Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 17 September 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, 30 Frances Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 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 - 27 August 2013

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Council by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

In respect to Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act, members of the public are advised that the proceedings of this meeting will be recorded for the purposes of clause 66 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

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.

 

CP68/13    10 Victory Street, Clovelly (DA/72/2013)................................................. 1

CP69/13    16 Douglas Street, Clovelly (DA/335/2012/A).......................................... 35

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP70/13    Reporting variation to development standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) August 2013...................................................................... 51

CP71/13    Cultural and Community Grants Program - September 2013 Round - Recommended Allocations....................................................................................... 55

CP72/13    Council Response to Councillor Stavrinos' Notice of Motion Local Art Competition        65

General Manager's Reports

GM19/13    Rock fishing in Randwick City survey ..................................................... 67

Director City Services Reports

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF49/13    Delegations of Authority...................................................................... 73

GF50/13    2012-13 Financial Statements.............................................................. 79

GF51/13    Councillors' Expenses & Facilities Policy - results of public exhibition............ 89

GF52/13    Investment Report - August 2013......................................................... 91  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM81/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Prince William's family visit to Australia 2014 99

NM82/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos -  Carparks in West Ward.................... 101

NM83/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - 90th Anniversary of Legacy................... 103

NM84/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Stevenson - Council rates and levy allocation to projects     105

NM85/13    Notice of Motion from Crs Stevenson - Ratepayer use of Aquatic and Fitness Centre  107

NM86/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Improving swimming pool operation efficiencies within Randwick City.................................................................................. 109

NM87/13    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Crs Stevenson, Moore and D'Souza under Section 372(5) of Local Government Act - Discounted Access for Seniors and Low Income Families to Aquatic and Fitness Centre................................................................ 111  

Closed Session

Director City Services Report (record of voting required)

CS13/13    Tender T2014-001 Memorial for Fallen Lifesavers

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.

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report (record of voting NOT required)

GF53/13    16R Albi Place, Randwick - Road Dedication to formalise occupation

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

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP68/13

 

 

Subject:                  10 Victory Street, Clovelly (DA/72/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/72/2013

Author:                   Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of the existing attached dual occupancy building and single garage on the site; construction of a 2-storey detached dwelling, basement garage with trafficable roof above, swimming pools and cabana; reconstruction of the sandstone retaining wall fronting Victory Street and the staircase connecting the carriageway with the elevated public walkway; and associated landscape works

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                M Lambros

Owner:                         M Lambros

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

1.      Proposal

 

The application is referred to Council as it has an estimated development cost of more than $2 million.

 

The applicant submitted amended drawings on 9 and 23 August 2013, which include changes to the configuration of the basement garage and vehicular entry and landscape treatment along the Victory Street frontage of the site. The revised design forms the subject of this assessment.

 

The amended proposal is for demolition of the existing double-storey dual occupancy building and single garage on the site, and construction of a two-storey plus basement dwelling. The development scheme incorporates the following elements:

 

Basement

The basement level contains a garage containing 2 vehicles, a workshop, a bathroom, a gymnasium, plant rooms and storage areas. The basement level extends from the Victory Street property boundary through to the underside of the elevated public footpath and the dwelling.

 

Ground level

The ground level contains living and dining areas and amenities.

 

First level

The first level contains 5 x bedrooms and amenities. There is a continuous balcony along the northern elevation with a width of 850mm to 1500mm.

 

External

A hard paved patio with a spa is located in front of the dwelling. A wade pool and a decked area are located to the north of the dwelling. At the rear are a paved patio, a lawn, a cabana with barbeque facilities, a swimming pool and associated decking.

 

The existing sandstone retaining wall along the edge of the Victory Street carriageway will be demolished and reconstructed. A bin area will be provided immediately behind the reconstructed wall. A triple flight staircase of 1200mm to 1300mm in width will be constructed along the northern property boundary, connecting the roadway to the elevated public footpath. Landscaped terraces will be provided above the basement garage within the Council-owned stratum.

 

3-D model showing the proposed development (in colour) amongst existing dwellings in Victory Street as viewed from the public open space opposite, looking west

 

3-D model showing the proposed garage, boundary walls and staircase connecting the Victory Street carriageway with the elevated footpath

 

3-D model showing the landscaped garden above the basement garage within the Council-owned stratum, as viewed from the public footpath looking north-east

 

2.      Site

 

The subject site is described as Lot 100 in DP 1074941, No. 10 Victory Street, Clovelly, and is located on the western side of the street, to the south of its intersection with Clovelly Road.

 

Aerial photograph of the subject site and the surrounding environment

The site comprises two components as follows:

 

·      The main part of the site constitutes a Torrens title component located immediately to the west of the elevated public walkway, where the existing double-storey dual occupancy is situated. It has a rectangular shape, with a frontage width of 12.19m to the footpath and a depth of 38.375m to 38.43m.

 

·      The Victory Street road reserve in between the aforementioned Torrens titled land and the carriageway has been subdivided into two Stratums.

 

The Stratums have a frontage width of 12.36m to the street and a depth of 15.575m.

 

The lower Stratum forms part of the site and is partially underground. The extent of this Stratum is limited from RL8.3 to RL13.0, with the exception of a 1-metre wide service easement that runs parallel to and approximately 4m from the Torrens title component, which occurs from RL11.7 onwards. The Stratum component presently accommodates a single garage and a sandstone block retaining wall. Refer to diagrams below.

 

In effect, the garden areas to the east of the elevated footpaths (which is above RL13.0) and the service easement are owned by Council. Any future underground car park and basement storey within the lower Stratum will be privately owned. The ownership of any staircase linking the Victory Street carriageway to the elevated footpath will be split between Council (above RL13.0) and the private party (between RL8.3 and RL13.0).

 

The site has a combined land area of 660.8m2.

 

The lower Stratum, between RL8.3 and RL13.0 (except for the service easement), is privately owned. The upper Stratum, above RL13.0, is owned by the Council.

 

Approximate location of public footpaths

 

Location of existing sandstone block retaining wall

 

Torrens title component

 

Carriageway of Victory Street

 

Extract of survey plan showing the location of the Torrens title and Stratum components of the site

 

Upper Stratum (above RL13.0) and easement (above RL11.7) are owned by Council

 
 

 

 

 

 


Lower Stratum (between RL8.3 and RL13.0, except for the easement) is privately owned

 

Torrens title component

 

Section showing the levels of the Lower and Upper Stratums located in between the Torrens title component of Lot 100 and the carriageway of Victory Street

 

In relation to the Torrens title component, the land slopes from the rear to the front with a maximum fall of approximately 2m. A double-storey brick building containing two dwelling units presently occupy this part of the site. To the north is a single-storey dwelling of brick and tiled roof construction (No. 8 Victory Street). To the south is a two-storey dwelling of rendered masonry and tiled roof construction (No. 12 Victory Street), which has recently been renovated. The existing dwellings on the subject and adjoining sites enjoy expansive ocean views towards the east. The alignment and distance of the adjoining dwellings from the public footpaths would determine the appropriate front setback for the proposed development.

 

Existing two-storey building on the subject site (foreground) as viewed from the footpath of Victory Street

 

In relation to the upper and lower Stratums, the land slopes significantly from the public footpath to the Victory Street carriageway with a maximum fall of approximately 5m. There is an existing staircase running diagonally across the garden areas linking the carriageway with the footpath. A sandstone block retaining wall of approximately 8m in length and 1.5m in height abuts the carriageway. The above retaining wall is listed as a heritage item under RLEP 2012. A flat-roofed single garage is located on the southern side of the privately owned lower Stratum.

 

 

Existing sandstone retaining wall and single garage of the subject site (middle), as viewed from the opposite side of Victory Street

Existing concrete path and stairs on the Council-owned upper stratum adjacent to the elevated public walkway on Victory Street

 

The recent developments at Nos. 4, 6 and 12 Victory Street have incorporated new garages that involve varying degrees of removal of the retaining walls at the front. The areas above the garages on the upper stratums consistently adopt a split-level arrangement consisting of a lower and an upper terrace. The lower terraces accommodate dense shrubbery and are not designed to be trafficable. The upper terraces are occupied by lawn areas with balustrades along the perimeters. A new staircase aligned perpendicularly with Victory Street is constructed within the road reserve at the front of Nos. 4 and 6 Victory Street. It should be noted that the approvals for these developments were made under the previous RLEP 1998 or its predecessor, where the retaining walls have not been listed as a heritage item.

 

The only vehicular access to the site is from Victory Street. Any new garage development will have implications on the integrity and significance of the remaining heritage retaining wall. In the light of its current listing as a landscape heritage, the extent of disturbance or removal of the retaining walls as in the case of the aforementioned developments would no longer be supported. Consideration should also be given to the landscape treatment of the upper stratum and the configuration of any new stairs to maintain consistency in the streetscape character.

 

The current condition of the retaining walls along Victory Street is described below:

 

Properties

Condition of sandstone retaining wall

2 Victory Street

The sandstone retaining wall remains intact with no openings for vehicular access.

 

4 Victory Street

The heritage retaining wall has been substantially demolished and replaced with a double width garage. A staircase is provided in between the new garage and the retained portion of the retaining wall. The garage is faced with coarse textured, rusticated sandstone blocks; however, the parapet running above is finished with rendered concrete.

 

The Council-owned Stratum is occupied by lawn areas and shrubberies.

 

Victory Street elevation of the double garage and staircase

 

Landscape treatment of the upper Stratum

 

6 Victory Street

On 1 May 2008, Council granted Development Consent No. DA/59/2008 for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a 2-storey dwelling, a double garage fronting the street with trafficable roof above and associated works.


The original sandstone retaining wall has been completely removed. The new double garage is finished with polished sandstone claddings.

 

The upper stratum is landscaped with shrubbery and lawn areas.

 

Front elevation of the double garage and 2-storey dwelling at No. 6 Victory Street

 

Landscape treatment of the upper Stratum

 

8 Victory Street

There are no recent developments over the Victory Street road reserve in front of this property.

 

Front elevation of the existing garage and dwelling at No. 8 Victory Street

 

12 Victory Street

The existing dwelling and garage have been the subject of multiple alterations and additions over the years.

 

The original sandstone retaining wall has been completely demolished. The new double garage is finished with coarse textured sandstone claddings.

 

The upper stratum is provided with lawn areas and perimeter shrubbery planting.

 

Front elevation of the existing garage and dwelling at 12 Victory Street

 

Landscape treatment of the upper Stratum

 

3.      Submissions

 

The application was notified from 19 February to 5 March 2013 in accordance with the then DCP – Public Notification, which has now been superseded by the Randwick DCP. The following submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process:

 

·      8 Lowe Street, Clovelly

·      4 Victory Street, Clovelly

·      8 Victory Street, Clovelly

·      12 Victory Street, Clovelly

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 


 

Issues

Comments

12 Victory Street:

The façade treatment to the front garage should be sympathetic to that of the adjoining properties.

A condition is recommended to require the front walls to the garage to be finished with coarse textured sandstones, in order to provide an appropriate presentation to Victory Street respecting the heritage significance of the reconstructed sandstone retaining walls. 

4 Victory Street:

The existing front setback should be maintained.

The proposed front setback is 4.1m. It maintains the front setback of the existing building on the site.

 

Note: the footprints of the existing building have been superimposed onto the floor plans.

4 Victory Street:

Any pergola structure above the eastern terrace should be deleted.

There is no pergola structure above the front patio to the west of the public footpath.

8 Victory Street:

The application should contain more information on the potential noise and visual amenity impacts associated with the front patio and spa.

The front patio is oriented towards the street and is not considered to generate unreasonable noise impacts on the adjoining dwellings.

 

The spa pool is located on the northern side of the front patio and is not directly adjacent to the bedroom windows of the adjoining dwelling at No. 8 Victory Street. The spa is screened by perimeter fencing and will not cause any significant visual impacts on the surrounding areas.

 

A condition is recommended to require all plant and equipment for the pools and spa to be enclosed in order to minimise noise emission.

4 Victory Street:

The proposed hard surface finish to the stratum above the garage is inconsistent with the lawn treatment adopted by other developments in Victory Street.

 

The development should maintain consistency in the streetscape by incorporating native planting. 

The applicant has submitted revised drawings, which include lawn areas and shrubbery above the garage within the Council-owned upper Stratum. A condition is recommended to ensure appropriate plant species are selected, which can tolerate the exposed coastal environment. The amended design will maintain consistency in the streetscape.

12 Victory Street:

The side boundary fencing should be constructed with masonry.

The proposed fencing along the front and northern side boundaries is constructed with timber and masonry materials.

 

The majority of the existing fence along the southern boundary will be retained.

 

The fencing design is considered to satisfy the objectives of the DCP. Refer to the “Key Issues” section of this report for details.

 

8 Victory Street:

The proposal is unclear as to whether the existing sandstone side fence between No. 8 and No. 10 Victory Street would be retained. Any new fences should not be higher than the existing fence line to avoid view obstruction from No. 8 Victory Street.

The architect has advised that the existing sandstone fence between the front yards of the subject site and No. 8 Victory Street will need to be demolished, in order to construct the new fencing. 

 

The new fencing will have a height of up to 2.2m. As is discussed under the “Key Issues” section of this report, the increased fencing height will not have any significant impacts on the existing sea views obtained from the east-facing living room window of No. 8 Victory Street. A condition is also recommended to require the uppermost 1m of the fence to be constructed with obscured glazing, in order to minimise the visual bulk of the structure.

 

Existing sandstone block fence between the front yards of No. 8 (foreground) and No. 10 (background) Victory Street.

Victory Street:

Concerns are raised over the new dividing fence between Nos. 8 and 10 Victory Street which starts from the back of the eastern patio. The existing timber fence is in good condition and is installed above sandstone blocks. The removal of the existing fence will require excavation at the common boundary and increase the risk of damage to the adjoining property.

The architect has advised that the existing timber fence between No. 8 and No. 10 Victory Street will be demolished at the construction stage. A new fence will be constructed.

 

Appropriate construction management conditions are recommended to ensure that the adjoining land will be supported, and that potential damage and disturbance to the neighbouring property will be minimized. A further condition is also recommended to require the preparation of a dilapidation report for monitoring any potential damage to the immediate adjoining properties.

8 Lowe Street:

The swimming pool is located too close to the rear boundary. It will generate excessive noise to the adjoining properties to the rear.

 

As a suggestion, the cabana should be extended to the back of the swimming pool, so as to form a noise barrier.

The proposal will extend the existing masonry wall at the rear boundary to a height of 2.1m to 2.6m, as measured from the existing ground line. However, a condition is recommended to ensure that the wall height will not exceed 2.2m to avoid excessive visual bulk and overshadowing.

 

A 2.2m high wall will appropriately attenuate any noise generation from the swimming pool within the rear yard.

 

The proposed cabana is an open structure where the skillion roof is supported by a number of posts. The extension of the cabana to the south would not serve any practical purpose from a noise insulation perspective.

8 Lowe Street:

The shadow diagrams are not legible.

The applicant has submitted revised shadow diagrams that clearly differentiate between shadows created by the existing dwelling, proposed development and the adjoining properties. These diagrams are extracted under the “Key Issues” section of this report.

8 Lowe Street:

The proposed development will overshadow the adjoining dwelling at 8 Lowe Street.

The proposal will cast shadows on the backyard of No. 8 Lowe Street in the morning period on 21 June.

 

Notwithstanding, the shadow diagrams show that more than 50% of the backyard will continue to receive sunlight at 10am, 11am and 12 noon on 21 June.

The backyard of No. 8 Lowe Street will continue to receive an adequate level of sunlight in mid-winter.

12 Victory Street:

The construction details relating to the basement level, including piling, should be provided.

Construction details are required to be submitted at the Construction Certificate stage, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority. The information presented on the current architectural drawings is suitable for assessment purposes.

8 Victory Street:

The proposal involves extensive excavation and has significant implications on soil stability in the adjoining properties. The neighbouring houses and garages should be underpinned during construction works on the subject site.

A specific condition is recommended to ensure that the adjoining land will be supported during works on the site. Further conditions are also recommended to require the preparation of appropriate construction management and vibration management plans to minimise potential structural and amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.

12 Victory Street:

A dilapidation report relating to the adjoining properties should be prepared.

A condition is recommended to require the preparation of a dilapidation report for monitoring any potential damage to the immediate adjoining properties.

4 & 8 Victory Street:

The underground sewers, water mains, communications cables and electricity lines in the street must be protected during the construction phase.

A condition is recommended to require the preparation of a public utility impact assessment to identify all underground services located on the site, nature strip, footpath and roadway adjacent to the construction works. The applicant will be required to satisfy relevant requirements of the public utility authorities.

8 Victory Street:

The excavation and building work must not obstruct vehicular access to the adjoining dwellings from Victory Street.

A condition is recommended to require a detailed construction traffic management plan to be prepared prior to the commencement of works, in order to minimise disturbance to the local traffic during the construction phase.

12 Victory Street:

Double-level hoardings should be installed along the side property boundaries to control dirt, dust, noise and privacy intrusion during construction.

A condition is recommended to require the preparation of a detailed construction site management plan prior to the commencement of works. The plan is required to specify measures to maintain the health and safety of the neighbours and dust control measures.

 

A further construction management condition is also recommended to require appropriate site fencing during works on the site. 

 

It is acknowledged that a degree of disturbance and amenity impacts on the adjoining neighbours is inevitable for any construction works. However, subject to compliance with the recommended conditions, the impact would be minimized.

8 Victory Street:

Where use of the staircases in front of the adjoining properties is needed for the delivery of building materials, the respective owners should be consulted.

The proposal involves excavation works and construction of a new garage near the Victory Street carriageway. Access to the site can be obtained directly from the road and it is unlikely that the use of the staircases in front of the adjoining properties is needed.

 

The staircases on the adjoining properties are partly owned by private parties (i.e. the lower Stratum). It is necessary for the developer to obtain written consent from the relevant owners if use of the staircases is required.

8 Victory Street:

No excavation or building works should be conducted on Saturday afternoons, Sundays and public holidays.

A condition is recommended to stipulate standard working hour restrictions, which currently apply to most of the construction projects in the Randwick LGA.

 

The condition does not allow excavation works to occur on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. However, general building and site works are allowed between 8am and 5pm on Saturdays.

 

In exceptional circumstances and for limited occasions (e.g. for public safety, traffic management and etc.), Council may grant extension to the working hours, subject to an application being made to Council.

 

The prohibition of general building and site works on Saturdays is not supported as this would prolong the construction stage, which may also increase the duration of the impacts on the neighbours.

 

4.      Assessment against Key Criteria in Randwick LEP and Randwick DCP

 

4.1    Heritage conservation and parking design

The existing sandstone retaining wall along the edge of the Victory Street carriageway is listed as a heritage item under the current RLEP 2012 (Victory Street sandstone retaining wall, Item Number I33). It is one of the sixteen landscape elements identified in the above LEP. The heritage retaining wall extends from the front of Nos. 2 to 14 Victory Street. Whilst the RLEP 2012 is not strictly a matter for consideration, the heritage’s significance of the landscape elements is a consideration under S79C of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:

 

The Site and Surroundings

The site is occupied by two storey Inter-war duplex which is elevated above Victory Street with a sandstone retaining wall on Council land which separates the higher level footpath from the lower level road.  The wide strip of land between the retaining wall and the front property boundary incorporates a single garage, as well as a public access stair.  This retaining wall is one of 16 landscape elements listed as heritage items in Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.  The Randwick Landscape Elements Heritage Assessment and Policies Study, carried out by consultants Godden Mackay Logan notes the sheer scale of the wall, in addition to the use of local sandstone and high quality workmanship, has resulted in an aesthetically notable structure that represents the development of the suburb in the early years of the twentieth century.  The Study notes that the aesthetic significance of the item has been compromised by the insertion of double garages into the wall and recommends that no new openings be made in significant individual retaining walls to accommodate vehicular access. 

 

Background

A development application to use substratum as garages and subdivide substratum from nature strip to create four lots was approved in 2003 (DA/638/2003).  The substratum was approved for 2, 4, 6 8 and 10 Victory Street. 

 

Proposal

The application proposes to demolish the existing duplex and to construct a new two storey dwelling, and to replace the existing garage with a new and enlarged garage and to replace and reorient the public stair between the road and footpath levels. 

 

Submission

The application is accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Kerry Gordon Planning Service Pty Ltd which does not address heritage issues. 

 

Background

Concerns were raised in relation to the impact of the proposal on the sandstone retaining wall, the proposed public stair and the treatment of the landscaped area above the garage.  A meeting was held to discuss these issues and amended drawings have now been received.  As compared to the original drawings, the amended drawings have redesigned the public stair and the landscape area above the garage. 

 

 

Comments

The sandstone retaining wall to the edge of the elevated verge is around 8m long and 1.5m high with the grassed verge sloping down around 3m from the level of the footpath to the top of the retaining wall. 

 

At lower ground level, it is proposed to replace the existing single garage with a driveway providing access to a 140m2 garage, workshop and bike storage area, with steps up to a further 105m2 of plant room, cool room, general store, gymnasium and bathroom.  At upper ground floor level, it is proposed to provide an upper and a lower terrace and to replace the existing two flight stair with a triple flight stair providing pedestrian access to Council’s footpath.  The existing 1.8m high heritage listed retaining wall is to be reconstructed.  The front wall to the driveway access is to have a height of around 3.8m while the wall to the garage area (set back around 4.0m) is to have a height of around 4.7m.  The levels of the grassed verge are apparently to be raised by between 1 and 2 metres.  The finish of the driveway/garage structure and the masonry panels which separate the stair flights are not clear but low external walls to garden areas are to have a cut stone tile finish (in a natural stone (grey) colour).  The existing low brick front fence is to be replaced by a stepped retaining wall and fence having an overall height of around 1.8m. 

 

Council’s historic aerial photographs indicate the each of the properties in the group comprising nos.4-12 Victory Street have had single garages within the elevated verge since at least the 1940s, when the tram loop occupied the northern part of what is now a headland carpark.  Of the other properties in group comprising nos.4 – 12 Victory Street, only nos.8 and 10 retain original flat roofed concrete garages and sandstone retaining walls.  Nos.4, 6 and 12 have double garages across the entire property frontage (apparently approved in 2004, 2008 and 2001).  These garages generally comprise sandstone facing to external walls (no.4 has a deep concrete spandrel above the garage door).  The landscaped area above the garages generally comprises an open grassed area adjacent to and at a similar level to the pedestrian path, with a non-accessible planted area at a lower level, adjacent to the tops of the garages. 

 

Impact on sandstone retaining wall

The original proposal included demolition of the existing heritage listed retaining wall to provide for a widened garage/driveway and a re-oriented stair, with no original fabric retained.  It was noted that these heritage impact issues were not been addressed in the supporting information submitted and that there appeared to be reasonable scope for reduction is the width and height of the garage/driveway structure.  Plans submitted on 9 August indicate the reconstruction of a 4.5m length of sandstone wall in conjunction with a pedestrian gateway to the bin storage area and garage from the bottom on the public stair.  Plans submitted on 23 August indicate the reconstruction of a 3.5m length of sandstone wall in conjunction with a pedestrian gateway in the face of the wall.  The sandstone wall will no longer function as a retaining wall, with the area behind excavated as a courtyard storage area.  The wall containing the garage door will be around 2m higher than the original garage wall.  The current proposal will reduce the impact on the integrity of the remaining sections of retaining wall and the streetscape contribution of the heritage item.  It is recommended however that the proposed pedestrian entry gate be relocated from the front of the retaining wall to the bottom of the public stair in order to provide a greater length of sandstone wall to the street.  An appropriate consent condition should be included. 

 

Proposed public stair

Historically, a series of stairs were located adjacent to each garage, providing access for residents from their garage to their front gate.  These stairs were however able to be used by the public.  Concerns were raised that the proposed new public stair would have reduced pedestrian convenience, amenity and security.  The current proposal replaces the dog leg stair originally proposed with a straight stair along the northern boundary of the site. The current proposal will provide a direct line of site between the roadway and the footpath, avoiding multiple concealment points.  It is considered that design of the proposed stair is suitable for public use. 

 

Treatment of landscaped area above the garage

Concerns were raised that proposed planter box and steps adjacent to the public footpath would affectively privatise the public area above the new garage.  Historically, the upper level footpath area generally comprised a grassed area sloping at first gently, then more steeply down from the footpath to the garage roofs and retaining walls.  More recently, steeper slopes have utilised native coastal plantings to stabilise the ground and prevent access to garage roofs and retaining wall edges.  As the original single garages have been replaced with higher and wider garages, they have provided an open grassed area at a similar level to the footpath and contiguous with it, together with low maintenance, ground cover type plantings to the garage roofs.  The upper level grassed areas are generally fenced with open stainless steel railings, with low perimeter plantings, while the largely non-accessible garage roof area unfenced.  The current proposal provides a large “front terrace” at the same level as the footpath and a smaller “lower terrace” above the garage entry.  The provision of a lower terrace will necessitate the fencing of the area above the garage entry, potentially adding to the overall height of the structure.  There are concerns that the proposed landscaped area treatment for the subject site is inconsistent with the landscaped area treatment of other recently approved developments.  It is recommended that the proposed lower terrace be replaced by non-accessible planted area, contiguous with the planter box behind the pedestrian entry and bin storage area.  The planter box behind the pedestrian entry area should have the same height as the garage entry, with a continuous retaining wall to the edge of the front terrace at the same height as the turf.  The proposed glazed slots to the garage could then be deleted.  Appropriate consent conditions should be included.

 

Assessment Officer’s comments:

 

·      The existing sandstone retaining wall has a length and height of approximately 8m and 1.5m respectively. The construction of the new garage and associated excavation necessitate the demolition of the retaining wall. It is proposed to re-use the sandstone blocks and reconstruct the wall in the northern half of the site frontage. The reconstructed wall will have a length of approximately 3.5m.

 

The amended proposal includes a pedestrian entry gate fronting Victory Street. It is possible to relocate this gate to the bottom of the new public stairs and lengthen the re-constructed sandstone wall to approximately 4.4m. A condition to this effect is recommended.

 

·      The revised design adopts a straight alignment for the new stairs from the Victory Street carriageway to the elevated footpath. The configuration of the staircase is consistent with those in front of Nos. 4, 6 and 12 Victory Street and is considered to be satisfactory.

 

·      In the recent developments on Victory Street (Nos. 4, 6 and 12), the landscape treatment to the areas above the new garages within the upper stratum incorporates a lower and an upper terrace, due to the steep slope of the land. The upper terraces are at similar levels with the public footpath, and comprise grassed surfaces with perimeter railings. The lower terraces directly above the garages contain dense shrubbery and are designed to be non-trafficable. 

 

The subject proposal includes a trafficable lower terrace above the garage entry. There are concerns that the railings to this lower terrace would add to the height of the garage structure and do not maintain consistency with other recently completed developments on the street. A condition is therefore recommended to require the lower terrace to be occupied by mass shrubbery planting only. The condition will also require the retaining wall to the upper terrace to continue to the southern side to enclose the lower terrace, with the exception of any maintenance stairs access. Refer to diagram below.

 

A further condition is recommended to require the design details of the perimeter railings at the upper terrace to be submitted for Council’s approval, prior to the issuing of any Construction Certificate.

 

A condition is recommended to convert the lower terrace to mass shrubbery planting areas

 

A condition is recommended to continue the retaining wall to the upper terrace to the southern side, in order to enclose the lower terrace, with the exception of any maintenance access.

 

 

 

 

·      The Heritage Planner has recommended that the planter box within the entry courtyard / bin store to be raised to the same level as the upper terrace. This recommendation is not supported as it would unnecessarily complicate the design and create a bulky structure. The provision of shrubbery within the proposed low planter would visually soften the garage wall. This will be required as a condition of consent. Refer to diagram below.

 

A condition is recommended to require the slots to be less than 1500mm in height, so as to minimise their visibility from Victory Street and the public open space opposite.

 

The height of the planter box should remain as proposed in the drawings, and not to be raised.

 

 

·      The eastern wall to the garage behind the entry courtyard has a row of 5 vertical slot windows, which have a height of approximately 2.6m above the footpath level and are higher than the reconstructed sandstone block wall. In order to conserve the heritage significance of the reconstructed sandstone wall, it is imperative that it remains as a prominent element in the streetscape. The proposed slot windows would form distracting elements that are not suitable to the curtilage of the heritage artifacts, especially when the site is viewed from the carriageway of Victory Street and the public open space opposite. A condition is therefore recommended to restrict the height of the slot windows to not more than 1500mm, as measured from the finished ground level within the entry courtyard.

 

·      The only feasible vehicular access to the site is via Victory Street and the proposal incorporates a single width car park entry to maximize the length of the reconstructed sandstone wall. The DCP stipulates that the maximum width of single driveways is 3m. The proposed garage entry is 4m wide and does not comply with the DCP control.

 

The garage entry directly abuts the carriageway of Victory Street. The provision of a 4m wide entry has merits on safety grounds as the sightlines for drivers and cyclists would be improved. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this instance.

 

·      The DCP stipulates that the height of any parapet wall above the garage entry must not exceed 600mm. The parapet wall above the new garage is approximately 1400mm in height and does not comply with the DCP control. In this instance, the extended parapet height is required to support the concrete slab and planting areas above the garage. A condition is recommended to require the walls flanking the garage entry and the parapet above to be finished with coarse texture sandstones, in order to provide a high quality presentation to the street and be sympathetic to the heritage item.

 

4.2    Site coverage

The subject site has a total land area of 660.8m2, comprising 469.6m2 within the Torrens title component and 191.2m2 within the Stratum component.

 

Under the DCP, the permissible maximum site coverage is 45%. The proposed site coverage amounts to 62%. The breach against the DCP is attributed to the fact that the basement level within the Stratum component and the front portion of the Torrens titled land contributes significantly to the site coverage calculations.

 

The subject site comprises a sub-stratum portion and presents a unique opportunity to provide underground connection between the main dwelling and the garage areas. The provision of a more substantial basement storey is not considered to be unreasonable in this instance.

 

The DCP objective behind the control is “to ensure new development… reserve adequate unbuilt upon areas for the purpose of private open space, deep soil planting, permeable surfaces and ancillary development.”

 

In relation to the upper Stratum within the Victory Street road reserve, the development scheme has included 120m2 of soft landscaped areas, which are publicly accessible. Although they do not constitute deep soil planting, the landscaped areas significantly contribute to the visual amenity of the streetscape.

 

In relation to the Torrens title component, the basement level is completely below ground. The above ground building footprints (excluding awning overhangs) amount to 211m2, which translates to 45% site coverage (excluding basement). The proposal has reserved adequate private open space and side setbacks. The design scheme is considered to have maximized unbuilt-upon, open areas around the dwelling and soft landscaping on the site.

 

On the above basis, the proposal is considered to satisfy the intent of the site coverage control.

 

4.3    Deep soil permeable surfaces

Under the DCP, a minimum of 35% of the site is to be reserved as deep soil permeable surfaces. The proposal has only included 10% (67m2) of deep soil areas and does not comply with the DCP control. The breach is primarily attributed to the basement level within both the Torrens title and sub-stratum components, which restricts the extent of deep soil planting.

 

The objectives of the DCP relating to landscaping are as follows:

 

·      To ensure landscaped areas are effectively distributed on the site to achieve a visual balance between building structures and open space.

·      To provide privacy screening between dwellings. 

·      To retain and provide for canopy trees and large shrubs to contribute to the establishment of vegetation corridors across the locality.

·      To assist with stormwater infiltration and reduction of overland flow.

 

In relation to the upper Stratum within the Victory Street road reserve, the development scheme has included 120m2 of soft landscaped areas, which are publicly accessible. Although they do not constitute deep soil planting, the landscaped areas significantly contribute to the visual amenity of the street.

 

In relation to the Torrens title component, the development scheme has reserved appropriate open space within the front, side and rear setbacks. There is sufficient spatial separation between the development and the adjoining buildings.

 

The site presently does not contain any significant vegetation that warrants retention. The proposed development offers an opportunity for a comprehensive landscape upgrade with new planting which is suitable to the coastal environment and view sharing with the surrounding properties.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and raised no objections on stormwater management grounds.

 

On the above basis, the proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of the landscaping control.

 

4.4    Side setbacks

The DCP stipulates a minimum side setback of 1200mm for the ground and first storeys for a site with a frontage width of 12m or more. The site has a frontage width of 12.19m to the public footpath. The proposed side setbacks are 1500mm and 900mm from the northern and southern boundaries respectively. The southern side setback does not meet the DCP control.

 

The relevant objectives of the setback control are as follows:

·      To ensure adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access.

·      To reserve adequate areas for the retention or creation of private open space and deep soil planting.

·      To enable a reasonable level of view sharing between a development and the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

The proposal has reserved an additional 300mm setback from the northern boundary over and above the DCP requirement.

 

The southern side setback entails a minor departure from the DCP control of 200mm. As will be discussed in the following paragraphs, the breach will not lead to any unreasonable overshadowing of the adjoining properties (including No. 12 Victory Street directly to the south). There will still be a separation distance of approximately 1800mm between the proposed building and the adjoining dwelling at No. 12, which has recently been renovated. There will be no significant view loss impacts on this southern neighbour. 

 

An adequate level of open areas has been reserved around the proposed dwelling. The departure from the control does not affect the functionality of the proposed private open space. In particular, a 3.6m wide courtyard is created on the northern side of the dwelling, which will enhance daylight access to the interior living space.

 

On the above basis, the proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives and intent of the DCP control.

 

4.5    Fencing

Front fencing:

The DCP stipulates that the maximum height of front fencing may be 1800mm, provided the upper two-thirds are partially open, except for piers. The proposed front fencing is approximately 1900mm in height, as measured from the existing footpath level. A portion of the topmost 700mm is constructed with timber panels, which sits upon a masonry base. Notwithstanding the departure from the DCP control, the front fencing design is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The front fence incorporates a step at approximately 600mm above the footpath level, which accommodates a small bench seat and planting areas. Accordingly, the masonry base does not present as a continuous monolithic mass.

 

·      The drawings show that the masonry portion of the fence will have a natural stone finish. The natural stone claddings will provide a high quality presentation to the public walkway with minimal on-going maintenance issue.

 

·      The fencing height will not unreasonably diminish casual surveillance of the surrounding public domain. The ground floor “entertaining room” will have good sightlines to the landscaped areas above the garage. The elevated public walkway is overlooked by the front patio.

 

Side fencing:

The DCP stipulates that the side and rear fences must be stepped to follow the topography of the land, with each step not exceeding 2200mm above the ground level (existing) for sloping sites.

 

A new side fence will be constructed along the entire length of the northern boundary. The fence will comprise timber panels above a solid masonry base with a height ranging from 1800mm to 2900mm. The dividing fence between the front yards of the site and No. 8 Victory Street will be of solid masonry construction with a height of up to 2200mm. Notwithstanding the deviation from the control, the fencing design is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The fence has been stepped to follow the topography of the site.

 

·      The northern side fence will not cause any significant overshadowing of the adjoining properties. The majority of the shadows will fall within the subject site.

 

·      The existing dividing fence between the front yards of the site and No. 8 Victory Street consists of low sandstone blocks. This will be replaced with a solid masonry fence of up to 2200mm in height. The reason for the increased height is that the front patio will match the finished floor level of the “entertainment room” within the dwelling (RL15.55), and a 1m high balustrade or fence is required under the BCA to prevent a person from falling. 

 

The more recent developments at Nos. 6 and 12 Victory Street have also included raised terraces to the front of the dwellings, which are at the same levels as the living room.

 

As will be discussed in the following paragraphs, this dividing fence will not cause any significant view loss impacts on No. 8 Victory Street. In order to reduce the visual bulk associated with the extent of the blank walling, a condition is recommended to require the upper most 1m of the fence to be constructed with obscured glazing.

 

Existing dividing fence between the front yards of No. 8 (foreground) and No. 10 (background) Victory Street

 

A condition is recommended to require the uppermost 1m to be constructed with obscured glazing

 

Elevation drawing showing the proposed dividing fence between the front yards of No. 8 Victory Street and the site.

 

The existing brick and timber fence along the southern boundary will mostly be retained. A new brick section (7.6m in length) will be constructed near the rear property boundary, which has a height of approximately 1.9m to match the existing. The above new element is not considered to cause any significant overshadowing or visual impacts on the southern neighbour.

 

Rear fencing:

The proposal will extend the existing masonry wall at the rear boundary to a height of 2.1m to 2.6m, as measured from the existing ground line. A condition is recommended to require the fence to be not more than 2.2m in height, in order to avoid excessive visual bulk and overshadowing.

 

Swimming and Spa Pools

The DCP requires swimming and spa pools to be located behind the front façade alignment. Additionally, pools must be located to minimise noise impacts on the adjoining dwellings. The proposal is not considered to generate unreasonable noise impacts on the neighbouring dwellings for the following reasons:

 

·      The spa pool is located within the front patio and is oriented towards the street. It is not located directly adjacent to any bedroom windows of No. 8 Victory Street.

 

·      The wade pool to the north of the dwelling is setback approximately 3.1m from the southern elevation of No. 8 Victory Street. The common boundary fence at this location is approximately 1800mm above the coping level of the pool, which would provide a degree of noise attenuation. The design of this pool resembles a reflective pond and serves a decorative function. It is anticipated that recreational activities and family gathering would focus on the swimming pool at the rear.

 

·      The swimming pool at the rear yard is not located in close proximity to the bedroom windows of the adjoining dwellings. It is bounded by solid masonry walls on the rear and southern side boundaries, which will provide a degree of noise attenuation.

 

Privacy

The potential privacy impacts of various elements of the proposal are addressed as follows:

 

Elevation

Element

Comments

North

Bedroom balcony

The side balcony has a length of 17.5m and a width of 850mm, except for that part adjacent to the master bedroom which is widened to 1500mm. This element is not considered to result in detrimental privacy impacts on the northern neighbour at No. 8 Victory Street for the following reasons:

 

·      The balcony is attached to bedroom areas only, which are low intensity use space within the dwelling.

 

·      Full height aluminum louvres are installed outside the balcony. The louvre blades can only pivot between 45 degrees and fully closed position, and will not allow direct cross viewing.

 

·      A 1m high balustrade constructed with obscured glazing will be installed along the edge of the balcony. The balustrade will further restrict downward views when a person is within the bedrooms.

 

·      The dimensions and configuration of the balcony do not allow large congregation of persons.

South

Retreat balcony

The balcony off the master bedroom / retreat is 1.2m x 2.8m in dimensions. This balcony will not result in significant privacy impacts on No. 12 Victory Street for the following reasons:

 

·      The balcony has constrained dimensions and will not support large congregation of persons. The balcony is designed as a break-out space that captures the distant water views.

 

·      The balcony is separated 2m from the northern edge of the first floor terrace of No. 12 Victory Street.

 

The first floor terrace of No. 12 incorporates a wrap-around planter box along its perimeter. The northern end of this terrace is only 1m in clear width, and the principal activity area is located on the southern side away from the proposed development (refer to diagram below).

 

Approved first floor plan for alterations and additions at No. 12 Victory Street. The front terrace has a width of only 1m on its northern end.

 

 

Overshadowing

The DCP stipulates the following requirements for retention of solar access to the neighbouring properties:

 

i)    A portion of the north-facing living area windows of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

ii)    The private open space of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. The area covered by sunlight must be capable of supporting passive recreation activities. 

 

The expected impacts are descried in the shadow diagrams below:

 

Legend:

Shadow cast by existing dwelling

Shadow cast by proposed dwelling

Shadow cast by neighbouring building and fences

 

9am, 21 June

 

10am, 21 June

 

11am, 21 June

 

12 noon, 21 June 

 

1pm, 21 June

 

2pm, 21 June

 

3pm, 21 June

 

Impacts on No. 12 Victory Street:

The subject and adjoining sites are oriented in an east-west direction. No. 12 Victory Street is located directly to the south of the site and is subject to the most severe overshadowing as compared to other adjoining properties.

 

As are demonstrated in the above diagrams, more than 50% of the backyard of No. 12 will receive direct sunlight at 11am, 12noon, 1pm, and 2pm on 21 June. The solar access to the principal private open space complies with the DCP control.

 

The living room windows are oriented towards the east and west. They will receive at least 2 hours of sunlight to part of the glazed areas on 21 June. Although these windows will not achieve the 3 hours sunlight as prescribed in the DCP, owing to the subdivision pattern and orientation of the lots, the degree of solar access is considered to be satisfactory.

 

The applicant has also submitted elevational shadow diagrams demonstrating the anticipated impacts on the north-facing windows of No. 12. They show that a portion of the glazed areas of all upper floor windows will receive sunlight throughout the day on 21 June.

 

Overall, the proposal is considered to have retained an appropriate level of solar access to the southern neighbour.

Elevational shadow diagrams demonstrating the expected impacts on the northern windows of No. 12 before (red) and after (blue) the proposed development

 

Impacts on No. 6 Lowe Street:

The proposed cabana and extended boundary wall at the rear will affect the south-eastern part of the backyard to No. 6 Lowe Street. The backyard of this property is occupied by multiple structures and is also subject to shadows cast by its own detached garage. By 11am, the proposal will cast minimal shadows on this property. The hard paved open areas / driveway at the rear will receive direct sunlight at 11am, 12 noon and 1pm.

 

In order to minimise shadow and visual impacts on this property, a condition is recommended to restrict the height of the rear boundary wall to not more than 2200mm, as measured from the existing ground levels.

 

Impacts on No. 8 Lowe Street:

The proposal will cast shadows on the backyard of No. 8 Lowe Street in the morning period on 21 June.

 

Notwithstanding, the shadow diagrams show that more than 50% of the backyard will continue to receive sunlight at 10am, 11am and 12 noon on 21 June.

Although the DCP requires a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight to the backyard, the local subdivision pattern and orientation of the allotments render the strict compliance highly difficult to achieve. Given the aerial extent of the private open space under sunlight (being more than 50%), No. 8 is considered to receive a reasonable level of sunlight in mid-winter.

 

Impacts on No. 10 Lowe Street:

The proposal will cast shadows on the backyard of No. 10 Lowe Street in the morning period on 21 June.

The shadow diagrams show that part of the backyard closest to the rear of the dwelling will receive direct sunlight at 10am. At 11am and 12noon, the majority of the backyard will receive direct sunlight. It is considered that this property will continue to receive a reasonable level of solar access in mid winter.

 

Impacts on No. 12 Lowe Street:

The proposal will cast shadows to a small portion at the eastern extremity of the backyard of No. 12 Lowe Street at 9am, 21 June. Notwithstanding, the whole of the backyard will receive sunlight at 11am and 12noon. It is considered that this property will continue to receive a reasonable level of solar access in mid winter.

 

View Sharing

The DCP prescribes that the design of fences and landscaping must minimise obstruction of views from the neighbouring residences and the public domain.

 

A submission has been received from No. 8 Victory Street directly to the north of the site. The submission raises concerns relating to the increased height to the dividing fence between the front yards of the subject site and their property, and possible view loss impact.

 

Window B

 

Window A

 

Diagram showing location of windows potentially affected by the proposed side boundary fence

 

Window A

 

Site

 

Dense vegetation

 

Location of Window A (front window) of No. 8 Victory Street

 

Virtual model showing likely views from Window A (front window) of No. 8 Victory Street

 

Note that the vegetation on the upper stratum outside the dwelling at No. 8 has not been modeled.

 

The existing views from the front window (Window A) of No. 8 are towards the east. The proposed side fence will not obstruct any significant elements in the view cone obtained from the window in question. It should also be noted that the upper stratum of No. 8 Victory Street is currently occupied by dense vegetation growing to more than 2m above footpath level (see photograph above). The south-easterly view from Window A is therefore already constrained.

 

The applicant has provided a computer generated 3-dimensional model showing the likely view from Window A in a south-easterly direction. The redesign of the landscaping at the podium above the garage of the subject site has the potential to open up oblique views to the sea from the window in question.

 

Side fence

 

Virtual model showing expected views from Window B (side window) of No. 8 Victory Street

 

The applicant has also provided a 3-D model showing the expected view from Window B. This model is prepared based on the following survey plan information:

 

-        Floor level of No. 8 Victory Street at RL15.63

-        Window sill at RL16.83

-        Window head at RL17.99

 

Based on the above, the view depiction of the model is considered to be reasonably accurate. It shows that the proposed side fence will not obstruct any significant elements in the oblique view currently obtained from Window B.

 

Therefore, the proposal is not considered to result in any significant view loss impacts on this property.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the objectives and performance requirements of relevant State and Local planning controls.

 

Although the application is made pursuant to the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation), the proposed FSR and building height are within the development standards stipulated in the current RLEP 2012. The development is contemporary in character and would deliver a positive contribution to the streetscape. Adequate open space has been reserved on the site.

 

The existing heritage listed sandstone block retaining walls fronting Victory Street will be reconstructed. The width of the new garage is acceptable and will not detrimentally affect the heritage significance of the reconstructed wall. Specific conditions have been recommended to ensure the landscape treatment above the garage is consistent with other recent developments within Victory Street.

 

The proposal will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts upon the adjoining properties in terms of solar access, privacy and view sharing.

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/72/2013 for demolition of the existing attached dual occupancy building and single garage on the site; construction of a 2-storey detached dwelling, basement garage with trafficable roof above, swimming pools and cabana; reconstruction of the sandstone retaining wall fronting Victory Street and the staircase connecting the carriageway with the elevated public walkway; and associated landscape works, at No. 10 Victory Street, Clovelly, subject to the following non-standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the Development Application Compliance Report.

 

Non Standard Conditions

 

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

 

a)     The following walls must be constructed with coarse texture sandstone claddings / blocks:

 

·       Front wall of the garage facing and abutting the carriageway of Victory Street;

·       Northern side wall of the garage facing the entry courtyard / bin store area; and

·       Eastern wall of the garage behind the planter box within the entry courtyard / bin store area.

 

The claddings / bocks must be made of natural sandstones. No artificial stones are allowed.

 

b)     The vertical slotted windows on the eastern wall of the garage behind the planter box within the entry courtyard / bin store must have a height of not more than 1500mm, as measured from the finished floor level of the courtyard.

 

c)     The new dividing fence between the front yards of the proposed development and No. 8 Victory Street to the north is to be re-designed in the following manner:

 

·           The uppermost 1000mm of the fence must be constructed with obscured / translucent glazing.

·           The first 900mm from the front property boundary may be constructed with masonry.

 

d)     The rear boundary wall must be stepped so that it does not exceed 2200mm in height, as measured above the existing ground levels.

 

e)     The balustrades to the northern balcony on the first floor level must be constructed with obscured / translucent glazing.

 

f)     No air conditioning condenser units are permitted to be installed on the roof, or on the front elevation of the dwelling.

 

g)     The reflectivity index of glazing used in the development must not be more than 20%.

 

h)     The planter box within the entry forecourt / bin store area is to be planted with appropriate shrubbery that is suitable to the coastal environment.

 

Heritage Conservation

3.       The proposed pedestrian entry gate to the forecourt / bin storage area must be relocated from the front of the retaining wall to the bottom of the public stairs, in order to provide a greater length of the reconstructed sandstone wall to the street. Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director 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. 

 

4.       The proposed “lower terrace” is to be replaced by an unfenced, non-accessible area with mass shrubbery planting, in order to improve consistency with the landscaped area treatment of other recently completed developments in Victory Street. 

 

The eastern retaining wall to the upper terrace (denoted as “front terrace” on the drawings) is to be extended to the south in accordance with the markings in red on the approved drawings, in order to enclose the “lower terrace”. The topmost point of the extended retaining wall is to be no less than RL13.90. A maintenance staircase of not more than 1m in width may be constructed to provide maintenance access from the “front terrace” to the “lower terrace”.

 

Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director 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.       Details of the design, height, materials and structure of the fencing to the “front terrace” are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director 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. The fencing is to be compatible with the open fencing of existing turfed areas adjacent to the footpath. 

 

6.       The existing sandstone blocks are to be reused for the reconstructed sandstone retaining wall. The reconstructed sections of the existing sandstone retaining wall are to match the original wall as closely as possible in terms size, texture, bond pattern and alignment of blocks, mortar joint colour, and detail of capping.

 

7.       Demolition of the existing sandstone retaining wall is to be carefully carried out to minimise any damage to the original sandstone blocks and to facilitate their reuse.

 

Note:

The existing sandstone blocks can be placed on pallets and transported to Council’s Depot for temporary storage prior to reconstruction works if required. Please contact Council for further information.  

 

8.       Hard cement mortar is not to be used for joints between original sandstone blocks as this would result in the erosion of the blocks themselves. 

 

9.       The sandstone cladding to the new garage and other new retaining walls are to have a similar rough finish to the existing sandstone retaining wall. 

 

10.     Unpainted sandstone surfaces are to remain unpainted, and no applied finishes are to be used. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Development Application Compliance Report - 10 Victory Street, Clovelly

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP69/13

 

 

Subject:                  16 Douglas Street, Clovelly (DA/335/2012/A)

Folder No:                   DA/335/2012/A

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification to the approved development by adding new access to the roof terrace including the associated roof structure Original consent: Construction of a new two storey dwelling house with double garage, rear in-ground swimming pool, and associated plant room

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Sarkis Hill Architects

Owner:                         Mr J Jabbour

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The Section 96 application is referred to Council for determination as the original application was determined by Council at its meeting of 12 February 2013. The approved development comprises the construction of a new two storey dwelling house with double garage, rear in-ground swimming pool, and associated plant room.

 

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. /2008. The applicant’s SEE lists the proposed Section 96 modification as follows: 

 

 

The roof-top terrace primarily will comprise a stair and landing enclosure and an open terrace area with frameless glass balustrades.

 

The proposed enclosed landing adjacent to the roof terrace will create an additional 2.8 sqm of floor area making the proposed GFA of the development 255.58 sqm as compared to the 252.78 sqm in the existing approval (as calculated by the assessing officer in the original DA assessment report). Accordingly, the FSR will increase from the original 0.72:1 to 0.73:1.

 

In terms of building height, there will be an increase in building height of 1.85m (RL86.66) above the approved structure (max RL84.81), giving a maximum building height of 8.6m over the structure enclosing the stairs and landing for the roof terrace.

 

Figure 1: Elevation of proposed roof top terrace

 

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Douglas Street, between Fern Street to the west and Seaview Street to the east.

 

The site is currently under construction, having most recently contained a single storey cottage, approved for demolition under DA/146/2012. The site is generally flat.

 

The vicinity of the site and the majority of Douglas Street is characterised by larger freestanding dwellings. A number of single storey bungalow style dwellings exist fronting Fern Street, to the west.

 

The site sits within an irregular subdivision pattern. Oriented north-south, the site is parallel to those adjoining to the south and east, however runs perpendicular to the adjoining sites to the west, of which front Fern Street. The front boundary of the site is at a 45-degree angle to the side boundaries.

 

The site has area of 347.8 square metres. A consistent width of 9.14 metres is provided to the allotment, with depth varying between 34.5 metres on the western side boundary and 41.6 metres on the eastern side boundary, due to the diagonal front boundary.

 

 

Figure 2: The subject site, currently under construction, as viewed from Douglas Street.

Figure 3: Looking east on Douglas Street, the subject site is considerable exposed to the street given its location of a distinct bend. 18 Douglas St seen in the background.

Figure 4: Existing development at 18 and 20 Douglas Street, adjoining to the east of the subject site.

Figure 5: Existing development fronting Fern Street. The rear boundaries of these sites form the western side boundary of 16 Douglas Street.

 

 

Figure 6: Aerial photo of subject site

 

Submissions

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

18 Douglas Street, Clovelly

21 Douglas Street, Clovelly

25 Douglas Street, Clovelly

41 Fern Street, Clovelly  

43 Fern Street, Clovelly 

45 Fern Street, Clovelly

49 Fern Street, Clovelly

2 Nolan Avenue, Clovelly

4 Nolan Avenue, Clovelly

6 Nolan Avenue, Clovelly

 

A petition containing 16 signatures was also received.

 

The issues raised in the submissions are as follows:

 

·      The proposal legally cannot be considered under Section 96 of the EP&A Act

The proposed modification of the development consent to introduce a roof top terrace will relate substantially to the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted. Specifically, the proposal will remain a low density residential use, namely, a dwelling house. Accordingly, the proposed roof top terrace can be considered and determined by way of a Section 96 modification.

 

·      Loss of daylight to rear section of No. 43 & 45 Fern Street

Objectors to the south-west and south of the subject site particularly at Nos. 43 and 45 Fern Street have raised concerns regarding overshadowing. The shadow diagram provided with the application is inadequate in that it does not distinguish clearly the additional shadow generated by the proposed roof top structure over the mid-winter day. Notwithstanding this, the proposed roof top structure is considered to result in increased adverse overshadowing of the rear yard of adjoining properties fronting Fern Street, Nolan Avenue and Douglas Street. 

·      Loss of privacy 

All objectors listed above with properties adjoining the subject site have raised concerns regarding the loss of privacy from the proposed new roof top terrace. The substantially elevated position of the proposed roof top terrace and its exposed nature with frameless glass balustrade will be conducive to overlooking of all adjoining properties to the east, south, and west as well as other nearby properties.

 

·      Loss of views

An objection has been received from the owners of the adjoining western property at No 43 Fern Street in relation to view loss. Assessment of the view loss in terms of the planning principles established in Tenacity v Warringah Council essentially finds that the proposal will result in the loss of views currently obtained from the first floor east-facing balcony looking east across the rear boundary of No. 43 Fern Street. The views are valuable and minimisation of any loss to this view should be considered and given significant weight. The proposal is considered to be poorly design in the way that it proposes a stand alone roof top structure in breach of the maximum wall height control (as opposed to the DCP requirement for roof top terraces and their accompanying access structures to be integrated into the built form) and gives rise to significant view loss to the objectors’ property.

 

·      Increase in visual bulk and scale  and non-compliance with controls

All objectors listed above, have raised concerns regarding visual bulk and scale. The proposed roof top structure breaches the maximum wall height control by 1.6m, it will appear as visually intrusive and dominant when viewed from surrounding streets and properties. When viewed from the rear yards and living areas of the abutting western properties fronting Fern Street, the visual bulk will be particularly exacerbated by the zero setback of the approved building from the common boundaries of these adjoining properties. As such, there will be no visual relief in the wall height that forms part of the rooftop enclosure. The objector’s concerns are considered valid and form valid grounds for refusal of the application.

 

·      Set a bad precedent in the locality

All objectors listed above, have raised concerns that the proposal will set a precedent for terraces on main roof tops, especially in breach of wall height, roof design, privacy, solar access and view sharing controls of the Randwick DCP. The proposal does not meet the design criteria for roof top terraces and breaches the wall height control of the Randwick DCP 2013. Concerns raised by objectors regarding the adverse visual impact of the proposed modifications in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access, privacy and views are justified and considered valid grounds for refusal of the application.

 

Assessment against key criteria in the Randwick LEP 2012 and Randwick DCP 2013

 

·      Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

(a     to conserve the environmental heritage of Randwick,

(b)   to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

(c)   to conserve archaeological sites,

(d)   to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

 

The proposal is located in close proximity to 2 Nolan Ave, Clovelly, a Heritage Item. No heritage impact assessment has been provided with the application pursuant to Clause 5.10 (5). Notwithstanding this, Council’s heritage planner advises that concern is raised to the potential visual bulk impact of the proposed roof top structure on the outlook from the Heritage Item which does not accord with objectives (a) and (b) of the Heritage Conservation clause (see Section 6 below). This concern is considered reasonable in view of the visually intrusive and dominant form of the roof top structure in the context of a small flat site and in the context of the low scaled nature of development in the locality in which non-trafficable pitched and flat roof elements predominate.

 

Section 3.2 - Building Height

Section 3.2 of the Randwick DCP stipulates a maximum external wall height control of 7m for dwelling houses. The proposal will have a maximum wall height of 8.6m which exceeds the control by 1.6m.

 

The objectives of the building height control provide the framework for assessment of the proposal especially as to whether it achieves the key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve in relation to this control. The proposal is assessed against the objectives of the building height controls (shown in bold below) as follows:

 

§ To ensure development height establishes a suitable scale to the street and contributes to its character.

The breach in the wall height will not meet this specific objective of  the external wall height control in that it will create a third storey element that will be visible and prominent when viewed the Douglas Street. Specifically, the subject site is located on a prominent bend in Douglas Street (see Figure 3 above) that exposes its side boundary and, consequently, the form of the proposed addition on this boundary. The proposal will read as a distinct third storey element and in doing so fails to maintain a suitable scale in the street. Furthermore, the proposed height, combined with the overall design, of the stair and landing enclosure will not contribute to the character of the street because it introduces a roof top structure that will be incongruous in the existing streetscape.  

 

§ To ensure development height does not cause unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy and visual amenity.

As discussed in relevant sections of this report, the proposed roof top structure will cause unreasonable impacts on neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy and visual amenity.

 

§ To ensure the form and massing of development respect the topography of the site.

The proposed roof top structure will result in an overall built form and massing that will have an accentuated visual height, bulk and scale as the subject site is a relatively flat site that does not lend itself to increases in wall height in the way that a sloping site can accommodate such increases in stepped built form. Accordingly, the resultant form and massing of the proposed roof top structure will be unsuited to and fails to respect the flat topography of the subject site.

 

Section 4.4 – Roof Design and Features

Section 4.4 of the DCP stipulates the following relevant control for rooftop terraces:

 

i)       Terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces may be provided in stepped buildings, but must not be provided on the uppermost or main roof of the building (including the principal dwelling and any outbuilding).

 

§ For stepped buildings on sloping sites, a terrace may be provided on the roof (not the uppermost roof) above the storeys below

 

§ Terrace or deck must not be provided above the topmost or main roof of the building

As indicated in the previous assessment of wall height control above, the proposed development is located on a flat site that will be unsuited for the only form of roof top terrace that the DCP allows for, that is roof top terraces that are accessible from habitable areas created by a stepped built form over sloping sites. In contrast, the subject application seeks approval for an outright terrace /deck on the top most main roof of the approved building (over a flat site) accessible only via a dedicated staircase linked to a roof top landing requiring an enclosure that breaches the wall height standard. 

 

The objectives of the rooftop terraces requirement provide the framework for assessment of the proposal especially as to whether it achieves the key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve in relation to this control. The proposal is assessed against the objectives of the roof design controls (shown in bold below) as follows:

 

§ To ensure roof design integrates with the form, proportions and façade composition of the building.

As discussed in relation to the wall height objectives above, the roof top structures associated with proposed rooftop terrace will protrude as an intrusive element in relation to the form, proportions and façade composition of the approved building. The proposed roof top enclosure creates a bulky and awkward third floor wall protrusion along the east elevation that bears little relationship to the overall design of the approved building. 

 

§ To ensure trafficable roof space is integrated with the built form and maintains satisfactory privacy relationship with the neighbouring dwellings.

The trafficable roof space is essentially an “add-on” space on top of the main roof of the approved building that does not integrate with the approved built form. Furthermore, as indicated in relevant sections of this report, the trafficable roof space will result in significant loss of privacy to adjoining properties. Due to the proximity of adjoining properties and the elevated position of the roof terrace, loss of privacy will not be able to be minimized without the use of heavy physical screening elements that, if applied, would further add to the visual bulk and scale of the proposed roof top structure.

 

Overall, in relation to external wall height and rooftop terrace controls, the proposed variation from these controls has not demonstrated a more desirable planning and urban design outcome in this instance.

 

In this regard, the proposal results in an excessively high and bulky building with inadequate landscape area contrary to relevant objectives of the DCP. Additionally, the proposal fails to maintain the streetscape amenity because of the dominant visual bulk and scale created by the projecting walls of the proposed additions and results in detrimental amenity impacts on adjoining properties in terms of loss of sunlight, privacy and views.

 

Section 5.3 – Visual Privacy

Section 4.4 of the DCP stipulates the following relevant control for privacy:

 

§ Where a balcony, deck or terrace is likely to overlook the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings, privacy screens must be installed in positions suitable to mitigate the loss of privacy. Privacy screens must be permanently fixed and have a minimum height of not less than 1600mm as measured from the finished floor level. Privacy screens must achieve a minimum of 70% opaqueness and may be constructed with:

 

§ Translucent or obscured glazing

§ Fixed timber or metal slats mounted horizontally or vertically

§ Fixed vertical louvres with the individual blades oriented away from the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings

The roof terrace will be located in an open, elevated position that will readily overlook adjoining and surrounding properties. The DCP  requires, among other measures, the installation of permanently fixed privacy screens of not less than 1600mm height to mitigate loss of privacy. However, the use of such privacy screens in this case will increase visual bulk and scale that would in turn make the roof top addition more dominant and visually intrusive.

 

The objective for visual privacy under the Randwick DCP is as follows:

 

§ To ensure development minimise overlooking or cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.

The proposal fails to minimise overlooking or cross viewing to neighbouring dwellings and proposes a roof top terrace that is open and exposed on all sides to capture views but fails to maintain privacy to adjoining and surrounding properties. 

 

Photo 1: View into adjoining rear yard of No 18 Douglas Street from partially constructed first floor (Viewpoint A in Plan 1 below). The proposed roof terrace will be one floor above this view, looking down upon, and closer to, the affected rear yard (View point B).

 

 

Photo 2: View south into adjoining rear yard of No 2 and 4 Nolan Street from the partially constructed first floor (Viewpoints C in Plan 1 below). The proposed roof terrace will be one more floor above this view, looking down upon, and closer to, the affected rear yard (Viewpoints D).

 

Photo 3: View south-west into adjoining rear yard of Nos 41, 43, 45, 47 and 49 Fern Street from the partially constructed first floor (Viewpoint E in Plan 1 below). The proposed roof terrace will be one floor above this view, looking down upon, and closer to, these affected rear yards (Viewpoints F, G, H & I).

 

 

In this regard, the roof top terrace does not comply with the relevant privacy controls and does not meet the objectives for privacy contained in the Randwick DCP 2013. 

 

In response to residents’ concerns regarding loss of privacy, the applicant submits that, as their development is itself overlooked by existing properties, some degree of overlooking is acceptable in a residential area where dwellings are located so close to each other. As such, according to the applicant, the overlooking created by the proposed roof top terrace is tolerable in this context. This argument is flawed in that the degree of overlooking is significantly increased by an intrusive roof top feature that is non-compliant with the Randwick DCP provisions for maximum wall height and rooftop terraces and hence beyond what would be considerable reasonable.

 

Section 5.6 – View Sharing

Section 5.6 of the DCP stipulates the following relevant control for view sharing:

 

§ The location and design of dwellings and outbuildings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors or vistas from the neighbouring dwellings, streets and public open space areas.

The proposal has a location and design that fails to minimise view loss of the ocean and horizon currently available to the east-facing first floor terrace of the western property at No 43 Fern Street. It will obstruct almost this entire available view corridor.

 

§ Adopt a balanced approach to privacy protection and view sharing, and avoid the creation of long and massive blade walls or screens that obstruct views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

The proposal fails to consider how to minimise overlooking or cross viewing to neighbouring dwellings and proposes a roof top terrace that is open and exposed on all sides to maximise view gain but in doing so intrude upon the privacy of adjoining and surrounding properties. Accordingly, because of its poor design resulting in breaches in the DCP controls, the proposal has not adopted a balanced approach to privacy protection and view sharing.

 

§ Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted to mitigate potential view loss impacts in the DA.

The roof top addition has not been designed to maintain the existing view corridor from the first floor balcony of adjoining western property at No 43 Fern Street. In particular, the vertical extension of a portion of the west elevation to a height that breaches the maximum wall height shows a lack of consideration of steps or measures to mitigate view loss impacts.

 

The objectives of the view sharing requirement provide the framework for assessment of the proposal especially as to whether it achieves the key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve in relation to this control. The proposal is assessed against the objectives of the view sharing controls (shown in bold below) as follows:

 

§ To acknowledge the value of views to significant scenic elements, such as ocean, bays, coastlines, watercourses, bushland and parks; as well as recognised icons, such as city skylines, landmark buildings / structures and special natural features.

 

§ To ensure development is sensitively and skillfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

The proposal maximises views of the ocean and horizon from the proposed terrace but fails to acknowledge the value of these views to the neighbouring property.

 

Accordingly, the proposed rooftop terrace and associated landing enclosure is not considered to be sensitively or skilfully designed in relation to maintaining views from neighbouring dwellings. The provision of a roof top structure that significantly breaches the wall height control in a manner that severely obstructs significant views of the ocean to the adjoining property does not accord with these objectives of the Randwick DCP.

 

Additionally, the DCP states that:

 

“The intent of the DCP is to ensure development is sensitively and skillfully designed, so that a reasonable level of views is retained for the surrounding areas. The NSW Land and Environment Court has developed a planning principle relating to view sharing based on the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140. Where view loss impact is likely to occur, development proposals must address this sub.section of the DCP as well as the aforementioned planning principle in detail.”

 

An assessment of the proposal against Tenacity and Warringah Council yields the following result:

 

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. ”

 

Photo 4: Distant and filtered views of the Pacific Ocean and horizon obtained looking east from the first floor balcony of No 43 Fern Street.

 

The view comprises a partial and distant view of the ocean and horizon filtered by vegetation and the roofline of existing development in the foreground (Photo 4). Having regard to Senior Commissioner Roseth’s comments regarding “iconic views”, this view does not qualify as iconic but can be rated as moderately significant because of the ocean view with distant horizon.

 

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 view is obtained from the first floor east-facing balcony looking east across the rear boundary of No. 43 Fern Street albeit the side boundary of the subject site. As such, having regard to the planning principle, the views are valuable and minimisation of any loss to this view should be considered and given significant weight.

 

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 proposed roof top landing enclosure will obstruct a significant portion of the subject views from the objectors’ top floor balcony as the view from this balcony aligns directly east with the west-facing blank wall of the proposed enclosure (Photo 5). Quantitatively, having regard to the significance of the view defined in Step 2 above and the narrow corridor in which it sits, the view loss is considered severe.  In this context, the objectors’ claim of view loss is considered warranted and  supported.

 

Photo 5: Approximate location of roof top landing enclosure (red outline) based on site analysis plan and survey material.

 

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.”

 

In terms of built form, the proposal does not comply with external wall height control of the Randwick DCP. The question therefore arises as to whether there are any view loss impacts arising from the non-compliance and whether the impacts are reasonable. The proposal is also non-compliant with the roof top design controls of the DCP.

 

The proposed landing enclosure has its main protruding wall facing the objectors’ property. This wall has a maximum wall height of 8.6m which significantly exceeds the 7m maximum wall height standard by 1.6m. This is a significant breach that almost completely obstructs the majority of the ocean and horizon view. The proposal is considered to be poorly designed in the way that it proposes a stand alone roof top structure for access as opposed to the DCP requirement for roof top terraces and their accompanying access structures to be integrated into the built form. This proposed stand alone enclosure is considered excessive and inappropriate specifically in terms of its severe impact on the existing views obtained from the objectors’ property. Accordingly, the view loss is considered unreasonable and unacceptable. The objectors’ concerns are considered warranted in this instance and form valid grounds for refusal of the application.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

While the proposed modification will result in a development that will be substantially the same as that originally approved, on merit, it fails to achieve a reasonable and acceptable design outcome as it would be dominant and visually intrusive when viewed from Douglas Street and adjoining properties; it will introduce a trafficable roof top element that does not integrate with the approved built form as required in the Randwick DCP; it will not maintain satisfactory privacy relationship with the neighbouring dwellings; it will result in detrimental loss of views to the adjoining western property and it will adversely increase overshadowing of adjoining properties.

 

Concerns raised by objectors regarding the adverse visual impact of the proposed modifications in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access, privacy and views are considered valid and are supported by the assessment above.

 

It is recommended that the application to modify the consent in the manner described be refused.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/335/2012 by modifying the approved development by adding new access to the proposed roof terrace including the associated roof structure at 16 Douglas Street, Clovelly, for the following reasons: 

 

1.       The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives for Low Density Residential R2 Zone as set-out in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that it fails: 

 

·      To recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form or, in precincts undergoing transition, that contribute to the desired future character of the area.

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

 

2.       The proposal will have visual bulk impact on the outlook from the adjoining Heritage Item at No 2 Nolan Street and, therefore, does not satisfy the following relevant objectives for heritage conservation under Clause 5.10 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012: 

 

·      to conserve the environmental heritage of Randwick,

·      to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

 

3.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and controls for building height, rooftop terraces, solar access and overshadowing, visual privacy, and view sharing set-out in the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013.

 

4.       The proposed increase in external wall height is excessive and does not comply with maximum external wall height under Clause 3.2 of the Randwick DCP 2013 and results in adverse amenity impacts on adjoining properties and the streetscape in terms of solar access, privacy, view loss and excessive visual bulk and scale.

 

5.       The visual bulk and scale of the proposal are not considered to be compatible with the existing development pattern in Douglas Street, Fern Street and Nolan Avenue and the local area and will dominate the adjoining and nearby residential buildings. The proposal will not contribute to a satisfactory architectural outcome and will adversely affect the character of the local area and streetscape. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

6.       The documentation submitted with the application is deficient of information and details relating to the colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building. 

 

7.       The documentation submitted with the application is deficient of information and details relating to shadow impacts.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 16 Douglas Street, Clovelly

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP70/13

 

 

Subject:                  Reporting variation to development standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) August 2013

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 SEPP1;

 

2)     Requirement for all development applications where there has been a variation greater than 10% in standards under SEPP1 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 SEPP1;

 

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 SEPP1s approved in the period between 1 to 31 August 2013 – two (2) were approved during this period either by Planning Committee meeting or Ordinary Council Meeting.

 

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 SEPP1 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 SEPP1. 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

SEPP 1 August 2013

 

 

 

 


SEPP 1 August 2013

Attachment 1

 

 

 

SEPP 1 REGISTER BETWEEN 1 AUGUST TO 31 AUGUST 2013

 

 

Council DA reference No

Lot No

DP No

Apartment/Unit No

Street No

Street name

Suburb/Town

Post-code

Category of development

Environmen-tal planning instrument

Zoning of land

Development standard to be varied

Justification of variation

Extent of variation

Concurring authority

Date DA determined

dd/mm/yyyy

Approved by

DA/758/2012

2

303070 SUBJ OF ROW

 

 

42-44

St Pauls Street,

RANDWICK

2031

 4: Residential - New multi unit < 20 dwellings

RLEP 1998

R3 Residen-tial

Clause 20(G) Building height of 12m

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Building height is 13.72m or 15.45 with the planter box increased by 3.45m or 28.75%

NSW Dept of Planning

13-Aug-13

PCM

DA/504/2012

9

5463

 

47

Bond Street,

MAROUBRA

2035

 4: Residential - New multi unit < 20 dwellings

RLEP 1998

R3 Residen-tial

Clause 20(E) Landscaped Area 50%, Clause 20F - FSR =0.65:1, Clause 20(G) External wall height of 10m.

Provides adequate areas of open space for mature vegetation, recreation and the  reduction of stormwater run off, and maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Provides 42% landscaped area deficient by 8%, FSR increased to 0.99:1 or by 52.3% and external wall height is 11.46m increased by 1.46m or 14.6%.

NSW Dept of Planning

27-Aug-13

OCM

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP71/13

 

 

Subject:                  Cultural and Community Grants Program - September 2013 Round - Recommended Allocations

Folder No:                   F2009/00182

Author:                   Teresa Mok, Manager Community Planning & Development     

 

Introduction

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program was endorsed by Council on 28 April 2009 and commenced in June 2009.  The Cultural and Community Grants Program provides financial support to creative arts and cultural projects that encourage community participation and vibrancy within the City of Randwick. The Program is linked to actions and strategies identified within the Council’s Cultural Plan, A Cultural Randwick City.

 

In this funding round, Council has received a total of 26 applications seeking $199,285.11 (in-kind and cash). The applications were assessed by an assessment panel comprising of Council staff, an independent representative from Woollahra Council. Details of the applications recommended for funding are listed in Attachment One to this report. Applications not recommended for funding are also listed in Attachment One.

 

A total of funds of $107,720 is available for allocation as part of the September 2013 round.  This report recommends 10 applications to receive funding totalling $38,438.99.  A further $9,000 is also recommended to be allocated via the Council’s Contingency Funds to fund the South Maroubra Village Art Show due to circumstances outlined in this report. 

 

All applicants will be advised about the outcomes of their grant application.

 

Issues

 

Cultural and Community Grants Program Background

The Cultural and Community Grants Program has an annual budget of $107,720.00.  This amount covers both in-kind and cash contribution requests from grant applications.

 

There are two Grant program funding rounds per financial year, in March and September, and is promoted in the local newspaper, on the Council’s website and email through local community networks.

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program Funding is awarded to locally based not-for-profit organisations or community groups. The applicants must demonstrate that their project benefits a cross section of our diverse community. The resulting activities or events must be held in the City of Randwick. Applicants may seek grants from Council as an in-kind contribution only (waiver of Council fees and charges), cash contribution only, or a combination of in-kind and cash contribution.  Further, the grant assessment guidelines were amended in September 2011 last year to clearly state that all grant recipients must not be linked to commercial ventures, and those that have a profit making outcome (e.g. charging an entry fee to view or participate in event or project).  

The Program requires and expects a high level of accountability from funding recipients. As part of the funding acquittal process, all recipients who have received cash grants will be required to provide evidence that the activity or event was held.

 

September Assessment Round 2013-14

The assessment process was undertaken by a panel of Council officers, a Woollahra Council representative, and the Council Internal Auditor. The panel met to assess the applications and to determine which of these should receive full, partial or no funding. All applications were assessed for compliance with the program’s funding priorities and guidelines, and the organisation’s capacity to deliver the program outcomes. Each application was assigned a numerical score reflecting and a priority ranking of A, B or C. Priority levels are detailed below:

 

·           Priority A: High priority for funding. The project is consistent with program funding priorities and has special weighting and compares well with other applicants.

·           Priority B: Possibly fund if sufficient funds are available. Application meets eligibility criteria but with lower scores than the Priority A applications.  Priority B applications may lack adequate detail or be poorly targeted.

·           Priority C: Does not meet the eligibility criteria.

 

Through this assessment process, a total of 10 applications have been recommended to receive funding totalling $38,438.99 comprising of $21,454.50 in cash and $16,984.49 in-kind (fee waiver).  The grant applicants and a brief description of their proposed projects being recommended for funding are summarised below:

 

·           My Blanket My Story (Bondi Beach Cottage) Cash and funds to support a 8 to 10 week therapeutic group facilitated by a domestic violence counsellor for women to reconnect with self and the community following trauma and hardships by telling their story through sewing fabric symbols on blankets that they keep and use as statements of protection, warmth comfort and resilience in times of crisis.  The support group will meet in the Bowen Library meeting room.

·           Coogee Family Fun Day (Coogee Chamber of Commerce) In-kind funds for use of Goldstein Reserve, and cash contribution towards the annual community event that celebrates the start of summer and consists of market and craft stalls, rides and other entertainment. Profits raised from the event are donated to a local charity; traditionally the Children’s Hospital. 

·           Cooking and Yoga on Fridays (Eastern Suburbs Aftercare) In-kind funds to use Maroubra Seniors Centre to conduct weekly cooking and yoga activities for people with mental illness living in the Eastern Suburbs.

·           Annual Art Craft Exhibition (Randwick Arts Society Inc.)  In-kind funds for use of Prince Henry Centre, and cash contribution towards artwork hanging, printing, prizes, and stationary.

·           South Maroubra Junior Surf Club Annual Proficiency Tests (South Maroubra Surf Life Savings Club) In-kind funds for lane hire at Des Redford Aquatic Centre to test approximately 400 children aged between 8 and 14 years swimming skills to enable them to participate in surf club activities.

·           South Maroubra Surf Life Club - Junior Surf Carnival (South Maroubra Surf Life Savings Club) In-kind funds for use of South Maroubra Beach and associated equipment to hold a club youth carnival for children 8 to 17 yrs.

·           Pere Receveur Commemoration Mass (St Andrew’s Catholic Church) Cash contribution towards hiring a marquee and sound for the annual mass.  The mass commemorates the Frenchmen buried at Botany Bay and serves as a reminder of the ill fated expedition of the Enlightenment.  Several hundred participants are expected.

·           Community Welcome Lunch (The Junction Neighbourhood Centre) Cash and In-kind funds to hold a lunch for new arrivals to Australia living in Randwick to make new connections and friends with established residents living nearby.

·           The RLI Arts Festival (The Randwick Literary Institute) In-kind funds for printing and cash funds towards banners, poles, certificates, prizes and lighting hire for the Art Festival’s opening night.

·           Kool Jarums Dance Group (Weave Youth Family Community Inc.) Cash funds for free dance lessons to disadvantaged and vulnerable children between 7-13 years who live in La Perouse and surrounds areas.

Council also received an application from the Indonesian Welfare Association for in-kind to use of Maroubra Senior Citizens Centre for their Maroubra group. This application will be resubmitted to the Cultural and Community Grant March 2014 Round because Council endorsed, in the March 2013 round, allocation of in-kind funds for this purpose until end of June 2014.

 

South Maroubra Village Green Art Show

In assessing this year’s applications, an anomaly was noted.  The assessment panel noted that an application for the South Maroubra Village Green Art Show did not technically meet the assessment guidelines because the application was lodged by Walsh’s Village Pharmacy, a private business entity. This event however meets the intent and aims of the grants program.  It is a popular event, the applicant does not derive any financial benefits, and is free to all participants. The community art show is a worthwhile and highly anticipated community event but it will not be possible to fund it under the current terms of the assessment guidelines.

 

The event organizers have sought $17,000 towards the holding of this event.  However, having considered the proposal and previous contributions ($3,900) awarded to this event, it is recommended that Council allocate $9,000, an amount which is also recommended to be awarded to the Randwick Art Society under this funding round.

 

To enable this event to take place, it is recommended that this event be funded through the Council’s Contingency Fund, and that the amount of $9,000 be transferred from the Cultural and Community Grants Program budget to the Contingency Fund budget to cover this cost. 

 

Council officers will undertake a review of the current assessment guidelines to address this issue, and will prepare a report back to Council before the commencement of the February 2014 funding round.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  5:     Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The Cultural and Community Grant Program has an annual budget allocation of $107,720. The current allocation round is well within budget.

 


Conclusion

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program plays an important role in providing artistic and cultural events and activities that contribute towards vibrancy and social cohesion within Randwick City. Following a rigorous assessment process of applications against program criteria and guidelines, the panel has recommended 10 applications to receive funding totalling $38,438.99 under the September 2013 assessment round.  The application to hold the Maroubra South Village Green Art Competition did not technically meet the assessment guidelines but is considered to be a worthwhile project that meets the intent and objectives of the grants program. Should Council agrees to support the Maroubra South Village Green Art Competition event, a total of 11 applications will be funded, thus bringing the total allocation to $47,438.99 under the September 2013 funding round.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)           approve Cultural and Community Program funds totalling $38,438.99 to be allocated to the recommended grant applicants listed in Attachment One.

 

b)           endorse $9,000 to be transferred to the Council’s Contingency Funds to fund the South Maroubra Village Green Art Show.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Cultural and Community Grants Program - September 2013 Round -Attachment One - Details of Recommended Successful and Non Successful Grant Applications

 

 

 

 


Cultural and Community Grants Program - September 2013 Round -Attachment One - Details of Recommended Successful and Non Successful Grant Applications

Attachment 1

 

 

Attachment One

2013/2014 CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING – SEPTEMBER 2013 ASSESSMENT

 

No.

Organisation

Name of Project & Description

Amount

Requested

Rank

In-Kind Recommended

Cash

Recommended

In kind

Cash

1

Bondi Beach Cottage

My Blanket My Story

Cash funds to support a 8 to 10 week therapeutic group facilitated by a domestic violence counsellor for women to reconnect with self and the community following trauma and hardships by through telling their story through sewing fabric symbols on blankets that they keep and use as statements of protection, warmth comfort and resilience in times of crisis.

$ 700.00

$ 500.00

B

$0.00

$500.00

4

Coogee Chamber of Commerce

Coogee Family Fun Day

In-kind funds for use of Goldstein Reserve, and cash contribution towards the annual community event that celebrates the start of summer and consists of market and craft stalls, rides and other entertainment. Profits raised from the event are donated to a local charity; traditionally the Children’s Hospital. 

$4,939.05

 

$ 10,000.00

B

$5,136.61

$5,000.00

7

Eastern Suburbs Aftercare

Cooking and Yoga on Fridays

In-kind funds to use Maroubra Seniors Centre to conduct weekly cooking and yoga activities for people with mental illness living in the Eastern Suburbs.

$2,448.00

$2,320.00

 

B

$2,448.00

 $0.00

15

The Randwick Arts Society Inc.

Randwick Art Society – Annual Art Craft Exhibition

In-kind funds for use of Prince Henry Centre, and cash contribution towards artwork hanging, for printing, prizes and stationary.

 $ 6,732.33

 $ 4,100.00

B

 $6,732.33

 $1,500.00

17

South Maroubra Surf Life Savings Club

South Maroubra Junior Surf Club Annual Proficiency Tests

In-kind funds for lane hire at Des Redford Aquatic Centre to test approximately 400 children aged between 8 and 14 years swimming skills to enable them to participate in surf club activities.

$1,025.00

$ 0.00

B

$1,066.00

$0.00

18

South Maroubra Surf Life Savings Club

South Maroubra Surf Life Club - Junior Surf Carnival

In-kind funds for use of South Maroubra Beach and associated equipment to hold a club youth carnival for children 8 to 17 yrs.

$1,144.28

 

$0.00

B

$1,190.05

$0.00

19

St Andrew’s Catholic Church 

Pere Receveur Commemoration Mass

Cash contribution towards hiring a marquee and sound for the annual mass.  The mass commemorates the Frenchmen buried at Botany Bay and serves as a reminder of the ill fated expedition of the Enlightenment.  Several hundred participants are expected.

$0.00 

 $ 3,394.50

B

$0.00 

 $3,394.50

21

The Junction Neighbourhood Centre

Community Welcome Lunch

Cash and In-kind funds to hold a lunch for new arrivals to Australia living in Randwick to meet established residents living nearby making new connections and friends.

$ 211.50

 $ 2,800.00

B

$211.50

 $2,800.00

24

Randwick Literary Institute 

The RLI Arts Festival

In-kind for printing and cash funds towards banners, poles, certificates, prizes and lighting hire for the opening night.

 $ 200.00

 $ 4,800.00

A

 $200.00

 $4,800.00

26

Weave Youth Family Community Inc.

Kool Jarjums Dance Group

Cash funds for free dance lessons to disadvantaged and vulnerable children between 7-13 years who live in La Perouse and surrounds areas.

$ 0.00

$ 3,460.00

A

$0.00

$3,460.00

 

 

 

 

 

Total

$16,984.49

$21,454.50

 

Total

$38,438.99


2013/2014 CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM

APPLICATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING – SEPTEMBER 2013 ASSESSMENT

 

No.

Organisation

Name of Project

Amount Requested

Rank

Reason for not recommending- future action

In kind

Cash

2

Chinese Film Festival Inc. -

 

2014 Golden Koala Chinese Film Festival

Cash funds to for venue hire, transport and promotion of the festival showcasing high profile internationally award-winning film directors and actors.

$0.00

$5,000.00

C

This applicant did not demonstrate sufficient community participation and involvement in project.

3

Clovelly Child Care Centre

Art Stories a Kid's Perspective

Cash and in-kind funds to hold an inaugural art show showcasing Centre’s children’s work to the local community; and inviting local artists and galleries to participate.

$592.00

$2,150.00

C

This applicant did not demonstrate sufficient benefit to the broader community.

5

Coogee Chamber of Commerce

Taste of Coogee

In-kind funds to use Goldstein Reserve, food inspections and a lifeguard for an event to showcase local food outlets and restaurants and beer, wine, and cider tastings.

$7,931.00

$0.00

C

Council has resolved not to waive the fees for this event at its 23 July 2013 Ordinary Council Meeting.

 

6

Coogee Community Garden Inc.

Coogee Community Garden

Cash funds to purchase a garden shed, soil, rainwater tank and fence for the organic community garden.

$0.00

$16,200.00

C

Application seeks funds capital works and related structures, or facility maintenance

works which are outside the Cultural and Community Grant Guidelines.

8

Greek Orthodox Church of NSW

 

400th Anniversary of El Greco's Death

Cash and in-kind funds to hold an event that would include a talk on the Greek painter, performances Spanish and Italian Renaissance choral works and instrumental pieces inspired by El Greco’s paintings. 

$2,683.75

$9,000.00

C

Not eligible because there is a charge for people to attend this event.

9

Indonesian Welfare Association Inc

Indonesian Support Group Maroubra

In-kind funds to use the Maroubra Seniors Centre weekly between July 2013 and June 2014 for the Indonesian Support Group meetings. The group aims to prevent social isolation, providing community education to assist access to available services

$2,496.00

$0.00

C

This application will be resubmitted to the Cultural and Community Grant March 2014 Round because Council endorsed, in the March 2013 round, allocation of in-kind funds for this purpose until end of June 2014.

10

Junction House Incorporated

Back to 70's Ball 

In-kind funds for use of the Prince Henry Centre, and cash contribution towards the ball event for people with intellectual disabilities, their carers, service provider organisations and interested Randwick residents. To be held as a follow up from the International Day of People with a Disability in December.

$2,607.50

$900

C

Not eligible because there is a charge for people to attend this event.  Alternative funding source has been identified and this event will proceed, as planned.

11

Maroubra Junction Public School Centenary Committee

Centenary Fun Day

Cash funds for the hire of stalls for the school’s centenary celebration which will include school class stalls, commemoration of new time capsule, and to recognise the achievement of the school over the past century.

$0.00

$3,016.20

C

The application focuses on benefits only for this school’s community.

12

Police Citizens Youth Club – Eastern Suburbs

 

Fit For Life Program

Cash funds to conduct a health and fitness program, including dance, Hip Hop/Zumba, for young people with a particular attention to young La Perouse Aboriginal, and to purchase relevant sports equipment.

$0.00

$20,000.00

C

Not eligible because the project is to be held outside Randwick City

13

Police Citizens Youth Club – Eastern Suburbs

 

Leni’s Story DV Support Group

Cash funds to conduct 4 four hour workshops for approximately 15 participants to learn how to make dream catchers as they tell their story or just listen; Participants will also learn how to make aromatherapy candles; and experience meditation and creative visualization.  The aim of the workshops is also to establish an ongoing healing group.

$0.00

$5,000.00

C

Not eligible because the project is to be held outside Randwick City.

14

Police Citizens Youth Club – Eastern Suburbs

 

Yarn'n Circle

Cash funds for food, cooking and other equipment to be used to establish a meeting place where young women, (predominately from Aboriginal backgrounds) can feel safe and free to talk about issues affecting them. The young women will also learn: how cook healthy meals on tight budgets, about domestic violence and how to get help. Drug & alcohol counselling will be provided. A healing camping is also planned.

$0.00

$4,100.00

C

Not eligible because the project is to be held outside Randwick City.

16

Randwick Public School

Sharing Culture Art Mural

Cash funds for local Aboriginal artist fees and paint materials to work collaboratively with the school students to design an Aboriginal art mural that celebrates diversity and the importance of education.

$0.00 

$950.00

C

Not eligible because the project is considered to be part of the schools’ core curriculum.

20

The Deli Women & Children’s Centre

Special events at the Deli Women & Children’s Centre

Cash funds to hold a ‘Stress Less Day’, International Women’s Day’ and ‘Harmony Day’ events.

$0.00

$1,650.00

C

Not eligible because the project is to be held outside Randwick City.

22

The Little Bay Coast Centre for Seniors

Community Mosaic Mural Cash funds for artist materials graphic design for and artist to involve grandparents and children to create a mural over six (6) two (2) hour workshops.

$0.00

$2,374.00

C

Not eligible because they are charging to attend workshops and project is available only to members of the centre.

23

The Patch

The Big Table Cash funds to promote Kingsford by producing a recipe book and holding a community dining events on a big table in Kingsford.

 

$0.00

$44,000.00

C

Application does not address any needs or gaps highlighted in Council’s cultural plan, a cultural Randwick City.

25

Walsh's Village Pharmacy 

South Maroubra Village Green Art Show

Cash contribution towards the Art Show under canvas community event for local artists to display their work at no fee.  Includes children’s section.

$0.00

$17,000.00

C

Not eligible because the applicant is a business.

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP72/13

 

 

Subject:                  Council Response to Councillor Stavrinos' Notice of Motion Local Art Competition

Folder No:                   F2006/00216

Author:                   Ilana Kaplin, Coordinator Community Programs and Partnerships     

 

Introduction

 

At Council’s ordinary meeting of 26 March 2013 it resolved (Stavrinos/Andrews) that:

 

a)     Council calls for a report to look into the feasibility of conducting a local art      competition amongst Randwick City primary schools;

 

b)     should it be feasible, a winner be selected from each suburb in the Randwick     City area and the artwork of each winner be displayed in the town hall and bus      shelters; and

 

c)     if the competition is held and is successful that Council look into including high schools as part of the competition in future.

 

This report recommends an intergenerational art competition for local primary school aged children to create a self portrait with a smart phone (commonly known as a ‘selfie’) with a grandparent, guardian or senior community member.

 

Issues

 

There are a number of art competitions already in existence, for and through, primary schools.  In addition to the many existing school based art competitions, Randwick Council currently holds two art competitions for primary and high school students.  Council staff helps resource an art competition in local primary schools as part of its domestic violence prevention program, otherwise known as the Love Bite Art Competition. The annual Pauline McLeod Reconciliation Art Competition is opened to all primary and high schools in the eastern suburbs to submit art works.  This competition is held on an annual basis by the Eastern Region Local Government Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander (ERLGATSI) Forum, of which the Council is an active member.

 

In reviewing the feasibility of this art initiative prior to the preparation of this report, feedback received from primary schools suggests that they prefer an art competition that doesn’t draw on school resources. One suggestion put forward for consideration was to hold an on-line digital art competition, whereby primary school children submit a ‘selfie’ together with a grandparent, guardian or senior community member.

 

The ‘selfie’ art competition taps into a popular way for children to express themselves, and to document other family or community members who are important to them (apart from their parents or primary carers).  An art competition that inspires children to create an image of themselves with an important senior family member or guardian is an effective way to encourage creativity and intergenerational connection.

 

The format means that all competition entries or images can be submitted directly to a council email address established for this art competition.  Using contemporary technology that is easily accessible and affordable should appeal to primary school children from kindergarten to the sixth grade, and their families from different backgrounds.

 

Award winning images could also be downloaded by council staff for a traditional exhibition in a venue like our libraries, as well as used on Randwick City Council’s social media platforms like the Facebook page and webpage. 

 

Further community participation can be encouraged with online and smart phone voting. This has the added benefit of awareness raising and attracting more residents to our online resources.

 

The competition could potentially be run in connection with Grandparents Day, from October 2014. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2f:      Our cultural diversity is appreciated and respected.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The estimated costs for conducting the Art Competition would be approximately $3,500 which is not currently in Council’s budget or Long Term Financial Plan.  Therefore an allocation of $3,500 in funds would be required.

 

Conclusion

 

Using current technology and the contemporary interests of school aged children an art competition of a ‘Selfie” with a grandparent, guardian or senior community member is a good vehicle to inspire creativity, innovation and intergenerational connection.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council support a digital based inter-generational self portrait art competition for local primary school aged children in 2014, and

 

b)     funding of $3,500 be made available as part of the 2014-15 financial year budget for the planning, publicity and implementation of the ‘selfie’ art competition for primary school aged children.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM19/13

 

 

Subject:                  Rock fishing in Randwick City survey

Folder No:                   F2004/07086

Author:                   Joshua Hay, Communications Manager     

 

Introduction

 

On 27 November 2012, Council considered a Mayoral Minute outlining a concerning increase in the number of rock-fishing fatalities occurring along the Randwick City coastline. As a result, Council resolved that:  

“a) Council express its shock and sadness at the high number of rock fishing deaths in the Randwick City area.

b)   Council meet with relevant rock fishing experts to review what can be done to improve safety.

 

c)   Council welcome the commencement of Project Blueprint and work closely with SLSA to review the findings.

 

d)   Council conduct an on-the-ground survey of rock fishing in Randwick City to help develop a rock fishing safety strategy.”

 

As a result of this resolution, Council engaged the services of Multicultural Marketing & Management to work closely with local volunteer anglers and multilingual speakers and the Australian National Sportfishing Association (ANSA) to conduct an on-the-ground survey.

 

At the same time, Surf Life Saving Australia has been conducting a state-wide coastal public safety risk assessment project called “Project BluePrint”. This project has been gathering data from 223 beaches and headlands, including in Randwick City. Council is currently assessing the results and recommendations of this risk assessment.

 

Additionally, the State Government has recently released a Discussion Paper on the Wearing of Life Jackets by Rock Fishers. This paper is currently on public exhibition for comment until September 30.

 

This report presents the findings of Council’s on-the-ground survey and provides an update for Councillors on Council’s future direction.

 

Issues


Rock fishing is one of the dangerous sports in Australia. There have been six rock fishing in Randwick City since September 2011 and half of these have occurred within the vicinity of a popular rock fishing spot known as Julieanne’s in Little Bay.

 

Surf Life Saving Australia published its most recent annual National Coastal Safety Report on 13 December 2012. It showed that in the 2011-12 financial year there were 119 drowning deaths along the Australian coast. Of these drowning, 47 (40%) drowning deaths occurred in New South Wales – 16 (13%) were attributed to rock fishing. An additional two people have died from rock fishing in Randwick City Council in the 2012-13 financial year.

Rock-fishing deaths in Randwick City accounted for 25% of all rock-fishing deaths in NSW in 2011-12. And this figure excludes two more recent deaths in Randwick City in 2012-13.

 

Statistically, you are more likely to die rock fishing in Randwick City than anywhere else in Australia.

 

Survey summary

Randwick City Council commissioned Multicultural Marketing and Management (MMM) to conduct research in the nominated rock fishing locations: Cape Banks, Jolong, The Trap and The Gutter at Little Bay, Julieanne's, Yellow Rock, North Maroubra and Mahon Pool. Between 16 February 2013 and 7 April 2013, 121 people were interviewed about their background, awareness of dangers and ideas to improve safety. These interviews also gathered demographic data, water activities behaviour, attitude towards rock fishing, and emergency readiness.

 

Of those surveyed, 94% were male and the majority were between 30 and 49 years of age (48%); the next largest group (21%) was 20-29 years of age.

 

Two-thirds of interviewees (63%) have lived in Australia for more than nine years, and one-eighth (14%) have lived here between 5 to 9 years.

 

Key survey results:

§ One-fifth (21%) of anglers surveyed will go fishing alone, instead of with a friend or buddy.

 

§ Half of interviewees (49%) never wear a lifejacket while one-fourth (22%) wear it “sometimes” and only one-fourth (24%) wear it “always.”

§ Fisherman were shown a mocked up ‘shock signage’ concept illustrating the number of deaths at the fishing spot. 75% said a sign like this would be likely or extremely likely to reduce the rate of rock fishing accidents while 70% said it would influence their behaviour while fishing.

 

§ An astonishing 42% of rock fishermen surveyed were unaware of the deaths in Randwick local government areas.

 

§ An overwhelming majority (91%) of interviewees do not know first aid.

 

§ Some of the interviewees (15%) are at serious risk of drowning – they either cannot swim (8%) or can only swim for one minute (7%) in swimming-pool conditions.

 

§ 38 interviewees had either been swept off the rocks while fishing, or knew somebody who had.

 

§ Fisherman found out about the fishing locations through friends or relatives (54%) or they grew up in the area (31%)

 

§ 65% of interviewees agreed that being swept off their feet was likely to result in their drowning.

 

§ Fisherman fish in Randwick City because they enjoy rock fishing here (24%), live close by (16%), there are good fish (14%) and believe it a safe place to fish (13%)

 

§ The rock fishing community is split on the issue of compulsory wearing of life jackets with 55% agreeing they should be mandatory, 33% opposed and 12% unsure. During the survey there was a noticeable increase in people voluntarily wearing lifejackets compared to previous field work.

 

§ One-third of the rock fishermen surveyed spoke Chinese, either Mandarin (18%) or Cantonese (15%).

 

§ One-fifth (20%) spoke Korean.

 

§ One-fifth (21%) of those surveyed were on their first rock fishing trip.

 

§ There were as many children (3%) from ages 11 to 14 as there were children from ages 15 to 19. These youngest rock fishers are particularly vulnerable due to their size and inexperience.

 

Multicultural Marketing and Management recommends a range of strategies for Council to consider including:

 

§  More information and advertising, especially online about weather and swell

§  Consider the installation of “shock signage” at known entry points or access to trails to dangerous rock fishing locations.

§  More first aid and CPR classes

§  Swimming classes aimed at Mandarin, Cantonese, and Korean speakers

§  Weather signs at rock fishing sites

§  More information at rock fishing locations on the area’s riptides and undertows, CPR diagram, first aid instructions, distance to nearest emergency telephone, and how to tell when it’s too dangerous to stay on the rocks.

 

Compulsory wearing of life jackets

While our survey shows that rock fishers are split on the issue of compulsory wearing of lifejackets, anecdotal evidence shows a substantial increase in people voluntarily wearing lifejackets while rock fishing particularly amongst ethnic communities.

 

A Research Review of Rock Fishing Safety in New South Wales by Anthony Bradstreet, Dr Shauna Sherker, Barbara Brighton, Adam Weir and Matthew Thompson for SLSA in March 2012 found compelling evidence for the wearing of life jackets.

 

They found that of the 74 rock fishing related drownings occurring between 1992-

2000, not one victim was wearing a lifejacket. Between 2000 and 2010, where information was available, only one victim was wearing a fishing vest with flotation, though it was noted this was not described as either a lifejacket or personal flotation device.

 

Additionally, of the six rock fishing related deaths in Randwick City since September 2011, none were wearing life jackets.

 

Given these statistics, there is a strong case for mandatory wearing of life jackets while rock fishing, particularly in Randwick City where statistics show a greater risk.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A liveable City.

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

 


Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Rock fishing is a dangerous sport and Randwick City is over-represented in rock fishing casualties. This is likely due to a combination of factors such as our proximity to millions of Sydney residents, easy access from motorways, access to deep water and the availability of good quality fish.

 

Randwick Council is currently analysing the results of our rock fishing survey and the findings of Project BluePrint to develop a holistic and coordinated response.

 

The State Government’s Discussion Paper on rock fishing and lifejackets provides an opportunity for Council to share the results of the survey and to support the compulsory wearing of life jackets. 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     note the findings of Council’s on-the-ground rock fishing survey;

 

b)     note that the outcome and recommendations of SLSA’s Project BluePrint are still being assessed and will be reported to Council at a future date;

 

c)     lodge a submission to the State Government’s Discussion Paper on the Wearing of Life Jackets by Rock Fishers supporting the compulsory wearing of lifejackets;

 

d)     put a copy of our survey on our website and provide copies to key fishing and safety organisations.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

RCC Map: Locations of rock fishing casualties in Randwick City

 

2.

Rock Fishing in Randwick City Survey 2013 Report: Multicultural Marketing & Management

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


RCC Map: Locations of rock fishing casualties in Randwick City

Attachment 1

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF49/13

 

 

Subject:                  Delegations of Authority

Folder No:                   F2004/06895

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

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

 

Issues

 

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

 

a)     the appointment of the General Manager

b)     the making of a rate

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

d)     the making of a charge

e)     the fixing of a fee

f)     the borrowing of money

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

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

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

j)      the adoption of a management plan under section 406

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

t)     this power of delegation

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


There are currently seven (7) delegation matters that require attention:

 

1.      Boarding Houses Act 2012:

 

RA001

Acts and Regulations

Proposed additional legislation

(kk) Boarding Houses Act 2012

 

 

 

The purpose of this delegation is to provide Council’s Regulatory Services staff with the authority to exercise the powers vested in Council by this new Act.

 

Prior to the enactment of the Boarding Houses Act 2012 the terms of occupancy at boarding houses in NSW have largely been unregulated. The Boarding Houses Act 2012, which commenced on the 1 January 2013, establishes the regulatory framework for the delivery of services to residents of “registrable boarding houses”, and for the promotion and protection of the wellbeing of such residents.

 

Council already has in place a program whereby places of shared accommodation (which includes boarding houses) are inspected on an annual basis, principally in relation to fire safety matters.  Council’s existing places of share accommodation inspection program has been enhanced to fulfil the initial compliance investigation requirements of the new Act and as a result Council officers require the requisite delegation to exercise the functions conferred on Council under the Boarding Houses Act.

 

2.      Contracts for Certification Work

 

RB011

Contracts for Certification Work

New delegation

To authorise a written Contract for Certification Work, under the Building Professionals Act 2005, Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Swimming Pools Act 1992.

 

This is a new requirement for a ‘Contract for Certification Work’ to be in place for Development Certificates (Construction Certificates, Complying Development Certificates, Occupation Certificates, Principal Certifying Authority functions, Compliance Certificates, Certificates of Compliance under the Swimming Pools Act etc).

 

Section 73A of the Building Professionals Act 2005 now requires a 'contract' to be entered into for carrying out 'certification work'. This means that before Council provides building certification services it must enter into a written contract for the provision of those services.

 

3.      Certification of development

 


RC002

Certification of development

Current delegation

a)   To assess and determine applications for Building Certificates, Compliance Certificates, Construction Certificates, Complying Development Certificates, Strata Certificates, Subdivision Certificates and Occupation Certificates, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and subject to holding relevant accreditation under the Building Professionals Act 2005, where required.

b)   To assess and determine applications for Building Certificates, Compliance Certificates, Construction Certificates, Complying Development Certificates and Occupation Certificates in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and subject to holding relevant accreditation under the Building Professionals Act 2005, where required and further subject to:

i)   Class 1 and 10 buildings only

ii)  Buildings constructed in accordance with Council approval(s)

iii) No evidence of unauthorised building works to the building

iv) Complies with relevant boundary setback requirements (as applicable)

v)  Does not include performance based Construction Certificate or Complying Development Certificate applications.

 

Proposed amended delegation

To assess and determine applications for Building Certificates, Compliance Certificates, Construction Certificates, Complying Development Certificates, Strata Certificates, Subdivision Certificates, Occupation Certificates, Certificates of Compliance, Exemptions and other Certificates in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, Local Government Act and Swimming Pools Act and subject to holding relevant accreditation under the Building Professionals Act 2005, where required.

 

The current wording in part (b) is not necessary as this is covered by individual accreditation, where required. The intent of this amendment is to simplify and clarify this delegation. 

 

4.      Local government approvals

 

RL010

Local government approvals

Current delegation

a)   To undertake all functions contained in Chapter 7 of the Local Government Act 1993 relating to the determination of applications for activities requiring the approval of Council (as contained in the Table to Section 68 of the Act) “Orders & Regulatory Functions of Council”.

b)   To undertake all the functions contained in Chapter 7 of the Local Government Act 1993 for the assessment and determination of applications for activities requiring the approval of Council, as contained in the Table to Section 68 of the Act, subject to:

i)        Compliance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Regulations, Planning Instruments, Building Code of Australia, Local Approvals Policy and any relevant development consent conditions and Council policies and procedures.

ii)      Excluding determinations under Section 82, 95, 96 and 109 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Proposed amended delegation

To undertake all functions contained in the Local Government Act 1993 and the Roads Act 1993 relating to the determination of applications for activities requiring the approval of Council and regulatory functions of Council.

 

a)   To undertake all the functions contained in Chapter 7 of the Local Government Act 1993 for the assessment and determination of applications for activities requiring the approval of Council, as contained in the Table to Section 68 of the Act and issue approvals under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993, subject to:

i)  Compliance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Regulations, Planning Instruments, Building Code of Australia, Local Approvals Policy and any relevant development consent conditions and Council policies and procedures.

ii) Excluding determinations under Section 82, 95, 96 and 109 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

The above changes have been requested by Council’s Manager Health, Building and Regulatory Services to simplify and clarify this delegation.

 


5.      Notices, orders and regulatory functions

 

RN001

Notices, orders and regulatory functions

Current delegation

a)  To issue prohibition orders pursuant to Section 60 of the Food Act 2003, for premises and equipment.

b)  To issue and serve notices and/or orders under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Local Government Act 1993, Public Health Act 1991, Food Act 2003, Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Swimming Pools Act 1992, Noxious Weeds Act 1993, Dog Act 1966, Roads Act 1993, Impounding Act 1993, Companion Animals Act 1998, Waste Avoidance & Resource Recovery Act 2001, Environmental Penalties & Offences Act, Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 and other Acts which Randwick City Council is required by law to administer, and including;

i)   Issuing Notices and Notices of Intention to give an order

ii) Issuing of infringement and Penalty Notices

iii) Hearing and consideration of representations concerning Notices and Orders

iv) Carry out functions of an authorised person in relation to entry and inspection of properties

v) Assessment and determination of requests for information and issuing certificates relating to notices and orders

vi) All functions contained in Chapter 7, Part 2, Division 3 of the Local Government Act 1993 and Part 6, Division 2A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

vii)  Issuing of Orders.

Proposed amended delegation

To implement regulatory functions of Council, including:

 

a)  Issue prohibition orders pursuant to Section 60 of the Food Act 2003, for premises and equipment.

b) Issue and serve notices and/or orders under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Local Government Act 1993, Public Health Act 2010, Food Act 2003, Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Swimming Pools Act 1992, Noxious Weeds Act 1993, Roads Act 1993, Impounding Act 1993, Companion Animals Act 1998, Waste Avoidance & Resource Recovery Act 2001, Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Boarding Houses Act 2012 and other Acts which Randwick City Council is required by law to administer, and including;

i)       Issuing Notices and Notices of Intention to give an order

ii)       Issuing of infringement and Penalty Notices

iii)      Hearing and consideration of representations concerning Notices, Orders & Directions

iv)    Carry out functions of an authorised person in relation to   entry and inspection of properties

v)       Assessment and determination of requests for information and issuing certificates relating to notices and orders

vi)    All regulatory and enforcement functions contained in Chapter 7, Part 2, Division 3 of the Local Government Act 1993 and Part 6, Division 2A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and the Swimming Pools Act 1992

vii)   Issuing of Directions and Orders

viii)  Issuing of Certificates, Exemptions and Certificates of Compliance.

 

 

The above changes have been requested by Council’s Manager Health, Building and Regulatory Services to reflect current legislation and practices.

 


6.      Registration of fleet vehicles

 

RP093

Registration of fleet vehicles

New delegation

 

To authorise the registration of Council owned plant and vehicles.

 

This function will be carried out by the Manager Administrative Services and Manager Infrastructure Services.

 

7.      Extension of purchasing contracts

 

RL005

Extension of purchasing contracts

New delegation

To sign contract extension letters, subject to the written approval of the General Manager to extend each contract or category of contracts for purchasing and supply purposes.

 

This function will be carried out by the Manager Administrative Services.

 

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.

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that the proposed amendments to the ‘Delegations of Authority’ be adopted.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

That pursuant to section 377 of the Local Government Act, the Delegations of Authority be amended as detailed in the report.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF50/13

 

 

Subject:                  2012-13 Financial Statements

Folder No:                   F2012/00513

Author:                   Mitchel Woods, Manager Corporate and Financial Planning     

 

Introduction

 

Under the provisions of s418 the Local Government Act, Council is required to present its Financial Statements together with the Auditor’s Report to the public.

 

Issues

 

The Local Government Act contains specific requirements to be followed in relation to the preparation of its statutory Financial Statements.

 

In summary, the procedures are shown below:

 

1.     The Financial Statements are to be prepared and these reports are required to contain a Certificate which is signed in accordance with a resolution of the Council. Council authorised the signing of the certificate by resolution at the Ordinary Council Meeting held 23 July 2013.

 

2.     The Financial Statements and the Certificate referred to in (1) are then referred to the Auditor for audit.

 

3.     As soon as practicable after receiving the Auditor’s Report the Council must send a copy of the Auditor’s report and the audited Financial Statements to the Chief Executive of the Division of Local Government. These documents were forwarded on 6 September 2013 in compliance with this requirement.

 

4.     As soon as practicable after receipt of the Auditor’s Report a date must be fixed when Council proposes to present the Auditor’s Report and the audited Financial Statements to the public. This date has been fixed as 17 September 2013.

 

5.     Public Notice of the proposed meeting including a summary of the Financial Statements must be given. Copies of the documents are to be made available for inspection at the office of the Council. In accordance with this requirement public notice was given in the Southern Courier on 10 September 2013. Copies of the document were made available to the public at the Customer Service Centre and the Libraries. The document is also available on the Council’s website.

 

Copies of the Financial Statements including the Auditor’s report have been separately circulated to each Councillor.

 

The Auditor’s Report provides detailed comments in relation to the Council’s sound financial position and is attached.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1a:      Council has a long term vision based on sustainability.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Council’s auditor advises “Council’s overall financial position is, in our opinion, sound”.

 

Conclusion

 

The Council’s Financial Statements have been finalised for the 2012-13 Financial Year. The Council is in a strong and stable financial position.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013 be adopted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Hill Rogers Spencer Steer: 2012-13 Audit Report

 

2.

2012-13 Financial Statements

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Hill Rogers Spencer Steer: 2012-13 Audit Report

Attachment 1

 

 








Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF51/13

 

 

Subject:                  Councillors' Expenses & Facilities Policy - results of public exhibition

Folder No:                   F2004/06576

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

Section 252 of the Local Government Act requires Councils to adopt a policy for the payment of expenses incurred by and the provision of facilities to, Mayors, Deputy Mayors and other Councillors.  Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors can only be reimbursed for expenses and provided with facilities, in discharging the functions of civic office, in accordance with this policy.

 

The annual review of the Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy was considered at the 28 June 2013 Council Meeting, where in it was resolved:

 

‘(Andrews/Roberts) that, the amended Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy be publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days.’

 

Issues

 

The revised Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy was on public exhibition from 6 August to 3 September 2013.

 

During the public exhibition period, the policy was available to be viewed at Council’s Customer Service Centre, the three (3) Council libraries and on Council’s website.  The availability of the document was advertised in the Southern Courier Newspaper and on Council’s website (under the ‘Have your say’ section).

 

There were no submissions received during the public exhibition period.

 

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 has been allowed for in the 2013-14 Budget.

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that the revised Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy be adopted for immediate implementation, it being noted that only minor amendments have been made to the policy (as detailed in the report to the 28 June 2013 Council meeting).

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     it be noted that there were no submissions received as a result of the public exhibition of the revised Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy.

 

b)     the revised Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy be adopted for immediate implementation.

 

c)     a copy of this report and the revised policy be forwarded to the Division of Local       Government (Department of Premier and Cabinet).

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF52/13

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - August 2013

Folder No:                   F2004/06527

Author:                   Greg Byrne, Manager Financial Operations     

 

Introduction

 

The Local Government (General) Regulation requires a written report to be provided 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 – August 2013” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of August 2013. 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 increased by $10.629 million during August 2013. The increase is representative of a positive cash flow for the month as income exceeded expenditure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from August 2012 to August 2013. Peaks are representative of the rates instalment periods.

 

 

The above graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio for the period August 2007 to August 2013.

 

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 August 2013.

 

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 August 2007 to August 2013.

 

 

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 4.06% compared with the benchmark index of 2.87%.

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate at the end of August was 2.50%. The cash rate was held steady at 2.50% at the meeting of 3 September 2013.

 

Credit Quality of Portfolio

The credit quality of the portfolio is of very high quality with approximately 85% of assets rated “A” or better. The 13% allocation to “BBB” reflects the short-dated term deposits with regional banks; while the 2% unrated allocation reflects the investment in the Blackrock fund. The credit quality maximums as per Council policy and the actual portfolio holdings are shown in the table below.

 

Credit Quality

Maximum

Credit Quality (Holding)

Capacity

 

 

 

 

AAA

100%

5%

95%

AA

100%

40%

60%

A

60%

40%

20%

BBB

20%

13%

7%

Unrated - Grandfathered

2%

2%

 

0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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

 

Investment

Product Type

Credit

Rating

Par Value

Market Value

Blackrock

Care & Maintenance Fund

Collective Investment

Not Rated

1,357,532

1,543,451

 

Council has received notification of the termination of The Blackrock Care & Maintenance Fund (CMF). Commencement of the winding up of the CMF took place on the 26th August 2013 as fund managers believe the timing to be appropriate to sell the remaining securities in the portfolio.

 

It is expected that most assets (approximately 90%) will be sold within a few days, with the less liquid assets most likely to take approximately two weeks to realise.

 

Blackrock Investment Management anticipate that termination proceeds will be paid out in the week ending 20th September 2013, dependant on the outcome of the asset realisation. Confirmation of the details will be provided closer to the date.

 

No adjustment has been made for the Blackrock Care and Maintenance Fund value as the end of August 2013.

 

Floating Rate Notes

The investment portfolio includes $15.487 million in floating rate notes (FRN).

 

The National Australia Bank FRN was purchased at a capital price of $3,006,360.00, the premium of $6,360.00 will be amortised on payments of the quarterly coupons. The amortised amount to date is $4,110.82 bringing the book value to $3,002,249.18.

 

The ING Bank FRN was purchased on 21 June 2012 at a capital price of $1,979,713.01. The discount of $20,286.99 will be amortised on payment of the quarterly coupons. The amortised amount to date is $5,726.79 bringing the book value to $1,985,439.80.

 

The balance of the FRN’s is held by the CBA for $4,000,000.00, Macquarie Bank for $2,000,000.00, Bendigo Adelaide Bank for $2,500,000.00 and AMP Bank for $2,000,000.00.

 

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 2013-14 and outperforming the UBS Australian Bank Bill Index over a 12 month period.  The current budget provision for investment income from this source is $2,221,084.00. Investment income to 31 August 2013 amounted to $420,766.13.

Following is the detailed Investment Report – August 2013
Conclusion

 

All investments as at 31 August 2013 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 August 2013 be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM81/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Prince William's family visit to Australia 2014

Folder No:                   F2012/00240

Submitted by:          Councillor Roberts, East Ward     

 

 

That:

 

a)     Council note that Prince William and his new family will be touring Australia in 2014 and that Prince William is a RAF rescue helicopter pilot;

 

b)     Council write a letter to Prince William inviting him and his family to visit Randwick City at some point on his visit to Australia;

 

c)     A potential reason is to visit the helicopter rescue base in La Perouse where he can also meet local volunteers such as the SES.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM82/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos -  Carparks in West Ward

Folder No:                   F2004/06326

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward     

 

 

That council consider the option of acquiring land in West Ward for the purposes of building a carpark/carparks.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM83/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - 90th Anniversary of Legacy

Folder No:                   F2006/00121

Submitted by:          Councillor Garcia, South Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

a)     note that Legacy is a charity that provides services to local families suffering   financially and socially after the death or incapacitation of a spouse or parent, during or after their defence force service;

 

b)     note that Sydney Legacy currently cares for 13,000 widows and 600       dependents;

 

c)     note that Legacy week was recently held from 1 to 7 September and supported        by many local residents who purchased legacy pins and donated money;

 

d)     note that Legacy celebrates its 90th anniversary this year;

 

e)     write a letter to Sydney Legacy that both congratulates the charity on its 90th        anniversary and commences a dialogue with it to see how, and in what ways, Randwick Council might support this organisation's good work in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM84/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stevenson - Council rates and levy allocation to projects

Folder No:                   F2012/00347

Submitted by:          Councillor Stevenson, Central Ward     

 

 

That a webpage be created on the Council website that clearly shows the details of all Council funded projects over $300,000 and the sources of funding for each project.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM85/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stevenson - Ratepayer use of Aquatic and Fitness Centre

Folder No:                   F2008/00064

Submitted by:          Councillor Stevenson, Central Ward     

 

 

That all Randwick City ratepayers be given five (5) free passes each year to the Aquatic and Fitness Centre to be used at off peak-times.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM86/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Improving swimming pool operation efficiencies within Randwick City

Folder No:                   F2004/08291

Submitted by:          Councillor Moore, West Ward     

 

 

That Council, in setting a commitment to reduce the City’s ecological footprint through direct activities and via a range of support programs for Randwick residents, businesses and visitors alike to reduce, reuse and recycle, now seeks to support improved water and energy consumption for swimming pools and in so doing:

 

a)     recognises the operational and maintenance of swimming pools requires the consumption of water, energy and other resources.

 

b)     notes there are continuous advancements in technology offering improved water and energy efficiency associated with operating swimming pools.

 

c)     explores the opportunity to support the City’s pool owners to reduce operating cost whilst contributing to reducing the City’s ecological footprint.

 

d)     requests to be presented to Council, for consideration, a program that:

 

i)  aligns with the Council’s short and long term sustainability targets

ii) seeks to raise awareness regarding the costs associated with operating pools

iii) empowers pool owners to assess the operation of their pool and benchmark their consumption against comparable best practice targets

iv) provides advice to pool owners regarding technology options and operational practices enabling reduced water and energy consumption and

v) considers a scheme consistent with Council’s environmental incentives.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            17 September 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM87/13

 

 

Subject:                  Motion Pursuant to Notice from Crs Stevenson, Moore and D'Souza under Section 372(5) of Local Government Act - Discounted Access for Seniors and Low Income Families to Aquatic and Fitness Centre

Folder No:                   F2008/00064

Submitted by:          Councillor Stevenson, Central Ward; Councillor Moore, West Ward; Councillor D'Souza, South Ward     

 

 

That Council implement an Aquatic and Fitness Centre Access Card similar to the one in use by the City of Sydney to give healthcare card holders, pension card holders, senior card holders and low income household residents experiencing financial hardship use of both the Aquatic and Fitness Centre at a discounted rate.