Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 19 April 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                                                                                                     19 April 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, 19 April 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 - 22 March 2011

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)

In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act, the General Manager is required to keep a register of Councilor voting on planning matters. Planning matters are any decisions made in the exercise of a function of a council under the EP&A Act and include decisions relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan under that Act. In addition, Randwick City Council has resolved (22 July 2008) that its register of voting include the voting on all tender matters.

 

CP20/11    508-510 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (deferred)

CP21/11    35 Napier Street, Malabar

 

CP22/11    21 Storey Street, Maroubra

CP23/11    146 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford

CP24/11    Reporting Variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) for the month of March, 2011

CP25/11    Randwick City Landscape Elements

 

Director City Planning Report

CP26/11    Draft Final Plan of Management of Prince Henry Centre

General Manager's Reports

GM4/11     Email and/or Online Alert service

GM5/11     Recruitment and Selection Policy

GM6/11     Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2011-12

GM7/11     2011 National General Assembly of Local Government

Director City Services Reports

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF8/11      Investment Report - March 2011

GF9/11      Acquisition of land to be incorporated into Arthur Byrne Reserve, Maroubra Beach

GF10/11    Annual Review of Councillors' Expenses & Facilities Policy  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM14/11    Notice of Motion by Cr Bowen - Bronte Coogee Aquatic Reserve  

Closed Session (record of voting required)

CP27/11    169-181 Dolphin Street, Coogee (Aquarium Level)

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (e) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law.

CS4/11      T04/11 – Coogee Surf Club Project – Alterations and Additions

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.

 

GF11/11    T02/11 - Tender for Catering Services

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.

 

GF12/11    SSROC Tender for Agricultural Products

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.

 

 

 

Closed Session (record of voting not required)

GF13/11    Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2011-12: Confidential Fees and Charges

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

  

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     19 April 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP20/11

 

 

Subject:                  508-510 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

Folder No:                   DA/757/2008/A

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2)  modification of the approved development by converting unit A7 from a one bedroom unit to a two bedroom unit extending the basement excavation to accommodate one extra car space; converting the common roof top terrace into private open space for units A7 and A8; constructing new balustrades and privacy screens on roof; new external spiral stairs; changes to openings, balconies and entry lobby; new pumproom; mechanical duct on western elevation and various other modifications

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Urban Link Pty Ltd

Owner:                         Airam Developments Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

This Section 96 application is referred to Council for determination as the original application was determined by Council at its meeting of 24 March 2009. The approved development comprises the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development being one 4 storey building and one 5 storey building comprising 12 residential units, 2 commercial/retail spaces, basement parking for 21 vehicles and associated works.

 

The Section 96(2) application will modify the approved development primarily for the following changes:

 

·           Reconfiguration of basement levels and additional basement excavation within the lower basement to accommodate 1 new car space for Unit A7;

 

·           Construction of pump room and fan room at the rear of the ground floor commercial premises and construction of a mechanical duct on the western elevation facing the courtyard

 

·           Reorientation of ground floor lift, lobby and stairs.

 

·           Reconfiguration of the east and west walls, windows and balconies facing the internal courtyard

 

·           Conversion of Unit A7 from a 1 bedroom apartment to a 2 bedroom apartment and subsequent configuration of Unit A8

 

·           Conversion of common roof-top terrace to private open space for Units A7 and A8, provision of external spiral stairs on the eastern terraces, modification of the 4th floor pergolas fronting Bunnerong Road and construction of new roof balustrades and privacy screens.

 

The Section 96 application was notified to surrounding properties and advertised. No submissions were received.

 

Amended plans and additional information were lodged on 22 February 2011 responding to issues raised by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel. The amended plans essentially delete the proposed pump room, fan room and mechanical duct from the 12m separation space between the two approved buildings.

 

Overall, the proposed modifications do not give rise to additional amenity impacts as the majority of the modifications essentially will be contained within the approved footprint and building envelope under the original DA which will be largely maintained. Accordingly, the proposed modification is considered to be substantially the same development as that previously approved and will not result in any significant additional impacts upon the amenity of either existing properties in the locality or the visual character of the locality.  However, the proposed encroachments of windows bays (on the internal east and west elevations of the two approved buildings) into the 12m separation space between the two buildings so as to comply with BCA requirements in respect of fire separation from adjoining properties is not supported. The 12m separation space is a dominant and important feature under the DCP – Matraville Town Centre not just for the subject site but also for all adjoining and surrounding properties fronting Bunnerong Road such that the proposed encroachment should not be allowed to set a precedent for other future adjoining and surrounding developments to encroach into this space. Additionally, the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel has also objected to the proposed encroachment into the 12m separation space.  A condition will be applied to delete this aspect of the proposed section 96 modifications should approval be granted.

The Section 96 proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria, objectives and controls of the DCP – Matraville Town Centre with the exception of the encroachments into the 12m separation zone between buildings which will be addressed by way of condition deleting this.

 

Approval, subject to conditions, is recommended.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The subject proposal is made pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. 850/2008. The Section 96 proposal is for the following:

 

·           Reconfiguration of basement levels and additional basement excavation within the lower basement to accommodate 1 new car space for Unit A7;

 

·           Construction of pump room and fan room at the rear of the ground floor commercial premises and construction of a mechanical duct on the western elevation facing the courtyard

 

·           Reorientation of ground floor lift, lobby and stairs.

 

·           Reconfiguration of the east and west walls, windows and balconies facing the internal courtyard

 

·           Conversion of Unit A7 from a 1 bedroom apartment to a 2 bedroom apartment and subsequent configuration of Unit A8

 

·           Conversion of common roof-top terrace to private open space for Units A7 and A8, provision of external spiral stairs on the eastern terraces, modification of the 4th floor pergolas fronting Bunnerong Road and construction of new roof balustrades and privacy screens.

 

The reasons for the proposed changes are listed below.

 

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is located on the western side of Bunnerong Road, north of the intersection of Baird Avenue and Bunnerong road. The subject site has a secondary frontage to Baird Lane to the rear. The site is regularly shaped with a frontage of 15.29 to Bunnerong Road, 15.24 to Baird Lane, 39.865m to the north boundary and 41.125 to the southern boundary. The site falls from east to west by approximately 1.7m and a cross fall north/south of 0.5m. The total site area is 617.1 sqm.

 

The site is currently vacant and under preparation for construction.

 

The surrounding development comprises a shopping strip along Bunnerong Road forming part of the Matraville town centre with predominantly two storey retail shops and services to the north of the subject site, and some multi-storey mixed commercial/residential developments (3-4 storeys high) south of the subject site (at 514-516 and 518-520 Bunnerong Road). Adjoining the site immediately to the south, at No. 512 Bunnerong Road is a two storey brick commercial building, to the north is a two storey brick commercial building at No. 508 Bunnerong Road, to the east on the opposite side of Bunnerong Road is a multi-storey mixed use commercial/residential building at No. 505-507 Bunnerong road and to the west on the opposite side of Baird Lane are three storey residential flat buildings with ground floor garages.

 

Figure 1 : Aerial view of subject site.

 

4.    Site History

 

The original development (DA/757/2008) was approved by Council at its meeting on 24 March 2009 and comprises the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development being one 4 storey building and one 5 storey building comprising 12 residential units, 2 commercial/retail spaces, basement parking for 21 vehicles and associated works.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with the DCP - Notification. No submission was received.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

6.1    Environmental Health and Building Comments

No objections in relation to health and building issues are raised to the application.

 

6.2    Development Engineer Comments

No objections in relation to health and building issues are raised to the application.

 

7.      Section 96 Assessment

 

Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria has been complied with:-

 

7.1      Substantially the Same Development:

The Section 96 modifications essentially involve internal and external  modifications (including extension of the basement carpark to provide an additional carparking space, reconfiguration of the lift and lobby, and  conversion of a 1 bedroom to a 2 bedroom unit), all of which are not considered to substantially alter the proposal from that originally approved. Additionally, the proposed changes do not result in any new appreciable additional impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining properties beyond that previously assessed and considered for the approved DA proposal (see Section 7 below).

 

Notwithstanding this, the part of the proposed changes relating to the reconfiguration of the east and west walls, windows and balconies facing the internal courtyard are not supported. The applicant advises that, to comply with BCA requirements in respect of fire separation from adjoining development without a fire engineered solution, walls closest to the side boundaries are proposed to be angled inwards into the courtyard to provide for adequately sized windows to bedrooms. The applicant has chosen this non-fire engineered solution at the expense of Council’s DCP control for a 12m courtyard separation between buildings.  The angled windows encroached into the required 12 m separation space which the DCP recognises as a dominant feature for all lot developments along this common strip on Bunnerong road. The encroachment creates a bad precedent that would compromise the DCP objectives for the 12 m separation. The applicant should instead apply an appropriate fire engineered solution for the affected windows.

 

7.2      Notification and Consideration of Submissions:

The application has been notified and advertised in accordance with Council’s DCP – Public Notification. No submissions were received.

 

8.      Statutory Instruments and Controls

 

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

 

8.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is identified as being within Zone No. 3B (Local Business Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The site is also located within the Matraville Town Centre according to the map of the LEP. The proposed modifications to the approved scheme, with the exception of the angled wall encroachment into the required 12m building separation space under the DCP – Matraville Town Centre, are consistent with the general aims of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) and the relevant objectives of the Local Business 3B zone in terms of aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

8.2      State Environmental Planning Policy No 65– Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

The proposal is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. Under the provisions of SEPP 65, the Section 96 application was referred to the Design Review Panel for comments. At its meeting on, the Panel provided the following comments (in italics), followed by Council’s comments wherever necessary:

 

PANEL COMMENTS

This is a Section 96 submission and it is the first time the Panel has reviewed changes to the Council approved DA.

 

The Applicant did not attend the DRP meeting.

 

The drawings provided do not sufficiently describe the context (and in particular the neighbouring buildings), or the extent of change from the approved drawings, therefore the proposals are difficult to assess. 

 

The Panel comments and concerns are as follows:

 

1.  Lower Basement:  The proposed changes to the lower basement car parking do not appear to have any negative impacts to the proposal or the area and are therefore considered acceptable.

 

2.  Basement:  The proposed garbage collection area in Baird Lane poses unacceptable amenity issues for the two bedrooms on the upper basement level.  If a more suitable position for garbage collection is not available good acoustic treatment for the balustrade and privacy louvres at least should be considered.

 

Council’s comments: The garbage collection arrangements on Baird Lane were approved under the original DA which included amendments to protect the amenity of the dwelling units fronting Baird Lane. This Section 96 application is not seeking any changes to the garbage collection area on Baird Lane and, therefore, it would be unreasonable to require additional changes to this area.

 

3.  Ground Floor:  The proposed additional area to the western building and the additional area for pump and fan room on the eastern building are not acceptable due to their encroachment on the central courtyard.

 

Council’s comments: The applicant has amended the Section 96 proposal to delete the pump and fan room encroachments into the 12m separation space/central courtyard. The proposed angled window bays and walls encroaching into the 12m separation space/central courtyard will be required to be deleted from the Section 96 application.

 

The rotation of the lift and changes to the lobby and stair are not considered improvements.  The lift should remain as previously approved. Any exhaust duct should be located within the building volume.

 

Council’s comments: The applicant has provided a BCA report prepared by Impact Fire Pty Limited indicating that the proposed rotation of the lift and changes to the lobby and stairs are a consequence of the fire safety requirements for a fire hydrant booster system at the streetfront. Additionally, the applicant has provided a streetfront perspective showing that the required fire service and the internal lift, lobby and stairs reconfiguration can be treated aesthetically so that all these changes will not have any detrimental visual impact. In relation to the exhaust duct, the applicant has amended the plans to delete this feature.

 

4.  First, Second and Third Floor:  The courtyard area should not be reduced therefore any encroachments are considered unacceptable.

The lift and lobby should remain as per the DA approved design.

 

Council’s comments: see Council’s comments to point 3 above.

 

5.  Fourth Floor:  The courtyard area should not be reduced therefore any encroachments are considered unacceptable

 

Council’s comments: see Council’s comments to point 3 above.

 

The spiral stair to a roof terrace is considered an improvement in amenity and therefore is supported by the Panel. However, the spiral stair should be a minimum diameter (approx. 1.2m) to reduce its impact on the balcony space.

 

Council’s comments: The applicant has amended the proposal to reduce the diameter of the spiral stairs to the roof terrace. 

 

6.  Roof:  Information should be provided to the Council assessors with regard to any impact the roof terrace may have on neighbouring properties.  Balustrade and screen details should also be submitted for aesthetic assessment. The roof terrace pavers should be laid on top of rigid polystyrene foam otherwise the heat load to the units below will increase significantly.

 

Council’s comments: The applicant has provided additional advice that the roof terrace balustrades will be clear frameless glass; that the screens will be aluminium louvers to match the approved louvers on the levels below; and that the roof terrace pavers will be laid on top of rigid polystyrene foam.

 

7.  Elevations Building A:  The changes to the courtyard elevation are not acceptable due to the encroachment of newly configured windows, balconies, pump room, etc.

 

The extent of the changes are not entirely clear as there appears to be new balcony treatments to Bunnerong Road.  Any proposed changes should be submitted for assessment and large scale detail drawings and sections would be required for any new facade treatment.

 

The proposed street level fixed glass to the foyer will have heat gain problems.  This would be exacerbated by the glass awning.  The Panel recommends that a reasonable amount of operable glass and sunshading be provided to the foyer.

 

Council’s comments: see Council’s comments to point 3 above. The applicant has provided large scale amended plans and a street perspective to clarify the intended changes. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the openings to the foyer beyond that already approved under the original. 

 

8.  Elevations Building B:  The changes to the courtyard elevation are not acceptable due to their encroachment on the courtyard space.

Changes to the roof top clerestory windows need to be clearly shown on the drawings with the previous position dotted so that assessment can be made.

The foyer to building B should also be provided with an operable window (in addition to the door) for good natural ventilation.

 

Council’s comments: see Council’s comments to point 3 above. The applicant has provided large scale amended plans and a street perspective to clarify the intended changes.

 

Summary:

 

The applicant has provided large scale amended plans and a street perspective to clarify the intended changes. The Panel’s issues have been adequately addressed. Specifically, the Panel’s concern regarding the proposed encroachment into the 12m separation space/central courtyard is supported and a condition will be applied requiring this aspect of the Section 96 application to be deleted.

 

8.3      State Environmental Planning Policy – BASIX

The applicant has provided advice from the projects BASIX Certifier advising that no further amendments to the original BASIX Certificate is required for the proposed Section 96 modifications.

 

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

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

Refer to the “Statutory Instruments and Controls” 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

The Section 96 proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria, objectives and controls of the DCP – Matraville Town Centre with the exception of the encroachments into the 12m separation zone between buildings which will be addressed by way of condition deleting this.

 

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

Not applicable.

 

 

 

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

 

Appropriate screening elements have been provided to ensure privacy of each individual roof top terrace.

 

The balustrades to the roof top terraces will be clear glass so that there will be no additional visual bulk and scale.  

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

The site has previously been approved for a mixed commercial and multi-unit residential development under DA/757/2008 which is a permissible use in the Local Business 3B zone applicable over the site. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed changes. 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 were received in response to the notification and advertising of the proposal from 18 August to 1 September 2010.

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed changes to the approved development will result in minimal amenity impacts on surrounding properties with the proposal remaining essentially the same as that originally approved. However, the proposed encroachments into the 12m separation zone between buildings is not supported for reasons outlined in Sections 1 and 6.1 above. A condition deleting this aspect of the proposal will applied should consent be granted.

 

In view of the above, it is recommended that the section 96(2) application be approved.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/757/2008 for demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development being one 4 storey building and one 5 storey building comprising 12 residential units, 2 commercial/retail spaces, basement parking for 21 vehicles and associated works at 508-510 Bunnerong Road, Matraville, in the following manner:

 

1.         Amend Condition  No. 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the  plans numbered,  DA1000, DA1100, DA2000, DA2001, DA2002 DA2003, DA3000, DA3001, and DA3100, all Revision A, dated October 2008, and stamped received by Council on 21 October 2008, the application form and any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 ‘A’ plans numbered DA-5, DA-6, DA-7, DA-8, DA-9, DA-10, DA-15, and DA-16, all issue B, all dated 22/02/2011, and Street Perspective, all  received by Council on the 22 February 2011,  only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application except as may be amended by the following conditions, and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.         Add a new condition as follows:

 

118.    All proposed angled windows in the internal east and west elevations of the approved development that encroached into the 12m separation space between the approved buildings shall be deleted from the Section 96 ‘A’ plans numbered DA-5, DA-6, DA-7, DA-8, DA-9, DA-10, DA-15, and DA-16, all issue B, all dated 22/02/2011, and Street Perspective, all received by Council on the 22 February 2011.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     19 April 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP21/11

 

 

Subject:                  35 Napier Street, Malabar

Folder No:                   DA/795/2009/B

Author:                   Wendy Wang, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) modification of approved development by widening of driveway, alterations to internal floor plans, external stairs, balustrades, roof, pool area, window and door openings, provision of new balcony and pergola to dwelling B and new privacy screens

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Stanic Harding Architects

Owner:                         35 Napier Street Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application has been referred to Council as the original consent was granted by Council’s Planning Committee on 20 July 2010.

 

The current application involves amendments to the previous approval for the construction of a new part 2/part 3 storey attached dual occupancy by widening of the approved driveway, alterations to internal floor plans, external stairs, balustrades, roof, pool area, window and door openings, provision of new balcony and pergola to dwelling B and new privacy screens. The subject application is accompanied by an amended BASIX Certificate received by Council on 7 March 2011.

 

The subject site is located on the eastern corner of Victoria Street and Napier Street.  The land slopes from south to north being a north facing block looking out towards Malabar Beach.  In this regard, the site is in close proximity to the water front.  The site covers an area of 512m2 and street frontages of 18.290m plus splayed corner on both sides. 

 

Two (2) letters of support and one (1) letter of objection were received from neighbouring properties at 37 Napier Street and 105 Victoria Street (support) and 104 Victoria Street (objection), respectively. The objection letter detailed concerns in relation to amenity, the proposed roof and pergola. The issues raised are addressed in relevant sections of this report.

 

It has been demonstrated in this report that the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP have been achieved in that the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and the character of the locality. As such, the application is recommended for approval subject to compliance with relevant conditions of consent.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

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

 

·           Reorientation of the stair at the rear of the building

·           Widening of the driveway and gutter crossing to 6.130m

·           Reconfiguration of the pool area

·           Modification of entry condition balustrades

·           Modification of internal ground floor layout

·           Modification of internal first floor layout

·           Provision of a timber framed steel roof behind parapet in lieu of concrete roof

·           New balcony and pergola over to dwelling B on Victoria Street (western) facade

·           Modification of the balustrades to balconies

·           Provision of timber vertical window screens on central windows on northern façade

·           Provision of timber privacy screens at first level on southern facade

·           Modification of windows, glazed doors and privacy screens on eastern and southern facades

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the eastern corner of Victoria Street and Napier Street.  The land slopes from south to north being a north facing block looking out towards Malabar Beach.  In this regard, the site is in close proximity to the water front.  The site covers an area of 512m2 and street frontages of 18.290m plus splayed corner on both sides.  The site currently contains a single storey masonry dwelling with a detached garage.

The subject site only has common boundaries with two neighbouring properties.  To the north east the site is adjoined by a single storey dwelling houses fronting Napier and to the south east a single storey dwelling fronting Victoria Street.  The dwellings are a mix of post war and inter war style. Further to the west of the site, away from the water front, there is an emerging trend of more modern dwellings that are either renovations or new dwellings within the last few years.

 

4.    Site History

 

DA/795/2009 – approved by Council’s Planning Committee on 20 July 2010 for the demolition of all existing structures on the site and the construction of a new part 2 part 3 storey attached dual occupancy with garaging, swimming pool and associated works subject to SEPP 1 objection to wall height and floor space ratio controls.

 

DA/795/2009/A – approved by the Planning Committee on 7 December 2010 to modify the modify the approved development by changes to window openings, alterations to stairs, relocation and raising of pool, widening of driveway, changes to south-eastern boundary fencing/retaining walls and provide sliding doors in lieu of rear garage door.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified from 15 – 29 March 2011 in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, the following responses were received:-

 

5.1 Objections

One (1) objection was received raising the following issues:

 

·      Objection to the proposed alteration of roof construction

Comment: The proposal does not seek to alter the roof pitch or approved overall building height/envelope. The current application involves changes to the approved roof form from concrete slab to a metal roof and remains substantially the same development for which consent was originally granted. This is considered to be an acceptable alternative and is compatible with the approved external finishes. 

 

·      Objection to the proposed balcony and pergola

Comment: The submission is unclear as to the nature of the compliant and fails to provide any justification with regard to the nature of the potential impact of the proposed amendments to the objector’s site. The proposed pergola and balcony has been assessed in accordance with the relevant objectives for privacy and deemed to be acceptable. The balcony overlooks Victoria Street and any overlooking impacts are restricted to the front yards of surrounding properties, which are presently visible from the street. The street facing areas and window/door openings of all the properties along Victoria and Napier Streets are susceptible to some degree of overlooking. It is considered that the proposal and its associated degree of overlooking is acceptable and does not contravene the objectives of the DCP relating to visual and acoustic privacy.

Further, the objectors dwelling is separated from the subject dwelling at least 30m, which is significantly in excess of the minimum 9m identified in the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies as a preferred solution. This separation distance is sufficient in addressing any concerns regarding loss of privacy. The application therefore complies with the relevant controls for privacy and separation between dwellings.

 

·      The original consent did not comply with floor space ratio or height controls and should not have gone ahead at all despite strong opposition from surrounding residents. The compromises in the original proposal were simply ways of initially appeasing residents and further modifications should not be considered by Council. 

 

Comment: Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act provides the heads of considerations that must be taken into account in the assessment of DAs. Each development application submitted to Council is subject to an independent merit based assessment in accordance with Randwick Council’s planning controls. The previous application was subject to a thorough assessment and it was demonstrated that despite the non-compliances with the height and floor space controls, the proposal does not result in any inconsistencies with the objectives of the zone 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

It is outside the scope of the current section 96 application to revisit the issues raised in the submissions received in response to the original development application and subsequent approval of the development proposal. Further, Council has obligation to assess an application to modify a consent and cannot refuse to accept an application.

 

The modified development will not result in detrimental environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Therefore, the proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

5.2 Support

Two (2) letters of support were received in relation to the proposed amendments outlining the following points: 

 

·      Neighbouring owners have cited the plans and approve of the proposed modifications following discussions with the applicants and architect.

·      The modified development represents a significant improvement to the previous proposal. 

Comment: Noted. 

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

Development Engineers comments:

An application has been received to modify development consent for the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of two storey, attached dual occupancy at the above site.

 

The modifications to the development consent include having a full width Council driveway constructed opposite the driveway opening in Napier St boundary (width of 5.13m)

 

Development Engineering does not object to the widening of the driveway entrance and the extending of the Council driveway to the same width.

 

The assessing officer is advised that Condition No 28 is to be amended accordingly.

 

7.    Section 96 Assessment

 

Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria has been complied with:-

 

7.1 Substantially the Same Development

In accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the proposed changes are considered reasonable and will result in a development that is substantially the same as the originally approved development. As such they can be assessed under Section 96 of the Act.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

8.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

 

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

The relevant objectives of Zone No 2A are:

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed modifications are considered to be acceptable and will not result in unacceptable impacts to the adjoining properties. The application is therefore recommended for approval as it is generally consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed built form will not compromise the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

The proposed amendments to plans do not seek to amend the approved building envelope, landscaped area or maximum building height. Consequently, the proposed amendments do not affect the previous assessment of the development, with regard to Clauses 20E, 20F & 20G of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation).

 

Clause 29 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The subject site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.  Clause 29 of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) requires Council to consider the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore. 

 

The proposed changes to the approved plans will not materially affect the appearance of the approved development, as viewed from the streetscape and surrounding properties. Consequently, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objective of Clause 29 of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation).

 

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

The SEPP: BASIX came into force for all new dwellings, dual occupancies and some transient residential accommodation where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2004. A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

An amended BASIX Certificate was submitted to Council on 7 March 2011. The proposed works were checked against the requirements of the amended BASIX Certificate and deemed to be acceptable.

 

8.3 Policy Controls

Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

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

 

Height, Form & Materials

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

 

The proposed balcony and pergola cover to dwelling B is the most evident change from the approved development. The provision in this regard will simply provide an improved internal and elevated external living environment for the occupants of this dwelling. The overall increase in the apparent bulk of the development is sustainable and the architectural integrity of the building is not compromised by this inclusion. Moreover, given the location of this area and its outlook onto Victoria Street and physical screening entirely from the dwelling at 105 Victoria Street, there are no issues of visual and or acoustic privacy associated with this modification. Similarly the modifications to the balconies involving the provision of a masonry component in lieu of a complete glass balustrade are consistent with the proposed new balcony. The changes represent architectural choice without adversely impacting the streetscape or overall presentation and apparent bulk of the building.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

See assessment below.

S1

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

See assessment below.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

 

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

 

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

 

The current application proposed a number of modifications to the approved windows and openings. These are summarised and discussed as follows: -

 

·      Reorientation of the stair at the rear of the building

·      Reconfiguration of the pool area

·      New balcony and pergola over to dwelling B on Victoria Street (western) facade

·      Provision of timber vertical window screens on central windows on northern façade

·      Provision of timber privacy screens at first level on southern facade

·      Modification of windows, glazed doors and privacy screens on eastern and southern facades

 

The revision of the rear stair arrangement will have the effect of providing an increased separation distance to the dwelling house on the adjacent property at 105 Victoria Street, representing an improvement in both visual and acoustic privacy.

 

The modifications proposed on the southern and eastern elevations will have the effect of facilitating and increased level of mutual visual and acoustic privacy by way of the reconfiguration of window openings and provision of screening devices. The reconfiguration of the pool area will not impact significantly over that originally consented to.

 

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

 

Garages & Driveways

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposal seeks to increase the width of the driveway and gutter crossing for Dwelling A, accessed from Napier Street to 5.130m (previously approved at 3m). The application has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineers and no objections have been raised on traffic or safety grounds. The proposal is considered to be acceptable. 

S1

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

See assessment above.

 

Foreshore Development

 

Performance Requirements

Assessment

P1

No encroachments on Foreshore Building Line at identified properties.

Complies.

P2

Building form, colour, materials and finishes are sympathetic.

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

P3

Stepped buildings on sloping sites are articulated.

Complies.

P4

Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow fair sharing of views.

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

P5

Ancillary structures do not detract from the appearance of developments.

Not applicable.

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

The proposed development is consistent with the general aims and objectives of the Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2008.  

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

The site is located within an area, which is predominantly characterised by lower density residential developments. The proposal will maintain the existing dual occupancy housing form. The site has sufficient dimension to accommodate the proposed 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 in the submission has been addressed in relevant sections of this report. 

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

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

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/795/2009 to modify the approved development by modification of approved development by widening of driveway, alterations to internal floor plans, external stairs, balustrades, roof, pool area, window and door openings, provision of new balcony and pergola to dwelling B and new privacy screens for 35 Napier Street, Malabar in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the amended plans dated 18/6/2010 prepared by Classic Plans Pty Ltd and received by Council on 28 June 2010 and numbered 014/09 revision D, (sheets 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7A, 8 and 9) any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the following: -

 

·      Section 96’A’ plans numbered 1 of 7 through to 6 of 7 (Revision E), received by Council on 13 October 2010 and by plan number 7 of 7 (Revision F), received by Council on 12 November 2010, and

·      Section 96 ‘B’ plans numbered 200, 210, 211, 212, 213, 300, and 301, all Revision 1, all dated 04/03/2011 and received by Council on 7 March 2011

 

only in so far as they relate to the modifications to windows, external materials, and internal modifications, excluding the increased height of the building highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached

 

Amend condition No. 28 to read:

 

28.     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 full width vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance in Napier Street. The works shall include any retaining walls with associated guard/handrail as required by Council’s Engineering Technical Officer.

 

Note: The internal driveway servicing the garage in Napier Street is to be constructed in accordance with the driveway ramp section plan submitted to Council (dwg No 014/09 Sheet7A of 9 dated 30/6/10)

 

b)   Construct a new concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site in Victoria Street.

 

c)   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.

 

d)   Construct a new concrete footpath, adjacent to the kerb, along the Victoria Street site frontage.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     19 April 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP22/11

 

 

Subject:                  21 Storey Street, Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/960/2010

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Construction of a secondary dwelling (granny flat) above the existing detached garage

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Abstract Designs Maroubra

Owner:                         Mr E Baranov and Mrs A Tretiak

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

This application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Stevenson, White and Tracey.

 

The application is for the construction of a secondary dwelling (granny flat) above the existing detached garage.   

 

The proposal has been notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 28 October 2010 to 11 November 2010 in accordance with the provisions of Development Control Plan (DCP) – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. In response, a total of five submissions were received.

 

The main issues of objectors are the visual impact that the granny flat extension will have upon the established street character and amenity of the adjoining dwellings, bulk and scale, height, overshadowing and likely impact on the acoustic and visual privacy of adjoining dwellings.

 

The proposal satisfies the relevant requirements of SEPP No. 70 (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.  The proposal will not give rise to any unreasonable environmental impacts on adjoining properties nor will it adversely impact on the visual amenity and character of the streetscape.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

It is proposed to construct a granny flat above the existing detached garage at the rear of the property.

 

The applicant has provided amended plans reducing the height of the development by 400mm, to address the objectors concerns and reduce the environmental impact on the streetscape.

 

The assessment is based on these amended plans received by Council on 2 March 2011.

 

Note:

The proposal must be considered as a Development Application and not complying development as the proposed development does not meet two development standards under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) Schedule 1 Development standards for secondary dwellings. The maximum site coverage is 51.7% (the requirement under the SEPP is a maximum of 50% for lot areas between 450m² to 900m²) and the floor area is 394.1m² (the requirement under the SEPP is a maximum of 330m² for lot areas between 450m² to 900m²). 

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is a corner allotment and is located on the southern side of Storey Street and eastern side of Marjorie Crescent.  The subject site is currently occupied by an existing two storey dwelling with a double garage/terrace accessed of Marjorie Crescent. The subject site has a frontage width of 12.19m, a depth of 42.67m and a land area of 505.2m2.

 

The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominately of single and two storey dwelling houses.

 


Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. The existing subject two storey dwelling on the corner of Storey Street and Marjorie Crescent.

2. The adjoining two storey dwelling at no. 23 Storey Street and subject two storey dwelling.

3. The existing subject two storey dwelling along Marjorie Crescent.

4. The adjoining single storey dwelling at no. 1 Marjorie Crescent.

5.  The subject rear yard and dwelling.

6. The subject rear yard and terrace garage.

 

4.    Site History

 

There are no recent development approvals applicable to the site.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

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


5.1    Objections

 

Objections

Author and objection

Comment

1 Marjorie Crescent, Maroubra

 

1.  The proposal departs extensively from the development standards contained in Schedule 1 of SEPP (Affordable Housing), 2009 relating to secondary dwellings. 

 

2.  The proposed development causes unsustainable impacts on the amenity of surrounding developments by virtue of excessive bulk and scale, overshadowing and likely impact on the acoustic and visual privacy of adjoining dwellings. Therefore the proposal represents an undesirable precedent for similar developments in other locations within the municipality in the absence of Council adopted guidelines.

 

 

1.  The development standards for Secondary Dwellings referred to in the objector’s submission are the standards under Schedule 1 of the SEPP which are only applicable for development being assessed as Complying Development and therefore, are not relevant to development applications.  Furthermore, the SEPP does not prescribe the need to use the development standards contained within this schedule as a guide when considering a Development Application.

 

2.  The development is considered to be consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 in that the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment of the locality.   The development will maintain the desirable attributes of the established residential area and will not unreasonably compromise the amenity of existing residents.

 

Amended plans have been received reducing the height of the development by 400mm; this will minimise the impacts on the neighbouring properties and will reduce the visual bulk of the development when viewed along Marjorie Crescent. 

 

The amended proposal is satisfies the performance requirements of the DCP – Dwelling House, in that the proposal will not become a dominant visual element in the area and is not considered excessive in respects to bulk and scale as the proposal is setback 2m from the secondary street frontage. Also, it is considered that the proposed development will not be out of keeping with the established bulk and scale of similar residential development in the immediate locality.

 

Whilst the proposal well exceed the FSR preferred solution, the proposed development demonstrates that the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP are satisfied. As such the proposed FSR is considered acceptable.

 

Council’s DCP requires Council to consider overshadowing impacts during the winter solstice and the assessment (discussed below) shows that the degree of overshadowing caused by the development is not unreasonable and will meet the objectives and performance requirement of the DCP.

 

In respect to the remaining portion of the existing terraced area it is not expected this will have any greater privacy impacts on neighbouring properties than the present situation as the terrace already exists. The window and door openings proposed to the granny flat are not expected to significantly compromise the existing privacy levels on the objector property as they do not face directly to their site and the window openings that face the objector’s property are highlight widows.

 

6 Marjorie Crescent, Maroubra

1.  The objectors property is directly adjacent to the existing detached garage/proposed granny flat. The front door and 2 bedroom windows look directly onto the subject garage/granny flat.  Marjorie Crescent is a narrow street, the proposed granny flat will make the garage appear to be even larger and its height and size will dominate and have an adverse affect on the streetscape.

 

Also, the proposed development is more than just marginally higher than the existing balustrade as stated in the DA application. The balustrade is over 0.94m and the building is 2.1m up to the top of the windows, the steel channel and the sloping roof height will also need to be added. The applicants are treating this proposed development as if it were at ground level when in fact it is on top of a very high garage, setting an interesting precedent for Council.

 

2.  The two storey outbuilding does not meet the floor space ratio and is totally against the intent and spirit of the granny flat legislation.

 

3.  Overshadowing concerns. Presently their bedroom window receives morning sunlight.  Would like shadow diagrams to be submitted for their review.

 

4.  If the development is approved would like their privacy concerns in regard to windows on western side addressed and noise minimisation procedures be enforced.

 

5.  At a time when environmental issues are at the fore this proposal does nothing but cheapen and detract from the environment.

1.  Amended plans have been received reducing the height of the development by 400mm; this will minimise the impacts on the neighbouring properties and will reduce the visual bulk of the development when viewed along Marjorie Crescent.  The design of the existing garage is largely due to the topography of the site.  It is not expected that the amended proposal will unreasonably impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties nor will it become an intrusive visual element in the area as the height of the granny flat will be generally consistent with the neighbouring dwelling at no. 1 Marjorie Crescent.

 

2.  The SEPP only requires that the combined total floor area of the house and the secondary dwelling complies with the floor area controls in a Local Environmental Plan. Randwick LEP, 1998 does not include development standards for dwelling house. Therefore, this requirement is not applicable and the proposal will be considered on its merits.

 

Also, the legislation referred to in the objector’s submission are the standards under Schedule 1 of the SEPP which are only applicable for Complying Development and therefore are not relevant to this development application.  Furthermore, the SEPP does not prescribe the need to use the development standards contained within this schedule as a guide when considering a development application.

 

3.  The applicant has submitted shadow diagrams showing the effect of overshadowing on adjoining properties. Council’s DCP requires Council to consider overshadowing impacts during the winter solstice and the assessment (discussed below) shows that the degree of overshadowing caused by the development is not unreasonable and will satisfy the objectives and performance requirements for this section of the DCP.

 

4.  It is not expected that the new window openings to the western elevation will have an unreasonable privacy impact on the objector’s property. The new openings will primarily overlook the street and there is adequate separation between the properties.

 

5.  As detailed in this assessment it is considered that environmental impacts of the development are acceptable. The proposal will result in positive impacts through an increase in housing density.

 

 

 

 

19 Storey Street, Maroubra

 

1.  They have already complained to Council about their dog who barks a lot of the times.  Concerned when the granny flat is built over the terrace area there will be insufficient area for the dog to move about and exercise and therefore, it will continue to bark even more impacting on them.

 

2.  Concerned that the granny flat will be used as an office as the subject owner operates a mini bus business. This means he may park his bus around Marjorie Crescent which is a very small narrow road and will be coming and going either very early in the morning or late at night.  The owner already parks his boat outside the objector’s house and sometimes parks his buses in Marjorie Crescent. The objector is concerned that the new development will be changed into a business rather than the intended proposed use.

 

1.  This issue is not considered to be a planning related matter, which can be addressed under Section 79C of the EP&A Act.

 

2.  The subject owner has submitted a letter clarifying that the granny flat will be used for its intended purposes and not for commercial use.

 

23 Storey Street, Maroubra

 

1.  Privacy concerns – They use their back garden regularly for medical purposes for their child, hobby and recreational needs. Concerned their privacy and safety will be compromised as a result of this development.  Also, concerned that the north and east facing windows to the proposed granny flat will overlook their kitchen, dining and family room resulting in no privacy at all.

 

2.  The proposed granny flat seems to be an over development of the site and does not comply with the maximum FSR permissible for the site.

 

3.  Their view and sunlight will be blocked. Concerned that the plants in their rear yard won’t survive as they will not receive adequate sunlight.

 

4.  Concerned that they might find it difficult to sell their property due to privacy and close proximity of granny flat and it may also depreciate the value of their property. 

 

1.  To address overlooking into the neighbouring property at no. 23 Storey Street 1.8m high privacy screens are to be provided on the eastern side of the terrace directly opposite the stair access and is to extend a length of 1.2m on the northern side of the terrace. This will be reduced opportunities for overlooking of neighbouring properties and will satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements for Visual and Acoustic Privacy in Councils DCP.

 

2.  Amended plans have been received reducing the height of the development by 400mm; this will minimise the impacts on the neighbouring properties and will reduce the visual bulk of the development when viewed along Marjorie Crescent. The development is not an over development of the site as there is adequate separation between the subject development and adjoining dwellings and the size of the granny flat is not substantial. 

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the development has an FSR (of 0.78:1) which exceeds the preferred FSR (of 0.563:1) for the site, it is not considered that the development will unreasonably compromise the amenity of the adjoining properties in terms of privacy, overshadowing and fresh air.  Also, it is not considered that the development will result in significant additional building bulk that will dominate the site or detract from the character of the surrounding area.

 

3.  As discussed above, amended plans have been received reducing the height of the development and as detailed in this assessment the degree of overshadowing caused by the development is not unreasonable and will satisfy the objectives and performance requirements for this section of the DCP.

 

This issue is not considered to be a planning related matter, which can be addressed under Section 79C of the EP&A Act.

25 Storey Street, Maroubra

 

1.  The objector’s property to the rear has a direct view of the existing garage. Concerned that the proposed granny flat would be an eye sore and very noisy.

 

2.  The objector has an 80 year old mother whose bedroom is on the side overlooking the proposed granny flat.  Her concern is that she sits on the verandah and enjoys the sun and view, this is no longer appropriate once the granny flat is occupied.

1.  Amended plans have been received reducing the height of the development by 400mm; this will minimise the impacts on the neighbouring properties and will reduce the visual bulk of the development. As detailed in this assessment it is considered that environmental impacts of the development are acceptable and will not have an unreasonable adverse impact on the visual amenity and character of the street. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

2.  As discussed above, amended plans have been received reducing the height of the development and as detailed in this assessment the degree of overshadowing caused by the development is not unreasonable and will satisfy the objectives and performance requirements for this section of the DCP.

 

The window and door openings proposed to the granny flat are not expected to significantly compromise the existing privacy levels on objector’s property as the objectors property is located two doors down from the subject property. In any case, a condition is included which requires 1.8m high privacy screens to be installed on the eastern side of the terrace directly opposite the stair access and the screen is to extend a length of 1.2m on the northern side of the terrace. This will reduce opportunities for overlooking into the objectors property and will satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements for Visual and Acoustic Privacy in Councils DCP.

 

 

5.2 Support

No supporting letters have been received for this application.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

No referral is required for this development application.

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

No Master Planning Requirements apply to the site.

 

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

 

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

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

 

The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will not compromise the desirable attributes of the residential area, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 70 - (Affordable Housing) 2009

 

Granny Flat (Secondary dwelling)

Matter 1:

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies (Division 2 Secondary dwellings) if there is on the land, or if the development would result in there being on the land, any dwelling other than the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling. 

 

Officer Comment:

There is only one house and one granny flat on the lot.

 

Matter 2:

A consent authority may only consent to development to which this Division applies (Division 2 Secondary dwellings) if:

 

·      The total floor area of the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling is less than the maximum floor area allowed for a dwelling house on the land under another environmental planning instrument; and

·      The total floor area of the secondary dwelling is no more than 60 square metres; or

·      If a greater floor area is permitted in respect of a secondary dwelling on the land under another environmental planning instrument, that greater floor area.

 

Officer Comment:

Randwick LEP, 1998, does not include floor space area controls relating to dwelling houses. Therefore, this requirement is not applicable and the proposal must be considered on its merits. Notwithstanding even if there is a breach of a standard in a LEP, the applicant would still be able to vary the standard with a SEPP1 Objection.

 

The combined total floor area of the principal dwelling and the granny flat is 394.1m2 (or 0.78:1) which is greater than the preferred floor area allowable for a dwelling house under the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP of 0.563:1 for a site area of 505.2m2.

 

Whilst the FSR preferred solution is not complied with, the proposed development demonstrates that the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP are satisfied.

 

The total floor area of the granny flat is 43.5m2 which is less than 60 square metres.

 

Matter 3:

A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies (Division 2 Secondary dwellings) on the grounds of site area if the secondary dwelling is located within, or is attached to, the principal dwelling, or the site area is at least 450 square metres.

Officer Comment:

The size of the lot is 505.2m² and the proposed granny flat is recommended for approval.

 

Matter 4:

A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies (Division 2 Secondary dwellings) on the grounds of no additional parking being provided on the site.

 

Officer Comment:

There are two existing garage car parking spaces on the site and no additional parking is proposed. There are no requirements under the policy to provide any additional parking for the granny flat. The proposed granny flat is recommended for approval.

 

8.1 Policy Controls

 

a.   Development Control Plan No. Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

The DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies is used as a guide when considering proposals for secondary dwellings.

 

Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Clause

Preferred Solutions

Check

y/n

Landscaping

40 % of site provided as landscaped area

Approx. 51.7% (including terrace area).

Yes

25m² of private open space provided.

Approx. 114.6m2 +

Yes

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

9.4m x 12.19m

Yes

Open space behind the building line.

Yes

20% of the site area is permeable.

Approx. 23%

Yes

Floor area

(Site area 505.2m2) maximum FSR 0.563:1 

The combined total floor area of the principal dwelling and the granny flat is 0.78:1 (394.1m2).

No. See main issues column above for discussion.

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale; are compatible with the existing character of the locality; and minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The combined total floor area of the principal dwelling and the granny flat is 394.1m2 (or 0.78:1) which does not meet preferred solutions for floor area under the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP of 0.563:1 for a site area of 505.2m2.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the development has an FSR which exceeds the FSR preferred for the site and it is not considered that the development will unreasonably compromise the amenity of the adjoining properties in terms of privacy, overshadowing and fresh air.  Also, it is not considered that the development will result in significant additional building bulk that will dominate the site or detract from the character of the surrounding area. There is adequate separation between the subject development and adjoining dwellings and the size of the granny flat is not substantial.

 

The proposal will satisfy the performance requirement of the DCP, namely, that the proposal will not become an intrusive visual element in the area and is not considered excessive in respects to bulk and scale. Also, it is considered that the proposed development will not be out of keeping with the established bulk and scale of similar residential development in the immediate locality as the height of the granny flat will be generally consistent with the neighbouring dwelling at no. 1 Marjorie Crescent and is setback 2m from the secondary street frontage.

 

Height, Form & Materials

External wall height maximum 7m

n/a

n/a

External wall height to the rear maximum 3.5m.

The granny flat/outbuilding structure will have a maximum external wall height of 3.7m.

No. See main issues column above for discussion.

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

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

 

The granny flat/outbuilding structure will have a maximum external wall height of 3.7m not complying with the preferred solution requirements of the DCP.

 

Notwithstanding the above, it is not considered that the proposed development is excessive in height as it will be generally consistent in height with the character of the immediate locality and the design relates to the topography of the site.  Also, the development will not detract from the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and street character as there is adequate separation between the proposed development, existing dwelling on the site and adjoining dwellings.  Further, the size of the granny flat is not substantial and will satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

Cut or fill maximum 1m.

There is no cut and fill on the site as the granny flat is proposed over the existing terrace garage.

Yes

No excavation within 900 mm of a side boundary.

There is no excavation within 900mm of the side boundaries.

Yes

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

There is no excavation within 4m of the rear boundary.

Yes

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

The length of the granny flat is 8.39m and is setback at least 1.5m from the southern side boundary.

Yes

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

n/a

n/a

Building setbacks

Front setback average of adjoining dwellings or 6m

The granny flat is located on a secondary street frontage.

n/a

Rear boundary setback at least 4.5m.

The development is setback 1.55m from the rear boundary.

No. See main issues column above for discussion.

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours, and with respect to front boundary setbacks that the proposal generally conform with the adjoining or dominant streetscape.

 

The development is setback 1.55m from the rear boundary not complying with the preferred solution requirements of the DCP.

 

Notwithstanding the above, it is not considered that the development will unreasonably compromise the amenity of the adjoining properties in terms of privacy, overshadowing and fresh air. There is adequate separation between the subject development and adjoining dwellings and the size of the granny flat is not substantial.

 

The proposed development demonstrated that the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP are satisfied.

 

Side setbacks be 900mm at ground level.

The development is setback greater than 900mm from the side boundaries.

Yes

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The granny flat is setback at least 1.5m from the side boundaries.

Yes

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

n/a

n/a

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.

The new openings to the eastern side of the granny flat may overlook the rear yard of the adjoining property at no. 23 Storey Street.

To address overlooking into the neighbouring property at no. 23 Storey Street 1.8m high privacy screens are to be provided on the eastern side of the terrace directly opposite the stair access and is to extend a length of 1.2m on the northern side of the terrace. This will be reduced opportunities for overlooking of neighbouring properties and will satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements for Visual and Acoustic Privacy in Councils DCP.

 

Yes

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

The change in use from first floor terrace to granny flat may increase and alter the intensity of the use of this area. To address any potential overlooking into the neighbouring property at no. 23 Storey Street 1.8m high privacy screens are to be provided on the eastern side of the terrace directly opposite the stair access and is to extend a length of 1.2m on the northern side of the terrace. This will be reduced opportunities for overlooking of neighbouring properties and will satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements for Visual and Acoustic Privacy in Councils DCP.

 

Yes

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

Not required

n/a

Garages & Driveways

 

There are two existing garage car parking spaces on the site and no additional parking is proposed. There are no requirements under the policy to provide any additional parking for the granny flat.

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.

There will be no unreasonable additional overshadowing to the rear yard of the subject site.

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.

The shadow diagrams submitted indicate that the additional overshadowing on north facing windows is not unreasonable and are essentially overshadowed in the afternoon.

 

The development is setback 1.55m from the northern side boundary which is adequate separation between the subject granny flat and adjoining dwelling at no. 1 Marjorie Crescent; and will comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

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

The proposal will not unreasonably impact the principal outdoor recreational space of neighbouring dwellings. The additional overshadowing on the rear yard of no. 23 Storey Street is not significant and is primarily in the afternoon only.

 

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 below.

 

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

The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report.

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.

 

A BASIX certificate is not required for this development application as the estimated construction cost is valued at less than $50,000.

 

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.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The proposal will improve the amenity on the site and is consistent with the relevant aims and objectives of Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the SEPP Affordable Housing.  Subject to conditions, it is not considered that the development will give rise to any significant environmental impacts on adjoining properties, or have any unreasonable adverse impacts on the visual amenity and character of the street.


 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the responsible authority, grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/960/2010 for construction of a granny flat above the existing detached garage at 21 Storey Street, Maroubra,  subject to the following:

 

1.          The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans and supporting documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s approved stamp, except where amended by Council in red and/or by other conditions of this consent:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

DA-02 (Issue A)

Abstract Designs

27 /10/2010

2 /11/2010

DA-03 (Issue B)

Abstract Designs

2/03/2011

2 March 2011

DA-04 (Issue B)

Abstract Designs

2/03/2011

2 March 2011

DA07 (Issue B)

Abstract Designs

2/03/2011

2 March 2011

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received

 

368681S

30 March 2011

30 March 2011

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements:

 

a.   A privacy screen having a height of 1.8m above the rear terrace floor level must be provided to the eastern side of the terrace directly opposite the stair access and is to extend for a length of 1.2m on the northern side of the terrace.  The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

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:

 

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

 

4.       Metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted (e.g. colourbond).

 

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

 

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

 

6.       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 conditions are imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency:

 

BASIX Requirements

7.       In accordance with section 80A(11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements and commitments contained in the relevant BASIX Certificate must be complied with.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate must be included on the construction certificate plans, specifications and associated documentation, 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.

 

Energy & Water Efficiency

8.       The following energy efficiency and water saving measures are to be implemented in all new and upgraded building work and details included in the construction certificate:

 

a)    The consumption of water shall be minimised by the use of triple A rated water efficient plumbing fixtures (taps and shower roses) and water efficient dual flush toilets.

 

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

 

c)    New hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation and must also satisfy any relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

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:

 

 

9.       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.

 

10.     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:

 

11.     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.

 

12.     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).

 

13.     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.

 

14.     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).

 

15.     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”.

 

16.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

18.     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.

 

19.     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:

 

20.     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 garage/terrace structure to support the proposed granny flat.

 

21.     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.

 

22.     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 such works.

 

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

 

23.     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 immediately 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.

 

24.     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.

 

25.     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.

 

26.     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.

 

27.     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.

 

28.     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.

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.

 

29.     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.

 

30.     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. 

 

31.     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.

 

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                                                                                                     19 April 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP23/11

 

 

Subject:                  146 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford

Folder No:                   DA/711/2010

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a part two and part three level attached dual occupancy with garaging, two inground swimming pools and associated site works

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Mr RG McEwin & Mrs BW McEwin

Owner:                         Mr RG McEwin & Mrs BW McEwin

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The subject proposal is referred to Council for determination as it contains a variation to the FSR and external wall height development standards stipulated in Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998 by more than 10%. The applicant has submitted SEPP 1 objections to these development standard.

 

The subject application is for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a three level attached dual occupancy with garaging, two in ground swimming pools and associated site works.

 

Amended plans have been received on 4 March 2011 to address issues raised by Council in relation to height, bulk and scale as reflected also in submissions from local residents in response to the notification/advertising of the DA. The amended plans incorporate the following changes:

 

·           Reduction in building height by 0.6m from the original proposed max 10m to the current 9.4m which complies with the maximum 9.5m height limit.

·           Reduction in storey building height by making the proposal a predominantly 2 storey building through the removal of subfloor living area beneath garage and back fill as foundation and removal of void above the stairwell on first floor.

·           Reduction if FSR from 0.77:1 to 0.57:1 through the removal of subfloor living area beneath garage and back fill as foundation and removal of void above the stairwell on first floor; increased setback first floor northern and southern side setbacks from 900mm to 1.5m; and removal of void area above stairs on first floor. 

·           0.6 m increase in first floor northern and southern side setbacks from original 900mm to current 1.5m. 

·           Removal of planter box within the first floor northern and southern side setback thus reducing side boundary wall height an additional 1.5 m

·           Void above stair hall on first floor removed and provided raked ceiling above stair thus further reducing FSR and further compliance with 7.0 external wall height.

·           Redistribute floor area such that the additional 0.07 : 1 FSR (39.95m2) is distributed mainly to the area of subfloor which has been allocated as w.c, laundry & stair on the lower ground floor which does not contribute to the bulk & scale of the building.

·           Garage floor level amended to FFL 27.95 to satisfy Council’s flood level requirements.

 

The amended proposal has an FSR of 0.57:1 (max 318.7 sqm) which exceeds the maximum FSR control of 0.5:1 (max 278.75 sqm) resulting in an excess of  39.95qm. The proposal also breaches the maximum external wall height standard of 7m as the proposal will have a maximum wall height of 9.4m. State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP No.1) objections have been submitted in relation to the breach of these controls.

 

An assessment of the SEPP 1 objections indicates that strict compliance with the controls would be unreasonable and unnecessary as detailed in Section 5 of this report. In particular, the additional floor area is distributed into sub-floor areas on the lower ground floor and therefore not visible from the street; the additional wall height is confined to the middle section of the proposed building where there is a significant fall in level in the subject site so that the remainder of the proposed building complies with the maximum building and wall height standards; the proposal will have a height, bulk and scale that will not detract from the predominant existing character of its specific location containing a mix of new large 2-3 storey modern to older style brick and tile dwellings; and the proposal is located at the very end of the row of dwellings on the western side of Tunstall Avenue bordering the Australian Golf Course which affords it an open green setting therefore mitigating against any visual bulk and scale.  Additionally, the new building will not have any adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of solar access, privacy and views as assessed in relevant sections of this report.

 

The proposal generally complies with the preferred solutions/performance requirements of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies with the exception of the FSR and external wall height controls which have been assessed as part of the SEPP 1 Objections.

 

The proposal also complies with the numerical car parking requirement of the DCP – Parking.

 

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

 

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

 

2.    The Proposal

The subject application is for the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a part two and three level attached dual occupancy with garaging, two in ground swimming pools and associated site works.

 

The amended proposal will result in a part two (2), part three (3) storey dual occupancy with dwellings attached side by side in a “mirror” image of the other such that each will contain the following:

 

Lower Ground Floor (rear section)

·      Living/dining, kitchen, WC and laundry 

 

Ground Floor (fronting Tunstall Avenue and extending to rear)

·      Double garage, porch/entry, stair hall, master bedroom with WIR and ensuite, light well.

 

First Floor (front section) 

·      3 x bedroom and WC.

 

Each dwelling will also have a rear yard with attached swimming pool and a central courtyard in the middle of each proposed dwelling.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is known as Lot 7 in DP 27867 and is located on the western side of Tunstall Avenue.

 

Figure 1 : Aerial view of subject site and locality

 

The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage to Tunstall Avenue and rear boundary of 18.29m; and side (northern and southern) boundary depths of 30.48m, and has a site area of 557.5 sqm.

 

The site falls steeply from the street frontage to the rear with the first third of the site some 3.5m above the remaining rear section which is level at an average 1.5m above the Australian Golf Course.

 

The site is currently occupied by a two-storey brick and tiled dwelling house with an attached double carport built directly upon the northern boundary.

 

Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. The subject site with existing dwelling significantly sunken below street level. on-site. The subject site occupies only a small slice of a wider view of the adjoining Australia Golf Course (see next Photo 2).  

2. Existing and adjoining Australia Golf Course land to south  that affords residents on the opposite side of Tunstall Avenue an expansive open space view.


 

3. Existing and adjoining building to the north at No. 144 Tunstall Avenue.

4. Existing large 3 storey modern dwelling house on the eastern side of Tunstall Avenue at No. 77 Tunstall Avenue  (This is an objectors property regarding loss of views)

5. Existing 3 storey modern  development directly opposite on eastern side of Tunstall Avenue at No. 81 Tunstall Ave towering above and overlooking the subject site.

6. A row of existing high and bulky dwelling houses elevated above the opposite eastern side of Tunstall Avenue overlooking the subject site. 


 

  7. Another large contemporary development on eastern side of Tunstall Avenue at No. 67 Tunstall Avenue

8. Three storey contemporary development under construction on eastern side of Tunstall Avenue at No. 25 Tunstall Avenue.

 

9. Existing modern development close to the subject site on the western side of Tunstall Avenue at No. 142A. The development is sunken and stepped down the sloping land, a feature the proposal adopts to reduce bulk and scale.

10. Existing modern development on the western side of Tunstall Avenue at No. 124. The development is sunken and stepped down the sloping land, a feature the proposal adopts to reduce bulk and scale.

 


 

11. Existing modern development on the western side of Tunstall Avenue at No. 86. The development is sunken and stepped down the sloping land, a feature the proposal adopts to reduce bulk and scale.

 

4.    Site History

 

There is no relevant history attached to the DA and site.

 

5.      State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 Objections

 

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

 

·      Floor Space Ratio (Clause 20F)

A maximum FSR standard of 0.5:1 (278.75 sqm) is applicable to the subject site pursuant to Clause 20F of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation). The amended proposal will result in an FSR of 0.57:1 (318.7 sqm).

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with Clause 20F of Randwick LEP is unreasonable and unnecessary. Principles for assessing SEPP 1 Objections have been established in the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. The case has established that the upholding of a SEPP 1 objection is a precondition which must be satisfied before a proposed development can be approved by the consent authority. The principles established in Wehbe v Pittwater Council are addressed in the assessment of the applicant’s current SEPP 1 Objection:

 

Matter 1

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

·      The excess floor area of 39.95 sqm mainly will be allocated to the sub floor areas on the lower ground floor comprising the WCs, laundry rooms and stair well/halls of the two dwellings which amount to approximately 35 sqm. As such, the excess floor area does not contribute to any excessive visual bulk and scale nor does it result in a visually intrusive building especially considering that the amended proposal includes other changes to further reduce the height and scale of the proposed development as assessed below.

 

·      In tandem with a significant reduction in FSR from the original proposed 0.77:1 to the current proposed 0.57:1, the applicant has reduced the height of the proposed development such that the proposal now fully complies with the maximum building height standard of the RLEP. In addition, the variation in the maximum wall height standard has been reduced from the original max 10 m to the current max 9.4m.  The amended proposal, in effect, has a reduced scale and massing that not only lessen its impact on the streetscape but also makes it compatible in visual bulk and scale of other existing dwellings in its vicinity on Tunstall Avenue.

 

·      The proposed development will be in keeping with the existing height and scale of housing development in adjoining and surrounding sites, in particular, it will not dominate the two storey dwelling house immediately adjoining the site to the north (at No. 144 Tunstall Avenue) and will be consistent with the built form of the large existing contemporary dwelling house at No. 142a Tunstall Avenue (see photos above). Additionally, there are comparably large, as well as higher, existing dwellings on both the eastern and western side of Tunstall Avenue. including Nos. 77 and 81 Tunstall Avenue (see photos above), such that the proposed development will not be out of character in the streetscape nor inconsistent with the bulk and scale of surrounding development and will satisfy the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP with regards to floor space ratio.

 

·      The proposed development will occupy almost the same extent of footprint as the existing adjoining dwelling house at No. 144 Tunstall Avenue (albeit in a different orientation) and, predominantly, will be located at a significantly lower level (approximately 3.5m lower) than the Tunstall Avenue verge. The combined effect of the lower level and significant setback from Tunstall Avenue is to essentially relieve any perception of visual bulk and scale when viewed from the street.

 

·      The proposed development will have adequate landscape area (50.5% of site area) which complies with the minimum 50% requirement under Clause 20E of the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) and adequate deep soil landscaping (max 43% of landscaped area) with no portion over basement or podium area and therefore complies with the requirement under Clause 20E of the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation). This compliant landscape element will relate positively to the proposed building and enhance its presentation in the streetscape and locality.

 

·      The amended proposal provides for improved setbacks with the first floor level (that is, the level that is directly visible at street level) now setback by 1.5m from the northern and southern side boundaries (compared with 900mm in the original proposal). This has further compressed the built form to reduce its visual bulk so that, when viewed from street level, the side setbacks of this built form will appear consistent with that of existing dwellings in Tunstall Avenue. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Matter 2

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary, in this case, for maintaining the low to medium density housing forms in the locality, including dwelling houses, semi-detached housing, dual occupancies, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

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

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary for the proposal to  achieve the objectives of the development standard.

Second

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

 

Comments:

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

Third

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

 

Comments:

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

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

The maximum building and external wall height development standard has not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council.

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

The existing Residential 2A zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality, which is characterised by low to medium density residential development. 

 

·      External Wall Height (Clause 20G)

The proposal seeks a variation to the maximum external wall height. The proposal has a maximum external wall height of 9.4m (to top of parapet), which exceeds the maximum external wall height specified in Clause 20G Randwick LEP 1998 of 7m respectively.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

·      The additional external wall height is localized in the middle section of the upper most floor (ie., the first floor) and occurs as a consequence of the steep fall in the slope of the land at this point but is nonetheless mitigated by its generous setback from the northern and southern side boundaries. The localized breach of the height limit resulting from this roof form is warranted as it does not create excessive visual bulk and scale; is not considered intrusive or dominant; and does not give rise to detrimental amenity impacts on adjoining/surrounding properties.

 

·      The height of the proposed building should be viewed in relation to the existing topography of the subject site. This topography sees a considerable fall in the ground line of approximately 4.5m throughout the length of the site. The site is located on the low side of the street along Tunstall Avenue. As such any impacts of the proposed breach in wall height standard will be mitigated the sloping nature of the site, the considered design of the proposed development including increased setbacks, compressed built form, and flat roof. The proposal maintains the objectives governing height as listed within the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan including:

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

·      The use of a flat roof form in an overall contemporary well-articulated and well-modulated building not only moderates the visual bulk and scale of the proposal but also contributes to the streetscape by providing a dwelling that is compatible in building bulk and scale as well as roof ridge levels. For example, the proposal has a maximum height at RL 33.70 which relates well with a similar contemporary dwelling house at No. 142a Tunstall Avenue  at RL33.20 (see Figure 2 below) .

 

        Figure 2: Streetscape elevation

 

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

 

·      The proposed non-compliance do not result in any inconsistencies with the objectives of the 2A zone in which the site is located or the general objectives for the built and natural environment and amenity or the objectives of the external wall height standard. In particular, the proposed development will be in keeping with the existing height and scale of housing development in adjoining and surrounding sites, and will not dominate the two storey dwelling houses in the adjoining and nearby sites to the north.

 

·      There are comparably large, as well as higher, dwellings on both the eastern and western side of Tunstall Avenue beyond the subject site and its immediate adjoining properties (see Photos 4 – 9 above). Having regard to the nature of existing surrounding development in Tunstall Avenue and the locality, including a number of examples of substantial contemporary dwellings, the proposed development is not considered to be out of context in the streetscape nor inconsistent with the bulk and scale of surrounding development and will satisfy the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP with regards to floor space ratio.

 

The proposal satisfies the purpose of the external wall height standard and the SEPP 1 Objection is well founded.

 

Matter 2: The Court must be of the opinion that “granting of consent to that development application is consistent with the aims of this Policy as set out in clause 3” (clause 7 of SEPP 1).

 

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

 

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

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

 

The applicant has presented a case to establish that compliance with the standards would not hinder the attainment of the objects of the Act. The proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the character of the locality and this is consistent with the objects as quoted in the SEPP. The variation from the External Wall Height standards is consistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as it would not detract from the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the resultant development would promote the orderly and economic use of the land, and would not result in significant adverse environmental or social impacts.

 

Matter 3: The Court must be satisfied that a consideration of the matters in clause 8(a) and (b) of SEPP 1 justifies the upholding of the SEPP 1 objection. The matters in clause 8(a) and (b) are:

 

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

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standards do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not allow the best economic use of the site and the delivery of a suitably scaled in-fill residential development in an established neighbourhood.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

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

 

Table – Establishing compliance is unreasonable or necessary

Method

Assessment

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Second

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Third

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

The external wall height standard has not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council.

 

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

The existing Residential A zoning is considered to be appropriate for the locality.

 

6.      Community Consultation

 

The proposal was notified from 1 September 2010 to 15 September 2010. Nine submissions from the following properties were received in response to the notification objecting to the proposed development on the following grounds:

 

·           67 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford

·           79 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford

·           77 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford

·           81 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford

·           87 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford

·           45 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford

·           89 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford

·           108 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford

·           83 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford

 

·            Excessive height bulk and scale/ overdevelopment of site sets a bad precedent

The SEPP 1 assessment above indicates that the proposal does not represent an overdevelopment of the site. In particular, the proposal does not have a built form that towers over or overwhelms adjoining and nearby existing dwelling houses. Rather, the applicant has amended the proposal to the extent that it would fit comfortably into the existing streetscape of Tunstall Avenue in terms of architectural design and visual bulk, scale and height (compare the proposal with existing large developments on Tunstall Avenue some of which are shown in Photos 4 – 11 above). Specifically, the proposal adopts a primary feature of new developments on the western side of Tunstall Avenue, which is a sunken and stepped built form down the sloping topography of the land on this side of Tunstall Avenue. Like these other new developments, the visual bulk and scale of the proposal is mitigated significantly by the declining topography of the subject site as well as the open setting provided by the adjoining golf course to their rear (and in the case of the subject also to its southern side). Accordingly, the proposal has a maximum height at RL 33.70 which relates well with a similar contemporary dwelling house at No. 142a Tunstall Avenue  at RL33.20.

 

·            Inappropriate townhouse and/or terrace style development (dual occupancy out of character with existing dwelling houses on Tunstall Avenue)

Attached dual occupancies are permissible in the Residential 2A zone. The proposed attached dual occupancy has been skilfully design such that, visually, it presents and reads as a whole integrated building both from the street and from the rear adjoining golf-course. The external treatment of the proposed development will result in a congruent and uniform contemporary architectural façade to the streetfront behind which the two attached dwellings site so that the effect, visually, is that of a well balanced and symmetrical building rather than distinct duplexes or terrace houses. Combined with a stepped and graduated rear and side setbacks and a compressed built form, the proposal will not be out of character with existing dwelling house developments in Tunstall Avenue. There are a number of examples of large modern dwelling house developments that have more storey height and larger visual bulk and scale than the proposed development (see Photos 4-11 above) in Tunstall Avenue, so that it is difficult to sustain the objectors’ view that there is an singular, intact predominant low density residential built form in Tunstall Avenue that requires protection from the proposed development. Rather, Tunstall Avenue contains a melange of residential styles, scale and massing with which the proposed development will not be incongruous or out of character.

 

·            Inadequate and inconsistent setback (compared with existing dwellings on Tunstall Avenue)

The breach in setback (ie., zero setback) occurs only for a short length of 6m along the northern and southern walls of the garages. These breaches occur on the lower ground floor which is sunk below the street level so that it would not be directly visible at street level. Furthermore, the zero setback breach on the northern elevation will be shorter than the existing zero setback breach of the northern wall of the existing dwelling shown in Photo 12 below.

.

Photo 12 : Existing northern face of the wall of the existing dwelling built to zero setback on the northern boundary of the subject site .

 

 

Apart from the proposed zero setback breach along the garage, the remaining side and rear setbacks comply with (and in some instances go beyond) the DCP – Dwelling House and Dual Occupancies Controls so that the proposal will not be inconsistent in setbacks with existing development in Tunstall Avenue.  Furthermore, the proposal will achieve the relevant Performance Requirement of the setback controls.

 

·            Loss of views

Objections regarding loss of views have been received from objectors at Nos 77 and 79 Tunstall Avenue. These objections are addressed as follows:

 

No. 77 Tunstall Avenue

The view that will be affected by the proposed development comprises primarily a view of trees within the Australian Golf course site adjacent to the southern and western boundaries of the subject site and limited glimpses of the golf course green. Applying the planning principles for assessing view loss established in the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council, the impact of the amended proposal on views from No. 77 Tunstall Avenue is as follows:

 

Step 1 :     “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

Having regard to Senior Commissioner Roseth’s comments regarding “iconic views” it is considered that the view of the golf course trees and glimpses of the golf course green is a district view that does not qualify as iconic (see Photo 13 below). It represents atypical district view that has a lesser value than, and therefore not as significant as, that of a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible”. Accordingly, the loss of part of this view as a result of the proposed development is considered acceptable and reasonable.

 

Photo 13: Standing from the elevated ground floor balcony linked to an adjoining living room of the objectors’ property at No. 77 Tunstall Avenue, the affected view is that of tall trees (in the background and to the right) within the Australian Golf Course site adjacent to the western rear and southern side boundary of the subject site.

Step 2:      “The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries.”

The views in question are generally obtained partially across a side boundary and partially across the front boundary, in an oblique direction looking south-west, so that, in line with the planning principle, the protection of these views is unreasonable and not warranted. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development will retain views of the upper part of the golf course trees as assessed below.

 

Step 3:      “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact… The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them)… It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

The affected view is obtained form the elevated ground floor balcony and living room of the objector’s property. The proposed development will obstruct the lower portion of the existing golf course tree views but will not affect the upper parts of these tree views. As such, given the considerations in Steps 1 and 2 above, the view loss is considered minor. It should be noted that a significant amount of existing tree view is already obstructed in the fore ground by the northern wall of the existing dwelling on the subject site so that the net view loss to No. 77 Tunstall Avenue would be negligible. Additionally, a more significant partial view of the Sydney City CBD skyline to the north-west is obtained from the same balcony which will not be affected by the proposed development at all (see Photo 14 below) 

 

Photo 14 : Partial Sydney CBD skyline (including Centrepoint Tower) obtained from the from elevated balcony of No 77 Tunstall Avenue.

 

Step 4 :     “The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of noncompliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours.”

While the lower part of the existing tree views will be obstructed by the proposed development, this impact is not considered to be exacerbated by the proposal’s non-compliance in FSR and external wall height standards for the following reasons:

 

 (1)     a large portion of the proposed development lies well below the maximum building height standard of 9.5m.

(2)      the non-compliance in external wall height (max 9.4m) is confined to the  middle section of the proposed building which will obstruct back ground tree views minimally

(3)      the proposal has been significantly stepped and setback both from the rear and side boundaries well in excess of the minimum setback requirements of the DCP – Dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies. 

 

Therefore, notwithstanding the departure in the FSR and external wall height, the proposal overall has been compacted to reasonable footprint and envelope so that the impact of visual bulk and scale in the outlook from No. 77 Tunstall Avenue will not be significant. The proposal will read as an integrated single dwelling albeit containing an attached dual occupancy. Accordingly, any expectation of full retention of the objectors’ views of trees is considered unreasonable especially given that the applicant has applied a skilful amended design to further reduce the height, bulk and scale of the proposed development.

 

Overall, the proposal is satisfactory with regard to views.

 

No. 79 Tunstall Avenue

As with no. 77 Tunstall Avenue, the view that will be affected by the proposed development comprises primarily a view of trees within the Australian Golf course site adjacent to the southern and western boundaries of the subject site and limited glimpses of the golf course green. These views are obtained from the first floor living room and elevated ground floor study room of the objectors’ property. Applying the planning principles for assessing view loss established in the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council, the impact of the amended proposal on views from No. 77 Tunstall Avenue is as follows:

 

Step 1 :     “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

Having regard to Senior Commissioner Roseth’s comments regarding “iconic views” it is considered that the view of the golf course trees and glimpses of the golf course green is a district view that does not qualify as iconic (see Photos 15, 16 and 17 below). Whilst this view is highly valued by the objectors at No. 79 Tunstall Avenue (in terms of its green outlook and setting), the view is considered to be relatively less valuable than, and therefore not as significant as, that of a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible”. The view essentially is a sliver of a wider district view of trees (afforded by the nearby Australian Golf Course) with an existing two storey residential property at the front. This view is already obstructed by existing trees in the objectors’ front yard and adjoining property. Accordingly, the loss of part of this view as a result of the proposed development is considered acceptable and reasonable.

 

Photo 15: Standing from the upper level living room of the objectors’ property at No. 79 Tunstall Avenue, the affected view is that of tall trees (in the background and to the right) within the Australian Golf Course site adjacent to the western rear and southern side boundary of the subject site.  This view is already obstructed by existing trees in the objectors front yard and adjoining property.

 

Photo 16: Standing from the upper level living room of the objectors’ property at No. 79 Tunstall Avenue, the affected view is that of tall trees (in the background and to the right) within the Australian Golf Course site adjacent to the western rear and southern side boundary of the subject site.  This view is already obstructed by existing trees in the objectors front yard and adjoining property.

 

Photo 17: Standing from the elevated ground floor study room of the objectors’ property at No. 79 Tunstall Avenue, the affected view is that of heavily obscured tall trees (in the background) within the Australian Golf Course site adjacent to the western rear and southern side boundary of the subject site.  As can be seen, this view is already obstructed by existing trees in the objectors front yard and adjoining property.

 

Step 2:      “The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries.”

While the view in question is obtained across the front boundary of No. 79 Tunstall Avenue, it is viewed in an oblique direction looking south-west as the subject site is diagonally across Tunstall Avenue (see Photo 15, 16 and 17 above). Given its oblique direction looking south-west, and in line with the planning principle, the protection of the affected view is unreasonable and not warranted. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development will retain views of the upper part of the golf course trees as described below.

 

Step 3:      “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact… The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them)… It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

The affected view is obtained from the first floor living room and elevated ground floor study room of the objector’s property. The proposed development will obstruct the lower portion of the existing golf course tree views but will not affect the upper parts of these tree views. As such, given the considerations in Steps 1 and 2 above, the view loss is considered moderate. It should be noted that a significant amount of existing tree view is already obstructed in the fore ground by the northern and eastern wall of the existing dwelling on the subject site so that the net view loss to No. 79 Tunstall Avenue would be minor. Additionally, a more significant Sydney City CBD skyline view to the north-west is obtained from the same elevated living room which will not be affected by the proposed development at all. (see Photo 18 below). Furthermore, the obstructed view is only a portion/slice of a wider contextual view of the Australian Golf Course comprising more trees and golfing greens which will still be available to the objector when looking further south along Tunstall Avenue from the objectors’ property (see Photos 2 and 15 above).

 

Photo 18 : Sydney CBD skyline (including Centrepoint Tower) obtained from the from same first floor living room of No 79 Tunstall Avenue which will not be obstructed by the proposed development.

 

Step 4 :     “The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of noncompliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours.”

While the lower part of the existing tree views will be obstructed by the proposed development, this impact is not considered to be exacerbated by the proposal’s non-compliance in FSR and external wall height standards for the following reasons:

 

 (1)     the amended proposal  results in a large portion of the proposed development lying well below the maximum building height standard of 9.5m.

 

(2)      the amended proposal results in the non-compliance in external wall height (max 9.4m) being confined to a small middle section of the proposed building such that the view loss arising from this section will be minimal with the upper part of the background tree views retained. Accordingly, this moderate impact arising from the non-complying portion of the wall height is not considered unreasonable.

 

(3)      the proposal is significantly setbacked both from the rear and side boundaries well in excess of the minimum setback requirements of the DCP – Dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies which assists in ameliorating view loss. 

 

Therefore, notwithstanding the departure in the FSR and external wall height, the proposal overall has been compacted to reasonable footprint and envelope so that the impact of visual bulk and scale in the outlook from No. 79 Tunstall Avenue will not be significant. The proposal will read as an integrated single dwelling albeit containing attached dual occupancies. Accordingly, any expectation of full retention of the objectors’ views of trees is considered unreasonable especially given that the applicant has applied a skilful amended design to further reduce the height, bulk and scale of the proposed development.

 

Overall, the proposal is satisfactory with regard to views.

 

·            Loss of privacy

The objectors’ properties at Nos. 77 and 79 Tunstall Avenue are located obliquely north-east of the proposed development at a distance in excess of 25m which would mitigate against any overlooking from the first floor of the subject site. Even so, the first floor of the proposed development that projects above the street contains only bedroom areas which will not be used for living room type activities that are more conducive to overlooking. The windows associated with these bedrooms will face Tunstall Avenue and installed with aluminium louvers. The living areas of the proposed development are located on the lower ground floor which are orientated to the lower level rear yard adjoining the golf course. As such, windows associated with these living areas are at a level lower than that of the street and will make overlooking of the elevated objector’s properties difficult, if not, physically impossible.

 

·            Overshadowing

Overshadowing impacts of the proposed development will be minimal as the subject site is adjoined by the Australian Golf Course site on the southern and western sides and by Tunstall Avenue on the eastern side. Shadow diagrams lodged with the application clearly indicate that shadows from the proposed development fall entirely on these areas with no residential properties affected by overshadowing at all.

 

·            No pedestrian access/footpath on Tunstall Avenue exacerbated by wide driveway (pedestrian safety)

·            No footpath to the south of subject property

A condition will be applied requiring the construction of a footpath along the full frontage of the subject site. The lack of a footpath on Tunstall Avenue further south is a not a matter for consideration in the assessment of this DA.

 

·            Increased traffic and construction traffic impact

The proposal adds only one additional dwelling (to the existing one) on the subject site. The increase in traffic onto Tunstall Avenue from this one additional dwelling is considered minor. Construction traffic will be managed by the requirement for a Construction Traffic Management Plan as a condition of consent should approval be granted.

 

7.     Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

7.1    Development Engineers

Amended plans have been submitted in relation to an issues report by Development Engineering. The amended application is 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:

·      Plans by Development Design Pty Ltd, sheets 0.01 – 5.05, issue B, dated 20.12.2010.

 

Driveway Grades/Garage Level Issues

Development Engineers issue paper dated 20/9/10 stated that a garage slab level of RL 27.95 AHD would be acceptable. The amended plans received 4 March 2010 now show the proposed garage slabs at RL 27.95.

 

Landscape Comments

In accordance with the previous Engineering Report dated 12/11/10, amended plans showing the southern most pool being relocated to the opposite side of the site have been received, and while this negates any impact on the tree on the Australian Golf Course grounds, conditions protecting other trees within the subject site now need to be provided, and have been included in this report.

 

The 3-4 metre tall Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Weeping Elm) located on Council’s Tunstall Avenue verge, centrally across the width of the site, appears in good health and condition, is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO) due to its location on public property, and is part of a formal planting scheme of this species in this street and suburb.

 

However, it would need to be removed in order to accommodate the most southern vehicle crossing as shown, and while permission has been granted for this due to its small size and an ability to provide a replacement to its north, between both crossings upon completion, this will be at the applicant’s cost.

 

There is a dead Melaleuca armillaris (Bracelet Honey Myrtle) located on the adjoining Australian Golf Course grounds to the south, close to the common boundary, whose northern aspect partially overhangs into the subject site, with permission granted for the selective pruning of any offending branches as necessary. The larger Tallowood immediately to its south, will not be affected, with conditions for this tree not required.

 

Located centrally across the width of the front (eastern) boundary, there is a Koelreutaria paniculata (Golden Rain Tree) of around 6 metres in height which appears in fair heath and poor condition due to the past pruning of nearly all low growing branches for clearance reasons, as well as past damage that has been sustained to a major structural leader on its eastern side, near ground level.

 

It overhangs the verge all the way to the kerb, and also occupies the majority of the front setback, with large rocks used as an informal retaining wall having been placed hard up against the western side of its trunk, with a brick wall also to its south and the driveway to its north.

 

The plans show this tree as being removed in order to accommodate new pedestrian entry paths, gardens and associated regrading, and due to its size and likely root spread, the design changes required if its retention was sought would be significant, and would pose a major constraint to the development.

 

Its stability would be compromised if root damage is sustained during both removal of existing structures and excavations for the new dwelling, with its appearance to be affected as major under-pruning would be required for clearance purposes, and for these reasons, approval has been granted for its removal.

 

While the 6-7 metre tall Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm) immediately to its west is a good example of the species and an attractive site feature, it would simply not be possible to retain this palm given its location, with approval also given for its removal, on the basis that a suitable replacement feature species is provided in this same area of the site.

 

In the rear yard, in a narrow area between the northern wall of the existing brick studio/patio and northern site boundary, there is a Scheffllera actinophylla (Umbrella Tree), which can be removed due to being an environmental weed, with the mature, 5 metre tall Michelia figo (Port Wine Magnolia) located immediately to its west also able to be removed due to its close position to the northwest corner of the existing dwelling, as well as due to the damage that would occur during both demolition and construction activities.

 

While access to the rear yard was not possible at the time of inspection, it was possible to observe from the patio, that further to the northwest, in the rear yard of the adjoining property to the north, 144 Tunstall Avenue, close to the common boundary, there is a 7 metre tall Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm), and then further to the west, a mature Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box).

 

However, neither will be affected due to a combination of their setback from the works and the presence of an existing dividing brick wall along the northern site boundary, as this would have restricted root growth into the subject site, with conditions not required.   

 

Beyond the northwest corner of this site, on the Australian Golf Course property, there is a 10 metre tall Citharexylum spinosum (Fiddlewood), which despite its eastern aspect overhanging into the rear yard, it will not be directly affected by the pool due to the ground level where the tree is growing being lower, with the existing dividing brick wall along the western site boundary to have restricted root growth into the subject site, with conditions not required.

Still in the rear yard, near the southwest corner of the site, there is an 8 metre tall Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm), which may be a self seeded specimen as it is growing out of the large boulders/informal retaining wall that runs parallel to the rear (western) boundary, and was observed to contribute to the well vegetated surrounds.

 

The original proposal showed the pool for the southern dwelling (no.148) occupying the area between the building and boundary, finishing a distance of approximately 4 metres to its southeast, but in response to Council’s requirement that the pool be relocated elsewhere so as to avoid damage to a large tree on Golf Course land to the south, this pool has been shifted to the northwest, in the rear yard, and on the northern boundary (common with no.146), which should result in a setback of around 5 metres, with relevant conditions to ensure its preservation included in this report.

 

Right in the southwest corner of the site, at the intersection of the boundary between the subject site and the Golf Course (both assume joint ownership of the tree), there is a mature Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) of 18-20 metres in height which is in good health, is a mature example of the species, is covered by the TPO, and needs to be retained as along with other native trees in this area, it benefits the local environment through not only amenity and shade, but also by offering a food and habitat source for native fauna.

 

The biggest threat to its preservation will be filling so as to achieve a more level and usable rear yard which will suffocate its roots, as well as excavations for the pool, absorption trench/pits to its north and northeast, and the stockpiling of materials around its trunk and over its root system during the course of works.

 

A combination of the setback shown between the tree and structures described above, as well as the conditions included in this report should be sufficient to ensure its preservation, and while some of the plans appear to show that a masonry fence will be built along the southern and western boundaries, Council does not support this given the damage that would be caused to its root system, with conditions requiring that existing soil levels/grades be maintained in this area, with any fencing to use localised pad footings only, with no strip footings allowed, with the same also applying to the other, smaller Blue Gum to its southeast.

 

Still on the Golf Course grounds, to the east of the tree described above, and slightly closer to the common boundary, and adjacent the southwest corner of the existing dwelling, there is a Citharexylum spinosum (Fiddlewood) of around 10 metres in height, whose western aspect is suppressed due to the larger, more dominant trees in this area.

 

Its northern aspect overhangs into the subject site, with the Golf Course land sloping gently away to the southwest, and while this new house extends several metres further to the west than the original proposal, the side setback has been slightly increased, so it will not pose a major problem to the tree.

 

The pool that was previously shown in this area has been relocated in accordance with Council’s instructions, with the only conditions required being that fencing using localised pads be used, rather than a continuous strip footing for a masonry wall as appears to be shown on some of the plans.

 

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.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:”

 

7.2    Building Services and Environmental Health Comments

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

 

8.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

8.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

Clause 9 Objectives

To consider the aims of the LEP and Zone objectives prior to determining any DA on land to which the RLEP applies.

The proposed development will not compromise the general aims of the RLEP as listed in Clause 2 in relation to aesthetic character, sustainability, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality. As indicated in the next row below, the proposal is also consistent with the specific objectives of the zone.

Complies

Clause 10 Zone No 2A (Residential A Zone)

To consider specific objectives of the zone.

 

 

a)  To provide a low density residential environment

b)  To maintain desirable attributes of established residential areas

c)  To protect the amenity of existing residents

e)  To encourage housing affordability

 

 

 

 

The proposal comprises a dual occupancy which is consistent with the provision of a low density residential environment;  respects the lower density character of the Residential 2A zoning to the north and east;  contributes to the stock of dwellings in the locality by providing for 2 x 4 bedroom dwellings have minimal impacts on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties (as assessed in relevant sections of this report) especially as  the amended proposal has provided a reduction in height, reduced FSR and greater setbacks.

The proposal satisfies the objectives of the zone, particularly objectives (a) (b) (c) and (e).

20B

Minimum allotment sizes

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

Site area = 557.5 sqm

Frontage = 18.29m (Tunstall Avenue)

Complies

20E

Landscape area

Min 40% landscape area

(223 m2)

 

Max 50% of landscape area over podiums or excavated basement areas.

50.5% landscape area

(282m2)

 

Nil – no podium or basement proposed.

Complies

20F Floor Space Ratio

Max 0.5:1 (278.75 sqm)

Max 0.57:1 (318.7 sqm)

No, SEPP 1 Objection submitted

20G

Building heights

Max building height – 9.5m

 

Max external wall height – 7m

 

Max building height = 9.4m

 

Max external wall height = 9.4m

Complies

 

 

No, SEPP 1 Objection submitted

22

Services

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

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

Complies, subject to conditions

40 Earthworks

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

The proposal requires both cutting and filling of the land to accommodate functional floor plates for the lower ground floor and garage levels. Council’s Development Engineer raises no  objections to the proposal subject to the recommended engineering conditions. The proposal has been amended to achieve the required flood protection levels and therefore will not adversely impact on the drainage pattern and use of the land. Standard conditions apply to ensure  suitable soil retention and erosion control measures.

Complies, subject to conditions

 

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies to the proposed development. The development application is accompanied by amended BASIX Certificates for each proposed dwelling  numbered 369701S and 369712S. The requirements specified in the above certificates will be imposed by appropriate standard conditions pursuant to Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

9.      Policy Controls

 

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

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

 

Landscaping

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

40% of the total site area (or 223 m2) is provided as landscaped area.

A total of 282m2 or 50.5% of the site is reserved as landscaped area as defined in the DCP. Complies.

S1

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

The rear courtyard has a total area of approximately 144m2. Complies.

S1

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

The rear courtyard for each dual occupancy is capable of accommodating a rectangle of approximately 8m x 9m in dimension. Complies.

S1

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

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

S6

Min 20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

The proposed soft landscaped or permeable surfaces amount to 122.4m2 or 22% of the site. Complies.

 

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this size is a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 (or 278.75m2 gross floor area).

The proposed FSR is 0.57:1, which equates to 318.7 sqm gross floor area. Does not comply. Refer to SEPP 1 Objection and assessment above. 

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

Maximum 8.4m on south elevation. Does not comply, refer to SEPP 1 objection and assessment above.

S1

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

No separate rear buildings proposed. N/A.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Amended proposal will have up to approximately 2.5m fill into existing sub-floor area beneath steep front slope. See assessment below.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

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

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Excavation within 4m of the rear boundary will occur for the swimming pools. See assessment below.

S4

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

Second storey portion will be less than 1.5m from the southern boundary at a maximum length of 6m  Complies.

S5

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

Not applicable.

 

Floor Space Ratio and Building/Wall Height

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in height, bulk or scale; are compatible with the existing character of the locality; and minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The proposal has an FSR of 0.57:1 which exceeds the DCP requirement of 0.5:1 0.07:1 (39.95 sqm). Additionally, the proposal exceeds the maximum external wall height standard by 2.4m. The non-compliance is deemed to be reasonable and acceptable following assessment of the SEPP 1 Objection above. The relevant DCP objective and performance requirement of the standard have also been achieved in that the proposed bulk and scale will not be inconsistent with the existing built form of nearby properties especially at 142A Tunstall Avenue and relative to the size of the subject site. Beyond these immediate adjoining properties, and having regard to the nature of existing surrounding development in Tunstall Avenue and the locality, numerous examples of substantial contemporary dwellings exist such that the proposed development will not be out of context in the streetscape nor inconsistent with the bulk and scale of surrounding development and will satisfy the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP with regards to floor space ratio.

 

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

“Garage / street level”:

Max 6.325m from Tunstall Avenue  boundary.

Complies.

S2

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

Minimum 6.857m from rear boundary. Complies.

S3

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

Ground level (fronting Tunstall Avenue):

Northern boundary:

Zero setback for 6m length of garage.

 

Southern boundary:

Zero setback for 6m length of garage.

See assessment below.

 

Lower Ground level (at the rear):

Min 1.95m from northern and southern side boundaries.

Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

First Floor Level:

 

Northern boundary:

Min 1.5m

 

Southern boundary: 

Min 1.5m

 

Complies

 

Side setbacks

A minor section of the building will be built to the northern and southern boundary on the ground level. However, this breach of the preferred solution occurs only for length of 6m to accommodate the proposed garages for each dwelling. The short length of this breach results in minimal amenity impacts for the following reasons:

The breaches occur below the level of the street where, in the case of the northern boundary, the existing dwelling house already has a longer wall built to the boundary.

 

The breach in setback occurs for relatively short lengths on the northern and southern sides with the remainder of the development fully compliant with the side and rear setback requirements of the DCP such that a major part of the proposed building will be consistent with the setback of adjoining and surrounding properties along Tunstall Avenue which predominantly have setbacks varying from 900mm to 1.5m. Accordingly, notwithstanding the short breaches, the side setbacks of the proposed development is not considered to detract from any established development pattern in the locality.

 

Furthermore, the proposal is consistent with the performance requirements of the controls in that adequate natural lighting and ventilation will be available for future occupants and neighbours.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The subject site is adjoined by the Australian Golf Course grounds on the southern and western sides so that loss of privacy will not be an issue along these boundaries.

 

All living room windows will be located on the lower ground floor in the sunken rear section of the subject site so that overlooking into the living /habitable areas of the adjoining northern property will not be minimal.

 

The upper ground floor windows on the north elevation will be to a master bedroom which will not be an intensive use conducive to overlooking of the adjoining northern property.

 

The first floor windows on the north elevation will also be to bedrooms and will be treated with louvers which will mitigate any overlooking of the adjoining northern property.

 

S1

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

Potential overlooking into adjoining open spaces from the north-facing upper ground floor windows will be mitigated by the associated master bedroom use to these windows, which as indicated above, will not be an intensive use conducive to overlooking of the adjoining northern property. The existing planting along the southern and western common boundary and the significant fall in the slope of the subject site and adjoining land will mitigate any potential privacy impacts into the proposed development from the adjoining golf course use and vice-versa.

S1

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

 

Complies.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

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

 

 

 

 

Safety & Security

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

 

Complies.

S1,3

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

 

Complies.

S2

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

 

To be required by condition.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The development contains 2 x 4 bed room dwellings each of which requires 1.5 carparking space. The proposal will provide a single garage and carspace for each dwelling which will comply with the parking requirement.

 

S1

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

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

S1

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

The proposal has minimal driveway lengths confined to the southern and northern edges to allow for landscaping in the front middle section. Complies.

S1

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

Each proposed dwelling will have a maximum width of 3m at property boundary to Tunstall Avenue.

Complies

S1

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

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

S1

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

N.A.

S2

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

N.A. 

S2

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

Complies. 

S2

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

Total driveway width will be 33% of width of allotment.

Complies.

 

Fences

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Existing sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

Not applicable.

S1

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

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

S1

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

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

Refer to the “BASIX” section of this report.

S2

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

 

Complies.

S2,8

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

Complies.

S9

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

 

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

S9

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

 

The proposal will not overshadow any north-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings as the subject site is bounded by the Australian Golf Course site on the southern and western sides. Shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that at 9am, 12 noon and 3pm  in the winter solstice, overshadowing will only occur on the adjoining Australian Golf Course site and on Tunstall Avenue.

S9

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

The proposal will not overshadow any recreation space of neighbouring dwellings, as the subject site is bounded by the Australian Golf Course site on the southern and western sides. As indicated above, shadow diagrams submitted with the DA indicate that a at 9am, 12 noon and 3pm  in the winter solstice, overshadowing will only occur on the adjoining Australian Golf Course site and on Tunstall Avenue.

 

 

9.2    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

$200,000 and above

$1,200,000

0.1%

$12,000.00

 

10.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

The site is zoned Residential 2A in which the proposed dual occupancy development is permissible. The site is located within an area, which is predominantly characterised by a low density albeit with a melange of architectural  styles, scales and massing within which the proposed development will have a sympathetic bulk and scale thus respecting the existing character and built form of the locality. The site has sufficient dimension to accommodate the proposed dual occupancy development. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

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

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

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

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

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

Key action:       Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council on the subject site. The proposal does not comply with the maximum FSR and external wall height standard contained in the RLEP. SEPP No.1 objections in relation to these breaches have been submitted with the application and considered to be well founded in the circumstances. In particular, the proposal will be consistent with the planning objectives for the locality; the proposal is not considered to be visually intrusive or bulky; the development overall is considered to be consistent with the character of existing development in the streetscape and locality; and the additional density will not give rise to any detrimental impacts to surrounding uses in terms of ventilation, sunlight, privacy, views, traffic and parking impacts.

 

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

 

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

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

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

AND

 

B.     That Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/711/2010 for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a part-two and part-three level attached dual occupancy with garaging, two in ground swimming pools and associated site works  at 146 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford, subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the amended plans numbered DA 0.01, DA 0.03, DA 0.04, DA 0.05, DA 0.06, DA 0.07, DA 1.01, DA 1.02, DA 1.03, 1.04, DA 2.01, DA 2.02, DA 2.03, DA 2.04, DA 2.05,  DA 2.06, DA 2.07, DA 3.01, DA 3.02, DA 3.03, and DA 3.04, all Issue C, all dated 3 March 2011, and stamped received by Council on 4 March 2011, and the application form, and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the details/amendments approved pursuant to the deferred commencement conditions and by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the proposed development are to be compatible with adjacent developments to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape. Specifically, the use of natural materials rather than the proposed predominantly painted surface shall be provided.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7.       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.

 

8.       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 Certificates for this development are fulfilled.

 

9.       In accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, relevant BASIX Certificates 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.

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development Cost more than $200,000

$1,200,000

1%

$12,000.00

 

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

 

12.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ii)       appoint a principal contractor for the building work.

                                        

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

18.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

20.     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.

 

21.     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.

 

22.     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 group of conditions have been applied to ensure the structural adequacy and integrity of the proposed building and adjacent premises:

 

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

 

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:

 

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

 

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·           Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

·           WorkCover NSW Codes of Practice and Guidelines

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

26.     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.

 

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

 

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

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

·       effectively support  the excavation and building; and

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

 

Notes

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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 & Regulatory Services department.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

f)      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.

 

g)     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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

32.     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 2 new concrete vehicular crossings and laybacks at kerb opposite the vehicular entrances to the site.

 

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

 

c)   Construct a concrete footpath along the full site frontage.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

33.     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.

 

34.     All external civil work to be carried out on Council property (including the installation and repair of roads, footpaths, vehicular crossings, kerb and guttering and drainage works), must be carried out in accordance with Council’s Policy for “Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works” and the following requirements:

 

a)       All work on Council land must be carried out by Council, unless specific written approval has been obtained from Council to use non-Council contractors.

 

b)       Details of the proposed civil works to be carried out on Council land must be submitted to Council in a Pre-paid Works Application Form, prior to issuing an occupation certificate, together with payment of the relevant fees.

 

c)       If it is proposed to use non-Council contractors to carry out the civil works on Council land, the work must not commence until the written approval has been obtained from Council and the work must be carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent, Council’s design details and payment of a Council design and supervision fee.

 

d)       The civil works must be completed in accordance with Council’s conditions of consent and approved design and construction documentation, prior to occupation of the development, or as otherwise approved by Council in writing.

 

35.     Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the applicant is to include additional plans showing internal driveway grades as follows:

 

1:8 for the first 2.0m (transition) inside the site, then 1:4.5 for the next 2.325m and 1:8 for the last 2.0m (transition) before entering into the garage.

 

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

 

36.     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 be as follows:

 

Southern Driveway Entrance – RL 28.95 AHD

Pedestrian Entrances – RL 28.925 AHD

Northern Driveway Entrance – RL 28.90 AHD

 

37.     The design alignment levels issued by Council 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.

 

38.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $805.00 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:

 

39.     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.

 

40.     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.

 

41.     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.

 

42.     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/release of the plan of subdivision, whichever occurs first.

 

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

 

43.     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.

 

44.     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.

 

45.     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)

 

Should the applicant demonstrate ground conditions preclude the use of infiltration, a pump system may be permitted. The pump 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.

 

46.     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 City Planning.  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.

 

47.     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.

 

48.     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.

 

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

 

50.     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.

 

51.     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.

 

52.     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).

 

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

 

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

 

55.     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.

 

56.     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, double brick or equivalent.

 

·      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.

 

57.     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 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.

 

58.     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).

 

59.     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 landscaping and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

60.     As the Landscaping Plan and Landscape Details by Development Design Pty Ltd, sheets 5.01 – 02, issue B, dated 20.12.10, are unsatisfactory in terms of both the level of detail and quality of treatment being proposed for a development of this size and type, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, a landscape plan that has been prepared by a qualified professional in the Landscape/Horticultural industry (must be a registered member of either AILDM or AILA) shall be submitted to, and be approved by, the Certifying Authority, and must include the following:

 

a)   A Planting Plan & Plant Schedule which includes proposed species, botanic and common names, pot size at the time of planting, quantity, location, dimensions at maturity, maintenance practices (hedging, shaping etc), as well as any other landscape details to describe the proposed works;

 

b)   A predominance of species that can withstand poor quality sandy soils, and are not dependant on high quantities of water and fertilisers for survival;

 

c)   Suitably decorative feature/accent species within those garden beds on either side of both pedestrian entry paths, as well as both driveways (along the northern and southern boundaries), the lower ground private courtyards and those raised planters shown on the first floor;

 

d)   At least 1 x 100 litre (pot/bag size at the time of planting) feature tree, which will attain a minimum of between 4-7 metres in height at maturity, in each of those larger garden areas adjacent both driveways;

 

e)   Provision of 1 metre wide, deep soil garden beds in the rear yards of both proposed dwellings, along the length of their western boundaries, to which a continuous evergreen hedge shall be planted, using a species which will attain a minimum height of 2 metres at maturity.

 

f)    All planter boxes and garden beds constructed on slab must have a minimum soil depth of 600mm.

 

61.     The PCA must ensure that the landscaping is installed in accordance with the approved documentation and relevant conditions of consent, prior to the issue of a Final (or any type of Interim) Occupation Certificate/s, with the owner to ensure it is maintained in a healthy and vigorous state until maturity.

 

62.     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

 

63.     Approval is granted for the applicant to remove and dispose of (at their own cost) the existing Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Weeping Elm), on Council’s Tuntsall Avenue nature strip, centrally across the width of the site, during excavations associated with the southern most proposed vehicle crossing as shown, and must satisfy themselves as to the location of all site services prior to the commencement of any works on public property.

 

64.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $250.00 (including GST) to Council, being to reimburse Council for the cost of originally planting this street tree which only needs to be removed in order to accommodate the proposed works, as well as to cover the costs or Council to supply and install 1 x 25 litre replacement of the same species, in between both crossings at the completion of all works.

 

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 shall 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 site works.

 

Tree Removals

 

65.     Approval is granted for removal of the following trees, subject to full implementation of the approved landscape plan:

 

a)     The Koelreuteria paniculata (Golden Rain Tree), located centrally in the front yard, halfway across the eastern boundary, in order to accommodate the new entry paths, gardens and re-grading as shown;

 

b)     The Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm) immediately to its southwest, for the same reasons outlined above;

 

c)     The Schefflera actinophylla (Umbrella) in the rear yard, between the northern wall of the existing brick studio and northern site boundary, due to being an environmental weed,

 

d)     The Michelia figo (Port Wine Magnolia) to its west, due to its close proximity to the northwest corner of the existing dwelling as well to accommodate the new dwelling as shown.

Pruning of neighbouring tree

 

66.     Permission is granted for the selective pruning of only the following:

 

i.    Those lowest growing branches from the northern aspect of the dead Melaleuca armillaris (Bracelet Honey Myrtle) located adjacent the southeast corner of the site, within the Australian Golf Course, where necessary for clearance reasons;

 

ii.   Still on the Golf Course, to the west of the tree described above, about halfway along the length of the southern boundary, those branches from the northern aspect of the Citharexylum spinosum (Fiddlewood), where necessary in order to avoid damage to the tree during the course of either demolition or construction.

 

67.     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.

 

68.     All pruning must be undertaken by an Arborist who holds a minimum of AQF Level V in Arboriculture, and to the requirements of Australian Standard AS 4373-1996 'Pruning of Amenity Trees.’

 

Protection of trees in rear yard

 

69.     In order to ensure retention of both the Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm), and Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) located in the rear yard, in the southwest corner of the site, in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

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

 

b.       The existing ground level, for a radius of 2.5 metres off both of their trunks (measured off their outside edge at ground level) must be maintained. The existing informal rock wall that runs in a northeast-southwest direction across the rear of the site should be retained in this area and incorporated into the works in order to assist with this requirement.

 

c.       The southern edge of the pool shown in an east-west direction along the northern boundary of proposed dwelling no.148, shall be setback a minimum distance of 3.5 metres off the trunk of the Palm, with the absorption trench to be slightly relocated further to the east, so that no excavations will occur within 2.5 metres of its trunk.

 

d.       Any excavations associated with the installation of any other new services, pipes, stormwater systems or similar in the rear yard of proposed dwelling 148 must be setback a minimum distance of 3.5 metres off their trunks, so as to both minimise root damage and future maintenance issues.

 

e.       Any new common boundary fencing along either the southern site boundary, or; that portion of the western boundary, to the south of the existing brick boundary wall, must be a type which requires localised pad footings only, with no excavations for continuous strip footings associated with a masonry wall/fence permitted.

 

f.       Both trees are to be physically protected as one group by installing 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing, which shall be setback a distance of 2 metres to the north and east of the Palm (measured off the outside edge of its trunk at ground level), matching up with the western and southern boundaries, so as to completely enclose them for the duration of works.

 

g.       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 REMOVE/ENTER".

 

h.       Within the TPZ, there is to be no storage of materials, machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble, and in order to prevent soil/sediment being washed into the TPZ, and over their root systems, suitable erosion control measures shall be provided around the perimeter of the TPZ, with all Site Management Plans needing to acknowledge these requirements.

 

i.        Any roots encountered during the course of the approved works must be cut cleanly by hand, and the affected area backfilled with clean site soil as soon as practically possible.

 

Protection of neighbouring trees

 

70.     In order to also ensure retention of those trees growing on the neighbouring Australian Golf Course grounds, being a Citharexylum spinosum (Fiddlewood) beyond the western site boundary, near the northwest corner of the site, as well as a smaller Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) to its east, beyond the southwest corner of the site, and then to the east, a Citharexylum spinosum (Fiddlewood) in good health,

 

a.       Any new common fencing along either the southern or western site boundaries must be a type which requires the use of localised pad footings only, with no continuous strip footings, new masonry walls or changes in level of more than 200mm to be undertaken.

 

b.       There is to be no storage of materials, machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble beneath the extent of the driplines of these neighbouring trees, with sediment controls to be provided so as to prevent run-off towards the trees, with all Site Management Plans needing to acknowledge these requirements.

 

c.       Any roots encountered during the course of the approved works must be cut cleanly by hand and the affected area backfilled with clean site soil as soon as practically possible.

Advisory Conditions

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     19 April 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP24/11

 

 

Subject:                  Reporting variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) for the month of March, 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 to 31 March 2011 ten (10) were approved during this period with either by 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.View

SEPP 1 Register for March 2011

 

 

 

 


SEPP 1 Register for March 2011

Attachment 1

 

 



Ordinary Council                                                                                                     19 April 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP25/11

 

 

Subject:                  Randwick City Landscape Elements

Folder No:                   F2008/00371

Author:                   Lorraine Simpson, Environmental Planning Officer - Heritage     

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at its meeting on 27 April 2010 considered a report on the Randwick Landscape Elements Heritage Assessment and Policies Report (the Study) prepared by consultants Godden Mackay Logan.  The Study recognised 16 landscape elements as contributing to the heritage significance of Randwick City, all in residential areas and all on Council land.  The report concluded that it was important to gauge community opinion and likely support and suitability of recognition and protection.  Council resolved to note and endorse the Study and related material for public exhibition and consultation (Andrews/Notley-Smith), including notification to adjacent property owners.  The Study and related documents were placed on public exhibition for 7 weeks during May, June and July 2010. 

 

Council at its meeting on 7 December 2010 considered a report on the outcomes of this public exhibition and consultation.  Owners of properties adjoining the retaining walls and stairs were notified as part of the exhibition (approximately 180). Council received 22 submissions and of this total 10 were supportive (including a petition with 50 signatures) and five opposed any action that would restrict vehicular access to particular private properties.  The remaining seven submissions were neutral in raising specific issues.  The Report concluded that given the high level of community support for the historic and aesthetic values of the retaining walls, stairs and associated elements they should be recognised and protected by listing as heritage items. 

 

Immediately prior to the Council meeting, it came to the Council’s attention that several properties adjacent to one of the retaining walls (Arden Street, Coogee) were notified to the Strata Corporation only and not to individual dwellings.  The Council resolution (Bowen/Andrews) in response to the report and this notification issue was as follows:

 

a)     The Landscape elements in the Draft Comprehensive LEP be deferred to enable all property owners of affected properties to be notified and residents’ concerns to be further investigated.

 

b)     Council adopt the interim management policy to ensure that the significant retaining walls and stairs are protected until the LEP comes into effect. 

 

c)     Council agree to further investigate the heritage significance of the retaining wall between 108 Brook Street and 6 and 8 Ormond Gardens, Coogee and its relationship to the stone house built by Charles Catley in the 1860s as part of the Comprehensive LEP process. 

 

The Brook Street/Ormond Gardens retaining wall is on private property and its heritage significance is currently being separately investigated. 

 

This report provides Council with outcomes of this second round of public exhibition and consultation.  In summary a further six submissions were received, two in support and three opposed (all being from residents of Abbott Street, Coogee).  The remaining submission raised further issues, including maintenance.  This Report concludes that for the two public exhibition periods, objections relate to only 3 of the 16 elements, and recommends that Council resolve to:

 

·           Endorse inclusion of the 16 landscape elements in the Draft Comprehensive LEP as individual heritage items.

 

·           Note landscape element guidelines should be prepared for inclusion in the Comprehensive Development Control Plan.

 

Public Exhibition

The second round of public exhibition took place between 16 December 2010 and 28 February 2011.  The public exhibition was again notified in the Southern Courier prior to commencement and letters were sent to property owners adjacent to the landscape elements.  All property owners were notified, as well as the Arden Street properties previously advised only to the strata corporation.  Precinct Groups were also notified of the public exhibition.  Copies to the exhibition material were available at Council’s Customer Service Centre and the Bowen and Randwick Libraries.  Copies of the exhibition material were also available on Council’s website. 

 

Documents which were placed on the second round of public exhibition comprised:

 

·           Randwick Landscape Elements Heritage Assessment and Policies Report

 

·           Council Report 7 December 2010

·           Attachment 1- Identification Sheet

·           Attachment 2- Landscape elements submissions

·           Attachment 3- Landscape elements nominations

·           Attachment 4- Landscape elements correction and clarifications

·           Attachment 2- Landscape elements interim management policy

·           Council resolution 7 December 2010

 

·           Council Report 27 April 2010

·           Attachment 1 Identification Sheet

·           Attachment 2 Maps

·           Attachment 3 Property Impacts Summary

·           Attachment 4 Adjacent property access issues

·           Council resolution 27 April 2010

 

A summary of each submission received in the second round of public exhibition is included in Attachment 1. 

 

Council received 6 submissions. Of these two supported the proposals generally (including a resolution from the Coogee Precinct), three opposed recognition of the Abbott Street retaining walls (including one signed by seven residents of Abbott Street).  These opposing submissions were on the grounds of possible restrictions on private vehicular access, or possible restrictions on the Council’s ability to control damage by tree roots.  A further submission raised concerns in relation to possible restrictions on future development potential of a particular property in a 2C zone (Daintrey Crescent/St Pauls Street).  Further issues raised in submissions included queries in relation to maintenance, heritage significance and heritage recognition.  The three submissions in Abbott Street included one signed by 7 residents, 2 of whom also made individual submissions.  The objections received in the second round of public exhibition thus related primarily to access issues in the vicinity of the Abbott Street, Coogee retaining wall. 

 

No submissions were received from the additional Arden Street properties notified. (These were the properties that the strata plan rather than the individual owners were notified).  No further submissions were received from the Alison Road or Prince Edward Street property owners who spoke at the December Committee meeting, raising concerns about possible future vehicular access to properties in these locations.  A development application has since been submitted and approved for one of the Alison Road properties, as discussed in more detail later in this report. 

 

The main general issues which were raised in submissions, and a response to these issues, are discussed below:

 

Main General Issues raised in second round submissions

 

1.      Supportive of recognition and protection

Two supportive submissions were received in the second round of consultations.

 

One submission noted the previous letter which was signed by over 50 residents and visitors and which supported the proposed protection of these valued landscape elements.  This submission noted that the sandstone walls are successful retaining walls, an attractive part of the streetscapes, and a feature throughout Randwick and agreed with the Report’s conclusions that they are worth keeping. 

 

The Coogee Precinct also reiterated its support for this report and congratulated Council on its efforts to preserve this important part of Randwick’s heritage.

 

Response: 10 supportive submissions were received in response to the first round notification and two supportive submissions in response to the second round notification, a total of 12 supportive submissions.  Previous supportive submissions have also been received including a petition signed by 27 residents requesting that the Garnet Street embankment and dry stone retaining wall be declared as a public reserve, and a letter from the Randwick and District Historical Society supporting attention to the sandstone retaining walls in Randwick City as an important element in historic character.  On the basis of submissions received in response to the public exhibition and prior submissions, it appears that there is considerable support recognition and protection of the retaining walls and stairs for their historic and aesthetic values. 

 

2.      Concern about restriction on vehicular access and in particular to properties in Abbott Street

Two submissions raised concerns that the heritage listing of the Abbott Street wall would prevent the creation of off-street parking and devalue the properties.  These included a submission of 7 residents from 13, 15, 17 and 21 Abbott Street, and two of whom also wrote separate submissions.

 

Response: it is noted that LEP listing does not preclude the submission of a development application for vehicular access to a property, and that any such development application would be assessed on its merits which also will include heritage consideration.  A number of the Abbott Street properties have particular constraints to be resolved arising from property width, front setbacks, and retaining wall height, which may require considerable intervention both on private property and on Council land.  It is noted that any vehicular access provision which affects Council footpaths may be subject to the Disability Discrimination Act should new steps be required. 

 

As background to vehicular access generally, the April Council report noted that of the 113 properties adjacent to the retaining walls, 72% already have alternative vehicular access from a side street or rear laneway.  Of the 31 properties without alternative vehicular access, the Council report indicated a number of further constraints to providing vehicular access.  Five objections were received in response to the first round notification and two objections in response to the second round notification (including the petition), a total of seven objections.  These submissions relate to only 3 of the 16 landscape elements. 

 

Since Council’s adoption of an interim management policy for the retaining walls in December 2010, a development application has been submitted and approved for vehicular access to a property in Alison Road adjacent to one of the Council’s retaining walls. The heritage comments in relation to this proposal noted that although existing vehicular access penetrations have interrupted the continuity of the sandstone retaining wall on the northern side of Alison Road, the detailing of the modifications maintain evidence of the unusual aesthetic qualities of the original retaining walls. It was considered that a further vehicular access can be provided subject to careful design to minimise impact on the landscape element and the streetscape. 

 

3.      Possible restrictions on future development potential of a particular property in Daintrey Crescent, Randwick

One submission advised that if recognition of heritage significance would affect the development potential of this site, then the owners would object to the policy. 

 

Response: the site currently has one vehicular access point (subject to resolution of floor levels).  The site has a 2C zoning and is occupied by a two storey building.  Without a specific redevelopment proposal it is not be possible to comment on the adequacy of the existing vehicular access to serve a future redevelopment or the possible aesthetic impacts on the retaining wall of any enlarged or additional opening.  As noted above, each development application will be assessed on its merits and how it will respond to constraints and opportunities of a site.

 

4.      Maintenance issues in relation to particular retaining walls

 

St. Paul’s Street/Daintrey Crescent, Randwick

The submission included a query as to who would be responsible for future maintenance. 

 

Response: As these elements are within the Council’s public domain, Council would continue to be responsible for the maintenance of the retaining walls and other landscape elements in the public domain. 

 

Abbott Street, Coogee

One submission noted the damage to the wall caused by fig trees.  Another included a query as to whether deterioration of this wall may have reduced heritage value, and requested detail of Council’s restoration and maintenance plan for the wall should it be added to the heritage schedule..

 

Response: The Study provides specific conservation recommendations for each of the landscape elements.  In relation to the Abbott Street retaining wall, the Study recommends removal of vegetation growing in the wall as well as specific works for the sandstone components of the wall.  The Study recommends that any new planting be of a type that will not cause physical damage by excessive root growth etc.  Council’s Coordinator Tree Management is in any case addressing these issues with surrounding residents.  Heritage listing of the wall would in no way restrict the Council’s ability to control damage to the retaining wall caused by tree roots.  Such maintenance works which conserve the heritage values of the retaining walls and steps could be carried out without development consent. 

 

The Study notes that the retaining walls and associated elements are generally solid, robust structures of good quality stonework, brickwork or concrete.  The Study recommends the adoption and implementation of an effective maintenance program to ensure the physical integrity of the significant landscape elements.  The December Council Report recommended that the retaining walls and associated landscape elements should be included in Council’s GIS system, Asset Management System and Asset Maintenance Schedule as these systems are prepared and updated. 

 

5.      Heritage significance and heritage recognition

 

21 Abbott Street, Coogee

This submission raised a number of queries in relation to heritage significance and recognition.  Responses to these queries are reproduced here from the previous Council Reports and the Study. 

 

Response (re- heritage significance criteria):  The Randwick Landscape Elements Heritage Assessment and Policies Report includes Historical Background relating to the construction of the retaining walls, a Discussion of Significance of the landscape elements collectively, and detailed heritage Data Forms for each of the retaining walls.  The Data Forms include Statements of Significance, Physical Descriptions, Historical Notes, Recommendations, mapping and photographic recordings.  The Report establishes the historic and aesthetic significance of the retaining walls and stairs in accordance with the current evaluation criteria established by the Heritage Council of NSW. 

 

Response (re- details of similar sites in Randwick that are already heritage listed): the Coogee Beach sandstone retaining wall and another brick retaining adjacent to Cowper Street are already listed as heritage items under Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation).  A number of retaining walls located within heritage conservation areas also receive heritage protection. 

 

Response (re- should the wall on the opposite side of the street be recognised?): the wall on the opposite side of the street, in front of nos.12 and 14 Abbott Street, was recommended for inclusion in the earlier report and exhibition as well as the second round exhibition and this situation is unchanged.

 

Consideration

 

a)    Protection through Randwick Comprehensive LEP and DCP

Individual heritage listing of the of the landscape elements would ensure that any proposed works to the items or on adjacent properties would need to respect and retain those qualities that make the items significant.  LEP listing is considered to provide the highest level of protection but does not preclude change to a heritage item.  Council currently receives around 140 development applications each year for alterations and additions to heritage items, the vast majority of which are approved.  In this way any development applications for driveway access could be considered to ensure that any openings were appropriately detailed to minimise heritage impact. 

 

Objections have been received over the two exhibition periods in relation to 3 of the 16 landscape elements, as follows:

 

·      Abbott Street, Coogee retaining wall

·      Alison Road, Coogee retaining wall

·      Prince Edward Street, Malabar retaining wall and rock cutting

 

While these 3 landscape elements could be considered for deletion, such an approach could not be recommended on heritage grounds, as the Study noted that the retaining walls have a collective value as a group of similar elements in the built environment of Randwick City.  Alternatively, the proposed extent of the retaining walls or rock cuttings could be reduced so that the objectors’ properties were not part of the mapped listing.  Again, such an approach could not be recommended on heritage grounds, as the Study recognised the historic and aesthetic significance of the walls in their entirety.  The objections relate to concerns about potential/future vehicular access and as noted, these may still be considered through the submission of development applications for the properties. 

 

DCP guidelines would involve the insertion of specific clauses in relation to retaining walls and other landscape elements in Council’s Comprehensive Development Control Plan.  These clauses could be drafted so as to apply not only to the landscape elements which are listed as heritage items, but to other landscape elements which have been identified in submissions but which have not been investigated by the Study.  These DCP clauses would not provide as high a level of protection as LEP listing but provide recognition of their potential heritage/streetscape value as a matter for consideration in the assessment of any development application affecting them. 

 

b)    Maintenance program

The Study recommends that Council adopt and implement an effective maintenance program to ensure the physical integrity of the significant landscape elements, including urgent maintenance works and cyclical maintenance programs.  Maintenance works should generally be carried out by suitably experience tradespeople using matching materials and techniques.  Appropriate training of Council maintenance staff will ensure that a range of works can be carried out “in-house”. 

 

Conclusion

 

Given the high level of community support for the historic and aesthetic values of the retaining walls, stairs and associated elements, they should be recognised and protected by listing as heritage items.  Such listing does not preclude change to retaining walls such as the provision of vehicular access, subject to assessment of heritage and other impacts, and the sensitive design of penetrations.  As so many of the properties have existing or alternative access, it is not expected that a large number of vehicular access applications will be received. 

 

The detailed and specific maintenance guidelines which have been provided as part of the Study can be incorporated into Council’s asset maintenance program to maximise longevity for these retaining walls and stairs.  Such repair and maintenance works can be carried out without the need for development consent.  The provision of information on Council’s website on the importance of the landscape elements will help to ensure that the threat of unsympathetic public utility and private works is minimised. 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     endorse the inclusion of the 16 landscape elements in the Draft Comprehensive LEP as individual heritage items.

 

b)     note that Landscape Element Guidelines should be prepared for inclusion in the Comprehensive Development Control Plan.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Landscape elements submissions table - round 2

 

2.View

Landscape Elements Identification Sheet

 

 

 

 


Landscape elements submissions table - round 2

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Document No.

Landscape Element

Address

Submission summary

D01244488

 

Retaining walls generally

 

Coogee precinct meeting

Resolution that the Coogee precinct reiterate its support for this report and congratulate Council on its efforts to preserve this important part of Randwick’s heritage

D01239814

 

 

St. Paul’s Street

Owner

26 Daintrey Cres.

Randwick

State government pressures encourage owners to redevelop their properties to increase densities and generate greater income.

How will heritage significance of retaining wall affect development potential of this property?  Owners would object to any hindering of development potential. 

Who is responsible for maintaining the wall should it fall into disrepair?

D01239036

 

Retaining walls

Resident

1 Cairo Street, South Coogee

Still supportive of Report and recommendations.

Referred to submission made in June 2010 signed by 50 residents or visitors who supported heritage protection and are still concerned. 

The sandstone walls are successful retaining walls, an attractive part of the streetscapes and a feature throughout Randwick.

D01244479

 

 

Abbott Street, Coogee

Residents

21 Abbott Street, Coogee

Suggest further investigative work be carried out providing information on why the wall has been selected for heritage listing. 

Request detail of similar sites in Randwick that are already heritage listed.

Why hasn’t the wall on the opposite side of the street been identified for heritage listing?

Does Council have a restoration and maintenance plan should wall be heritage listed?  Suggests that damage by tree roots and services must detract from heritage value. 

There is no rear lane access and parking in the area is becoming more difficult.  Heritage listing would prevent off street parking being added and devalue properties. 

D01248529

Abbott Street, Coogee

Resident

17 Abbott Street, Coogee

Damage to the sandstone wall being caused by fig trees.  Tree in front of no.17 is displacing the adjacent capping stone.  New fig trees are sprouting in front of nos.9 to 15 following removal of original trees and are causing damage to sandstone wall.  Heritage listing of wall may hinder effective tree root damage control on public and private property. 

D01239032

 

Abbott Street, Coogee

 

Petition signed by 7 residents of Abbott Street (including nos. 17 and 21)

Oppose heritage listing as it would restrict residents wishing to provide off-street parking and would devalue properties.  Street parking has become increasingly difficult in the area. 

 

 


Landscape Elements Identification Sheet

Attachment 2

 

 

 

 

Clovelly

Coogee

 

Seaview Street

sandstone drain

Abbott Street

sandstone retaining walls

 

 

 

 

Victory Street

sandstone retaining walls

Alison Road

sandstone retaining walls and embankment

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arcadia Street

sandstone retaining wall

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arden Street

sandstone retaining walls

 

Malabar

Maroubra

 

Prince Edward Street

sandstone retaining wall and rock cutting

Bond Street

sandstone retaining wall

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cooper Street

brick retaining wall

 

Randwick

 

 

Coogee Bay Road

sandstone and brick retaining walls

The Causeway

sandstone retaining wall

 

 

 

 

Dolphin Street

sandstone retaining wall and embankment

 

 

 

 

South Coogee

 

Judge Street

sandstone retaining walls

 Cairo Street

stairs and associated sandstone retaining walls

 

 

 

 

St Pauls Street

sandstone retaining wall

Garnet Street

sandstone retaining wall and embankment

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     19 April 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP26/11

 

 

Subject:                  Draft Final Plan of Management of Prince Henry Centre

Folder No:                   F2010/00298

Author:                   Ting Xu, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Executive Summary

 

The Prince Henry Centre (the Centre) has a “community land” classification under the Local Government Act 1993 (the LG Act). The LG Act requires that community land be used and managed in accordance with a Plan of Management (PoM) prepared and adopted by a council.

 

A draft PoM has, therefore, been prepared for the management and maintenance of the Centre to comply with the above requirement. At its meeting of 24 August 2010, Council (Andrews/Matthews) resolved to endorse the draft PoM for the purposes of public exhibition and a public hearing. The draft PoM was publicly exhibited from 8 September to 8 October 2010, followed by a public hearing held on 3 November.

 

Two submissions were received, both from the La Perouse Precinct Committee. One person attended the public hearing, being the Chair of the precinct committee. Key issues raised in the submissions and at the hearing, include:

 

§  Name of the Centre does not reflect the Centre’s essential function as a community and cultural centre;

§  The Centre, as described in the PoM, focuses more on commercial uses rather than community uses;

§  Community facilities as described in the initial Prince Henry Masterplan have not been well provided; and

§  The Plan of Management does not encourage free informal/unstructured use by the community groups.

 

Detailed explanations are provided later in this report to address and respond to the above issues.  The PoM is now proposed to be finalised after consideration of the community feedback received during the consultation period. This report recommends that the Council adopt the attached Plan of Management for Prince Henry Centre, as exhibited.

 

Background

 

The Centre is located at the eastern part of the Prince Henry site, known as 2 Coast Hospital Road, Little Bay. It covers an area of approximately 9,230m2 and is currently zoned 6A (open space) under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

 

The Centre was dedicated to the Council by Landcom in May 2009 as part of a major residential development undertaken on the former Prince Henry Hospital site. The Council owns and manages the Centre.

 

The Centre is a uniquely sited sustainable building with considerable architectural quality and offers a variety of venues (e.g. auditorium, multi purpose rooms, amphitheatre, future Café, etc) to support cultural and community activities. Commercial uses, such as corporate/private functions and conferences, and the Café will reinforce and support the cultural/community uses of the Centre.

 

The Plan of Management

 

The PoM (Attachment 1) has been prepared in accordance with the LG Act/Regulation and aims to achieve the following objectives:

 

§  to assist the community in understanding the role of the Centre, the facilities and amenities provided and the opportunities to use and enjoy the Centre over time;

§  to meet the Council’s obligations under Chapter 6 of the LG Act in respect to public land management;

§  to enable the Council to renegotiate or enter into contracts, leases, licences and hire agreements for the Centre in relation to the provision of services and utilities; and

§  to provide for an effective program of asset management, maintenance and improvements to the Centre.

 

As required under the LG Act, the Plan contains a detailed description of the land and building, authorises the current and future uses of the Centre, specifies the scale and intensity of any permitted use/development and categorises the land as “general community use”.

 

The PoM covers a variety of key operational issues, including access, architectural integrity, asset management, environmental sustainability, landscaping, operational management, safety/security and waste management. Management strategies and performance measures have been developed in terms of these issues to:

 

§  maintain the building’s interior and exterior design principles and styling characteristics as it applies to furniture and fittings;

§  maintain the asset condition of the building to acceptable industry standards;

§  preserve the integrity of the landscape design and planting features and ensure the green roof, bio-retention swale and surrounding landscaped areas are well maintained;

§  manage, coordinate and market events and activities and enhance social interaction with the community;

§  enhance an accessible environment and provide clear signage, convenience for people with disabilities and sufficient and secure emergency accesses;

§  provide a safe environment for staff, visitors and users of the Centre; and

§  optimise the environmentally sustainable operation of the Centre.

 

Consultation

 

The draft PoM was on exhibition for public consultation from 8 September to 8 October 2010, with an additional 14 days after the exhibition period for lodging submissions (up to 22 October). Consultation with relevant stakeholders included:

 

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

§  exhibition of the draft at Council’s Administration Building, Bowen, Randwick and Malabar Libraries and the Prince Henry Centre;

§  direct notification to adjoining residents and land owners (leaflet), La Perouse and Malabar precinct committees (email notification) and Chamber of Commerce (email notification);

§  presentations and attendance at the La Perouse precinct committee meeting (on 6 December 2010).

 

As the draft PoM introduced a “general community use” categorisation to the subject land, a public hearing was held on 3 November to fulfil the requirements of the LG Act and Regulation. An independent facilitator from SJB Planning was appointed to facilitate and report on the hearing. The public hearing report prepared by the facilitator was received on 3 December (Attachment 2). The LG Act requires it to be furnished to Council and made publicly available within 4 days of receipt. This was undertaken, as reported in the Councillor’s Bulletin on 10 December 2010.

 

Submissions and responses

 

Two submissions were received, both from the La Perouse Precinct Committee. The interim one was submitted on 11 October 2010 (being the Minutes of the precinct meeting, see Attachment 3). The final submission was received in March 2011 (See Attachment 4). The precinct raised concerns in both submissions that more free/informal and unstructured uses should be provided by the Centre, as noted in the initial Masterplan.

 

The public hearing was attended by one community representative, being the Chair of the La Perouse Precinct Committee. Councillor Belleli also attended, along with Council staff to observe proceedings.

 

Summarised below are the major issues that were raised at the hearing and in the submissions, together with associated comments in response.

 

§  Name of Centre does not reflect the Centre’s essential function as a community and cultural centre

 

The submitter expressed that the name of the Centre does not include the word ‘community’, which could not adequately reflect its essential function as a community and cultural centre.

 

Comment

The draft PoM describes the Centre as a ‘multi-purpose community centre’. The Centre name ‘Prince Henry Centre’ reflects its function and role as a multi-purpose centre, which could accommodate a wide range of uses and activities, including Council business, cultural and community events, performing and visual arts as well as corporate and private functions. The name of the Centre is also to overcome potential ownership confusion. A large number of communal areas within the Prince Henry site are managed by a Community Association. Therefore, the name which was discussed in the very early stages of the development of the Prince Henry site was to overcome this potential confusion (i.e. that the Centre is not owned by the Community Association for their exclusive use). The name of the Centre is thus considered to be appropriate, as also noted in the public hearing report.

 

§  The Centre, as described in the PoM, focuses more on commercial uses rather than community uses.

 

Comment

One of the key objectives, upfront in the draft PoM, associated with the operation management of the Centre is ‘to manage and balance the needs of various user groups based on the principle that community use shall be the predominant use of the Centre, while supported by private function uses.’

 

The Centre does provide for commercial/corporate uses, to subsidise its community uses and the maintenance and running costs of the building. The recent history of use of the Centre indicates a predominance of community type functions, comprising approximately 65% of the total usage.

 

§  Community facilities as described in the initial Prince Henry Masterplan have not been well provided.

 

The submitter raised concern that existing facilities and the proposed range of activities and uses of the Centre could not sufficiently cater for the basic local needs, as identified in the initial Masterplan by Landcom (2001).

 

The submitter suggested that, at the time of public consultation undertaken by Landcom regarding the initial Masterplan, it was proposed that community facilities, including an office with basic office facilities, a community common room, and library services, be made available free of charge to local community groups.

 

Comment

The Centre was always to have been dedicated to Council and thus subject to all Council’s policies and fees and charges. Council is not aware of any community discussion about the management of the Centre with Landcom nor would Lancom have been able to outline Council’s management requirements.

 

The ultimate form, scale and range of activities agreed for the Centre was subject to separate and specific negotiations and agreement between Landcom and the Council (i.e. the 2005 Deed of Agreement), associated with the redevelopment of the site. This was based on Council’s community facilities planning culminating in its 2003 Community Facilities Plan. A key focus of the Centre is to provide a city-wide community and cultural facility, identified as a need in the Community Facilities Plan.

    

The use of the Centre is also regulated by a development consent (DA/677/2009), including internal design, layout, operating hours, scale and intensity of permitted uses, etc. this consent is reflected in the draft PoM.

 

The requirements in the Deed between Landcom and the Council regarding the scale, usage and management of the Centre, supersede the initial Masterplan referred to in the submissions and at the hearing. 

 

It appears that discussion about the Centre’s facilities between Landcom and local residents occurred as part of the initial 2001 Masterplan process. Suggestions, such as library and gym facilities were then included by Landcom in the Masterplan. However, the performance brief for constructing the Centre that was agreed to as part of the Deed of Agreement makes no reference of the abovementioned facilities. The performance brief was produced largely on the basis of the Council’s Community Facilities Study 2003, which demonstrated a clear direction for the provision of a cultural space, such as an auditorium, together with other multi-functional spaces to accommodate community related functions. The Centre already caters for recreational uses, such as Yoga and Zumba classes.

 

Given the multi-purpose function of the Centre, it is not practical to include either general drop-in space or office facilities for the community. These are not offered by the Council at other community centres, and not provided in community facilities in adjoining local government areas, such as Marrickville and the City of Sydney. However, as noted later in this report, these are provided by Council’s libraries, given the drop-in nature of library functions.

 

§  The Plan of Management does not encourage free informal/unstructured use by the community groups.

 

Comment

The community and any commercial groups/individuals are generally required to book the venue according to Council’s venue hire fees and charges policy. This includes a discounted hire rate for community groups. As an example, the use of the small meeting room by community groups is charged at $26/hour, which is comparable to other community centres in Randwick City. The booking system applies to all Council’s community centres. The only exception for free use of Council venues is for precinct committee meetings. Nevertheless, Council’s community activities and events will generally be free for the public and available informally, e.g. the recent art/craft exhibition and historic photograph exhibition, both held in March 2011 at the Centre.

 

The inclusion of a drop-in common room would be a substantial departure from both the layout and character of the Centre. The Centre has been conceived and designed in order to accommodate organised community, private and corporate meetings and functions. Accommodating an informal and relatively unregulated space, open to the general public to come and go at will, would be likely to clash with the facilities and management of the Centre. The Centre includes a publicly accessible café space, being a location where members of the public can meet informally.

 

The three libraries in Randwick LGA remain the key ‘drop in’ venues which provide reading rooms, access to computers and informal meeting spaces to the public. The nearest one is the Malabar Library.

 

Amendments

 

The independent report from the public hearing, by SJB, suggested that the draft PoM does not require any amendment based on the hearing discussions. Following full consideration of the above issues, it is recommended that the Council proceed to finally adopt this Plan of Management as exhibited.

 

Relation to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:        A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2a:     New and updated community facilities that are multi purpose and in accessible locations.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The PoM has been prepared in-house in consultation with the Prince Henry Centre Manager, City Service officers and other relevant staff. A small budget of $2,000 was allocated to cover the costs for exhibition, consultation, public hearing and finalisation/printing of the Plan.

 

Conclusion

 

The PoM provides clear guidelines, requirements and strategies for utilising and managing the Centre. The implementation of the PoM will ensure that this valuable asset continues to be maintained to a high standard and retains its importance as a vibrant and active space, to meet the cultural and community needs of our residents across the City.

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     endorse the Prince Henry Centre Plan of Management for finalisation and;

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Draft Final Prince Henry Centre Plan of Management

under separate cover

2.View

Public Hearing Report

 

3.View

Minutes of La Perouse Precinct Meeting (11 October 2010)

 

4.View

Formal Submission of La Perouse Precinct Committee

 

 

 

 


Public Hearing Report

Attachment 1

 

 


Text Box: CP26/11

Text Box: CP26/11


Minutes of La Perouse Precinct Meeting (11 October 2010)

Attachment 2

 

 

La Perouse Precinct Committee

Minutes of Meeting  7.30 pm Monday11 Oct 2010

 

Prince Henry Centre

 

There were 11 people in attendance including Councillor Belleli as observer.

 

Issues Discussed

 

Prince Henry Centre Draft Plan of Management

Initial discussions were held on this matter but taking into account the unusually low attendance it was decided to further discuss the draft plan at future meetings to give those members not at the meeting a chance  to   have their say.

 

The discussions did however include aspects such as :

 

  The name of the Centre does not reflect its main purpose ie a community centre for use by the community

  The plan is one for a function centre as a Council business enterprise not a community centre

  The plan does encourage or even allow for free  informal  use by the plethora of the extant community groups except in the café where it costs and would be inappropriate for groups of any size

  There is no library as promised

  There is no common  room/informal meeting room/reading room for walk in use by members of the community

  There are no office facilities for use by community groups

 

Proposed B-Double Trucks on the southern end run of Botany Rd. Bunnerong Rd and Military Rd.

The above proposed truck route was unanimously opposed by the Committee for the following reasons

Brings heavy overlong trucks into community traffic along Bunnerong Rd which is an imposition of unnecessary risk and danger. Previous accidents at the intersections involved large trucks crunching up cars

Unnecessarily interferes with community traffic

Unnecessarily interferes with funeral CORTAGES. The Plaster Board Factory commission of inquiry imposed a condition that no large trucks were to use the Military Rd /Bunnerong Rd intersection during daylight hours.

Pushes heavy industry tone into the residential fringe

 

Chinese Market Gardens

 

The various efforts by the various proponents for and against the retention of the Gardens were again discussed.

 It was unanimously resolved by the Committee to reconfirm its resolutions of previous meetings that “ the La Perouse Precinct Committee calls on the State Government to ensure that all the land at Phillip Bay currently being utilised by the Chinese Market Gardeners be retained in its entirety and in perpetuity for the sole purpose of Market Gardens."

 

Proposed AGM

The Chair advised the Committee that the November meeting would be followed by an AGM

 

The meeting closed 900 pm

 

Charles Abela

Chair


Formal Submission of La Perouse Precinct Committee

Attachment 3

 

 

Dear Sima and Karen

 

The proposed use of the Prince Henry Centre was discussed by the La Perouse Precinct Committee at its meeting on 7 February 2011.  The committee considers that while the building is being used and managed excellently to provide a venue without equal for structured events such as celebrations, displays, arts appreciation, formal meetings by the broad community, the prime purpose of a community centre in providing facility for unstructured use by the local community just is not there. Achieving  community development, a prime Council objective ”a sense of community” depends critically on opportunity and facility for people to meet informally on a variety of pretexts to exchange life experiences and establish relationships. That basic local need while identified as such and elaborated on by the original PH master plan  is not met by the proposed use of the Prince Henry Centre.

 

The Committee therefore has resolved to continue lobbying Council to provide community centre  facilities for substantial use and enjoyment by the local community and which will foster development of the local community for all the benefits that that would generate.

 

Kind regards

 

Charles Abela

Chair La Perouse Precinct Committee

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     19 April 2011

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM4/11

 

 

Subject:                  Email and/or Online Alert service

Folder No:                   F2008/00544

Author:                   Joshua Hay, Communications Manager     

 

Introduction

 

Council at its meeting on 22 February 2011 resolved:

 

(Notley-Smith/Belleli) that Council review its communications strategy and investigate the feasibility of implementing an opt-in email and/or online alert service for communications with its residents, and a report on such to be brought to Council with its findings within three (3) months.

 

This report summarises the investigation.

 

Issues

 

Current situation

Council currently provides the following electronic communication services:

 

·           A free SMS alert service notifying residents about events, council clean-up dates and roadworks. This service is moderately used by residents with 310 subscribers to events, 287 to roadworks and 1071 to clean-ups.

·           A notification service that provides automated emails to subscribers when nominated website pages on the Randwick City Council website are modified.

·           Email newsletters for specific areas such as the library and sustainability.

 

Council also communicates its services, projects, events and decisions through a variety of mediums, including a quarterly printed newsletter, flyers, banners, letters, advertising, media releases and a news channel on Randwick Council’s website.

 

Trends

In 2008 more than 70 per cent of Australian households had internet access. According to the 2006 census, 62 per cent of households within Randwick City had internet access. Undoubtedly this figure has since grown.

 

The recent proliferation of smart phones has also increased people’s ability to access information electronically through email or social media sites like Twitter and Facebook. It is now estimated that every second Australian internet users access social media websites and in August 2009 there were some 6.5 million Facebook users in Australia.

 

There is a strong case for Council to expand its approach to electronic communication to be able to reach an increasing section of the community using the internet, email and social media sites.

 

One of the key findings of Council’s 2010 Customer Satisfaction Survey was that people want more frequent and electronic communication about Council projects, programs and initiatives. This direction was also echoed by local businesses who during a poll in March 2011 said they two ways they wanted to receive information from Council was through the Southern Courier and via email.

 


Feasibility of an email alert service

Many organisations use email newsletters. They are a cost-effective, opt-in, instant and informative communication channel to give subscribers access to information about an organisation’s activities, projects, events, services and decisions.

 

Council already has on file email addresses of some local residents who have expressed an interest in receiving email newsletters from Council. Subscription to email newsletters is entirely optional, usually undertaken through an organisation’s website, and with a one-click subscribe function.

 

Council produces a wide range of written content for its website news channel, advertisements and media releases which could be easily adapted for use in a regular email newsletter.

 

Adding an email newsletter to Council’s communication strategy would reach new sections of the community who may not necessarily access traditional media like newspapers and flyers.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 3:       An informed and engaged community.

Direction 3a:      Effective communication methods and technology are used to share information and provide services.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Minor costs associated with implementing an email newsletter can be absorbed within the existing Communications budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The internet, email and social media are here to stay. As more and more people use these forms of communication, Council needs to ensure it uses the same mediums to effectively communicate our projects, services and decisions to all residents, visitors and businesses.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council develop and implement a weekly, non-political email newsletter for local residents about Council events, services, projects and decisions; and that a report on its operation be brought back to Council six months after commencement.

 

b)     further information be provided to Councillors on other enews communication channels like Facebook and Twitter.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     19 April 2011

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM5/11

 

 

Subject:                  Recruitment and Selection Policy

Folder No:                   F2004/06949

Author:                   Fiona Calabrese, Manager Organisational Staff Service     

 

Introduction

 

Organisational Staff Services recently reviewed and updated Council’s Recruitment and Selection policy.

 

Issues

 

The report by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) on its investigation into attempted corrupt payment and submission of false resumes to public authorities' was issued in August 2010. The ICAC report detailed corrupt findings pertaining to a candidate that offered a bribe to a consultant in an attempt to secure a position in a Directors role at a Municipal Council. The same candidate had falsified his resume and working experience whilst working at previous regional Councils.

 

Responding to this report a review was undertaken by Organisational Staff Services of the Recruitment and Selection Policy to ensure Randwick City Council’s current practice in relation the employment screening process is in line with the ICAC's recommendations.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1b:      Maintain a high performing workforce that is responsive to the needs of the organisation.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The Recruitment and Selection policy is in full compliance with the ICAC's recommendations. The policy will continue to be reviewed within the proposed timeline and consideration be given for intermittent changes responding to future ICAC recommendations.

 

Recommendation

 

That the amended Recruitment and Selection Policy be adopted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Recruitment and Selection Policy

 

 

 

 


Recruitment and Selection Policy

Attachment 1

 

 

 

 

Randwick City Council Policy

 

Policy Number:

2011/ES023

Policy Name:

Recruitment and Selection Policy

Consultation:

JCC

Managers

Contact Officer:

Manager, Organisational Staff Services

Date Approved by MANEX:

February 2011

Date of Next Review:

February 2014

Related Policies:

Grievance Procedure

Staff Code of Conduct

Equity and Diversity

History of Amendments:

Approved by MANEX on

Attachments:

N/A

Legislation:

Anti-discrimination Act (NSW)

Sex discrimination Act (Cth)

Disability Discrimination Act (Cth)

Racial Discrimination Act  (Cth)

Local Government Act

Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 

Commission for Children and Young People Act

 

1       Overview

 

 “Excellence in Staff Management” involves providing a work environment that respects and maximizes the opportunities and potential of all staff and enables them to contribute to the achievement of the outcomes of the organisation.

 

To support this strategic outcome the future direction of workforce resourcing, will enable a more flexible, resilient workplace that both anticipates and leads change.

 

The aim of this policy is to ensure that through recruitment practices the best applicant is appointed to a vacant position:

-      A selection policy based on non-discriminatory procedures;

-      Open competition based on merit;

-      The relative merits of applicants assessed against job related selection criteria;

-      The confidentiality of the process being maintained and the privacy of all applicants being respected.

This policy is supported by the procedures as documented in the Recruitment and Selection booklet.

 

2       Scope

 

This policy applies to all permanent, temporary and casual positions.

 

3       Definitions

 

Vacancy Review

A position review position prior to advertising a vacant position. This may include type of position required, job evaluation, status and existing resource.

 

Merit Selection

“Merit Selection” is the process you use to select the best applicant for a position.

 

Randwick City Council’s principals of merit selection are;

 

     I CARE values - considered in every stage of the recruitment process

 

     competition — the best field of applicants is obtained through advertising

 

     selection criteria — these describe the skills, knowledge and experience needed to do the job

 

     selection panel — selection is usually by a skilled panel of three people 

 

     comparative assessment — applicants are individually rated on how well they meet the selection criteria, assessed on the best evidence obtainable and compared to job requirements

 

     competitive assessment — applicants are assessed competitively using selection criteria evidence provided at interview.

 

     equity — the process is designed to be fair to all members of the community

 

     integrity — selection is carried out impartially and ethically

 

     choosing the best person — recommending for appointment the person whose skills, knowledge and experience best match the job requirements

 

     transparency — decisions must be able to withstand scrutiny and be publicly defensible.

 

Contact Person

The role of the contact person listed in the advertisement is to provide prospective applicants for the position with honest and objective information and detail they seek about the job, the workplace environment and working conditions.

 

Convener

Responsibilities of the Convener:

-      take care of necessary administrative details;

-      lead all recruitment processes,

-      liaise with Organisational Staff Services;

-      ensure fairness & proper procedures in the selection process;

-      convening the committee;

-      ensure that disagreements among committee members are effectively discussed & resolved;

-      arrange for short-listing;

-      arrange selection process;

-      chair all meetings and interviews and documenting deliberations;

-      checking references; and

-      provide post-selection feedback to un-successful candidates.

 

4       Policy Principles

 

Advertising a position

 

A vacant position at Randwick City Council must be advertised:

-      when it is a position to be filled on a permanent basis;

-      in a manner sufficient to enable suitably qualified persons to apply for the position (the position may be advertised internally only);

-      if the recruitment is for a Director, Manager and/or position to be engaged on a performance contract for a period of more than twelve months;

-      when it is for the appointment of the General Manager.

 

The General Manager may elect not to advertise a vacant position when:

 

-      When the General Manager, Director or Manager is re-appointment to a new contract; or

-      the term of employment is for;

o      not more than 12 months, or

o      two or more periods that together is not more than 12 months in any period of 2 years

o      No more than 24 months for vacancies arising from maternity leave.

 

At the time that the applicant makes the application, they should also be made aware that their application gives Council permission to verify any element of their stated qualifications or employment history.

 

Selection Committee

The Selection Committee is unbiased and diverse.

 

A two or three person panel should include:

-      mixed gender (when a mixed gender field of applicants and at all another times when available);

-      technical expert (Manager/ Supervisor);

-      an Organisational Staff Services representative.

 

Other equal employment opportunity (EEO) groups should be represented where possible:

 

The Selection Committee must have a sound understanding of the selection process and ethical responsibilities.

 

An independent committee member external to the Council representative is required for the recruitment of positions at a Manager level or higher.

Information is provided to applicants on selection criteria, the selection process and the types of assessment methods planned.

At the time of the interview, each applicant should be provided with and asked to complete a form indicating that Council has the ability to check their qualifications and employment history with third parties. Failure to complete this form will make the applicant unable to progress in the recruitment and selection process.

Prior to interview the selection committee must disclose the nature of all relationships current and/or previous with applicants in writing to the convener (eg none, working, personal). This may result in appointing a new member to the selection committee.

Principles to Shortlist Applications

After the position has closed at least two members of the Selection Committee should independently shortlist the applications.  This should be undertaken immediately following the closing date for applications. The purpose of short listing is to identify the most likely applicants to ask in for an interview. 

 

Security and confidentiality of Applications

All applications must be registered with information management and forwarded to Organisational Staff Services. At all times applications to be stored in a secure place and kept confidential. Applications are only available to the selection committee members, Organisational Staff Services and the General Manager.

 

Late Applications

A late application may be accepted from an applicant who sought and obtained an extension of time before the advertised closing time for applications. If accepted, a late application has equal status with all the others.  Late applications that are not accepted should be marked accordingly and no applications are to be accepted after the start of short-listing. Online and e-mailed applications should be printed as hard copies and treated the same as mailed items.

 

Selection Techniques

Randwick City Council encourages selection committees to use a range of processes for selecting the most meritorious candidate consistent with budget constraints. Combining a number of different kinds of processes greatly increases the validity of the selection.

 

All processes need to be tailored to the precise nature of the job. Selection techniques include behavioural interviews, work samples, work tests, evidence of competencies, group exercises and role plays, and structured referee checks.

 

Pre employment screening

Pre employment screening is a series of checks to verify claims and/or conditions of a recommended applicant prior to the offer of employment.

 

The pre employment medical, referee check and qualification check components of pre-employment screening must be complete prior to an initial offer of employment.

 

-      Referee check -A verbal verification of previous employment, achievements and claims with two referees as nominated by the recommended applicant. Wherever possible, this should include the most recent supervisor of the applicant.

 

-      Pre employment medical - A medical assessment of the recommended applicant’s physical and psychological ability to successfully perform the position for which they have applied.

 

-      Working with children check -A working with children’s check is conducted by the NSW Department of Community Services for all recommended applicants whose position has been identified as a child related position.

 

-      Qualifications check -Verification of original qualifications and/or confirm attendance and academic records with educational institutions that are required for the essential criteria for the role.

 

Committee members as referees

Although not preferred it is often impossible for applicants to name appropriate referees who are not sitting on the selection committee and to force them to do so may disadvantage them. Unless there is any conflict of interest, which should be declared and considered, they may be used as a referee.

 

Ensuring Privacy and Fairness

For privacy reasons, contact should not be made with a current employer or supervisor without the applicant's permission. When referees are contacted they should be asked to answer reasonable questions that are expressly deemed relevant to the job.

 

Recommendation Report

The selection committee report is an assessment of each applicant based on the need to recommend the applicant with greatest merit for appointment to the vacancy. This report includes information on each applicant who proceeds to interview. This report provides the necessary comparative and competitive information for the General Manager to make an informed decision.

 

The selection committee report lists all applicants who were called for interview or further assessment but not recommended for appointment. The information to be recorded should include the applicant's name and comprehensive reasons for non-selection.

 

Reports are usually written by the Convener and must be read and signed by all other members of the committee before being submitted to the General Manager after endorsement by the relevant Director.

 

No decisions on recommendation can be made until the reports are complete and signed and under no circumstances should members of the selection committee sign a blank report form.

 

The information contained in the selection committee report is strictly confidential. Applicants can only be provided with specific reasons concerning their application.

 

Minority Report

In the case of the committee members being unable to make a unanimous recommendation, a member not being the Convener, (the Convener is considered the majority) may submit a minority report to the General Manager.

 

 

 

 

The minority report should identify:

-      the source of the disagreement ; and

-      reasons why an alternative applicant exhibited an equal or stronger claim to the position than the applicant recommended by the other members.

 

The Convener should submit the minority report with the majority report. The selection of a candidate for appointment is then based on all the relevant information

 

The General Manager will decide how to proceed.

 

Recommending “no selection”

If the committee has considered all applicants and is not prepared to make a recommendation, the Convener should write a report indicating the reasons for this decision.

 

The General Manager will decide how to proceed.

 

Referee Checks

Referee checks will only be performed on applicants the selection committee believes would be suitable for the position.

No contact should be made with an external applicant’s current employer without the consent of the applicant.

 

Offer of Employment

Organisational Staff Services will communicate with the Convener once the selection committee’s recommendation has been approved by the General Manager.

 

Organisational Staff Services will then prepare and send the letter of offer to the successful applicant.

 

Should the candidate decline the offer, the selection committee should reconvene and discuss options being;

-      to make a recommendation to the first applicant on the eligibility list (only if the eligibility list has been approved by the General Manager);

-      review the vacancy,  or

-      re-advertised.

 

Notifying Unsuccessful Applicants

All unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing and the convener should ensure that letters are promptly sent out to unsuccessful applicants after the successful applicant has been appointed to the vacancy.

 

It is most important that the Convener should offer and be responsible for providing post-selection feedback to unsuccessful applicants.

 

Eligibility List

An eligibility list may be established as a result of interviews for a position, ensuring that;

-      an applicant placed on the eligibility list meets all the essential and desirable criteria;

-      an applicant through their application and interview demonstrated the ability to fill all requirements of the position successfully;

-      all members of the selection committee endorse the placement of the applicant on the eligibility list; and

-      all members of the selection committee would have recommended this applicant to be appointed to the position in the absence of the successful applicant.

 

An eligibility list may only exist for a position for a period of six (6) months. The convener may choose not to use the eligibility list should the successful applicant not start or leave the position within the first six (6) months.

 

With the approval of the General Manager an eligibility list may be used for an appointment to a different position with inherent job duties, same / similar salary and level of responsibility and conditions of employment. This appointment must be temporary in nature and for no more than twelve (12) months of work within a continuous two (2) year period.

 

Post Selection Feedback

Conveners should be available to provide post-selection feedback to unsuccessful internal applicants who request it. Post selection feedback will only be provided within one month of unsuccessful notification.

 

Post-selection advice provides an opportunity for the convener to discuss the applicant's strengths and weaknesses as assessed by the selection committee in relation to the selection criteria.

 

Post selection interviews should not disclose the specifics of the performance of other applicants.

 

Disputes

 

Internal disputes about non compliance with the Recruitment and Selection Policy or the outcome of a recruitment process will be addressed consistent with Council’s internal Grievance Policy.


External disputes about non compliance with the Recruitment and Selection Policy or the outcome of a recruitment process are to be referred to the Manager, Organisational Staff Services to action in accordance with relevant legislation and Council’s complaint policy.

 

5       Administration

 

Refer to Recruitment and Selection Booklet.

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     19 April 2011

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM6/11

 

 

Subject:                  Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2011-12

Folder No:                   F2011/00035

Author:                   Anne Warner, Manager Corporate Performance     

 

Introduction

 

Randwick City Council’s integrated planning framework is headed by its 20-year Randwick City Plan which operates in conjunction with the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Plans and Workforce Strategy. The City Plan feeds into a wide range of medium term five to ten year plans, such as the Recreational Needs Study and the Economic Development Strategy. The City Plan and medium term plans are the basis for a four year Delivery Program which is implemented through one year Operational Plans. Each Operational Plan outlines the Council’s activities for the forthcoming 12 months and includes key budget information.

 

Figure 1: Randwick City Council’s Integrated Planning Framework

 

 

Randwick Council adopted its first Randwick City Plan in June 2006 and an update of the Plan in March 2010. A fixed four year Delivery Program (2009-13) was established in the year following the last council election. This year’s Operational Plan, 2011-12, is the third to be derived from the Delivery Program.

 

The Draft Randwick City Council 2011-12 Operational Plan meets the requirements of s404 and s405 of the Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009 which specify the information that is to be included in a Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

 

All actions in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan are further detailed in departmental plans, project plans, service standards and individual work plans. While the Delivery Program and Operational Plan are supported by the integrated planning software – Performance Planning – that includes a clear assignment of responsibility, timeframe of projects and key performance indicators for services, this level of detail is not published in our plans, but is used to ensure accountability through quarterly reporting.

 

Issues

 

Provided under separate cover is the Draft Randwick City Council 2011-12 Operational Plan, including five-year budget projections, a detailed draft estimate of income and expenditure and the draft statement of fees, charges and pricing policy.

 

The first two sections of the Draft Plan explain how our planning process works and how it is translated into action, as well as giving a snapshot of the Randwick area and the workings of the Council. This is followed by a budget summary and the Key Activities section, which is organised according to our six themes. The outcomes and directions from the City Plan and the actions from the Delivery Program are used to list our one-year operational actions. The final two sections (‘Revenue Policy 2011-12’ and ‘Budget 2011-12’) contain all of the statutory information required in the Local Government Act, including financial estimates for the next five years.

 

This year’s Operational Plan has been professionally designed to improve the presentation of information, making it more accessible to the public and to its internal audience. The Plan is widely used throughout the Council for reference to the four-year and one-year actions and for the statutory information such as definitions of rates and charges. The Plan has been written in Plain English and reorganised where necessary to further improve its clarity and accessibility.

 

This year the inclusion of many of our medium-term plans, with the coming year’s actions, will give readers a better sense of how we implement our planning and show our long-term planning in action. Images have been included to highlight the Council’s wide range of activities, and to help bring each of the themes to life. Other new elements this year include a section on the partnerships that the Council maintains with other bodies, an expanded ‘how to contact us’ section, and community indicators incorporated with our KPIs.

 

Full accountability for the Sustaining our City and Buildings for our Community programs is ensured with full figures for all projects across the life of each program.

 

We are required to place the draft Plan on Public exhibition for a period of at least 28 days. We are planning to advertise this exhibition period in the Southern Courier (twice) and with a poster on local bus shelters. The Plan will be available on our website, and printed copies will be on display at libraries and the administrative centre. It will also be the subject of a Mayoral column.

 

We have made five minor modifications to the four-year Delivery Program (2009-13):

 

·           2b.1: Provide improved opportunities for older and disabled people to access support services and recreational activities. (adds ‘and disabled’)

·           2d.1: Progressively update plans of management, in accordance with an established priority list, focusing on sustainable design and multi-use facilities. (adds ‘and’)

·           2d.2: Oversee implementation of the revised Community Facilities Plan as per identified priorities. (deletes ‘revised’)

·           10e.1: Continue implementation of the Ecological Footprint project with Waverley and Woollahra Councils. (replaces ‘Complete and monitor’ with ‘Continue’)

·           10g.1: Implement projects from the Energy Savings Action Plan and the Local Greenhouse Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (alter wording for clarity: was ‘Implement projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the Energy Savings Action Plan and the Local Greenhouse Action Plan.’)

 

The documents attached to this report provide detailed information and projections of the source and application of funds, operating result from ordinary activities, and the estimated balances of financial reserves. The following tables summarise the use of funds and the source of funds.

 

Table 1: Use of funds

 

Type of Expenditure

Amount ($)

Employment Costs

47,377,096

Net Capital Expenditure

27,346,043

Materials & Contracts

26,766,537

Other Operating Expenses

11,466,130

Net savings for future years

2,609,135

TOTAL

115,564,941

 

Table 2: Source of funds

 

Revenue Source

Amount ($)

Rates & Annual Charges

83,613,504

User Charges & Fees

12,339,807

Interest

2,641,411

Other Revenues

6,988,709

Operating Grants and Contributions

5,690,781

Capital Grants, Contributions & Donations

4,295,507

TOTAL

115,569,719

 

The budget has been compiled in accordance with the Council’s Asset Management Plans, Workforce Resourcing Strategy, Long Term Financial Plan and other short and medium term plans. The proposed Budget for 2011-12 is balanced and sustainable, with a surplus of $4,778. It is proposed that there will be a reduction in expenditure on materials and contracts and an increase in capital expenditure.

 

We have adhered to the allocation of overheads to functions and activities in accordance with the NSW Department of Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting (June 2009). Furthermore, we have detailed the expenses that are directly attributable to each function.

 

Towards the end of 2010 the Council engaged the City’s 12 precinct committees in a series of conversations about their funding priorities. The priorities identified through these and other consultation activities were incorporated into our planning and budget deliberations for 2011-12.

 

The major source of revenue for Randwick City Council is rates and annual charges. The major areas of rates and annual charges are outlined below:

 

Environmental Levy

In 2004-05 the Minister approved a 5 year environmental levy equivalent to 6% of the 2004-05 rate increase, to fund a comprehensive range of environmental programs and initiatives with the aim of achieving a substantial enhancement of Randwick’s environment. In 2009 the Minister approved an extension to this program for a further 5 year period. The five year extension commenced in 2009-10 so will move into its second year in 2011-12.

 

Domestic Waste Management Charge

Under S.496 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council must make and levy an annual charge for providing domestic waste management services. Under S.504 of the Act, income from the charge must not exceed the reasonable cost to the Council of providing those services. The domestic waste management charge is proposed to increase from $410.00 to $429.30 for each residential occupancy in 2011-12.

 

The increased Domestic Waste Management Charge will provide for existing services, the increase in the Waste Levy charged by the State government, ongoing operation of the Perry Street Recycling Centre and rehabilitation of Chifley Sports Reserve, Heffron Park, Coral Sea Park and Latham Park.

 

Stormwater Management Service Charge

The Stormwater Management Service Charge was introduced in the 2008-09 financial year to establish a sustainable funding source for providing improved stormwater management across Randwick City. The amount chargeable has been prescribed under the Local Government Act at:

 

§  Residential property: $25 per annum (approximately 48 cents per week)

§  Residential strata property: $12.50 per annum (approximately 24 cents per week)

§  Business property: $25 per annum plus an additional $25 for each 350m2 or part thereof by which the parcel of land exceeds 350m2.

 

The Stormwater Management Service Charge is the same in 2011-12 as in 2010-11.

 

Buildings for Our Community

In 2010 the Council received permission from the Minister for Local Government to apply a special levy on its rates to fund the Buildings for our Community program. Funds raised by this levy are to be used to renovate community facilities and amenities and to build new facilities where needed. The levy is a cumulative increase of 2.69% each year for three years, incorporated into the Ordinary Rate, and will remain in the rate base thereafter. It will take seven years to raise the total amount needed for the whole program. The 2011–2012 rating year is the second year of the Buildings for our Community levy and program.

 

Rates

The Council’s rating policy is structured on an ‘ad valorem’ basis with two categories – residential and business. For each category, a minimum rate applies. The rating structure is reviewed annually to ensure equitable distribution among ratepayers. Any change to the rating structure does not equate to additional income to the Council but redistributes the rating liability of different property types.

 

The total proposed increase in rates for 2011-12 is 6.24%.

 

 

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.

Direction 1c:      Continuous improvement in service delivery based on accountability, transparency and good governance.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The Council is in a strong financial position with a balanced budget, sufficient unrestricted cash and available working capital, strong liquidity, sufficient cash reserves and a good debt collection ratio. 

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft Randwick City Council 2011-12 Operational Plan and the associated documents are tabled for the Council’s consideration.  Following the adoption of these drafts, the Draft Management Plan must be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days.

 

Recommendations

 

That:

 

a)     the Draft Randwick City Council 2011-12 Operational Plan, which includes the 2011-12 Budget and associated Fees and Charges, and attachments as outlined below, be placed on public exhibition for not less than 28 days, from 3 May to 31 May, inviting submissions from the public

 

b)     at the conclusion of the period of public exhibition a meeting of the Council is held to consider any submissions made concerning the Draft Plan, and after taking into consideration such matters as it considers relevant, the Council adopt the Operational Plan

 

c)     in accordance with the NSW Department of Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting (June 2009) Note 2(b), in respect to each broad function of council, expenses that can be reliably attributed have been allocated to that function

 

d)     the General Manager be authorised to make any minor changes if required.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2011-12

under separate cover

2.

Draft Randwick City Council Budget 2011-12

under separate cover

3.

Draft Randwick City Council Pricing Policy and Schedule of Fees & Charges 2011-12

under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     19 April 2011

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM7/11

 

 

Subject:                  2011 National General Assembly of Local Government

Folder No:                   F2004/06670

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

This year’s National General Assembly (NGA) of Local Government will be held in Canberra from 19 to 22 June 2011.  The NGA is the principal conference of the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) and the theme of this year’s conference is ‘Growing with our Community – Place, Position, Partnerships’.

 

Issues

 

The President of the ALGA has written to Councils indicating that ‘Local Government has proven itself in the wake of severe natural disasters, in the delivery of projects and programs under the national stimulus package, and in responding to, and representing the needs of, our local communities when uniting at forums such as the NGA.’ ‘For more than 15 years, the NGA has been critically important in driving the local government agenda at the national level and influencing federal government policy.’

 

Under the theme ‘Growing with our Community – Place, Position, Partnerships’ this year’s Assembly will assist the ALGA maintain a renewed focus on local government and drive improved outcomes at the national level, as follows:

 

1.     Place – How can we improve policies and programs to better meet the needs of our regions?

2.     Position – How could funding be allocated to improve the balance between central government priorities and local communities?

3.     Partnerships – How can the partnership between local government and the Australian Government be expanded to deliver mutually agreed outcomes to local communities?

 

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.

Direction 1b:      Council is a leader in the deliver of social, financial and operational activities.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Councillors’ attendance at conferences has been allowed for in the 2010-11 budget.

 

Conclusion

 

This is an important conference for Local Government throughout Australia as it is the only conference where the States come together to discuss Local Government specific issues.

 

Recommendation

 

That any Councillors interested in attending the 2011 National General Assembly of Local Government in Canberra, advise the General Manager as soon as possible for registration purposes.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

   


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     19 April 2011

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF8/11

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - March 2011

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 12 January 2011. 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 – March 2011” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of March 2011. 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 $ 1.650 million during March 2011. The decrease is representative of negative cash flow for the month as expenditure exceeded income. There was an unrealised capital gain on investments for March of $25,991.83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from March 2005 to March 2011. 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 March 2011.

 

 

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 March 2005 to March 2011.

 

 

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 is above the industry benchmark UBS Australian Bank Bill Index with an average return after fees of 6.10%, compared with the benchmark index of 5.05%.

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate remained unchanged at 4.75% at the April 2011 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 Ministerial Investment Order dated 31 July 2008. This Ministerial Investment Order included 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.

 

A revised Investment Order was issued on the 12 January 2011, which replaces the Order dated 31 July 2008 and includes changes that:

 

Ÿ      remove the ability to invest in the mortgage of land;

Ÿ      remove the ability to make a deposit with the Local Government Financial         Services Pty Ltd;

Ÿ      and includes the addition of “Key Considerations”, with a comment that a council’s General Manager, or any other staff, with delegated authority by a council to invest in funds on behalf of the council must do so in accordance with the council’s adopted investment policy.

 

Managed Funds

The investment portfolio includes $2.525 million in managed funds. The following table depicts the latest information in respect to these products.

 

Investment

Product Type

Credit

Rating

Par Value

Market Value

Blackrock

Care & Maintenance Fund

Collective Investment

Not Rated

2,525,312

2,528,270

 

 

The LGFS Fixed Outperformance Cash Fund was redeemed in full during the month of March.

The Blackrock Care & Maintenance Fund was created following the closure of the Blackrock Diversified Credit Fund. This new fund is referred to as a “Collective Investment” and is closed to any new deposits or withdrawals. Proceeds of the fund are distributed to investors as the underlying investments reach maturity or the fund manager considers it an opportune time to sell the investments at current market rates.  The purpose of the fund is to limit the financial losses that would have occurred if the underlying assets were sold at market prices at the time that the original fund was wound up.

 

Structured Products

The investment portfolio includes $1.0 million in structured products. The following table depicts the latest information in respect of this product. The risk rating is assigned by Council’s investment advisor. 

 

Investment

Product Type

Credit

Rating

Par Value

Market Value

Risk Rating

Maturity Date

Longreach

Series 33 (STIRM)

Capital Protected Note

A+

1,000,000

1,238,300

Low

10/05/13

 

Floating Rate Notes

The investment portfolio includes $9.00 million in floating rate notes (FRN). The Royal Bank of Scotland FRN was purchased at a capital price of $2,025,000.00. The premium of $25,000 is being amortised on payment of the quarterly coupons. The amortised amount for 2010/11 is $6,200.07 bringing the book value to $2,010,924.66

 

The Deutsche Bank FRN was purchased at a capital price of $1,950,840. The discount of $49,160 is being amortised on payment of the quarterly coupons. The amortised amount for 2010/11 is $11,089.79 bringing the book value to $1,972,660.92

 

The overall realised gain for the life to date of both FRN’s is $7,745.58

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1c:      Long term financial viability is achieved.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Funds are invested with the aim of achieving budgeted income in 2010-11 and outperforming the UBS Australian Bank Bill Index over a 12 month period.  The current revised budget provision for income from this source is $2,406,772.00. Investment income to 31 March 2011 amounted to $2,069,031.59

 

Following is the detailed Investment Report – March 2011
Conclusion

 

All investments as at 31 March 2011 have been made in accordance with Council Investment Policy. All investments meet the requirements of s625 of the Local Government Act and the Local Government (General) Regulation.

 

Changes to the economic climate and financial markets are being closely monitored. Appropriate adjustments to the investment strategy will continue to be made as required.

 

Recommendation

 

That the investment report for March 2011 be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     19 April 2011

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF9/11

 

 

Subject:                  Acquisition of land to be incorporated into Arthur Byrne Reserve, Maroubra Beach

Folder No:                   F2004/07131

Author:                   Sharon Plunkett, Property Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

Council resolved (Smith/Andrews) at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 14 December 2010 to acquire “Lot 121 in DP 1013114 in accordance with Section 177 & 178 of the Roads Act 1993 (NSW) under which Council is acquiring the Land.”

 

This report is to amend the Act that was referenced in the December report and resolution to refer instead to Sections 186 & 187 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW).

 

Issues

 

The previous report indicated that, in the 1990s, Council carried out major building works at Maroubra Beach including the redirection of Marine Parade to Fitzgerald Avenue and the construction of a new bus shelter and amenities building within Broadarrow Reserve.

 

The process fell short of formalising the acquisition of part of Broadarrow Reserve for the purpose of a Council work lunchroom/State Transit Authority bus driver exchange point and amenities building.

 

Instructions were received from Council’s legal representatives advising that to finalise the matter Council must resolve to acquire the land in accordance with Section 186 and 187 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). An error was made in preparation of the report and the resolution incorrectly referred to the Roads Act 1993 (NSW).

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A liveable City.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.  Correspondence was received on 22 December 1998 from the Land & Property Management Authority that a total compensation payment of $1 was payable for the transfer of roads including this lot.

 


Conclusion

 

Upon the Resolution of Council being passed, a copy will be forwarded to the Department of Local Government for acquisition of the part of Broadarrow Reserve containing the amenities building known as Lot 121 in DP 1013114.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     Approves the acquisition of Lot 121 in DP 1013114 by compulsory process in accordance with Sections 186 and 187 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW).

 

b)     Approves the making of an application to the Minister for Local Government for the issue of a proposed acquisition notice under the Acquisition Act with respect to Lot 121 in DP 1013114.

 

c)     Approves the making of an application to the Governor for the publication of an acquisition notice in the Government Gazette under the Acquisition Act with respect to Lot 121 in DP 1013114.

 

d)     Classifies Lot 121 in DP 1013114 as “community land” under the Local Government Act.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     19 April 2011

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF10/11

 

 

Subject:                  Annual Review of Councillors' Expenses & Facilities Policy

Folder No:                   F2004/06576

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

Section 252 of the Local Government Act requires Councils to adopt a policy for the payment of expenses incurred by and the provision of facilities to Mayors, Deputy Mayors and other Councillors.  Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors can only be reimbursed for expenses and provided with facilities in discharging the functions of civic office in accordance with this policy.  The Councillors’ Expenses and Facilities Policy must comply with the provisions of the Act, the regulations and the Department of Local Government ‘Guidelines for the payment of expenses and the provision of facilities for Mayors and Councillors for Local Councils in NSW.’

 

The policy must be adopted annually and, within five (5) months after the end of each financial year, must be forwarded to the Division of Local Government – Department of Premier and Cabinet) (DLG). 

 

Issues

 

Council is reminded that:

 

·           Under section 252(5) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council’s Expenses and Facilities Policy must comply with the DLG Guidelines

·           Provisions made by the policy in regard to the payment of expenses and the provision of facilities to Councillors, must be acceptable to and meet the expectations of the local community

·           Limits to expenses and the level of provision of equipment and facilities must be set by individual Councils to suit their need and capacity to afford them

·           There are no circumstances in which legal expenses should be met by a Council for proceedings initiated by a Councillor.  Nor should legal expenses be met for a Councillor defending any action in a matter not rising directly as a result of his or her civic duty.

 

At the Council Meeting of 14 December 2010, it was resolved that:

 

a)     Council approve the establishment of an extranet service, or councillor webpage, and associated technology to be made available to all Councillors in 2011; and

b)     the Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy be amended to include the provision of the abovementioned service and associated equipment.

 

Provision for a Councillors’ extranet and associated equipment (including tablet style computer for wireless access to the extranet, internet etc) has been included in the policy at page 13.

 

There are no other amendments proposed to be made to the Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy as a result of the current review.  The policy, however, will require re-advertising as part of the annual review process.

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       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.  Any expenses and facilities provided to the Mayor and Councillors as part of this policy will be allowed for in the 2011-12 Budget.

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that the Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy (copy attached) be publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

After the public exhibition period, this matter will be reported back to Council (at the June Council Meeting) to enable the policy to be forwarded to the DLG by 30 November 2011 (in accordance with legislative requirements).

 

Recommendation

 

That, the amended Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy be publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Amended Councillors' Expenses & Facilities Policy

under separate cover

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     19 April 2011

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM14/11

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion by Cr Bowen - Bronte Coogee Aquatic Reserve

Folder No:                   F2005/00036

Submitted by:          Councillor Bowen, East Ward     

 

 

That:

 

a)     Randwick City Council affirm its commitment to the retention of the Bronte-Coogee Aquatic Reserve; and

 

b)     the Mayor write to the Minister for Primary Industries and request an assurance there be no change to operation of the Bronte-Coogee Aquatic Reserve.