Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 22 October 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                                                                                                22 October 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, 22 October 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 - 17 September 2013

Extraordinary Council Meeting - 24 September 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.

CP73/13    25 Bay Parade, Malabar (DA/561/2012)................................................... 1

CP74/13    558A-580 Anzac Parade, Kingsford (DA/383/2013) .................................. 21

CP75/13    17 Binda Crescent, Little Bay (DA/351/2013/A)........................................ 29

CP76/13    Shop 6/495-503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/595/2013)....................... 37

CP77/13    220 Franklin Street, Matraville (DA/508/2013)......................................... 43

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP78/13    Reporting variation to Development Standards under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP1) & Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 - September, 2013 .................... 49

CP79/13    Recent Land & Environment Court Decisions............................................ 53

CP80/13    Draft Section 94A Refund Policy........................................................... 57

CP81/13    Swimming Pool Inspection Program........................................................ 65

General Manager's Report

GM22/13    Randwick City Council 2012-13 Annual Report ........................................ 77

Director City Services Reports

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF54/13    2012-13 Disclosure of Interests Returns............................................... ..81

GF55/13    Investment Report - September 2013.................................................... 83  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM88/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Long-Bay Correctional Facility site....... 91

NM89/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Proposed ANZAC dawn service - Coogee Beach      93

NM90/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 95

NM91/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Seng - Safety of School Children......................... 97

NM92/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Safety of residents on Halloween............. 99

NM93/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Aged Care Safety - Garbage Bin Access.. 101

NM94/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Kokoda Park Memorial Flagpole............... 103

NM95/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson - Proposed new planning laws................. 105  

Closed Session (Record of voting NOT required)

GF56/13    2 Coast Hospital Road, Little Bay – Lease of Café/Kiosk

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

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP73/13

 

 

Subject:                  25 Bay Parade, Malabar (DA/561/2012)

Folder No:                   DA/561/2012

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Construction of new two storey dwelling with roof terrace, swimming pool and spa pools to side of dwelling, alterations to out buildings at rear, landscaping and associated works

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                ISA Designs

Owner:                         Heidi Postle

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The application is referred to the Council for determination at the request of Councillors Andrews, Stavrinos and Nash.

 

Proposal

 

The proposed development is for significant changes to the existing dwelling resulting in the development being for a new two storey dwelling house.  The proposal includes a new roof and a roof terrace area to the rear of the first floor extension and refurbishment of the existing single storey rear studio. There is also an in ground lap pool and spa to the north western side of the boundary.

 

The following uses are proposed at each level of the dwelling:

 

Ground Floor: Living, dining, kitchen, laundry and storage/service.

Rear single storey studio.

 

First Floor: Four bedrooms en-suite, bath and front/rear balconies.

 

Roof terrace: Terrace and Stair foyer.

 

Car Parking: One hard stand car parking space situated between the front building and the Bay Parade street alignment.

 

Rear Studio: Media/TV room, rumpus and store room.

 

Preliminary assessment of the application and subsequent site inspections revealed that the proposal was excessive in height in relation to the wall on the south eastern boundary and the size of the roof terrace.  The applicant was advised that the roof terrace should be reduced in size to minimise privacy impacts to neighbouring properties and the wall height on the south eastern side should be reduced in height or remain at the same height of the existing wall. Further, as the proposed alterations and additions were substantial and constitute more than 50% of the building works, the proposal was re-notified as a new dwelling house rather than alterations and additions.

 

Following consultation between Council’s Assessment Officer and the applicant, the applicant provided amended plans on 18 February 2013 in response to Council’s review of the design. The following changes where made:

 

§ The existing wall on south eastern side boundary to be reinstated to its current height of 2.8m.

§ Roof terrace is reduced in size by 650mm from the south eastern end and 1.95m from the south western rear end of the roof terrace.

§ New 1.5m high privacy screen provided along the south eastern end of the terrace area to minimise impacts on adjoining neighbours.

 

The assessment is based on the amended plans received to Council by 18 February 2013.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located within a foreshore scenic protection area and has extensive Pacific Ocean and Malabar headland views. It is located on the southern eastern side of Bay Parade and is presently occupied by an existing part single and two storey dwelling. To the rear of the site is a single storey outbuilding. The existing dwelling along the south eastern side to the centre section of the wall is sited on the boundary with a nil setback and the rear section of the wall is setback 300mm.   

 

The site is rectangular in shape and has a frontage width of 12.19m, a side boundary depth of 40.235m and has an overall site area of 486.8m². The site is generally flat with a slight cross fall of approximately 1m from the rear boundary to the Bay Parade Street frontage.

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of older and new style single and two storey dwelling houses and attached dual occupancy dwellings.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of surrounding properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the requirements of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 on two occasions.  The first occasion was from 3 September 2012 to 17 September 2012 and six (6) submissions with an additional submission from the owners of no. 1/23 Bay Parade, Malabar (being the owner of the subject site) having no objection to the proposed development were received. The second occasion was from 22 February 2013 to 8 March 2013 and two (2) submissions were received. The issues primarily related to bulk and scale, privacy, views and overshadowing impacts, use of the rear outbuilding and parking concerns.

 

Objections

 

§ 15 Bay Parade, Malabar

§ 2/23 Bay Parade, Malabar

§ 27 Bay Parade, Malabar

§ 33 Bay Parade, Malabar

§ 99 Victoria Street, Malabar

§ 2 Fox Parade, Malabar

 

Issue

Comment

Privacy and acoustic impacts raised by Unit 2/23 Bay Parade, 33 Bay Parade, 15 Bay Parade, 99 Victoria Street & 2 Fox Street

§ Roof top terrace:

The roof top terrace is not in keeping with the existing residential development and will result in overlooking and acoustic impacts to the neighbouring properties rear yards and living areas.

 

The roof terrace does not meet the planning principle established by the Land & Environment Court in the matter of Studio v Waverly Council and will set an undesirable precedent for future development.

 

§ Front balcony:

The front balcony is forward of the front building line of adjoining properties and will have privacy impacts into the neighbouring property at no. 2/23 Bay Parade, Malabar.

 

In the case of Super Studio v Waverley Council, the location of the terrace, despite being provided with additional privacy measures such as planting and screening devices, continued to generate privacy impacts onto the neighboring properties.  The circumstances are quite different in this proposal.

 

In this instance, the subject proposal provides for a rooftop terrace that is integrated into the building envelope. Subject to the implementation of proposed planting and compliance with a specific condition of consent requiring the inclusion of a privacy screen (as shown in figure 4 below), the proposal will provide for reasonable privacy measures to protect the privacy and amenity for the neighboring sites.

 

The proposed planter box restricts any direct views and allows for sight lines at an oblique angle only. The proposed and recommended privacy screens will further assist in mitigating any unreasonable overlooking impacts.   

 

Refer to the key issues section of this report for a detailed assessment in relation to visual privacy and roof design.

 

In relation to the front balcony setback and privacy impacts refer to DCP Section of this report below under Setbacks which demonstrates that the proposal satisfies the controls.

 

Loss of sunlight and overshadowing impacts from Unit 2/23 Bay Parade

 

The submitted shadow diagrams do not clearly indicate the extent of the existing shadows.

 

It is noted that a portion of the south eastern wall of the existing building is sited on the boundary.  The reconstruction of this wall on the boundary will not be in keeping with the controls set out in Council’s DCP and will cause overshadowing impacts.

 

The proposed building will have an FSR in excess of the control also contributing to the overshadowing impacts, if the southern wall was increased to meet the Council control and reduced in size the impacts will be reduced and therefore, is likely to comply with the FSR control. 

 

The application has been accompanied by shadow diagrams prepared by a suitably qualified person that clearly indicates the anticipated overshadowing impacts generated by the proposal. The submitted shadow diagrams have been checked and allow for a full and proper assessment of the application in relation to solar access and overshadowing.

 

The existing wall on south eastern side boundary is to be reinstated to its current height of 2.8m.  It is not anticipated that this wall will generate any significant overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring property at no. Unit 2/23 Bay Parade and in the Key Issues section of the report it has been demonstrated that the objectives of the controls in relation to side setback and solar access and overshadowing have been met.

 

The design provides an effective response to the impacts of shadow to the adjoining properties. The proposal is considered satisfactory in relation to the intention of Council’s planning controls, as they relate to solar access, generally retaining three (3) hours of solar access to adjoining windows and open spaces.

 

In relation to the proposed FSR, when assessed under the current LEP it is well under the maximum and will not result in any significant unreasonable overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring properties and satisfies the objectives of the FSR control.

 

View loss from 99 Victoria Street

The proposed roof top includes planting, they are concerned that once the planting reaches maturity it may exceed Council building height restriction and block out water views beyond.

 

A site inspection was carried out from the neighbouring properties at no. 97 & 99 Victoria Street to determine whether there will be any view loss impacts associated with the proposed development.  The site inspection revealed that the existing building blocks out majority of the views and only a very small amount of water and Malabar head cliff views will be lost as a result of the proposed development.  Refer to Figures 5 & 7 and view loss assessment.

 

Bulk and scale from Unit 2/23 Bay Parade

The proposed development is over the maximum FSR permitted for the site under the Dwelling Houses & Attached Dual Occupancies DCP and will result in privacy and view loss impacts.

 

The proposed FSR when assessed under the current Randwick LEP 2012 is well under the maximum of 0.65:1 being 0.59:1 and meets the objectives of the built form controls under the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

The bulk of the building has been distributed appropriately and is well articulated with different building materials and stagged wall planes and articulated roof form to respect the outlook of the adjoining properties and streetscape. This will have the effect of reducing any perception of visual bulk and scale of the proposed building to adjoining properties as well as to the street. 

 

Rear outbuilding from 27 Bay Parade, Malabar

The construction material description of the existing rear outbuilding structure is incorrectly documented within the plans.  The structure is not fully bricked parts of the walls are constructed with colour bond and fibro material.  The DA does not indicate that there will be any changes to the existing building envelope.

 

Concerned that the usage of this space as a rumpus/media room will result in acoustic privacy impacts.

 

Suggested that the glazing to the proposed media room facing north east be of double glazing and with opaque glass finish to minimise any possible privacy and noise impacts.

 

The existing walls to the rear outbuilding structure are of brick construction. These walls have not been changed as part of this application. 

There is currently a rumpus room located in the rear outbuilding. It is not anticipated that the use of the outbuilding as a rumpus/media room will result in any additional acoustic privacy impacts to the neighboring properties.  Further, during mediation the applicant has agreed to provide double glazing with opaque glass finish to the proposed media room.  A condition is included to address this concern.

Provision of parking

 

Currently one of the existing hardstand parking area is occupied by a boat would like the minimum parking provisions that apply to the site be enforced for standard dwellings being two car spaces. 

 

The parking demand currently generated by the site has been calculated as two spaces when adopting the rates provided in Council’s DCP (for dwellings with 3 bedrooms or greater).  Currently there are 5 bedrooms and only one car parking space is provided on the site. The proposed alterations and additions will not result in an increase in the parking demand as the number of bedrooms will not be increased as part of this development.

 

Errors in existing application

 

There are a number of errors and misrepresentation in the existing DA documentation.

The application contains sufficient information to allow for a proper and thorough assessment.

 

Mediation

 

Mediation between the applicant and adjoining owners (at no.’s 15 Bay Parade, 2/23 Bay Parade, 33 Bay Parade, 99 Victoria Street & 2 Fox Street) to the development was held on 24/05/2013. During the mediation the above adjoining owners expressed concerns regarding loss of privacy by the proposed roof top terrace, screen planting, noise from studio and upper extension setback.  Whilst the applicant agreed to modify the roof top terrace by enclosing the area to address the privacy and noise concerns of objectors at No. 23 Bay Parade and No. 99 Victoria Street, Malabar this amendment was not pursued as they may have potential to impact on the streetscape. The applicant was also advised that the terrace area will be assessed in it current form.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

As the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies has now been repealed the Randwick DCP 2013 is applicable to the proposal, but only where it is not inconsistent with the Randwick LEP 1998. Accordingly, the amended proposal has been subject to a detailed assessment against the relevant planning controls and corresponding objectives as outlined in the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 and deemed to be acceptable in the context of the site and surrounding foreshore area.

 

2.4

Landscaping and permeable surfaces

The objective of the landscaping and permeable surfaces control is 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.

 

The existing soft landscaped or permeable surfaces amount to 24.085m2 or 4.95% of the site. The proposed soft landscaped or permeable surfaces amount to 98.5m2 or 20% of the site. For a site area between 451 to 600m² the requirement for permeable surfaces is 30% of the site area.

 

Despite the soft landscaped area on the site not meeting the numerical control, the deficiency will not have any detrimental impacts on the amenity of the subject and adjoining properties. The soft landscaped area has been increased by 15% which will improve storm water infiltration on the site. The landscaped area has been effectively distributed on the site also improving the visual balance of the building structures and open space providing a better outlook and relationship from the pubic domain and neighbouring properties. Canopy trees and large shrubs have been provided on the site which will contribute to the establishment of vegetation corridors within the locality.

 

The objectives of the control have been adequately satisfied.

 

3.2

Building height

The maximum external wall height control is 7m. For steeply sloping sites, the maximum external wall height is 8m.  To the south eastern elevation the maximum external wall height of the dwelling to the underside of the enclosed terrace roof structure is 8.42m.

 

The breach in the external wall height control is considered to be acceptable based on the following reasons:

 

§  The proposed building exceeds the maximum external wall height control of 7m over a distance of approximately 2.7m on the south eastern elevation and is setback 5.279m from the south eastern side boundary; and therefore away from the adjoining residential properties to the south east. The non compliant section is limited to the enclosed part of the roof terrace and the remaining parts of the dwelling will comply with the external wall height control. Accordingly, the increase in wall height will have minimal impacts in terms of overshadowing, privacy, view loss and visual bulk and scale as assessed in relevant sections of this report.  

§  The difference in wall height from the control occurs along the south eastern elevation that is setback significantly from the Bay Parade street frontage. Accordingly, the building bulk will be set well back from the street corresponding with that of the immediate adjoining properties such that the building location will not result in any significant impacts on adjoining and surrounding properties.  Therefore, due to the localised nature of the breach, the proposal will not result in any dominant visual bulk and scale.

§  As will be discussed in the following sections of this report, the proposal and the non compliant external wall height element do not result in any adverse amenity outcomes such as, solar access or privacy to adjoining properties. The additional overshadowing impacts projected onto the north facing windows of the objector’s property at no. Unit 2/23 Bay Parade complies with the assessment criteria as they will still receive the required 3 hours of sunlight during 21 June.  Refer to Figure 3 below in Solar Access and Overshadowing section of this report.  Appropriate privacy measures are implemented with the inclusion of highlight windows and screening where necessary to the modified and new window openings.

§  The proposed built form has incorporated staggered wall planes, roof planter boxes, window openings and external surface finishes to the dwelling which creates visual interest to facades of the wall. The above design measures will minimise the visual scale and bulk of the structures, despite non-compliance with the control. Overall, the architectural character and form of the proposal is of merit.

Given the above reasons, external wall height of the development is considered acceptable and will satisfy the overall objectives of the control.

 

Figure 1: Streetscape elevation of the existing subject two storey dwelling and adjoining dwelling along Bay Parade.

 

Figure 2: 3D image of proposed dwelling

 


 

3.3

Setbacks

3.3.1

Front setbacks

The objective of the front setback control is to maintain or establish a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contribute to the character of the neighbourhood.

 

An objection was received from the adjoining neighbour at no. Unit 2/23 Bay Parade in relation to the front setback not being consistent with the established front setbacks within the street; therefore resulting in privacy impacts to their front balcony.

 

The existing front setback along Bay Parade varies with the neighbouring dwellings at no.’s 27 & 23 Bay Parade being setback 4m and 5.6m, respectively. The proposed dwelling on the ground floor level is setback 5.5m, the first floor level is setback 4m and the enclosed part of the roof terrace is setback approximately 11m from the front boundary.  The front of the façade is well articulated and there is adequate separation between the subject and adjoining sites.  To the south eastern side the setback of the building is increased and roof planting is provided to create visual interest to the front of the façade.  It is not anticipated that the front balcony off a bedroom being a low usage room will result in any unreasonable privacy impacts to the neighbouring property.  The balcony is relatively small, will be partly screened by the roof planting and will primarily over look the front yard and street. 

 

The front building line will be generally consistent with the average setback of adjoining dwellings along the Bay Parade street frontage and therefore, is not considered to detract from any established development pattern in the locality.   

 

Accordingly, the front setback is considered to be acceptable.

 

3.3.2

Side setbacks

The main objectives of the side setback control are as follows:

 

§ To ensure the form and massing of development complement and enhance the streetscape character.

§ 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 proposed side setbacks to the building are as follows:

 

Ground North western:

To the north western side the dwelling varies and is setback at least 900mm from the boundary.

 

The side setback to the rear outbuilding structure is not altered.

 

Ground South eastern:

To the south eastern side of the dwelling the proposal will retain the existing setback to the rear section of the dwelling where part of the dwelling is sited on the boundary and the other section being 300mm off the boundary.  The proposed addition to the front section to this side of the boundary is setback 1.598m.

 

The side setback to the rear outbuilding structure is not altered.

 

First floor level North western:

To the north western side the dwelling is setback 914mm.

 

First floor level South eastern:

To the eastern side the dwelling has a varied setback.  To the front section the dwelling is setback 2.318m and to the rear section is setback 1.068m.  A planter  box is also provided to break up the wall.

 

Second floor level South eastern:

To the south eastern side the enclosed roof terrace structure is setback 5.279m from the south eastern side boundary.

 

An objection was received from the adjoining neighbour at no. Unit 2/23 Bay Parade in relation to the side setback not meeting Council’s requirements and therefore resulting in overshadowing impacts to their property.

 

Part of the ground floor level to the dwelling does not comply with the minimum side setback requirement. The development is considered to be acceptable based on the following reasons:

 

§  The rear section of the wall is already sited relatively close and on the south eastern side boundary, the amended development indicates that the new wall will not be increased in height; and therefore, will not result in any additional amenity impacts to the neighbouring property at no. 23 Bay Parade. The accompanying shadow diagrams demonstrate that sufficient solar access to the rear yards and north facing windows of neighbouring properties can be achieved due to the adequate building separation between the subject dwelling and adjoining dwellings.

 

§  The dwelling is not considered to have a significant environmental impact on the street character nor will it impact unreasonably on the amenity of the adjoining properties in terms of privacy and overshadowing as discussed in the relevant sections of this report.

 

§  The development will provide a reasonable level of amenity for future occupants of the subject site in that adequate levels of private open space and landscaped area have been provided and the proposal thereby meets the relevant objectives of the control.

 

§  The bulk and scale of the dwelling is not considered to be excessive when seen in the context of the site and surrounds and will be consistent with the setback and built form of other two storey dwelling in the street.

 

§  The proposal demonstrates a carefully composed contemporary design, with staggered wall planes to the front and side of the building and will significantly improve the streetscape presentation of an aged dwelling house and contribute to enhancing the urban environment.  Refer to Figure 2 above.

 

Given the above reasons, the proposed setbacks of the development are considered acceptable and will satisfy the objectives of the Control.

 

4

Building Design

4.1

General

The main objectives of Building Design control are as follows:

§ To ensure the form, scale, massing and proportions of dwellings recognise and adapt to the characteristics of a site in terms of topography, configuration, orientation and surrounding natural and built context.

§ To ensure building facades are articulated to complement or enhance the existing streetscape and neighbourhood character.

§ To encourage contemporary and innovative designs to establish a preferred neighbourhood character in new and transitional residential areas.

 

Design measures for modelling and articulating a building

The control requirement for side elevations is as follows:

 

iii) Divide side elevations into sections, bays or modules of not more than 12m in length, separated by measures, such as recesses or side courtyards, in order to avoid massive or unrelieved walls.

 

The dwelling is generally well articulated only the north western side wall on the first floor level spans greater than 12m being 13.060m. 

 

Despite the wall spanning greater than 12m to the north western side elevation the breach of the control will not result in any significant amenity impacts to the neighbouring dwellings.  The shadows will be cast along the south eastern side of the dwelling and overall the dwelling is well articulated with the inclusion of different roof forms, building materials, planter boxes to the sides and rear of the building, windows and screens, balcony and terraces.  These elements break up the wall and provide visual interest to the dwelling.

 

4.4

Roof Design and Features

A rooftop terrace is proposed to the centre of the dwelling.

 

The main objectives of the roof design and features control are as follows:

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

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

 

The roof terrace has been amended to address issues raised in the objections, and is acceptable for the following reasons:

§ The rooftop terrace design is integrated within the built form of the dwelling and is situated within an articulated roof form hidden from the street.

§ The size of the roof terrace has been reduced to maintain the amenity of the residential area and that of the neighbouring dwellings. It is now mainly limited to the south eastern end of the building which restricts the number of persons occupying the area. 

§ Proposed screening and a condition has been included to ensure that appropriate screening and privacy is provided around the perimeter of the roof terrace to maintain satisfactory privacy relationship with the neighbouring dwellings. 

 

Given the above, the proposed rooftop terrace design is acceptable and will satisfy the objectives of the control.

 

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

Solar access to neighbouring development:

The main objectives of the solar access and overshadowing control are as follows:

 

§ To ensure new dwellings and alterations and additions are sited and designed to maximise solar access to the living areas and private open space.

§ To ensure development retains reasonable levels of solar access to the neighbouring dwellings and their private open space.

§ To provide adequate ambient daylight to dwellings and minimise the need for artificial lighting.

 

The shadow diagrams below in figure 3 demonstrate that the proposal will not result in any adverse additional overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring (at No. 2/23 Bay Parade) north east facing windows.   The additional overshadowing is mainly in the afternoon between 12pm and 3pm; and during 8am to 12pm part of the first floor level windows will still receive the required 3 hours of sunlight to the surface area of the windows.  In addition to the above, solar access is still obtained to the north east facing windows of the objectors dining and living areas. Further, the additional overshadowing is not unreasonable considering the orientation of the site and the objectives of the control have been satisfied.

 

Private open space associated with neighbouring dwellings will not be unreasonably affected (i.e. greater than 3 hours) by overshadowing as a result of the proposed development.  The solar access of neighbours, given the orientation of the site and the form of development proposed, is considered to be reasonably protected.

 

Figure 3: Elevational shadow diagrams of north west facing window at no. 23 Bay Parade

 

5.3

Visual Privacy

Subject to a number of recommended conditions below the proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of the DCP control in relation to visual privacy:

 

§  The new openings to the north east and south west of the dwelling are acceptable as they will primarily overlook the street and rear yard of the subject site, respectively. 

 

§  All windows on side elevations at first floor level have either minimum sill heights of 1500mm above floor level or serve rooms of low usage (i.e. bedroom and bathroom windows).  Despite the bathroom window  to the north western elevation being a low usage room it would be more appropriate if this window is fixed and of obscure glazing to a sill height of 1.5m from the floor level.  A condition is included to the above affect this will ensure reasonable levels of privacy are maintained between the properties.

 

§  Windows on side elevations at ground floor level off living areas are not expected to unreasonably compromise the privacy of adjoining sites as existing boundary fencing is expected to provide adequate screening.

 

§  Balconies at first floor level are orientated to the front or rear and will primarily overlooking the street or rear yard of the subject site, respectively.  The balconies to the rear are setback greater than 9m from the rear boundary.  Also, these balconies are relatively small, suitably screened from adjoining sites and are off bedrooms which are considered to be rooms of low usage. 

 

§  The roof terrace balcony has been amended and reduced in size.  The area is mainly limited to the south eastern end of the building.  Appropriate screen planting is provided around the north west, south west and south eastern ends of the roof terrace.  In addition to the above, a 1.5m timber privacy screen is provided to the south eastern end to the inner edge of the planter box to minimum any privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties. Despite the above, to ensure that the proposed planting along the edge of the terrace area is reasonable maintained in good health and that the terrace does not impact on the privacy of the neighbouring properties, inparticular the directly adjoining property at no. 23 Bay Parade where the rear end of the north west facing windows maybe impacted by the terrace a condition is including requiring the proposed 1.5m high privacy screen to be located to the outer edge of the planter box and wrap around the south western corner of the planter box for a distance of 1.8m.  Refer to figure 4 below which indicate that the proposed planter box and privacy screen restricts views in an oblique angel. The proposed and recommended privacy screens will further assist in preventing any unreasonable overlooking impacts.  

Figure 4: Section through the rooftop terrace and dwellings indicating the extent of privacy impacts onto the neighbouring property at no. Unit 2/23 Bay Parade.

 

5.5

Safety and Security

The front entrance of the dwelling is accessed from the north western side of the dwelling.

The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of the DCP in relation to safety and security for the following reasons:

·      The dwelling has window and door openings orientated to the street.

·      Whilst the entrance door does not face the street; a large pedestrian entrance is provided along the north western side of the property which will be identifiable by visitors and emergency service.

 

5.6

View Sharing

The objectives of the view sharing control are 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 protect and enhance views from the public domain, including streets, parks and reserves.

 

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

 

View loss assessment

 

Introduction

The intent of View Sharing in the DCP is to ensure development is sensitively and skilfully designed, so that a reasonable level of views is retained for the surrounding areas. The DCP also states that where view loss impact is likely to occur, development proposals must address The NSW Land and Environment Court planning principle relating to view sharing.

 

An assessment of the proposed development and its impact on views is carried out in accordance with the Land and Environment Court planning principle after Roseth SC pp.25-29 in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140. This assessment is guided by a four step process identified by the Land and Environment Court.

 

Step 1. “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. 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, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.”

 

Planners Comment:

Current views

The views are extensive and run across the South Pacific Ocean from the north west to the north east of Malabar headlands.  The properties that will be impacted by the proposed development are as follows:

 

Anticipated view loss

97 Victoria Street: The site inspection revealed that the rear ground floor balcony and living area of this property will not be impacted by the proposed development as the views to the rear are currently obscured by the existing properties that face Bay Parade.

 

99 Victoria Street: Views are obtained from the rear first floor balcony and living areas.

 

A very small section of corridor water views and Malabar headland will be impacted by the proposed development. Refer to Figures 5 to 7 below.

Figure 5: No. 99 Victoria Street - View take from the rear first floor balcony.  The red hashing shows the approximate extent of view loss.

 

Figure 6: No. 99 Victoria Street - View take from a standing position of the rear first floor living room.  The red hashing shows the approximate extent of view loss.

 

Figure 7: No. 99 Victoria Street - View take from a sitting position of the rear first floor living room.  The red hashing shows the approximate extent of view loss.

 

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. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.”

 

Planners Comment:

The views that are currently captured by the abovementioned adjoining property are obtained across the rear of the property and are currently obscured by the properties that face Bay Parade. The views are more acceptable in a standing position however are still visible in a sitting position. Refer to Figures 5 to 7 above.

 

Step 3. “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. 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). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

 

Planners Comment:

The views that will be lost from the balcony and living areas of no. 99 Victoria Street, following the proposed development included very minor corridor views of the water and Malabar headland. Refer to Figures 4 to 6 above which indicate the approximate extent of view loss.

 


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 non-compliance 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. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.”

 

Planners Comment:

As demonstrated in the above assessment, the anticipated view loss to the neighbouring properties is not considered significant given the overall degree of impact. Further, the proposed development satisfies the relevant objectives of the DCP with regard to Building Envelope. It is noted that views impacted from the objector's properties are not iconic and are restricted by existing development on surrounding properties, which by virtue of the planning principle, are much more difficult to protect.

 

The development has been carefully configured to achieve a satisfactory level of view sharing between the site and the objector's sites. The portion of the proposal affecting existing views has been provided with compliant setbacks which are consistent with the development pattern in the locality. Accordingly, the resultant view loss impact is justified.

 

6.7

Hardstand Car Space Configuration

The minimum dimensions for a hardstand car space is 2.4m x 5.4m.  The proposed dimension of the hardstand carspace is general 2.7m x 5.5m with the exception of part of the hardstand car space being only 2.1m for a distance of 1.4m.   

 

The proposed carspace generally complies with the minimum requirements of AS 2890.1:2004 with the exception of the intrusion into the carspace of the steps leading down from the front patio at RL 9.65. The non-compliance can be easily rectified by shifting the stairs northwards to achieve the desired carspace width.  Councils Development Engineers raise no objections to this arrangement and have recommended that an appropriate condition be included within the report to the above affect.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in Urban Design and Development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal on balance will result in a positive development outcome for the site, the streetscape and surrounds.

 

The proposed additional building bulk allows the upgrade of the existing aged and dilapidated building, involving benefits to the Bay Parade streetscape, internal amenity to occupants of the building and enhanced environmental performance of the building. The proposal will not initiate fundamental change to the character of the area, and the proposed roof top terrace on balance is not considered to have an unreasonable environmental impact on the street character nor will it impact unreasonably on the amenity of the adjoining properties in terms of acoustic and visual privacy.

 

In view of the above, the proposal is considered satisfactory in relation to the intent of the planning controls and the specific context of the site. The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. Additionally, the proposed development satisfies the relevant legislation, State policies and Local planning controls, and is recommended for approval subject to the below recommended 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/561/2012 for the construction of new two storey dwelling with roof terrace, swimming pool and spa pools to side of dwelling, alterations to out buildings at rear, landscaping and associated works, at No. 25 Bay Parade, Malabar, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

     Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   The proposed 1.5m high privacy screen along the inner edge of the south eastern rooftop terrace planter box must be relocated to the outer edge of the planter box. The screen must also wrap around the south western corner of the planter box for a distance of 1.8m. The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

b.   The bathroom window (WFF18) on the first floor level to the north western elevation must have a minimum sill height of 1.5m above floor level, or alternatively, the window is to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height.

 

c.   The proposed glazing to the north eastern elevation to the outbuilding structure must be of double glazing and with an opaque glass finish.

 

Carspace

10.     Plans submitted for the construction certificate must demonstrate compliance with the following amendment/s to satisfy the provisions of AS 2890.1:2004 and Council’s DCP-parking;

§   The carspace must have minimum dimensions of 2.7m x 5.4m. This will require the access stairs to the front patio to be shifted northwards (away from carspace) an appropriate amount to achieve the minimum width.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Development Assessment Compliance Report

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP74/13

 

 

Subject:                  558A-580 Anzac Parade, Kingsford (DA/383/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/383/2013

Author:                   Wendy Wang, Senior Environmental Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to the existing South Sydney Juniors club including: infill of the existing atrium openings at 2nd floors, deletion of squash courts and offices at 2nd floor, reconfiguration of the use of these spaces within the 2nd floor level including new indoor/outdoor poker machine lounge/terrace, new restaurant area, new foyer, plating kitchen, sanitary facilities and staff rooms, addition of new balcony fronting Anzac Parade at 2nd floor, and new private/plant/store rooms and outdoor terrace fronting Wallace Street at 3rd floor level

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                South Sydney Junior Rugby League Club

Owner:                         South Sydney Junior Rugby League Club

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


Development Application Executive Summary report

 

The application is referred to Council as it is valued at $5,009,825.00

 

1.         Proposal

 

The subject application proposed various alterations and additions to all three levels of the existing Club. The majority of proposed works will be contained within the existing building envelope with the exception of the proposed balcony projecting over the boundary above the current Anzac Parade awning, and the modification/raising of the roof over the existing squash courts. Specifically, the application incorporates the following works: -

 

Ground and first floors

·      No changes proposed

 

Second floor

·      Deletion of squash courts and offices

·      New bar, male, female and accessible toilets to be introduced adjacent to the existing auditorium to replace the existing squash courts

·      Relocation of staff room, lockers and other staff facilities in to the area currently occupied by the existing store rooms

·      New indoor/outdoor gaming lounge with toilets and bar introduced to the area currently occupied by the existing offices and gaming room, with new openings in the existing roof above

·      New multi-use games room introduced into the area currently occupied by staff rooms and store rooms

·      Reinstate second floor restaurant (previously known Swordfish Restaurant) into the area occupied by the existing indoor/outdoor gaming lounge

·      Fill in the existing atrium floor opening behind the restaurant (as per previous item)

·      Convert the existing toilet and bar area with second floor foyer with modification to rear wall of the auditorium to improve access to and from escalators

·      New covered terrace proposed to extend from second floor foyer with acoustic ceiling and 2m  high glass balustrade/barrier

·      New plating kitchen

 

Third floor

·      New private rooms introduced into the area currently occupied by the existing squash courts, adjacent to the existing Sky Lounge Restaurant with associated covered terrace fronting Wallace Street and 2m high glass balustrade/wall

·      New store rooms and plant room to be introduced into the area above

 

The application proposes to increase the total number of gaming machines within the Club from 462 to 511.

 

The application also seeks to increase the maximum number of patrons accommodated within the premises by 140 at the second floor, with capacity for all other floors to remain as existing.

 

Existing Club hours of operation

24 hours a day, 7 days a week throughout the year.

Open to the public from 9am – 6am, seven days.

 

Hours of operation for proposed outdoor gaming areas and terraces are proposed to be consistent with exiting Club hours of operation.

Maximum number of patrons proposed to occupy the new outdoor gaming/terrace areas

 

·      Second floor terrace off multi use/foyer space: max 40 people (nominated by applicant)

·      Second floor gaming lounge: max 203 people (nominated by applicant)

·      Second floor outdoor gaming terrace: max 92 people (nominated by applicant)

·      Third floor terrace fronting Wallace Street servicing the proposed third floor private function rooms: capacity to be determined based on revised acoustic report. 

 

2.         Site

 

The subject site is described as Lot 100 in DP 1108075, No. 558A to 580 Anzac Parade, Kingsford. The site is triangular in shape and has dual frontages towards Anzac Parade (130.79m) and Wallace Street (135.4m). The site has an area of 4711m2

 

At present, the site accommodates a 4-storey building occupied by the South Sydney Juniors Rugby League Club. Pedestrian access to the club is available from both Anzac Parade and Wallace Street. Vehicular access to the parking levels and service areas is obtained via Anzac Parade and Wallace Street respectively. The area that forms the subject of this application is the ‘Swordfish Restaurant’ located on the second floor of the building.

 

A mixture of detached and multi-unit residential development is located along either side of Anzac Parade in the immediate locality. Detached style dwellings are located along Wallace Street. A public open car park is located in the centre median of Anzac Parade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 1:  The existing leagues club as viewed from Anzac Parade. 

 


3.         Submissions

 

The proposal was notified and advertised from 10 – 24 July 2013 in accordance with Part A3 of the Randwick DCP 2013 - Public Notification, and the EPA Act 1979. As a result of this notification and advertising, one submission was received from the owner/resident of 133 Rainbow Street, Kingsford, raising the following issue: -

 

·      The Club should not remove the squash courts to make space for additional gaming areas and place more focus on promoting healthy activities as opposed to gambling.

·      There is not need for additional restaurants within the premises as there are already at least 3 in the Club.

 

The provision of services and facilities such as restaurants are determined at the discretion of the Club. Council’s role is not to decide whether they are needed, but to determine their environmental impact. In relation to gaming machines, Council has no jurisdiction to regulate or control their installation or operation under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979

 

4.         Key Issues

 

4.1      Noise

The proposal will involve the construction of the following new open areas:

 

·      North facing third floor terrace adjacent to Wallace Street servicing the proposed private function rooms (also at the third floor) with 2m high glass balustrade/wall

·      South facing second floor gaming lounge fronting Anzac Parade

·      South facing covered terrace extending from second floor foyer with acoustic ceiling and 2m high glass balustrade/barrier

 

The development is anticipated to generate noise, which could potentially result in increased impacts on the surrounding residents.  

 

In particular, noise would be generated from the following elements of the proposal;

 

·      The use of the proposed outdoor gaming terrace on the second floor.

·      The use of the staff terrace located on the second floor which is adjacent to residential premises.

·      The use of the outdoor terrace to be located on the 3rd floor adjacent to Wallace Street.

·      Noise generated from new plant and equipment to service the re-instated restaurant and other mechanical plant for these new areas.

 

The residential uses along Anzac Parade, Sturt Street and Wallace Street are potential noise recipients of the proposed outdoor areas. Notwithstanding, the dwelling houses along Wallace Street and Sturt Street (east of Anzac Parade) are acoustically screened by the club building itself. The Kingsford section of Anzac Parade contains a median car park, which extends the width of the road to approximately 52m from kerb to kerb. It is considered that the separation distance of 52m will result in a degree of noise attenuation for the residential developments along the opposite side of Anzac Parade.

 

The applicant has submitted 2 Noise Assessment Reports, numbered 3778, and 2001, dated October 2008 and April 2006, respectively, prepared by RSA Acoustics, which details various readings and noise mitigation measures for previous development proposals in the Club.

Whilst these acoustic reports provide an indication of predicted noise levels for the use of existing outdoor terraces and provide recommendations on how noise sources can be controlled on external terraces to comply with relevant noise requirements, the reports should be updated to ensure that the noise from the proposed areas will comply at all times.

 

It is therefore recommended that an updated acoustic report be submitted to Council prior to the issuing of a construction certificate. This acoustic assessment should evaluate all existing and proposed noise sources at all times of the day including the night time period and should also include suitable recommendations where required to ensure compliance with all relevant noise requirements.

 

It is also recommended that an acoustic validation report is be submitted to Council within 4 weeks of operations of the new outdoor terraces. Suitable conditions of consent have been included to this effect.

 

4.2      Hours of operation

The accompanying statement of environmental effects for the proposed development indicates that the Club currently operates on a 24 hour/7 days a week basis and proposes to continue to operate during these hours. Following a review of previous consents for various proposals for the Club, it was identified that the external function terrace and Sky Lounge external gaming room have been restricted by conditions of consent to operate as follows: -

 

Monday – Thursday:                  9:00am – Midnight

Friday - Sunday:                       9:00am – 1:00am

 

These hours of operation were recommended by the acoustic consultant (RSA acoustics report no 3231 dated Feb 2008) at the development assessment stage for the external function terrace and sky lounge external gaming room (DA/12/2008). It is therefore recommended that the proposed hours of operation for the new external terraces are to be consistent with the other development approvals for the property to ensure the relevant noise criteria are achieved at all times.

 

Additional standard noise conditions have also been included within the recommendation to ensure compliance with the relevant noise requirements.

 

4.3      Built form and urban design

The proposal will not alter the existing envelope, footprint and height of the club building. The proposed external gaming rooms and terraces will provide activation of the street and enable casual surveillance of the surrounding public domain. The proposal is considered satisfactory from a safety and urban design perspective.

 

4.4      Parking and traffic

The relevant objectives of the DCP in relation to parking and access include: 

 

·      To promote sustainable transport options for development, particularly along transport corridors, in commercial centres and strategic/key sites.

·      To manage the provision of car parking within the broader transport network.

·      To support integrated transport and land use options which can demonstrate shared and effective car parking provision with car share facilities, motorbikes/scooters, bikes and links to public transport.

·      To ensure car parking facilities, service and delivery areas and access are designed to enhance streetscape character and protect pedestrian amenity and safety.

 

The proposed development seeks to increase the existing gross floor area by 381sqm (from 12,010sqm to 12,391sqm), increase the total number of gaming machines within the Club from 462 to 511 and increase maximum number of patrons accommodated within the premises by 140. 

 

The Randwick DCP requires that additional parking be provided to cater for additional demands arising from increases in floor space or changes in use.

 

In this instance, there is no capacity for the Club to provide any additional on site parking. Generally, parking demand for the site was assessed as part of the original development application and it is noted that the Club has 225 existing parking spaces located at ground floor and basement levels 1 and 2. In addition, there are 243 off street parking spaces currently available for use by Club patrons in the open public carpark located in the centre median of Anzac Parade. Additional parking servicing the local business centre is available on surrounding streets and patrons are encouraged to use the available parking. The area is also well serviced by public transport.

 

Furthermore, no objections were raised by Council’s development Engineers and it is not considered that the proposed works to the existing Club will have any significant adverse parking implications to the surrounding area. 

 

As such, it is unlikely that the application will significantly increase pressures on parking and transport in this section of Anzac Parade and the proposal is therefore considered to demonstrate consistency with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013 with regard to traffic and parking.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability, excellence in urban design and development, integrated transport and land use.

Direction 4a:      Improved design and sustainability across all development, integrating transport and pedestrian links between town centres and key locations.

Key Action:       Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council on the subject site and generally complies with the standards, aims and objectives contained in the RLEP 2012. The development maintains a building envelope, height and façade treatment that generally meets the relevant criteria and fulfils these objectives.

 

The proposal adequately addresses the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone and objectives and controls of the Randwick DCP 2013 and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

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

 

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. 383/2013 for alterations and additions to the existing South Sydney Juniors club including: infill of the existing atrium openings at 2nd floors, deletion of squash courts and offices at 2nd floor, reconfiguration of the use of these spaces within the 2nd floor level including new indoor/outdoor poker machine lounge/terrace, new restaurant area, new foyer, plating kitchen, sanitary facilities and staff rooms, addition of new balcony fronting Anzac Parade at 2nd floor, and new private/plant/store rooms and outdoor terrace fronting Wallace Street at 3rd floor level at 558A-580 Anzac Parade, Kingsford, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

18.     A report, must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration from the development (including all outdoor terraces, patron noise, mechanical plant and equipment and all operational noise sources) satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Office of Environment & Heritage/Environment Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s development consent.  A copy of the report is to be forwarded and approved by the Council prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

Any recommendations or requirements which form part of this acoustic report are to be accepted & approved by Council prior to their implementation.

 

38.     A report, must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration from the development (including all external terraces, plant and equipment and general operational noise sources) satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Office of Environment & Heritage/Environment Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s development consent.  A copy of the report is to be forwarded and approved by Council within 1 month of commencing the operation of the outdoor terraces.

 

The acoustic report is to include (but not be limited to);

·          Noise emission from the proposed development (e.g. operational noise, mechanical noise, monitoring from nearest affected residential premises during the use and operation of the premises when there is maximum occupancy to satisfy intrusiveness and amenity criteria)

·          Patron noise from the development having regard to the outdoor terraces and the proposed hours of operation.

·          Accumulative patron noise from maximum occupancy of the new outdoor terraces with the existing outdoor terraces.

·          Background noise levels shall be taken after 10:00pm in the absence of any other commercial premises operating in the area.

Any recommendations outlined in this report are to be implemented after appropriate approval by Council. 

 

44.     The proposed outdoor areas (gaming area and terraces) shall accommodate no more than the following specified maximum number of patrons (including gaming machines players) at all times: -

 

-      Second floor terrace off multi use/foyer space: max 40 people (nominated by applicant)

-      Second floor gaming lounge: max 203 people (nominated by applicant)

-      Second floor outdoor gaming terrace: max 92 people (nominated by applicant)

-      The maximum number of patrons able to be accommodated on the third floor terrace fronting Wallace Street servicing the proposed third floor private function rooms shall be determined by the acoustic report required to be submitted to Council’s satisfaction prior to the issue of a construction certificate and 1 month after the commencement of operation of the proposed outdoor areas.

 

45.     An amended plan of management shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to commencement of the terraces, which shall include but not be limited to:

 

·      ensure compliance with the relevant conditions of approval and acoustic assessment requirements

·      minimise the potential impact of the operation of the premises upon nearby residents,

·      effectively minimise and manage anti-social behaviour,

·      minimise noise emissions and associated nuisances,

·      effectively manage and respond to resident complaints,

·      ensure responsible service of alcohol and harm minimisation,

·      specifically restricting entertainment on all terraces.

 

48.     The hours of the operation for the 2nd floor external foyer terrace, 2nd floor outdoor gaming terrace, 2nd floor Staff terrace & 3rd floor external terraces are restricted to:

 

Monday – Thursday:       9:00am – Midnight

Friday - Sunday:            9:00am – 1: 00am

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Compliance Report - 558A - 580 Anzac Parade, Kingsford

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP75/13

 

 

Subject:                  17 Binda Crescent, Little Bay (DA/351/2013/A)

Folder No:                   DA/351/2013/A

Author:                   SJB  Planning, Stuart McDonald     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 application to delete condition 1(a) of the consent relating to the wall height and internal width of the approved garage

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Mr N Gemisis & Mrs J G Gemisis

Owner:                         Mr N Gemisis & Mrs J G Gemisis

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

The application has been assessed by an external planning consultant and referred to Council as the applicant is related to a Council employee.

 

The proposal is a S96(2) application seeking consents to modify Development Consent DA/351/2013 by deleting condition 1(a).

 

DA/351/2013 was for ground and first floor alterations and additions to an existing dwelling including a new double garage to the front, decking to the rear, landscaping and associated works.

 

DA/351/2013 was determined, by way of granting development consent, on 13 August 2013.

 

Condition 1(a) of development consent DA/351/2013 states the following:

 

Amendments of Plans & Documentation

 

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

 

a)  The design of the proposed garage shall be modified to have a maximum wall height of 2.6m and a maximum internal width of 6m to reduce its dominance in the street.”

 

The current application seeks to delete this condition.

 

2.      Site

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Binda Crescent approximately 50m north of its southernmost intersection with Nurla Avenue. The site has an area of 481m2 and is irregular in shape with a frontage of 19.5m to Binda Crescent.

 

The site contains a detached two storey weatherboard clad dwelling house with outbuildings in the rear yard and a single garage attached to the dwelling at the southern end. The dwelling has a pitched roof and three dormers windows which address the street (refer to Figure 1).

 

The site is located in a low density residential area characterised by 1 and 2 storey dwelling houses within landscaped settings.

 

The dwelling houses in the street contain a mix of architectural styles, materials and finishes and built form.

 

 

Figure 1: The existing dwelling at the subject site

 

The adjoining dwelling to the south at No. 19 Binda Crescent, contains a contemporary 2 storey dwelling with a double garage. The garage is integrated into the dwelling design.

 

The dwelling is setback between 900mm and 2.3m from the common boundary with subject site (refer to Figure 2).

 

Figure 2: The existing dwelling at No. 19 Binda Crescent

 

The adjoining property to the north at No. 15 Binda Crescent accommodates a 2 storey dwelling that is setback from the common boundary with the subject site by a minimum of 2m.

 

The property includes a single garage set behind the front building wall (refer to Figure 3).

 

Figure 3: The existing dwelling at No. 15 Binda Crescent.

 

3.      Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. No submissions were received as a result of the notification process.

 

4.      Section 96 Amendment

 

Section 96(2)of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 states that a consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

 

“(a) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

 

(b) it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and

 

(c) it has notified the application in accordance with:

(i)   the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii)  a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

 

(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.”

 

The proposal does not involve a change to the categorisation of the development as approved and it is considered that the proposed would result in a development that would remain substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

5.0    Key Issues

 

5.1    Proposed Garage – Bulk and Scale

The application to modify the development consent would result in a double garage with an overall height of 6.24m and an overall external width of 6.915m and internal width of 6.615m.  The proposed side walls would have a height of 3.345m.

 

Council’s controls 6.5 (Garage Configuration) of Part C1 of the Randwick DCP 2013 require a double garage to have a maximum wall height of 2.6m, a maximum building height of 3m and a maximum internal width of 6m. The proposal fails to comply with all three of these controls.

 

Condition 1(a) of the development consent requires amended plans to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate to reduce the wall height of the garage to 2.6m and internal width to 6m which would result in compliance with two of the three key garage controls.

 

The purpose of the amendments imposed under condition 1(a) is to reduce the bulk and scale and the visual massing of the garage and to reduce its dominance of the property frontage.

 

The plans submitted with the proposed modification demonstrate the effect that the deletion of condition 1(a) would have in terms of the floor area and also the visual effect upon the street elevation of the property.

 

The proposed modification would increase the garage floor area by approximately 1.5m2, would increase the height of the garage by 1m and the width of the garage by 600mm.

 

The proposed garage sits 2.5m forward of the front building line of the existing dwelling and would represent 42% of the width of the front of the combined proposed building.

 

The proposed height of the garage is 1.55m lower than the height of the 2 storey dwelling and the ridgeline of the garage will be equal to the height of top of the glazing line of the 2nd storey dormer windows to the dwelling.

 

The proposed garage will be clearly visible in Binda Crescent from locations in front of the property and when viewed from locations to the north and south along Binda Crescent.

 

There are no other garages in the vicinity of the site that are set as far forward which are as high and as wide as the proposed garage.

 

It is considered that Condition 1(a) will mitigate some of the visual massing of the garage by reducing the height by at least 1m and the width by over half a metre.

 

Additionally condition 1(a) will only result in a decrease of 1.5m2 of floor space and therefore is unlikely to inhibit the practical operations of the garage with respect to vehicular movements.

 

The objectives of the car parking and access controls outlined in section 6, Part C1 of the DCP are outlined below:

 

·         To ensure car parking and access facilities do not visually dominate the property frontage or streetscape.

·         To ensure parking facilities are integrated with the architectural expression of the dwelling as an integrated element.

·         To minimise hard paved surfaces occupied by driveways and parking facilities, and maximise opportunities for deep soil planting and permeable surfaces for stormwater infiltration.

·         To ensure the location and design of parking and access facilities do not pose undue safety risks on building occupants and pedestrians.

·         To ensure the location and design of parking and access facilities do not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

The deletion of condition 1(a) would result in a garage that is excessive in height and bulk and scale and which will dominate the street elevation of the existing dwelling (as approved to be altered), will dominate the frontage of the subject property and will also dominate the streetscape in the vicinity of the site.

 

Consequently the proposed modifications will not ensure that the car parking and access facilities at the site will not visually dominate the property frontage or streetscape.

 

It is recognised that it would be difficult to integrate the garage into the front building wall of the existing dwelling due to the nature of the irregular shaped allotment and the position of the dwelling. It is also acknowledged that the proposed materials and overall style of the garage are consistent with the materials and architectural style of the dwelling.

 

The excessive height and width of the proposed garage however, does not appropriately respond to the proportions and scale of the dwelling (as approved to be altered) and for this reason the proposal fails to ensure that garage is integrated with the architectural expression of the dwelling.

 

As recognised in the original assessment of DA351/2013, the proposed garage will result in some additional overshadowing the front yard of No.19 Binda Crescent to the south of the site. The shadowing impact is considered minor due to the affected area being the front yard of that property and not the main private open space.

 

Notwithstanding, the imposition of condition 1(a) will result in the reduction of the overshadowing impact of the garage.

 

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 modifications would result in a development that fails to recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form that contribute to the desired future character of the area and thereby would fail to satisfy one of the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone as detailed in the Land Use table of the Randwick LEP 2012.

 

The proposed modifications are inconsistent with relevant controls for garage configuration within low density residential areas. Importantly, the proposed modifications are also inconsistent with the objectives of the garage configuration controls.

 

The proposed modifications would result in a garage that is excessive in height and width and would dominate the street elevation and character of the dwelling and also the streetscape in the vicinity of the site.

 

The proposed modifications are considered unacceptable in the circumstances.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent No DA/351/2013 by way of the deletion of condition 1(a) relating to the width and wall height of the garage at 17 Binda Crescent, Little Bay 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.

 

2.       The proposed increase in external wall height, overall height and width of the garage is excessive and does not comply with maximum external wall height for garages, the maximum garage height and the maximum width for double garages under Clause 6.5 of the Randwick DCP 2013 and does not satisfy the objectives of section 6, Part C1 of the Randwick Development Control Plan in that it fails to:

 

          To ensure car parking and access facilities do not visually dominate the property frontage or streetscape.

 

          To ensure parking facilities are integrated with the architectural expression of the dwelling as an integrated element.

 

3.       The visual bulk and scale of the proposal are not considered to be compatible with the existing and approved dwelling at the subject site and will visually dominate the street elevation of the dwelling, the property and the streetscape in the vicinity of the site. 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.

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Compliance Report - 17 Binda Crescent, Little Bay

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP76/13

 

 

Subject:                  Shop 6/495-503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/595/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/595/2013

Author:                   City Plan Services, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Internal fitout and use of the premises as a chemist including new signage

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Mr N D'Souza

Owner:                         La Chapelle Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been assessed by an external planning consultant and is referred to Council as the applicant is a Randwick City Councillor.

 

Proposal

 

It is proposed to use ‘Shop 6’ of the approved mixed use building known as the “Peninsula” for the purpose of a pharmacy (commercial premise), erect advertising signage and undertake the internal fitout of the shop.

 

Proposed operational details of the pharmacy include:

 

-     Operating Hours: -Monday-Thursday and Friday: 9am to 6pm

-Thursday: 9am to 9pm

-Saturday and Sunday: 9am to 5pm

-Seven (7) days a week

-     4 staff members at all times, with 6 staff members for busier times;

-     Delivery of goods will be via the delivery docks located within the building;

-     Access and parking is provided within the building.

 

Details of the internal fitout include:

 

-     Product shelving;

-     Dispensary area including various desks and structures

-     Two internal rooms;

-     Lunch, office and storage areas;

-     Tiling of the floor

-     Installation of lighting;

 

Signage is also proposed along the south west elevation of the shop fronting Bunnerong Road. The advertising signage includes graphics that are reverse printed with ‘white SAV backing for opacity’ that are applied internally to glazing. The graphics includes wording ‘Soul Pattinson Chemist’, various images and colours. The signage is applied to the majority of the shop front façade.

 

The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The proposal involves the use of shop 6 that is within the building complex located at 495-503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville, legally described as Lot 100 DP 1077108. The subject site is located on the south east corner of Bunnerong Road and Daunt Street, which is located in the Matraville Centre precinct.

 

Land adjoining the site to the north and east is primarily used for residential purposes, while land to the south and west is primarily used for commercial premises. Development ranges from single storey dwellings, to multi storey mixed use development.

 

N

 

Figure 1: Aerial View Site and Surrounds (Source: Six Maps)

 

Site History

 

Previous development applications relating to the site

 

On 10 November 2009 Council approved Development Application 67/2009 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a part 4 part 7 storey mixed use development comprising a commercial/retail component at ground and mezzanine, and residential component located above.

 

Since the approval of the subject DA various modifications have been made to the original consent.

 

Council has consented to the use of various commercial tenancies of the approved building under DA 67/2009 on the site.

 

Submissions

 

The subject application was neighbor notified from 13 September to 27 September 2013 in accordance with the Randwick DCP. No submissions were received.

 

Key Issues

 

Signage

The proposed business identification signage is to be placed on the internal windows along the majority of the south western façade of the shopfront facing Bunnerong Road. The signage involves reverse printed graphics on white SAV backing which creates an opaque finish.

 

Signage of this size with an opaque finish to glazing is generally not desirable in such prominent areas (being Matraville Centre) as it restricts views to and from the shop which does not promote pedestrian activity, reduces customer/staff surveillance of public areas, and provides an un-broken finish to the façade of the shopfront.

 

However, due to the proposed internal configuration of the shop the signage will provide screening to metal shelving and an unpacking area that are located along these windows/wall. In this instance, the proposed signage is considered appropriate in this regard subject to a condition being included in the recommendation requiring the incorporation of interpretive historical images of the Matraville Town Centre/locality along the Bunnerong Road frontage.

 

Technical Officers Comments

Council did not undertake any internal staff referrals.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

The Randwick City Council Section 94A (s94A) Development Contributions Plan 2012 (adopted by Council on 17 July 2012 applies to all development. As estimated by the applicant, the development will cost $260,000. Under this plan a development that costs more than $200,000 attracts a maximum percentage levy of 1%. As such, the proposal attracts a levy of $2,600; a recommended condition has been attached that requires this levy to be paid.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council on the subject site and complies with the standards, aims and objectives contained in the RLEP 2012.

 

The proposal is generally consistent with the provisions of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

        That Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 595/13 for the internal fit out and use of the premises as a chemist (commercial premises) including business identification signage, at Shop 6/495-503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville, legally described as Lot 100 DP 1077108, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

Advertising Signage

19.      The signage shown on drawing ‘External Elevation for DA’ drawn by Creative Impact dated 09/09/2013 shall be amended to include interpretative historical images of the Matraville town centre/locality. Details to be submitted to Council’s Heritage Planner for approval prior to an occupation certificate being issued.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Compliance Report - Shop 6/495 - 503 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP77/13

 

 

Subject:                  220 Franklin Street, Matraville (DA/508/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/508/2013

Author:                   Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Construction of new detached garage, new secondary dwelling and in ground swimming pool, new front boundary fence and associated site works

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Mr J Spiteri

Owner:                         Mrs C M Maybury & Mr J A Maybury

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The development application has been assessed by an external planning consultant and referred to Council as a Council employee has made a submission to the application.

 

Proposal

The proposal includes demolition and construction.

 

Site improvements to be demolished are:

-   The existing front fence;

-   The garage (already mostly demolished);

-   The granny flat; and

-   The detached shed.

 

Construction work proposed is:

-   A front fence;

-   A garage and driveway;

-   A deck attached to the rear of the existing dwelling;

-   A secondary dwelling; and

-   An inground pool with safety fencing.

 

1.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site is located on the northern side of Franklin Street between Oxley Street and Anzac Parade.  The site is shown labeled in Figure 1.

 

The site is an irregular shape with a frontage of 19.56m tapering to a rear boundary 9.385m wide.  The western side boundary is 40.47m long and the eastern side boundary is 40.17m in length.  The total area of the site is 578.2m2. The site has a slight slope from the north east corner down to the south west corner.  There is a single storey dwelling on the site with a detached shed and detached granny flat in the rear.  Photos of these buildings are included in Figures 2 and 3. A detached garage was located on the south east corner of the site but has mostly been removed with the exception of the concrete slab.  This is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 1:  Aerial photo of 220 Franklin Street

 

Figure 2:  Photo of the street frontage of 220 Franklin Street

Figure 3:  Photo of the existing granny flat at 220 Franklin Street

 

Figure 4:  Photo of the remains of the garage at 220 Franklin Street

The adjoining property to the east contains a single storey dwelling with a garage built to the shared boundary and sheds adjacent to the rear boundary.  This property is elevated slightly in comparison to the subject site.  This property has two driveway crossings within the front setback as shown in Figure 5.

 

The neighbouring property to the west contains two x two-storey dwellings as shown in Figure 6.  These two storey dwellings are set back between 1.5m and 2m from the shared boundary.  The private open space for the front dwelling is located within the front setback to Franklin Street and the private courtyard for the rear dwelling is within the rear setback area.

 

Figure 5:  Photo of eastern neighbour No.222 Franklin Street

 

Figure 6:  Photo of the western neighbour No.218 Franklin Street

 

The adjoining property to the rear (north) is a battle-axe allotment and contains several attached single storey villas which provide housing for seniors or people with a disability.

 

Opposite the site in Franklin Street is a small triangular shape public reserve and further south is Matraville Sports High School.

 

The locality is dominated by single and two storey detached low density dwellings with scattered dual occupancy and medium density developments.

2.      Community Consultation

 

The owners of surrounding properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals from 19 August 2013 to 2 September 2013.  One (1) written submission was received during the notification period.  The issues raised in the submission are summarised below along with assessment comments.

 

Issue:       Request that the window in the western façade of the secondary dwelling be fixed obscured glass to maintain privacy.

 

Assessment Comment:  The window in the western façade of the secondary dwelling is proposed to have a high sill approximately 1.5m from the floor level.  It will be in close alignment with the single window in the eastern façade of the neighbouring dwelling. The main windows providing outlook from the secondary dwelling are located in the eastern and southern facades.  The window in the western façade is not required for cross ventilation.  Therefore it is not unreasonable to impose conditions for this window to be fixed opaque glass.

 

Issue:  Seeking confirmation that the height of the secondary dwelling will not exceed RL39.3.

 

Assessment Comment:  Section BB of the secondary dwelling in Drawing No.13.127 Sheet 6 of 6 dated July 2013 indicates that the maximum roof height of the secondary dwelling is RL39.3.

 

Key Issues

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 commenced on 31 July 2009 and aims, inter alia, to facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zoning permissibility and floor space ratio bonuses.

 

Division 2 of the SEPP relates to secondary dwellings and applies to Zone R2 Low Density Residential.  The proposal fits the requirements of Clause 22 in that the combined floor area of the existing dwelling and the secondary dwelling does not exceed the maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 required for a single dwelling house on the site and the total floor area of the secondary dwelling is no more than 60m2 and no more that the maximum permissible in Randwick LEP 2012 (see Section (d) below).

 

Subclause 22(4) of the Policy states that Council cannot refuse consent if the secondary dwelling is within of attached to the principle dwelling (which does not apply to the proposal) and the site area is at least 450m2.  The site area is 578.2m2 and therefore of suitable size to support a secondary dwelling.  Council cannot refuse consent for a secondary dwelling if no additional parking is provided for the secondary dwelling.  No additional on-site parking is proposed.

 

Clause 23 sets out the requirements of the Policy for secondary dwellings and these are:

-   the lot must be at least 450m2;

-   there is no basement; and

-   there is no roof terrace.

 

The proposal complies with these requirements.

 

Clause 24 to the Policy prevents subdivision of a site containing a secondary dwelling.  The proposal does not include subdivision.

 

Therefore the secondary dwelling complies with the relevant requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2007 and is permissible under this policy.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the standards and objectives for development in Zone R2 Low Density Residential and the controls for height of buildings, floor space ratio and the maximum floor area for secondary dwellings.  The secondary dwelling also complies with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2007.  The works are consistent with the relevant guidelines set out in Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2012 and the matters raised in the single submission have been appropriately addressed by the details on the plans and recommended conditions of development consent.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority, grant consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended for Development Consent No DA508/2013 for demolition of garage, granny flat, shed and front fence and construction of new detached garage, new deck to existing dwelling, new secondary dwelling, inground swimming pool, new front boundary fence and new driveway at No.220 Franklin Street, Matraville, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

2(a)    The window in the western façade of the secondary dwelling shall feature opaque glass and shall be fixed (non-openable) to achieve privacy between the secondary dwelling and the neighbouring dwelling to the west.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Development Application Complain Report -  DA/508/2013 220 Franklin Street, MATRAVILLE

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP78/13

 

 

Subject:                  Reporting variation to Development Standards under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP1) & Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 - September, 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 variations to development Standard. 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 and Clause 4.6;

 

2)     Requirement for all development applications where there has been a variation greater than 10% in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6 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 and Clause 4.6;

 

4)     Making the register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 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 and Clause 4.6 exceptions approved in the period between 1 to 30 September 2013 – two (2) were approved during this period by Planning Committee 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 and Clause 4.6 exceptions. 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

Variation to a Standard September 2013

 

 

 

 


Variation to a Standard September 2013

Attachment 1

 

 

 

SEPP 1 AND CLAUSE 4.6 REGISTER BETWEEN 1 TO 30 SEPTEMBER 2013

Council DA reference number

Lot number

DP number

Apartment/Unit No.

Street No.

Street name

Suburb /Town

Postcode

Category of development

Environmental planning instru-ment

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/181/2013

Cnr LOT 1

792311 SUBJ TO ROW,
'COOGEE PALACE'

 

169-181

 Dolphin Street,

COOGEE

2034

14: Other

RLEP 2012

B2 Local Centre

Clause 4.3 - Maximum building height of 12m. Clause 4.4 - FSR =1.5:1,

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

The existing of building height is 20.4m increased by 2.37m or 20%.  The existing FSR is 2.03:1 increased to 2.04:1 exceeds by 0.54:1 or 36%.

NSW Dept of Planning

10-Sep-13

PCM

DA/849/2012

2

701325

 

58

Victoria Street,

MALABAR

2036

 3: Residential - New second occupancy

RLEP 1998

2A Residential

Clause 20B minimum allotment frontage width of 15m & Clause 4.3 - External wall height of 7m.

Consistent with the urban character of the locality and predominant subdivision pattern, and maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

The proposal has a frontage width of 10.06m reduced by 4.94m or 32.93%, and  has a maximum external wall height of 8.75m increased by 1.75m or 5.79%

NSW Dept of Planning

10-Sep-13

PCM

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP79/13

 

 

Subject:                  Recent Land & Environment Court Decisions

Folder No:                   F2006/00383

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

There are two recent decisions of the Land and Environment Court, one in relation to a class 1 appeal against a Council decision to refuse development consent and a class 4 appeal seeking a judicial review. This report summarises the outcomes of these decisions.

 

Issues

 

Class 1 Appeal

 

·       143-145 Mount Street, Coogee

The proposed development for alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling at 143-145 Mount Street Coogee and the conversion of the existing building into multi-unit housing comprising four dwellings, strata subdivision and associated works was refused by Council on the basis of a lack of car parking. As such, Council raised the following contention in the proceedings:

 

1.  The proposal has a deficiency of 2-3 spaces for residents and 1 space for visitors, i.e. 3-4 spaces deficient overall. Having regard to the exiting demand for on street parking, as per the applicant's parking surveys and Council's Development Engineer's observations, the proposal will adversely impact on the parking opportunities for existing residents and their visitors.

 

After considering the evidence and the positions of the parties and the residents, the Commissioner found that the appeal should be upheld subject to the inclusion of a condition of consent pertaining to car sharing.

Council’s new Comprehensive DCP anticipates that car share facilities are a viable option in certain locations and accepts that in some circumstances, it may not be possible to provide on-site parking. The DCP notes the following;

Car share schemes are effective on sites or in areas with higher density and ready access to good public transport and services. To operate successfully care share vehicles need to be highly visible, easily and safely accessed at any time (whether on or off the street) by residents and business operators on the site, as well as those in the surrounding precinct.

 

Care share spaces can also be dedicated for the exclusive use of building occupiers, if desired. In this case, the cost of the car share can be met by strata levies and must be organised by the developer.

The Commissioner identified that the site is located within a walking distance of about 85m to three bus routes in Oberon Street and is about 300m from six bus routes in Carr Street. The site is also in an area of increasing density with a significant number of rental properties and clearly limited on street parking and met the criteria for the location of a car share space.

The applicants proposed an application be made for a car share pod/parking space adjacent to the site. While membership in a car share scheme would be available to anyone, the applicants agreed to arrange membership for six occupants of the property for a minimum period of five years. While the allocation of a designated car share space in Mount Street would remove one generally available car space, it has the potential, in the longer term, to free up parking in the future should other new or existing residents choose to use the system.

Whilst the Commissioner accepted that there was a high demand for car parking in the vicinity of the site, she concluded that the measures proposed by the applicants in regards to car share options are fully in line with the thrust of the sustainable transport measures detailed in RDCP 2013 and satisfy the relevant zone objectives in RLEP 1998.    

Class 4 Summons

 

·       71R Mount Street, Coogee (Bardon Park)

In April 2011, Council resolved to modify the consent that was issued for the use of Bardon Park by children aged between 6 and 12 years for football evening training from April to September. The modification allowed an increased number of children, within the above age groups to use the Park for training on two nominated days; a section of the Park to be line marked and to allow those training the children to erect one set of portable goal posts at each training session and to be removed at the conclusion of each session.

 

Ms Wiedeman sought an order declaring the decision of the Council to modify the 2007 consent to be invalid. She also sought to restrain the Council from acting on the modified consent.

 

In summary the Ms Wiedeman alleged that Council’s decision was invalid due to an apprehended bias arising from a conflict of interest, that interest being a financial interest in retaining use of the Park when considering the cost of alternate facilities at another park. Secondly, it was contended that there was a denial of procedural fairness arising from the fact that the draft assessment report prepared by a town planning consultancy retained by Council for the modification application had incorporated some changes suggested by council’s solicitors and subsequently adopted by the planning consultancy.

 

It is clear from the judgment that his Honour understood that council’s processes were entirely consistent with good practice. As observed at paragraph 60 of the judgment:

 

“as the Council was the entity charged with the control and management of the parks and reserves identified in the Works Report, any fair-minded observer would reasonably anticipate, if not expect that in making any decision in respect of park use, the costs implications of the decision would be taken into account along with such other factors as were relevant to it decision”.

 

The claim of invalidity made by Ms Wiedeman on the ground that she was denied procedural fairness was said to be founded upon a Mayoral Minute coupled with a letter of the General Manager dated 11 February 2011. These documents were alleged to have created an expectation concerning the independent assessment report prepared by Council’s external consultant planner.

 

His Honour found against Ms Wiedeman on this ground and stated that the evidence of Mr Harding was accepted by the Court which demonstrated that the final report provided to Councillors did reflect his independent assessment of the modification application.

 

His Honour concluded that the report for Council was one that met the description of the report identified in the General Manager’s letter, the Mayoral Minute and that therefore the resolution in respect of that Minute was sufficient to reject the Applicant’s head of claim.

 

The judgment clearly determines that Council had no conflict of interest and that Council’s functions were properly exercised both under the Crown Lands Act and in dealing with the modification under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

The Court has ordered the Applicant to pay Council’s costs incurred as a result of the proceedings. Council’s lawyers are currently pusuing the recovery of these costs.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4b:      New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The costs to date in relation to these matters are as follows:

 

143-145 Mount Street, Coogee - $34,000.

71R Mount Street, Coogee (Bardon Park) - $52,416.86.

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP80/13

 

 

Subject:                  Draft Section 94A Refund Policy

Folder No:                   F2013/00463

Author:                   Asanthika Kappagoda, Senior Strategic Planner     

 

Introduction

 

This report proposes a new Policy to provide the procedural framework for Council to consider refund requests for Section 94A levies paid, in suitable circumstances.

 

The Policy (Attachment 1) has been prepared in response to recent refund requests received such as where the actual costs of works undertaken are lower than initially projected, or where the applicant has surrendered the DA and no works have been undertaken. A Policy on refunds is considered suitable in certain limited circumstances as discussed in this report, in order to provide for a fair, transparent and equitable approach for Council, applicants and the general community in the administration of s94A contributions.

 

Background

 

Council’s current Section 94A Plan has been in operation since July 2012. The Plan levies developer contributions for new development to fund the provision of public infrastructure, facilities and services.  It now covers both Development Applications (DAs) and Complying Development. The levy is expressed as a flat percentage rate commensurate with the cost of the development. 

 

Recently there have been several requests for refunds or partial refunds of s94A contributions paid. These requests relate to instances where development consent has been granted, however the applicant has decided not to proceed with the proposal, or where the actual cost of works undertaken has been lower than initially projected (in relation to Complying Development).

                           

Refunds can be considered under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), where an applicant seeks to modify a condition of consent with respect to an s94A levy. Notably, however, the s96 mechanism is not available for Complying Development. There are no further provisions specifically for s94A refunds under the EP&A Act.

 

The NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure practice notes (2005) substantiate that a number of decisions in the NSW Land and Environment Court

(e.g. Frevcourt Pty Ltd & Anor v Wingecarribee Shire Council) indicate that there is no express power or requirement for councils to refund s94A contributions, even in cases where there is an excess of funds after the fulfilment of the public purpose for which the contributions were made, or where development consent has lapsed. Nevertheless, the practice notes advise that councils seek legal advice if a refund is requested.

 

An initial review of other Council Section 94 Plans identifies that only 3 Councils appear have a refund policy in limited circumstances being Wollongong, Warringah and Bankstown Councils. The scenarios in question relate to when a development consent lapses or where the applicant formally surrenders the development consent. 

 

Legal Advice

Legal advice was recently sought regarding the issue of s94A contribution refunds and credits. The advice received generally concurs with the above information in that there is no legal obligation for Council to grant refunds for s94A contributions. Notwithstanding, it further recommends that should Council wish to allow refunds of s94A contributions in limited circumstances, then for the purposes of transparency, a Policy should be prepared outlining clear guidelines for when such a refund could be provided. The legal advice further states that the granting of refunds should remain discretionary and be only granted to the applicant who paid the levies in the first instance.

 

The legal advice raised a number of pertinent issues with respect to the potential for granting of credits such as the need for careful and ongoing monitoring, and timelines for credit arrangements.

 

Consideration

A report was considered by MANEX at its meeting on 31 July 2013 on the potential merits of a policy on s94A refunds. It was considered that there are valid instances where a s94A refund should be provided such as when consents are not proceeded with/surrendered, or are superseded by later consents, or where the initial costings are changed. It was considered equitable, also, to provide for refunds for Complying Development which may be similar development to that approved in DAs (for which refunds can be achieved through the s96 process).

 

Draft Policy

The draft Policy on s94A refunds (Attachment 1) provides improved accountability and transparency in Council processes by providing a consistent position to applicants

about those scenarios where a refund or partial refund may be considered by Council. These are limited to:

 

·      Where the applicant surrenders the development consent or complying development certificate and where no works have been undertaken; or

·      Where the applicant can suitably substantiate that the cost of works undertaken are lower than initially projected.

 

The draft Policy further applies a 12 month time period from the date of the granting of a construction certificate relating to a development consent or issue of complying development certificate. This ensures that s94A funds can be allocated and spent with sufficient certainty according to future Council budgets and capital works program.

 

In line with legal advice received, the Policy provides that Council will retain the discretion to approve or refuse refunds depending on the circumstances of the case. Notably full refunds of s94A levies will only be granted to the current registered land owner who paid the levies in the first instance and has surrendered the development consent or complying development certificate.  Partial refunds (where the cost of works is later corrected for Complying Development) will also only be granted to the current land owner who originally paid the levies, and must be accompanied by detailed cost summaries. The Policy provides for full or partial refunds as above and does not provide for credits.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

Direction 6a:      Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of service.

Financial impact statement

 

The policy has financial implications for Council in terms of the s94A contributions revenue (approximately $2.5- 3 million per year), however, this is likely to be minor given two refund requests to date (which are not for significant amounts being $3,000-$4,000), and proposed timeframe limitations in which to apply for a refund.

 

Further, any impacts on the pool of s94A funds available is considered to be balanced by the equitable process afforded to applicants. For example, applicants may not be

charged twice in those circumstances where the approved development does not proceed (and is superseded by another development consent) or where the actual cost of works are lower than initially projected.

 

Conclusion

 

The draft Policy on s94A refunds will facilitate accountability and transparency in Council processes by clarifying the circumstances where a refund or credit may be considered. It will also provide for equitable approaches for s94A refunds, whether applicants have lodged a DA or Complying Development application. Further, it may avoid legal action by aggrieved applicants who are unable to access potential refunds. 

 

Importantly, the proposed Policy will retain sufficient certainty for the allocation and expenditure of s94A funds, by imposing limited timeframes for when an applicant can request a refund.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

 

a)     endorse the draft Section 94 Refund Policy; and

 

b)     agree that the Director City Planning may rectify any minor numerical typographical, interpretation and formatting errors if required in finalising and printing the Policy in line with Council’s resolution above.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Draft Section 94A Refund  Policy

 

 

 

 


Draft Section 94A Refund  Policy

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Draft Section 94A Levy Refund Policy

 

 

 

Folder No: F2013/00463

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

This Policy establishes a framework to guide the application and consideration of Section 94A levy refund requests, in limited circumstances.

 

 

Policy Statement

 

A Section 94A Plan levies monetary contributions towards public facilities and infrastructure needs arising from new development. Randwick City Council has adopted this Policy in order to provide Council staff, applicants and the wider community an understanding of the procedures involved in considering refund requests for Section 94A levies paid, in a manner that is transparent and equitable to all parties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<<< Date approved>>

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

__________________________________________________________

 

This Policy sets out Randwick City Council’s procedures relating to the submission and consideration of Section 94A levy refund requests.

 

Section 94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) enables councils to levy monetary contributions for development that is likely to require the provision of, or increase the demand for public amenities and services within an area.

 

Randwick City’s Section 94A Plan applies a percentage levy (based on the cost of works) when a development consent or complying development certificate is issued. The Plan identifies a range of public services, infrastructure and amenities required to meet the demand of new development including public domain and open space improvements, and community facilities.

 

Purpose

 

The purpose of this Policy is to:

 

1)  Establish a framework for the submission and consideration of Section 94A levy refund requests.

 

2)  Ensure that the framework so established is equitable, fair and transparent.

 

3)  Recognise the importance of certainty and committed expenditure towards Council’s works program, by imposing a time limit for when a Section 94A levy refund may be requested.

 

Application 

 

This Policy applies to Section 94A levies paid on:

 

·      Development Applications

·      Complying Development Applications.

 

This Policy is not legally binding. However it is intended that the Council and applicants dealing with Section 94A levy refund requests follow this Policy to the fullest extent possible.

 

This Policy may be reviewed from time to time.

 

Note: This policy does not apply to Section 94A refunds relating to Section 96 Modifications.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ProcedureS

__________________________________________________________

 

Circumstances Where a Refund Request May Be Considered

 

A request for a refund or partial refund of levies collected under the Randwick City Section 94A Plan may only be made for S94A levies paid by the current registered land owner.

 

Refund or partial refund requests will only be considered by Council under the following circumstances:

 

·      Upon formal surrender of the relevant development consent or complying development certificate to which the contribution was applied, and where no works related to that consent or complying development certificate have been undertaken; or

 

·      Where the cost of works has been subsequently determined to be lower than initially projected in an earlier cost summary or quantity surveyor report.

 

Refund Application Requirements

 

Applications for a refund of Section 94A levy payments must be submitted within 12 months of the granting of a construction certificate relating to the development consent or the issue of complying development certificate, and must include the following information:

 

·      The address and formal particulars of the title of the land to which the development consent or complying development certificate relates.

 

·      A statement signed by the current land owner formally surrendering the development consent or complying development certificate that applied the Section 94A levy; and

 

·      A statement demonstrating that development that is subject of that consent or complying development certificate has not commenced.

 

For partial refund requests relating to complying development certificates, where the cost of works is lower than initially projected, the following information must be provided:

 

·      A statement signed by the current land owner that the cost of works is lower than initially estimated.

 

·      Documentation including the original cost summary or quantity surveyors report detailing the initial costings projected and an updated cost summary report or quantity surveyors report substantiating actual costings following completion of the works.

 

Refund requests relating to the cost of works for Development Applications, must be sought via a Section 96 modification request.

 

NOTE: Section 94A refund requests will only be granted to the current land owner.

 

 

Granting of Refunds

 

Council will consider all documentation required under this Policy and advise the proponent of the outcome in writing. Further information may be requested to enable a proper assessment of the refund request.

 

Council may approve the refund request in full or may approve a partial refund on the basis of these Policy requirements.

 

Council reserves the right to refuse an application for a Section 94A refund.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP81/13

 

 

Subject:                  Swimming Pool Inspection Program

Folder No:                   F2004/06353

Author:                   Allan Graham, Coordinator Regulatory Projects     

 

Introduction

 

Councils are required to have a Swimming Pools Inspection Program in place by the 29 October 2013.  At its Ordinary Meeting held on the 27 August 2013, Council considered the Director City Planning Report No. CP65/13 relating to the introduction of Council’s Draft Swimming Pools Inspection Program as required by the Swimming Pools Act 1992.

 

As a result of the abovementioned report Council resolved in the following terms:

 

“(Andrews/D'Souza) that:

 

a)     Council approves the Draft Swimming Pools Inspection Program, for public exhibition, and

 

b)     The Draft Swimming Pools Inspection Program is to be placed on public exhibition for a period of twenty eight (28) days.”

 

The purpose of this report is to inform the Council that the Draft Swimming Pools Inspection Program has been publicly exhibited, in accordance with the above resolution, and at the time of the preparation of this report, no submissions have been received.

 

Issues

 

Council’s Draft Swimming Pool Inspection Program (“the Draft Program”) was placed on public exhibition on the 18 September 2013 for a period of twenty eight (28) days.

 

Importantly the Swimming Pools Act 1992, requires that Council adopt its swimming pools inspection program by the 29 October 2013. This report has been prepared so as to fulfil this requirement having regard to the Council’s Meeting timetable.  The draft program was subsequently placed on public exhibition, which closes on the 16 October 2013.  Whilst Council has received a number of enquiries and applications for Certificates of Compliance, at the time that this report was prepared (10 October 2013), no written submissions from the public have been received in respect to the Draft Program.

 

However, in the event that submissions are received prior to the conclusion of the public exhibition period (16 October 2013), Council officers will prepare a ‘supplementary late report’ for the Council’s consideration at its Meeting of the 22 October 2013. 

 

In the event that no submissions are received, it is Council officers’ recommendation that the Draft Program that was before Council on the 27 August 2013, be adopted unchanged.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Livable City.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The estimated annual cost to Council for the Swimming Pools Inspection Program is expected to be approximately $60,000.00. However, the annual cost of the program may increase depending upon the demand for Certificates of Compliance, property sales, rental turn-over and the number of swimming pool inspections to be undertaken by Council officers.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has placed on public exhibition its Daft Swimming Pools Inspection Program. Up until the 10 October 2013, no submissions have been received from the public. The pubic exhibition period concludes on the 16 October 2013. Any submissions received after the 10 October 2013 will form part of a ‘supplementary late report’ to Council.

 

In the event that no submissions are received in respect to the Program, it is Council officers’ recommendation that the Draft Inspection Program approved by the Council for public exhibition at its Ordinary Meeting held on the 27 August 2013, be adopted unchanged. 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Randwick City Council, in accordance with s. 22B(1) of the Swimming Pools Act 1992, adopt as its formal Swimming Pools Draft Inspection Program the attached Draft Swimming Pools Inspection Program, and

 

b)     that Council officers, in accordance with s. 22B(4) of the Swimming Pools Act 1992, implement the Council’s adopted Swimming Pools Inspection Program.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

DRAFT Swimming Pools Inspection Program

 

 

 

 


DRAFT Swimming Pools Inspection Program

Attachment 1

 

 

Text Box: Effective Date:	DRAFT	Insert date	DRAFT
Contact Officer:  Roman Wereszczynski	Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services
TRIM Document Number:	D01820634

Text Box: DRAFT
Swimming Pools Inspection Program

 


Contents

 

1     Purpose                                                                                                  3

 

1.1  Relevant Legislation and Standards                                                     3

1.2  Background                                                                                       3

1.3  The Importance of Pool Safety                                                           4

 

2     State-wide Swimming Pool Register                                                     4

 

3     The Inspection Program                                                                        5

 

3.1  What is a Swimming Pool Certificate of Compliance?                           5

3.2  What happens if a Swimming Pool Certificate of Compliance cannot
be issued?                                                                                         5

3.3  What is the "applicable standard?"                                                      6

3.4  Types of swimming pools to be inspected every three years                6

3.5  Inspection of other types of swimming pools                                      6

3.6  Implementation of the proposed inspection program                           6

 

4     Fees                                                                                                        7

 

4.1  Registration fee                                                                                 7

4.2  Inspection fee                                                                                    8

 

5     The Role of Certifiers                                                                             8

 

6     Education and Awareness                                                                      8

 

7     Enforcement                                                                                           8

 

This document has been adopted/amended on

 

Adopted/Amended

Date

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1      Purpose

 

On the 29 October 2012, the Swimming Pools Act 1992 was amended[1] to require all NSW councils to develop and implement a Swimming Pools Inspection program.  Having regard to these amendments, section 22B of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 requires Randwick City Council to have in place a program to inspect privately owned swimming pools situated in the Randwick Local Government Area to ensure compliance with the requirements of Part 2 – Access to swimming pools - of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 (“the Act”). 

 

This program must be in place to commence implementation by 29 October 2013.  Councils are then required to inspect swimming pools in accordance with the adopted program.

 

1.1   Relevant Legislation and Standards

 

The relevant Legislation, Regulation and Standards that apply to this Swimming Pool Inspection Program include:

 

·         Swimming Pools Act 1992

·         Swimming Pools Regulations 2008

·         Swimming Pools Amendment Act 2012

·         Swimming Pools Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Regulation 2013

·         Building Code of Australia

·         Australian Standards AS1926.1

 

1.2   Introduction

 

The recent amendments to the Act introduced staged commencement provisions for the following requirements:

 

(a)   to establish a State-wide on line register of all private swimming pools in NSW to require that pool owners self-register, free of charge, and certify to the best of their knowledge their pool complies with the relevant requirements (commenced on the 29 April 2013);

 

(b)   to require that councils develop and adopt a locally appropriate and affordable inspection program in consultation with their communities (to be adopted by Council by the 29 October 2013);

 

(c)    to require that councils conduct mandatory periodic inspections of pools associated with tourist and visitor accommodation and multi-dwelling properties (mandatory inspections to be conducted from the 29 October 2013); and

 

(d)   to amend the Conveyancing and Residential Tenancy legislation to require that vendors and landlords have a valid swimming pool compliance certificate before they may offer the property for sale or lease (commences on the 29 April 2014).

 

Relevantly, the Act requires that Council must conduct inspections every three years of swimming pools associated with tourist and visitor accommodation, as well as properties that contain more than two (2) dwellings (i.e. includes pools in hotels, motels, serviced apartments, backpacker accommodation, residential flat buildings and dual occupancies).

 

Council is also required to develop, in consultation with the community, a program regarding the inspection of all other privately owned swimming pools in the City of Randwick.

 

1.3   The Importance of Pool Safety

 

Private swimming pools offer additional social amenity to properties upon which they are situated.  With this, however, comes a statutory obligation to maintain the pool in a safe and compliant condition.

 

The regulatory regime for pools situated on privately owned property has been the subject of ongoing legislative review and reform for the last decade.  This reform has been as a result of an increase in infant and toddler injuries and fatalities that have occurred, predominantly, in backyard swimming pools. 

 

Children 4 years of age and under are the most vulnerable.  They are completely dependent on their parents or carers for their safety.  The personal and social cost associated with the death of a child is enormous and cannot be adequately described.  The death of a young child in circumstances that could have been prevented is a tragedy for all.

 

The NSW State Coroner has made recommendations to the NSW Government on a number of occasions for a mandatory pool inspection program requiring an ongoing inspection regime to assess statutory swimming pool safety barrier compliance.  This has been endorsed by organisations such as Royal Life Saving Society, Australian Resuscitation Council, Westmead Children’s Hospital - Kids Safe, NSW Commission for Children and Young Adults.

 

In his commentary the Coroner said:

 

“I have no doubt that the children involved in this inquest, if they were able to have their say, would ask that all efforts be taken to ensure that the numbers of children who follow them be reduced.  The loss of even one innocent life is too many.” [2]

 

A local council swimming pool inspection program aims to increase the level of compliant swimming pool barriers.  Along with an effective pool barrier, the most critical element in reducing children drowning in backyard swimming pools is constant adult supervision of young children when at properties with swimming pools.  

 

2      State-wide Swimming Pool Register

The NSW Division of Local Government, in accordance with the Act, has introduced an “on-line” State-wide Swimming Pool Register.

Swimming pool owners are required to register their pools on the State-wide Register before the 29 October 2013.  A pool owner who fails to register their pool prior to the 29 October 2013 is guilty of an offence which attracts a maximum penalty of $220.

A swimming pool compliance Self Assessment forms part of the online registration process and can be completed by the pool owner.  Councils are provided access to the State Swimming Pools Register which will be used to assist with the administration of councils’ swimming pools inspection programs.

 

3      The Inspection Program

 

The primary aim of a swimming pools inspection program is to increase the levels of swimming pool barrier compliance.  Research into drowning prevention in backyard swimming pools conducted over many years evidences that a compliant pool barrier and, more critically, constant adult supervision provide the greatest prevention against children drowning in private swimming pools.  Research also suggests that the non-compliant swimming pool barrier rate is around 50%.  However, based on feedback from other councils and recent inspections of properties with a swimming pool by Council officers, it is expected that the non-compliance rate may be much higher.

 

From October 2013 all councils across New South Wales are required to have in place a program for the inspection of privately owned swimming pools.  The purpose of inspections is to assess whether or not pool barriers comply with relevant pool safety requirements.  Where a swimming pool complies with these requirements, a Certificate of Compliance is required to be issued which remains valid for a period of three (3) years.

 

Council’s swimming pool inspections will be carried out by Council officers (i.e. Building Surveyors and Compliance Officers) duly authorised by the General Manager in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992.  

 

3.1   What is a Pool Certificate of Compliance?

 

Under the Act a swimming pool ‘Certificate of Compliance’ is issued once a pool has been inspected against the relevant pool safety requirements.  A Certificate of Compliance is valid for three years.  A swimming pool may be inspected more frequently than three years if a complaint has been received with respect to pool safety or there is good reason to suspect the pool no longer complies with the statutory swimming pool safety requirements

 

 

 

 

3.2   What happens if a Pool Certificate of Compliance cannot be issued?

 

A Certificate of Compliance cannot be issued if the swimming pool to which it relates does not comply with the requirements of Part 2 of the Act.  In these circumstances Council or an accredited certifier are able to issue a notice specifying the works required to be undertaken to bring the swimming pool into compliance with the Act.  If the works are not undertaken and the swimming pool remains in a non-compliant condition Council may take regulatory action as provided for by the Act, which includes the issuing of Penalty Notices and/or giving an s. 23 Direction or, commencing Court proceedings.

 

3.3   What is the “applicable standard” that applies?

 

A swimming pool must comply with Part 2 of the Act.  In general terms, this means that access to the swimming pool must be restricted by a compliant child-resistant barrier.

 

It is important to recognise that swimming pool barrier “standards” have changed a number of times since the Act commenced in 1992.  In certain circumstances a swimming pool may not be required to comply with today’s pool safety standards depending on when the pool was built and if and when the pool barrier was substantially altered or rebuilt.  

 

The rules that determine what pool barrier standards apply are complex and can only be determined on a “pool-by-pool” basis.  For example, a swimming pool if constructed or installed before 1 August 1990, may not require full isolation fencing, whereas a pool constructed presently would require to be fully isolated from other buildings on the property.

 

3.4   Types of swimming pools to be inspected every three years

 

The Act requires properties with swimming pools that are tourist and visitor accommodation or that contain more than 2 dwellings (includes hotels, motels, serviced apartments, backpacker accommodation, residential flat buildings and dual occupancies) to be inspected every three (3) years.  Council’s swimming pools inspection program must include the inspection of swimming pools on these properties.

 

 

3.5   Inspection of other private swimming pools

 

From 29 April 2014 all properties with a swimming pool being sold or leased must have a current swimming pool Certificate of Compliance.  Where a property with a swimming pool is being sold or leased, the property owner must request an inspection and comply with the requirements of the inspection before a Pool Certificate of Compliance can be issued.

 

It is estimated that under these requirements Council may be required to inspect up to 300 swimming pools annually.

 

 

 

3.6   Implementation of a proposed inspection program

 

It is estimated that there are in excess of 3,500 pools located within the boundaries of the Randwick Local Government Area.

 

A risk-based implementation of the inspection program is proposed to be developed in order to improve the levels of compliance relating to swimming pool fencing and to satisfy Council’s obligations under the Act. 

 

The proposed inspection program will consist of a mandatory component and a pro-active component.

 

(a)   Mandatory three year inspection regime required to commence from the 29 October 2013, for pools situated on land used for tourist and visitor accommodation, residential flat buildings and dual occupancies.

 

(b)   Mandatory inspections to commence from the 29 April 2014, for pools on properties that are being sold or leased that are subject to an application to Council for a Certificate of Compliance as prescribed for by the Conveyancing (Sale of Land) Regulation 2010 and the Residential Tenancies Regulation 2010.

 

(c)    Swimming pools that have been identified as potentially having non-compliant barriers (e.g. via an external referral from an accredited certifier or complaint from a member of the public or other inspection undertaken by an authorised Council officer)

 

(d)   Swimming pools on properties for which an application has been made to Council for a Building Certificate (made pursuant to s. 149A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)

 

(e)   Upon receipt of an application by the owner for an inspection and Certificate of Compliance

 

Subject to operational and resource constraints the following criteria could be used as an inspection priority for other private swimming pools in the area:

 

·         Swimming Pools that have an “exemption” pursuant to s. 22 of the Act[3]

 

·         Swimming pools constructed or installed before the 1 August 1990

 

·         Swimming pools constructed or installed after the 1 August 1990

 

The above inspection program does not apply to swimming pools the subject of an Occupation Certificate or a Swimming Pool Certificate of Compliance that has been issued within the past three (3) years.

 

Council’s Swimming Pool Inspection Program will be based on the properties identified in the NSW Swimming Pool Register as having a swimming pool or spa pool upon the property.

 

4      Fees

 

4.1   Registration Fee

 

All privately owned swimming pools must be registered on the State-wide Swimming Pool Register as prescribed by Part 3A of the Act.

 

A pool owner (or agent) who registers their pool on the on-line State-wide Swimming Register under Part 3A of the Act does so free of charge.

 

The Swimming Pool Regulation 2008 (amended in April 2013) prescribes that a maximum fee of $10 is payable where a pool owner requests Council to register the swimming pool on State-wide Swimming Pool Register.  The charging of this fee is at the discretion of Council.

 

4.2   Inspection Fee

 

A pool inspection fee applies for conducting inspections under the pool inspection program.  The Swimming Pool Regulation 2008 (April 2013) prescribes a maximum initial inspection fee of $150 is payable and a second inspection fee of $100 is payable.  No further inspection fee may be charged for any subsequent inspection (e.g. no charge for the second or third re-inspection or more).

 

The inspection fee includes the issue of a Certificate of Compliance if the pool complies with the relevant pool safety standards.

 

The initial fee is payable within twenty-one (21) days of the inspection with a subsequent inspection fee (one fee covers all subsequent re-inspections) payable at the time of the first reinspection.

 

5      The role of private certifiers

 

The Act provides that a pool owner may apply to an accredited certifier to provide a Certificate of Compliance for the swimming pool.  Accredited certifiers may set their own fees.  Once inspected, if the pool does not meet the applicable standard, the accredited certifier may allow a pool owner 6 weeks to rectify the deficiencies before advising Council.  If the pool is considered to be a significant public hazard the certifier may notify council immediately.  Upon notification, Council may commence compliance action (e.g. undertake an inspection and issue a direction/order or Penalty Notice).

 

6      Education and Awareness

 

Pool owner education and awareness is an important contributing factor in lifting swimming pool safety compliance rates.

 

An on-going community education and awareness program will be delivered through community publications, media releases, web based information, owner self-assessment checklists and interaction with Council officers during the inspection cycle.  The importance of pool barrier maintenance and adult supervision are the core pool safety messages.

 

The overall rate of pool barrier compliance is expected to progressively rise as a result of the inspection program and as a result of greater community awareness of swimming pool safety requirements.

 

7      Enforcement

 

In addition to pool safety education and awareness, the enforcement of pool safety laws is an essential element in addressing non-compliant pool fencing.  In this regard, the Act provides Council’s authorised offices powers of entry and the power to give “notices” and “directions” to require swimming pool safety work to be carried out.

 

The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales has jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions of Council in respect to the following:

 

(a)   refusal to grant an exemption under section 22 in accordance with the terms of the relevant application;

 

(b)   imposition of a condition on an exemption under section 22;

 

(c)    refusal to grant a certificate of compliance under section 22D;

 

(d)   issue of a direction under section 23.

 

Such an appeal must be made within 28 days after the date on which the decision was made or is taken to have been made.

 

8      Offences and Penalties

 

The Act provides that failing to comply with swimming pool safety requirements may constitute an offence under the Act.  In addition to the authority to issue notices and directions to undertake specific work to comply with the requirements of the Act or Standards, Council’s authorised officers have the power to issue a Penalty Notice for certain offences.  The Act also confers jurisdiction on the Local Court to hear and dispose of proceedings brought by Council for offences against the Act.

 

The following Table describes the offences and corresponding penalty amounts under the Act.

 

Offence under the Act

Penalty Notice

(issued by

Council)

 

Court Maximum penalty

 

Section 7 (1): Failure to comply with general requirements for outdoor pools associated with dwelling

 

$550

 

50 penalty units = $5,500

 

Section 12: Failure to comply with general requirements for outdoor pools associated with movable dwelling and tourist and visitor accommodation

 

$550

 

50 penalty units = $5,500

 

Section 14: Failure to comply with general requirements for indoor pools

 

$550

 

50 penalty units = $5,500

 

Section 15 (1): Failure to maintain child-resistant barrier

 

$550

 

50 penalty units = $5,500

 

Section 16: Failure of Occupier to keep access to pool securely closed

 

$550

 

50 penalty units = $5,500

 

Section 17 (1): Failure to display or maintain prescribed warning notice near pool

 

$110

 

5  penalty units = $550

 

Section 23 (3): Failure to comply with direction (pool safety order)

 

$550

 

 

50 penalty units = $5,500

 

Section 30B (1): Failure to register a pool

 

$220

 

20 penalty units = $2,200

 

This inspection program does not prevent Council from issuing a Penalty Notice or commencing proceeding for offences against the Act in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and the civil enforcement and prosecution principles contained in Council’s Enforcement Policy.

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM22/13

 

 

Subject:                  Randwick City Council 2012-13 Annual Report

Folder No:                   F2012/00177

Author:                   Renee  Saville, Coordinator Integrated Planning & Knowledge Management     

 

Introduction

 

The 2012-13 Randwick City Council Annual Report has been prepared as per the requirements of the Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009. The report details Council’s operating and financial position as at June 2013 and includes the supplementary State of the Environment report.

 

The Council must prepare and publish an Annual Report by November 30 each year and must include the Audited Financial Reports. The Audited Financial Reports were presented separately to Council on 17 September 2013.

 

Issues

 

The 2012-13 Randwick City Council Annual Report details Council’s financial and operational position for the year ending June 2013.

 

Since the adoption of the 20 year Randwick City Plan, Council has demonstrated a strong commitment and continuous improvement approach to integrated planning. In line with this approach, the Annual Report 2012-13 is organised according to the Randwick City Plan themes and outcomes. This provides accountability to our community regarding the implementation of the 20 year Plan.

 

The Annual Report is one of the key accountability mechanisms between council and the community. It is a report to the community about meeting our objectives as set out in the Randwick City Plan themes:

 

·      Responsible management

·      A sense of community

·      Places for people

·      A prospering City

·      Moving around

·      Looking after our environment.

 

The City Plan themes help shape the community’s vision of building ‘a sense of community’ and are achieving this by - “Working together to enhance our environment, celebrate our heritage and to value and serve our diverse community”. 

 

State of the Environment Report

 

The supplementary State of the Environment (SoE) report is prepared in accordance with Section 428A of the Local Government Act 1993 and is prepared in conjunction with the Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines as described under Section 406 of the same Act.

 

The key element required of Council in the preparation of the supplementary SoE report, is to report against the environmental objectives identified in Council’s 20 year City Plan.

 

The objectives of Council’s 2012-13 comprehensive SoE report align directly with the six environmental objectives (10a to 10f) adopted by Council within Outcome 10, A Healthy Environment.

 

The environmental indicators are represented in datasets reported under each of these objectives:

 

·      10a – Council’s programs and partnerships foster sustainable behavioural changes and outcomes

·      10b – Policies and programs are developed and implemented in response to environmental risks and their potential impacts

·      10c – Bushland, open spaces and biodiversity are protected and enhanced for future generations

·      10d – Waste is managed sustainably to ensure highest level of resource recovery

·      10e – A total water cycle management approach including water conservation, re-use and water quality improvements is adopted

·      10f – Energy conservation and efficiency programs are implemented.

 

The supplementary SoE intends to update changes across the environmental indicators over the 12 month period since the last report.

A summary is also provided for each of the environmental objectives in the form of traffic light symbols with three of these traffic lights available for each objective.

 

The first traffic light indicates the overall trend for the environmental objective reported. The second traffic light indicates the reliability of the data available for the indicators used for this SoE report. The third traffic light indicates the adequacy or effectiveness of Randwick’s response in relation to the environmental objective reported.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship to the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability.

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

Direction 1b:      Council is a leader in the delivery of social, financial and operational activities.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Council reported an $11.827 million operating surplus for the 2012-13 financial year, maintaining our sound financial position.

 

Conclusion

 

The Randwick City Council Annual Report 2012-13 meets the stipulated statutory requirements. The report provides a detailed analysis of Council’s achievements and financial performance over the previous year. The report allows a range of stakeholders to evaluate and assess the strong social, financial and operational position of the organisation.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the Randwick City Council Annual Report 2012-13, be received and noted;

 

b)     the General Manager be authorised to make any minor changes if required; and

 

c)     a copy of the Annual Report be submitted to the Chief Executive, Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Randwick City Council 2012-13 Annual Report

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

   


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF54/13

 

 

Subject:                  2012-13 Disclosure of Interests Returns

Folder No:                   F2013/00237

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

The Local Government Act requires Councillors and designated staff to lodge Disclosure of Interest Returns in accordance with Section 449 of the Local Government Act.  Section 450(A) of the Act requires the General Manager to keep a Resister of Returns and to table Returns at the first Council meeting after the last date for lodgement (30 September 2013 ).

 

Issues

 

In tabling the Register of Returns for 2012-13, I report that all Councillors and designated staff have submitted their duly completed returns within the prescribed timeframe.

 

Anyone is entitled to inspect the ‘Returns of the Interests of Councillors, designated persons and delegates’ under Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.

 

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 necessary for the Disclosure of Interests Returns (for the period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013) to be tabled at this Council Meeting for the purpose of legislative compliance.

 

Recommendation

 

That it be noted that the Register of Disclosure of Interests Returns for 2012-13 has been tabled at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 22 October 2013.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF55/13

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - September 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 – September 2013” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of September 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 $63 thousand during September 2013. The increase is representative of a positive cash flow for the month as income exceeded expenditure.

 

The liquidation of the Blackrock Care & Maintenance Fund was largely completed this month. There was a reduction in the capital value of the fund of $93,475.66 that was offset by an income distribution (interest payment) of $103,205.83.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

The above graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio for the period September 2007 to September 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 September 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 September 2007 to September 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 5.77% compared with the benchmark index of 2.79%. The spike in the portfolio return is the result of the income distribution from Blackrock Care & Maintenance Fund.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate at the end of September was 2.50%. The cash rate remained unchanged at 2.50% at the meeting of 1 October 2013.

 

Credit Quality of Portfolio

 

The credit quality of the portfolio is of very high quality with approximately 92% of assets rated “A” or better. The 8% allocation to “BBB” reflects the short-dated term deposits with regional banks. 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%

6%

94%

AA

100%

39%

61%

A

60%

47%

13%

BBB

20%

8%

12%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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

135

4,186

 

 

The liquidation of The Blackrock Care & Maintenance Fund (CMF) has largely been completed. Council received a capital redemption of $1,445,790.04 and a income distribution of $103,205.83. Total realised proceeds amounting to $1,548,995.87. A small residual tax component remains in the CMF which Blackrock have indicated will be distributed in October.

 

Council’s decision to elect the CMF strategy as opposed to liquidating during the global financial crisis (GFC) has proven to be very favourable, returning above 7.5% p.a since inception approximately 5 years ago.

 

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 $4,660.45 bringing the book value to $3,001,699.55.

 

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 30 September 2013 amounted to $742,968.91


Following is the detailed Investment Report – September 2013:

 
Conclusion

 

All investments as at 30 September 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 September 2013 be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM88/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Long-Bay Correctional Facility site

Folder No:                   F2008/00506

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward     

 

 

That council write to the NSW Attorney-General, the Hon. Greg Smith MP, requesting that the State Government investigate the feasibility of closing the Long Bay Correctional Facility and re-zoning the land for the purposes of high-quality, low density residential housing.( ie. town houses and single/double-storey dwellings). As part of this request, council request that any rezoning incorporate provision of critical

community infrastructure and facilities, such as child-care centers and a new school, and with all heritage-listed buildings being adaptively re-used.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM89/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Proposed ANZAC dawn service - Coogee Beach

Folder No:                   F2004/07075

Submitted by:          Councillor Garcia, South Ward     

 

 

That Council (in conjunction with local RSL sub-branches and other interested community groups) examine the possibility of an ANZAC dawn service at Coogee Beach.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM90/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Folder No:                   F2008/00363

Submitted by:          Councillor Garcia, South Ward     

 

That Council:

 

a)     note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have found    that sea levels could be expected to rise by up to 80cm by the end of the century;

 

b)     note that in 2011 Waverley Council received a report from WorleyParsons         entitled the 'Coastal Risks and Hazards Vulnerability Study' (the Report) that examined the coastal hazards and climate change vulnerability of the beaches         and cliffs of Waverley Council;

 

c)     note that the Report made a number of recommendations for the mitigation of   identified risks; and

 

d      examine the possible effects on Randwick City's coastal areas of expected rises        in sea levels reported in the latest IPCC report and ways in which those risks      might be mitigated.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM91/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Seng - Safety of School Children

Folder No:                   F2007/00187

Submitted by:          Councillor Seng, Central Ward     

 

 

That Randwick City Council:

 

a)     note that many school children are exposed to road related risks when they cross the roads, on school excursions, field trips and other outings from school grounds;

 

b)     note that an organisation called Safety Kids Australia has a proposal to address the above issue by providing safety vests to all primary schools;

 

c)     resolve that the General Manager be asked to provide a report on the proposal from Safety Kids Australia with appropriate recommendations.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM92/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Safety of residents on Halloween

Folder No:                   F2004/08338

Submitted by:          Councillor Garcia, South Ward     

 

 

That Council:    

a)     note that Halloween is held on 31 October;


b)     note that an increasing number of residents including local children and young   adults participate in Halloween activities whether that be 'trick or treating' or        Halloween parties;

 

c)     note there are a number of simple precautions residents can take to ensure they enjoy Halloween safely including, for example, ensuring children are accompanied when they go trick or treating, and that children's costumes are appropriate for the local climate;


d)     use its media channels to communicate safe Halloween tips; and


e)     calls for a report to be brought back to Council on recommendations Council     may wish to consider to ensure the safety of residents on Halloween.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM93/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Aged Care Safety - Garbage Bin Access

Folder No:                   F2004/06275

Submitted by:          Councillor Bowen, East Ward     

 

 

That Council notes recent reports from Royal North Shore Hospital of increased risk of hand and wrist injury to elderly persons as a consequence of accidents when maneuvering mobile garbage bins (wheely bins) and that Council review it's operations in order to minimise the risk of any such injury to residents in Randwick. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM94/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Kokoda Park Memorial Flagpole

Folder No:                   F2011/00199

Submitted by:          Councillor Moore, West Ward     

 

That Council continue to support the memorial within Kokoda Park through

 

a)     the provision of a temporary flagpole for the forthcoming Remembrance Day ceremony and the ANZAC ceremony conducted by the Kensington Sub-Branch of the RSL;

 

b)     engaging with the Kensington Sub-Branch for their requirements for the establishment of a permanent flagpole(s) arrangement at the memorial be that a continuation of the temporary or a fixed solution; and

 

c)     a report to Council outlining a suitable proposal for a permanent flagpole solution with consideration for funding be given to either current year budget or, if not feasible, inclusion in the budget for 2014-15.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 October 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM95/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson - Proposed new planning laws

Folder No:                   F2011/00542

Submitted by:          Councillor Neilson, North Ward     

 

 

That:

 

a)     Council note that at the recent Local Government conference it was resolved to call upon the state government to carry out a major rewrite of the proposed new planning laws (the Planning White Paper) including:

 

1.     Community participation at all stages of planning

2.     Councils given equal status as the minister in planning decisions

3.     Triple bottom line outcomes for planning decisions

4.     No rewriting of a council LEP less than 10 years old, and

5.    No strategic compatibility certificates by the Department of Planning   allowing development to override zonings.

 

b)     Randwick Council endorse the above position of the Local Government conference and write to the State Government advising of this resolution and requesting they acknowledge and support the position of the Council.

 

 

 

 

 

     

 



[1] The Swimming Pools Amendment Act 2012, which commenced on the 29 October 2012, is an Act to amend the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and other legislation with respect to the registration, inspection and certification of swimming pools; and for other purposes.

[2] State Coroner’s Report, delivered 30 April 2010 – Inquest touching deaths of 8 Children who drowned in backyard swimming pools between June 2006 & January 2009.

     [3]  S. 22 of the Act provides that Council may, on application by a pool owner, grant an exemption to comply the with pool barrier requirements where is impracticable or unreasonable (because of the physical nature of the premises, because of the design or construction of the swimming pool or because of special circumstances of a kind recognised by the regulations as justifying the granting of an exemption) for the swimming pool to comply with those requirements, or where an alternative provision, no less effective than those requirements, exists for restricting access to the swimming pool.