 2006) for beaches, playgrounds and parks, and ovals and sporting facilities (mean ratings2 of 4.21, 3.88 and 3.69 respectively).

o   The three measures with the highest satisfaction ratings are beaches (4.21), Council libraries (4.13) and coastal open spaces and walkways (4.06).

o   The overall level of satisfaction with all recreation and sporting facilities continues to exceed the community’s expectations (performance gap3 of -0.14).

o   Satisfaction with Des Renford Aquatic Centre (DRAC) has returned to 2006 levels, after a dip in satisfaction in 2008. Satisfaction is now at 3.73 (mean rating2).

o   Levels of satisfaction with the coastal open spaces and walkway are high, with a mean rating of 4.062. Their importance to the community is very high, at 4.21.

o   The level of satisfaction with the Council’s libraries, already high, continues to rise (mean rating2 of 4.13; performance gap3 of -0.34).

o   Overall satisfaction with the cleanliness of the City remains steady, with continuing improvements in satisfaction since 2006 with street cleaning  and public litter bins (2006: mean ratings2 of 3.2 and 2.97 respectively; in 2010: 3.51 and 3.28).

o   Perceptions of community safety have improved markedly since 2006. In the latest survey the mean rating2 for satisfaction with community safety was 3.51, whereas it was 3.2 in 2006 and 3.32 in 2008. In the question on priority issues for the next three years, the 2010 survey showed only 6% of respondents rated ‘community safety’ as an issue, whereas 15.9% of respondents rated ‘Safety, security and anti-social behaviour’ as a top priority in 2008. However, community safety remains very important, with a mean rating2 of 4.42.

o   Satisfaction with the maintenance of footpaths continues to rise, from mean ratings2 of 2.6 in 2006, to 2.95 in 2008 and 3.02 in 2010.

o   Satisfaction with the protection of heritage buildings and items has increased since 2006, with the performance gap3 dropping from 0.61 in 2006 to 0.51 in 2008 and 0.44 in 2010.

o   Long term planning for the City remains very important, with a mean rating2 of 4.35, rising slightly from the 2006 level of 4.28.

o   More than half (53%) of the respondents were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with the Council’s rangers. Only 13% were ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’. This is an improvement on the 2008 findings (47.7% ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ and 13.9% ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’).

o   Satisfaction with the Home Modification and Maintenance Service (HMMS) has increased since 2006, with the performance gap3 dropping from 0.28 in 2006 to -0.18 in 2008 and -0.26 in 2010.

A PROSPERING CITY

» A strong local economy

-   Town centre upgrades: The Stage 1 Randwick Town Centre upgrade works have been completed.

-   Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre: Public exhibition of the University‑Hospital Precinct Discussion Paper has been underway since 3 October 2010, and will run until 31 March 2011. A diverse number of notification and consultation activities have been undertaken, including website information, mail‑out, advertising in the local paper, a walking tour, on‑line discussion forum, briefings to interest groups and stakeholders, and public information sessions. Feedback is being collated and recorded, for detailed review at the completion of the exhibition period.

-   The 2010 Community Satisfaction Survey showed that:

o   Nearly half (46%) of all respondents are shopping more in their local area than they were 12 months ago.

o   Preference for shopping locally remains high, at 4.17 (mean rating2).

o   Satisfaction with the attractiveness and vitality of town centres continues to improve, with the performance gap3 dropping from 0.99 in 2006 to 0.86 in 2008 and 0.77 in 2010.

MOVING AROUND

» Integrated and accessible transport

-   Sustainable transport:

o   Over 2,000 brochures and information packages promoting local community transport were distributed to participants at the Seniors Christmas Concerts, Coogee Family Fun Day and the Positive Ageing Forum.

o   Information session conducted for Council staff interested in sustainability transport incentives with Finance process approved for roll out of cycling, walking and public transport incentives. Approximately 10% of staff registered and involved.

-   Parking:

o   In the year to date, 1560 parking related Customer Action Requests were investigated, with 98% actioned within agreed timeframes.

o   North Randwick, Coogee Extension and Cook Street Resident Parking Schemes have been completed.

-   The 2010 Community Satisfaction Survey showed that:

o   Satisfaction with the construction of cycleways has improved dramatically, with performance gaps3 dropping from 1.20 in 2006, to 1.04 in 2008 and 0.43 in 2010.

LOOKING AFTER OUR ENVIRONMENT

» A healthy environment

-   Environmental sustainability:

o   Sustainable Living course (approx 6 weeks) provided free for local residents.

o   Sustainability retrofit progressing well both inside and outside Randwick Community Centre. Major launches held for permaculture / native gardens and waterwise community education trail.

o   Waverley and Woollahra Councils have commenced utilising Barrett House for information sessions in keeping with the aims of the 3 Council Ecological Footprint project.

-   Flood studies:

o   The Floodplain Risk Management Committees have been established.

o   The Flood Study model has been developed. Calibration of the model has commenced.

-   Biodiversity:

o   Commencement of bush regeneration of bushland within the Randwick Environmental Park.

o   Enhancement of East Coast Banksia bushland undertaken through: propagation and growing on of endemic species through Council's nursery for planting in bushland areas; encouragement of bush regeneration volunteers; promotion through leaflets and school workshops.

o   Majority of requests from community are for the eradication of Asthma Weed both on private and public property. Eradication of this weed is ongoing. Weed eradication of noxious weeds in the Randwick Environmental Park bushland areas has commenced removing in particular lantana and bitou bush.

o   Bush tucker project at Sydney Boys High School completed as part of the Native Havens program. Support of native plantings etc provided for other local schools including Coogee Public School and Maroubra Bay Primary School.

-   Waste collection and minimisation:

o   Over 520,000 garbage and over 260,000 recycling bins collected. Randwick's garbage and recycling collection performance against industry standards continues to be extremely high.

o   Preliminary options drafted for development and implementation of Alternative Waste Technology to achieve 66% landfill diversion.

o   Composting projects continuing to support residential behavioural changes.

o   Contamination management plan developed and implemented, aiming at reducing contamination in dry recycling and green waste bins to give higher resource recovery.

-   Water management:

o   Coogee stormwater harvesting system project stage 2 started.

o   Project started to extend the recycled water pipe from Coogee Plaza to irrigate Grant Reserve.

o   5‑star rating by Sydney Water in externally conducted audit recognising our water savings and stormwater re‑use projects.

o   Conducted a day long workshop for external Council staff to visit and learn about Council's water saving efforts as part of Water Week.

o   Annual savings of approx 350 million litres of water are being achieved by the Council.

o   Business water audit program continues to achieve major water savings for small to medium businesses across three council areas as part of our 3 Council Ecological Footprint project.

-   Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions:

o   LGETS (Local Government Emissions Trading Scheme): Draft resolution and communications material drafted for use by participating councils following third quarterly update of data on the participating councils’ emissions.

o   Ongoing wide take up of solar panel installation by householders.

-   The 2010 Community Satisfaction Survey showed that:

o   Levels of satisfaction with the Council’s environmental awareness and education programs have improved, with the performance gap3 dropping from 0.88 in 2008 to 0.58 in 2010.

o   Satisfaction with the protection of natural bushland has increased since 2006, with the performance gap3 dropping from 0.94 in 2006 to 0.8 in 2008 and 0.53 in 2010.

o   Satisfaction with the Council’s tree preservation measures has also increased since 2006, with the performance gap3 dropping from 0.93 in 2006 to 0.64 in 2008 and 0.33 in 2010.

o   For the first time the survey sought residents’ responses to the Council’s water and energy saving measures. The overall mean rating2 on ‘importance’ was very high, at 4.29, with every age group rating ‘importance’ well over 4 (45-54 years age group rating it the highest at 4.38). Fifty-two per cent of respondents rated these measures as ‘very important’, and a further thirty-one per cent as ‘important’.


Ordinary Council                                                                                               22 February 2011

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM2/11

 

 

Subject:                  Audit Committee 2010 Self Evaluation

Folder No:                   F2011/00010

Author:                   Vanessa Creighton, Coordinator, Audit and Business Planning     

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this Report is to update Councillors on the performance of the Audit Committee for the year 2010.

 

Issues

 

Randwick City Council established an Audit Committee in 2009. The membership of the Internal Audit committee consists of:

 

·      The Mayor of Randwick City Council;

·      One external appointment with extensive high level local government experience but no longer working in the industry, such as a former General Manager (Mr David Mead);

·      One external appointment with qualifications and extensive experience in the Auditing industry (Mr Carl Millington);

·      One external appointment with qualifications and extensive experience in the legal industry, with particular experience in local government law (Mr Jeremy Bingham);

·      The General Manager, with observer status only.

·      Council’s Internal Auditor, attends all meetings.

 

The first meeting of the committee was held on 17 June 2009 with the Chair of the Committee agreed as Mr Jeremy Bingham. Cr Bruce Notley-Smith, Cr John Procopiadis, Cr Margaret Woodsmith, Cr Robert Belleli and the current Mayor Cr Murray Matson have served as members.

 

The Committee meets on a quarterly basis, with the ability to convene extra meetings in the event that a significant issue suddenly arises or if requested to do so by the Council or General Manager.

 

As required by the Audit Committee Charter, a review of the performance of the Audit Committee was undertaken by the General Manager and as a self-assessment by the committee itself. The questionnaire was based on the Australian National Audit Office's sample self assessment and was submitted for discussion at the Audit Committee meeting held on 15 September 2010.     

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction:  1c Continuous improvement in service delivery based on accountability, transparency and good governance.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of the Audit Committee self assessment is to provide a level of accountability against the Randwick City Council Audit Committee Charter. The self review concluded that the information provided by the organisation was adequate and as such the committee was effectively performing its function.  The performance review and minutes from 2010 inform and update Council on the progress of the committee.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the self assessment and minutes of the Audit Committee Meetings for 2010 be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Audit Committee Self Assessment questionnaire and General Manager Summary Report

 

2.View

Minutes - Internal Audit Committee Minutes - Meeting No. 01.10 - 15 March 2010

 

3.View

Minutes - Internal Audit Committee Minutes - Meeting No. 02/2010 - 16 June 2010 - Minutes

 

4.View

Minutes - Internal Audit Committee Meeting - 15 September 2010

 

 

 

 


Audit Committee Self Assessment questionnaire and General Manager Summary Report

Attachment 1

 

 

Randwick City Council Audit Committee Self-assessment questionnaire and General Manager Assessment summary

 

The performance of the Audit Committee was undertaken by the General Manager and as a self-assessment by the committee itself. The questionnaire was based on the ANAO's sample self assessment and was submitted for discussion at the Audit Committee meeting held on 15 September 2010.      

       

Audit committee charter  

All agreed that the charter articulates the committee’s roles and responsibilities and provide the committee with the necessary authority to fulfil them, facilitates and supports the effective operation of the committee and ensure sufficient independence from the Management of Council.    

The General Manager strongly agreed that the Committee had adequately addressed all of its responsibilities detailed in the charter in the past 12 months and agreed that the charter ensured that the committee was sufficiently independent from the management of council.      

 

Skills and experience        

All agreed or strongly agreed that the skills mix, access to information and attitude of the committee ensures the committee effectively performs its assigned responsibilities and that the Committee had been able to analyse and critically evaluate information presented to it by management including significant risks and or control breakdowns that had been brought to its attention     

One disagreed that there was a clear process that committee members can follow to access advice and/or training to improve their skills and knowledge, all others agreed.      

The General Manager strongly agreed that the mix of skills on the Committee allows it to effectively perform its assigned responsibilities and that the committee had been sufficiently probing and challenging in its deliberations.    

Understanding the Council        

All agreed or strongly agreed that the committee has sufficient understanding and appreciation of the Council’s Risk management framework, control framework, financial and statutory reporting and legislative compliance arrangements; and received appropriate briefings on the environment that Council operates.      

 

Meeting administration and conduct

All agreed or strongly agreed that meeting administration and conduct of meetings including timing, frequency, agenda structure, timeliness of information and running of the meetings allowed the committee to properly discharge its duties    

Internal Audit   

All agreed that the committee appropriately reviewed and approved the internal audit program including any changes, monitored audit resources and the performance of the internal audit function, and considered internal audit reports and issues identified.      

 

External Audit  

All agreed that the committee reviewed external audit reports and management letters and consider management responses to findings and recommendations


Minutes - Internal Audit Committee Minutes - Meeting No. 01.10 - 15 March 2010

Attachment 2

 

 

 

Internal Audit Committee

Monday, 15 March 2010                                    Meeting No. 01.10

 

 

PRESENT

 

Mr Jeremy Bingham                                     Chair

Mr David Mead

Mr Carl Millington                                                                    

Ray Brownlee                                               General Manager

Cr John Procopiadis                                       Mayor

Vanessa Creighton                                        Internal Auditor

Nadia Magistrale                                           Minute Secretary

 

APOLOGIES

                                                                                     

Nil

                                                                                                         

GUESTS

 

Nil

 

Resolution No:    01/10

 

1.Confirmation of the minutes from Internal Audit Committee held on 30 November 2009.

 

Resolved:     The Committee resolved to approve the minutes from the meeting of 30 November 2009.

 

Action:    Chair to approve minutes

 

 

1a. Matters Arising    Nil

 

Resolution No:    02/10

 

3.    Statewide Mutual Scheme                                       

 

Further to Resolution No. 15/09, the Acting Director Governance and Financial Services provided clarification regarding the purpose of the Statewide Mutual “Property Fund”.

 

Resolved:     that the report be received and noted.

 

Action:    Noted

 

Resolution No:    03/10

 

4.    Investment Report – December 2009

 

Committee members were also provided with a copy of the Investment Report for January 2010.  The committee discussed the reports in length and a number of suggestions were made for future reports.

 

 

 

Resolved:                                                                  

 

(a)                         that the Investment Reports for December 2009 and January 2010 be received and noted.

 

Action:    Noted

 

(b)                         that an additional graph showing movements in investment  over the last 13 months be provided, the existing graph is too compressed.

 

Action:    Director Governance and Financial Services

 

(c)                         that an second Investment Performance graph would be useful

 

Action:    Director Governance and Financial Services

 

(d)          that the Committee be provided with a list of the Council financial reserves and the financial balances.

 

Action:    Director Governance and Financial Services

 

(e)          that copies of the Grove financial reports be provided to the Committee members.

 

Action:    Director Governance and Financial Services

 

 

(f)                          that the Committee be provided with a list of contractors and tenders.

 

Action:    Director Governance and Financial Services

 

Resolution No:    04/10

 

5.                Better Practice Review

 

Council’s Internal Auditor presented the Action Plan Update for Best Practice Review November 2009.  The committee was advised that the review is almost complete, with only one more report to be sent to the DLG.  The review has been driven by Council’s Coordinator of Performance Improvement and the recommendations were derived from consultation with staff.  A new review will start in 2011.

 

Resolved:                                                                  

 

(a)    that the review be received and noted.

 

Action:   Noted

 

(b)                         that the year be included on the dates shown in the ‘comments and update’ column.

 

Action:    Internal Auditor

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

Resolution No:    05/10

 

 

 

 

1.  Quarterly Updates

 

David Mead has found the quarterly updates prepared by Council’s Internal Auditor easy to read, particularly with the colour coding.

 

Resolved:     that the red on the graph be changed to yellow, to be consistent with the table.

 

Action:    Internal Auditor

 

 

Resolution No:    06/10

 

2.                              Fuel Cards

 

Council’s Internal Auditor advised that an audit of fuel cards in currently in progress.

 

Action:    Noted.

 

 

Resolution No:    07/10

 

3.                              Development Application manual

 

A manual for DA procedures and policies is currently being developed for RCC by a planning consultant.

 

Action:    Noted.

 

 

Resolution No:    08/10

 

4.                              OH&S environment audit

 

An OH&S environment audit will be undertaken as part of the major review.  This review will also meet Australian Standards.                                                                       

 

Action:    Noted.

 

Resolution No:    09/10

 

5.                              Back-up server

 

A back-up server will be established at the Bowen Library with the termination of the COL contract.

 

Action:    Noted.

 

 

Resolution No:    10/10

 

6.                              Internal Audit Plan

 

Resolved:     that light green be included in the key to indicate background work completed.    

 

Action:       Internal Auditor

 

 

 

 

 

Resolution No:    11/10

 

7.          Hornsby Council Audit

 

RCC’s Internal Auditor conducted an audit at Hornsby Council, for a fee.  This is in line with RCC’s obligation to help other councils.

 

Action:    Noted

 

 

Resolution No:    12/10

 

8.             Building Levy

 

GM advised that Council is currently undertaking community consultation for a proposed building levy.  Council has submitted a 508A application.  To receive approval for the 508A application, Council needs approval from the DLG for its integrated planning.   Council staff met with the Director General of the DLG – the meeting was very successful and the DLG were very impressed with the documentation/presentation prepared by Randwick.

 

Action:       Noted.

 

 

Resolution No:    13/10

 

9.          Internal Audit Committee Meetings

 

The Committee agreed to reschedule the meetings to Wednesdays.  Meeting dates will be forwarded.

 

Action:      Minute Secretary

 

 

Meeting closed:    1:30pm

 

Date Minutes approved:    __________

 

 

 

________________________________

         Jeremy Bingham, Chair

 


Minutes - Internal Audit Committee Minutes - Meeting No. 02/2010 - 16 June 2010 - Minutes

Attachment 3

 

 

MINUTES – Internal Audit Committee           F2009/00061     

 

Wednesday, 16 June 2010                              Meeting No. 02.10

 

PRESENT

 

Chair                                Mr Jeremy Bingham

Mayor                              Cr John Procopiadis

Committee Member             Mr David Mead

Committee Member             Mr Carl Millington

General Manager        Ray Brownlee

Internal Auditor                  Vanessa Creighton

Minute Secretary               Deborah Cuthbertson

 

APOLOGIES - Nil

       

GUESTS - Nil

 

 

Resolution No:   14/10

 

1.       Confirmation of the minutes from Internal Audit Committee held on 15 March 2010.

 

Resolved:     The Committee resolved to approve the minutes from the meeting of 15 March 2010.

 

Action:     Chair to approve minutes

 

1a.   Matters Arising           Nil

 

 

Resolution No.   15/10

 

2.     Current Status

 

Resolved: that the current status was noted by the Committee.

 

Action:     Noted.

 

Resolution No.   16/10

 

3.     Spencer Street Audit Management Letter

 

Committee discussed management responses to the following items raised by external auditors, Spencer Steer, Chartered Accountants.

 

Item 1.1:   Payroll Master File Maintenance

 

General Manager advised that the issued raised by the auditors are being address with the implementation of the new computer system with Technology One.

 

Action:      Noted

 

Item 1.2:   Timesheet Approval

 

The Committee discussed the need for improvement of authorisations for KRONOS and timesheets.

 

Action:         General Manager to review Item 1.2 in consultation with Auditor to assess a suitable solution for management and staff.

 

Item 2:         Receipting – Cashier Balances

 

The Committee discussed possible solutions such as rotation of staff at the close of business to reduce risk.  Committee will review the report on the outcome of Manager Financial Operations discussions with other Pathway Council’s regarding current procedures used by these council’s.

 

Action:     Manager Financial Operations to provide report to Committee

 

Item 3:     Road Restoration – Unit Prices

 

The Committee discussed how master files are often set up correctly for GST and changes made to master file often have mistakes in GST calculation.  Also, the possibility of contractors/suppliers advising ABN number for GST and then deregistering after receipt of payment. Committee recommended that Council undertake a spot check of registration of GST for contractors/suppliers and that those contractors/suppliers not registered, 48% holding tax would be required to be held by Council.

 

Action:         that the Internal Auditor undertake a spot check of contractors/suppliers for GST registration and provide report to Committee at next meeting.

 

Resolved:     That item 1.2, item 2 and item 3 be reviewed and a report be presented to the Committee on these reviews.

 

Action:         General Manager, Internal Auditor and Manager Financial Operations.

 

Resolution No.   17/10

 

4.                 Randwick City Council Reserves

 

Resolved:     that the Randwick City Council Reserves be noted by the Committee and that further reports on the reserves by provided to the Committee on an annual basis when budget is presented to Council.

 

Action:         Director Governance and Financial Services

 

 

Resolution No.   18/10

 

5.                 Randwick City Council – Current Contracts

 

Committee queried what the colours represented in the table.  The General Manager advised that Council has good controls in place to manage contracts and tenders.

 

Resolved:       That:

 

a)  a reference to the colours on the table be included in report and;

 

b)  that the contract list be provided on annual basis to the Committee at the end of the financial year and;

 

c)  That the minutes of the Procurement Committee be provided to the Committee at each meeting.

 

Action:         Director Governance and Financial Services and EA to General Manager

 

 

Resolution No.   19/10

 

7.     Quarterly Investment Report

 

Resolved:     that the Committee note the tabling of the Investment Report for April and May 2010 and that the Quarterly Investment Report from Council’s advisors to be provided to the Committee on an annual basis and Council’s monthly investment continue to be presented to the Committee at each meeting.

 

Action:         Director Governance and Financial Services

 

Resolution No.   20/10

 

8.     Enterprise Risk Review – Final Report

 

Resolved:     that:

 

a)  An exception report be provided to the Committee for future meetings, and;

 

b)  That Committee acknowledged the professional presentation of the report by In Consult and Council.

 

Action:     Internal Auditor

 

esolution No.     21/10

 

9.     Confidential Item – COL (Council’s Online)

 

As this matter is a confidential item being reported to Council all Committee members were asked to sign a declaration of confidentiality.  All members agreed to this request.

Also, advised that the new computer system would go live in November 2010, and would be running parallel with COL from September 2010.

 

Resolved: The Committee congratulated the General Manager on the successful negotiations with Cap Gemini.

 

Action:     Noted.

 

Resolution No.   22/10

 

9a.   Internal Audit – Quarterly Update

 

The Committee discussed the outstanding critical items on quarterly update.

 

Resolved: that a further comment shall be added to any critical items to show current status of actions.

 

Action:     Internal Auditor

 

Resolution No.   23/10

 

10.   Meeting Dates

 

Resolved:  that the Committee will meet on the following dates;

 

          22 September 2010

        16 February 2011

        18 May 2011

And a date in August to meet with Auditor’s to be advised.

 

Action:     Noted.

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

1.     Survey – Buildings for Our Communities Program

 

Internal Auditor tabled a copy of the recent audit review undertaken of the survey process for the Buildings for Our Communities Program.

 

Action:     Noted.

 

2.     Strategic Audit Plan

 

Internal Auditor tabled the strategic audit plan and 12 month work plan showing which audits would be undertaken in the next 12 months.

 

Action:     Noted

 

Resolution No.   24/10

 

3.     Investigations by General Manager

 

The General Manager discussed with the Committee the need to refer investigations to the Committee.

 

Resolved: that complaints referred to the General Manager should be investigated by the General manager or the appropriate external authority.

 

Action:     Noted.

 

Resolution No.   25/10

 

4.     Wylies Baths Trust

 

The General Manager advised that the Mayor, Clr John Procopiadis has requested that a due diligence investigation of Wylies Baths be undertaken by the General Manager.

 

Committee was concerned with exposure to Council and to individual trust members if the Trust was not incorporated.

 

Resolved: that the report on the investigation will be provided to the Committee at the next meeting.

 

Action:     General Manager

 

Resolution No.   26/10

 

5.     Performance Review – Internal Audit Committee

 

Committee discussed requirement for a review of the Committee under the Terms of Reference for the Committee.

 

Resolved: that a performance review of the Internal Audit Committee be undertaken at the August 2010 meeting of the Internal Audit Committee

 

Action:     General Manager

 

 

Meeting closed   2.05pm.

 


Minutes - Internal Audit Committee Meeting - 15 September 2010

Attachment 4

 

 

MINUTES – Internal Audit Committee           F2009/00061     

 

Wednesday, 15 September 2010                     Meeting No. 03.10

 

 

PRESENT

 

Chair                                Mr Jeremy Bingham

Deputy Mayor                    Cr Robert Bellelli

Committee Member             Mr David Mead

Committee Member             Mr Carl Millington

General Manager        Ray Brownlee

Internal Auditor                  Vanessa Creighton

Minute Secretary               Deborah Cuthbertson

 

APOLOGIES

       

Mayor, Clr John Procopiadis

                             

GUESTS

 

Mr Garry Mottau – Hill Rogers Spencer Steer Chartered Accountants

 

Chair of IAC welcomed the Deputy Mayor, Clr Robert Bellelli to the meeting and provided an overview of the charter of the IAC.

 

Resolution No:   27/10

 

1.       Confirmation of the minutes from Internal Audit Committee held on 15 June 2010.

 

Resolved:     The Committee resolved to approve the minutes from the meeting of 15 June 2010.

 

Action:     Chair to approve minutes

 

 

1a.   Matters Arising           Nil

 

Resolution No.   28/10

 

2.     Gary Mottau – Hill Rogers Spencer Steer Chartered Accountants

 

Chair of the IAC welcomed Mr Gary Motttau from Hill Rogers Spencer Steer Chartered Accountants. Mr Mottau provided the Committee with an overview of Council’s audited accounts.  The Committee expressed their wish to try and meet with the auditors to review the audited accounts prior to sign off.

 

Resolved: That the IAC has considered the external audit and notes the combined cooperation between the internal and external auditors for future planning.

 

Resolved: Noted.

Resolution No.   29/10

 

3.                 Investment Reports – May, June and July 2010

 

Resolved:     that the IAC accept and note the investment reports for May, June and July 2010.

 

Action:         Noted.

 

 

Resolution No.   30/10

 

4.     Procurement Committee Minutes

 

Resolved: that the IAC accept and note the Procurement Committee Minutes for 12 July 2010 and the Committee recognises the positive outcomes as a result of the Procurement Committee.

 

Action:     Noted.

 

 

Resolution No.   31/10

 

5.     Exception Report


Internal Auditor advised that there were no changes to the risk register.

 

Resolved: That the Committee note that there are no changes to the risk register.

 

Action:     Noted.

Resolution No.   32/10

 

6.     Timesheet Approval

 

The General Manager advised that timesheet approvals would be reviewed as part of the implementation of the new computer system.

 

Resolved: that the General Manager provide a report to Committee upon implementation of new computer system.

 

Action:     General Manager

 

Resolution No.   33/10

 

7.     Receipting – Cashier Balances

 

In reviewing the process for receipting Council undertook a survey of other Council’s, 11 Council’s responded and 9 Council’s were undertaking cashier balances the same way as RCC.  Although, when undertaking this review it was found that cashiers could void receipts.  This practice has now been stopped and a stronger at random cash-up/balance check will be undertaken.

Resolved: That the Committee is satisfied with the reduction of risk to an acceptable level.

 

Action:     Noted.

 

Resolution No.   34/10

 

8.     Road Restoration – Unit Prices

 

In reviewing suppliers GST status, the Internal Auditor reviewed 5% of suppliers, this was equal to 92 suppliers.  This review identified that 4 suppliers were not registered for GST and 2 suppliers were non compliant.  The non compliant suppliers were discussed with the ATO who requested further information regarding these suppliers, which has been provided.  As a result of the review Council will check every new supplier registered into the RCC system for ABN and GST details.

 

The Committee also requested a presentation on the auditing capacity of the new computer system at the 2nd meeting in 2011.

 

Resolved: That the verbal report be noted and that a presentation be prepared for the Committee on the auditing capacity of the new computer system for the 2nd meeting in 2011.

 

Action:     DGFS

 

Resolution No.   35/10

 

9.     Wylies Baths

 

General Manager advised that some preliminary reports had been received regarding Wylies Baths and that he was waiting on another report regarding the infrastructure at the Baths.  Once all reports were received and reviewed a report would be provided to the Committee for review.

 

Resolved: that the General Manager provide a written report to the Committee on Wylies Baths once all reports had been received.

 

Action:     General Manager

 

Resolution No.   36/10

 

10.   Audit Committee Performance Review (Self Assessment)

 

The Committee discussed performance reviews and expectations of the members of the Committee.

 

Resolved: that the Committee meet with the Councillor’s at a briefing session in December 2010 and that the General Manager provide a report to Council on the performance of the Committee.

 

Action:     General Manager

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

Resolution No.   37/10

 

1.     Appointment of Internal Audit Officer.

 

Internal Auditor advised that an Internal Audit Officer has been appointed.  The successful candidate was an internal applicant and would be undertaking training with the Internal Auditor over the coming months.

 

Resolved: that the Internal Audit Officer be invited to attend the Committee’s February 2011 meeting.

 

Action:     Internal Auditor

 

 

Resolution No.   38/10

 

2.     ANU Scholarship

 

Internal Auditor advised that she had been successful in gaining a ANU/ICAC  Scholarship for Corruption and Anti Corruption Executive Program.

 

Resolved: that the Committee congratulated the Internal Auditor on her acceptance into the program.

 

Action:     Noted.

 

Resolution No.   39/10

 

3.     Matters of Interest to IAC

 

The Chair of the Committee asked that any matters of interest such as “fraud”  involving other Councils be reported to the Committee for information.

 

Resolved: That matters of interest be reported to the Committee for information.

 

Action:     Internal Auditor

 

Resolution No.   40/10

 

4.     Audit Committee Minutes

 

General Manager advised the Committee that he would like to provide the minutes of the IAC to Council.

 

Resolved: IAC has agreed to the request from the General Manager to provided the minutes of the IAC to Council, after the IAC meet Randwick Councillor’s at a briefing session.

 

Action:     General Manager

 

 

Resolution No.   41/10

 

5.     Internal Audit Guidelines

 

The Internal Auditor tabled the new guidelines from the Division of Local Government, along with a brief summary of the changes to the guidelines.

 

Resolved: That the Committee review the guidelines and the Internal Auditor to provide a report on the changes to the guidelines for next IAC meeting.

 

Action:     Internal Auditor

 

Resolution No.   42/10

 

6.     Review of Charter

 

The Chair of the IAC requested that a comparison of the Committee Charter –v- guidelines to identify best practice guidelines for the Committee.

 

Resolved: that the General Manager provide a comparison to the IAC and prepare a report for Council.

 

Action:     General Manager

 

 

 

 

 

Date Minutes Approved: _______________

 

 

___________________________________

Jeremy Bingham, Chair

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                               22 February 2011

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS1/11

 

 

Subject:                  Buildings for Our Community - Clovelly Surf Club Project - Grant Funding

Folder No:                   PROJ/10399/2010

Author:                   Hayley Segedin, Buildings for our Community Projects Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

In Council’s Buildings for our Community program, the Clovelly Surf Club project has funding of $350,000 to remediate the surf club building.

 

The work will commence in March 2011, and it is estimated that only part of the project budget will be needed to complete the remedial works.

 

The Clovelly Surf Life Saving Club has recently received grant funding from the NSW Community Building Partnership program which will partly contribute to the newly completed boat storage facility adjacent to the surf club building. The funding program criteria requires a commitment by the applicant of matching funding.

 

The Club has approached Council asking that Council provide the financial assistance required to fulfil the funding program criteria.

 

This report outlines the current project financial position and the funds sought to match the grant funding.

 

Issues

 

The Clovelly Surf Club project scheduled in year 1 (2010-2011) of Council’s Buildings for our Community program has a budget of $350,000 to remediate the building. 

 

In September 2010, Council engaged a structural engineer consultant to undertake a detailed visual assessment and to carry out diagnostic testing on the surf club building to ascertain the extent of remedial issues. 

 

A conditions report was subsequently completed and from the recommendations outlined in the report, Council then received a quotation of $150,000 to carry out the works. This includes addressing the structural issues, cracking, concrete spalling, water leaks, moisture ingress, poor roof drainage and deteriorated windows and doors.

 

To date, additional project costs also include $29,920.00 for the structural engineer consultancy fees.

 

In December 2011, the Club were successful in securing grant funding of $165,000 from the NSW Community Building Partnership program for the recently completed boat storage facility project.

 

The Club is now seeking a financial commitment from Council to match the grant funding.

 

The table below is a summary of the current project financial situation:

 

Buildings for our Community project budget

$  350,000.00

 

Expended works

Proposed works

$  29,920

$  150,000

Project funds remaining

$  170,080

 

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 Council, community groups and government agencies.

 

Financial impact statement

 

After the completion of the Buildings for our Community works scheduled for the Clovelly Surf Life Saving Club, it is recommended that the remaining funds be used for the purpose of the required matching contribution for the construction of a boat storage facility under the NSW Community Building Partnership Program.

 

There will be minimal impact on the 2010-2011 budget with any shortfall of funds being sourced at the March 2010 budget review.

 

Conclusion

 

The Buildings for our Community Clovelly Surf Club project has available funds to contribute in matching the NSW Community Building Partnership program grant funding received by the Clovelly Surf Life Saving Club.

 

The Council’s financial commitment towards the newly completed boat storage facility will also assist in completing the final stage of remediation, renovation and new works for the Clovelly surf club building.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, after the completion of the Buildings for our Community works scheduled for the Clovelly Surf Life Saving Club, approve the remaining funds be used for the purpose of the required matching contribution for the boat storage facility under the NSW Community Building Partnership Program.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                               22 February 2011

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF1/11

 

 

Subject:                  Budget Review - December 2010 Quarter

Folder No:                   F2009/00343

Author:                   Mitchel Woods, Acting Manager Corporate and Financial Planning     

 

Introduction

 

Section 203(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that at the end of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that indicates the latest estimates of income and expenditure for the 2010-11 year.

 

The regulation (Section 203 (2)) also requires that the budget review statement must include, or be accompanied by:

 

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

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

 

Issues

 

This report is a review of the Council’s 2010-11 current budget and recommends adoption of a revised budget for 2010-11.

 

It proposes variations to Council’s adopted budget, which will result in a projected surplus at year end of $10,085. Major variations to the budget are highlighted below:

 

FINANCIAL POSITION

$

 

 

Current projected deficit/(surplus)

(1,685)

 

 

Variations Proposed This Review

 

Increase in Expenditure

509,449

Increase in Income

(517,849)

Total Variations This Review

(8,400)

 

 

Projected deficit/(surplus) as at 30 June 2011

(10,085)

 

Attachments 1 to 2 summarise Council’s Financial Performance, Source and Application of Funds and Council’s Financial Position.

 

Comments on variations are listed in the table below. Attachment 3 contains a schedule of all proposed variations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed Budget Variations

 

 

Increase / (Decrease) in Expenditure

(Increase)/ Decrease

in

Income

INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE

 

 

1. Insurance Management

3,000

 

Funds required for valuations of buildings and operational land for insurance and accounting purposes

2. Community Partnerships

40,000

 

Contribution towards the Randwick City Council – South Sydney Football Club Community Partnership.

3. Photographic Exhibition

15,590

 

Contribution of the Historic Photographic Exhibition to be held at the Prince Henry Centre.

4. Community Consultation

12,300

 

Funds required to conduct follow up focus groups to the community consultation process held in 2010.

5. Consultants

13,340

 

Various work required to be undertaken by external consultants.

6. Snape Oval

32,794

 

The construction of cricket facilities at Snape Oval.

7. Coogee Beach

19,390

 

Civil works associated with the Light Pole replacement at Coogee Beach .

8. Bardon Park

230,000

 

The reconstruction of the playing field at Bardon Park

9. South Maroubra Beach

45,108

 

The painting and tiling of the walls of the toilets located at South Maroubra Beach.

10. Burrows Park

11,818

 

Additional funds required for the galvanised steel awning on the amenity building

11. Administration Building

65,000

 

Renovations required for the Organisational Staff Services office located in the Administration Building.

10. Maroubra Beach

21,109

 

Additional funds required for the construction of new shade structures located at Maroubra Beach.

TOTAL INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE

509,449

 

 

 

 

 

Increase / (Decrease) in Expenditure

(Increase)/ Decrease

in

Income

INCREASE IN INCOME

 

 

1. Interest on Investments

 

(275,000)

Improved return on investment portfolio due to increases in the cash rate.

2. Community Facilities Hire Fees

 

(20,000)

Higher than anticipated number of bookings for community facilities.

3. Construction Zone Fees

 

(40,000)

Higher number of construction zone permit issued than anticipated.

4. Paid Parking

 

(40,000)

Increase in the level of revenue received as a result of fully functioning equipment.

5. Development Application Fees

 

(111,044)

Increase in volume of development applications resulting in increase revenue levels.

6. Health, Building and Regulatory Services

 

(31,805)

Higher than anticipated revenue from health, building and regulatory activities.

TOTAL INCREASE IN INCOME

 

(517,849)

TOTAL VARIATIONS

509,449

(517,849)

NET VARIATIONS – DEFICIT / (SURPLUS)

(8,400)

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1a:      Council has a long term vision based on sustainability.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The proposed variations listed in this report and in Attachment 3 will result in a projected surplus at year end of $10,085.

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Director Governance and Financial Services, as the responsible accounting officer, advises that the projected financial position is satisfactory.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

a)     the report in relation to the December 2010 budget review be received and noted; and

 

b)     the proposed December 2010 budget variations shown in Attachment 3 to this report be adopted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Statement of Financial Performance and Application of Funds for the period ended 31 December 2010

 

2.View

Balance Sheet as at 31 December 2010

 

3.View

Proposed Budget Variations - December 2010 Quarter Review

 

 

 

 


Statement of Financial Performance and Application of Funds for the period ended 31 December 2010

Attachment 1

 

 






Balance Sheet as at 31 December 2010

Attachment 2

 

 


Proposed Budget Variations - December 2010 Quarter Review

Attachment 3

 

 








 




Ordinary Council                                                                                               22 February 2011

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF2/11

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - December 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–December 2010” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of December 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 $3.513 million during December 2010. The decrease is representative of negative cash flow for the month as expenditure exceeded income. There was an unrealised capital gain on investments for December of $53,399.46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from December 2004 to December 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 December 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 December 2004 to December 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 6.53%, compared with the benchmark index of 5.00%.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate remained unchanged at 4.75% at the December 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 $5.102 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