Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 26 November 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                                                                                             26 November 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, 26 November 2013 at 6:00 p.m..

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

We humbly beseech you to bestow your blessings upon this Council and to direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of your glory and the true welfare of the people of Randwick and Australia.

Amen”

 

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

I would like to acknowledge that we are here today on the land of the Bidjigal people of the Dharwahal Nation.  The Bidjigal people are the traditional owners and custodians of this land and form part of the wider aboriginal nations of the Sydney area.  On behalf of Randwick City Council I would also like to acknowledge and pay my respects to the Elders both past and present.”

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 22 October 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.

CP82/13    40 Arden Street, Clovelly (DA/616/2013)................................................. 1

CP83/13    40 Earl Street , Randwick (DA/544/2011/D)............................................... 7

CP84/13    2-8 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/148/2013)......................................... 13

CP85/13    1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville (DA/994/2011/A)...................................... 35

CP86/13    1 Dampier Street, Chifley (DA/348/2013)................................................ 47

CP87/13    10-20 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/161/2011/B)................................... 59

CP88/13    65-71 Belmore Road, Randwick (DA/606/2011/B)...................................... 63

CP89/13    30 Carr Street, Coogee (DA/236/2013).................................................. 71

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP90/13    330 Anzac Parade, Kensington - JRPP (DA/748/2011/B)............................. 87

CP91/13    The Spot Festival - Licence for Spot Festival Bar..................................... 89

CP92/13    Randwick Environment Park final draft Plan of Management........................ 93

CP93/13    Randwick Community Centre Draft Final Plan of Management.................... 101

CP94/13    Community Health Programs Addressing Suicide Prevention....................... 107

CP95/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Child Welfare programs....................... 111

General Manager's Report

GM23/13    Review of the 2013-14 Annual Operational Plan – September Quarterly Report 115

Director City Services Report

CS14/13    Supporting "Sense of Community" Street Parties.................................... 117

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF60/13    Kensington Bowling Club - Future Use & Occupation................................ 121

GF61/13    Contingency Fund and Funding of Capital Works for other Organisations..... 129

GF62/13    Quarterly Budget Review - September 2013.......................................... 131

GF63/13    Investment Report - October 2013...................................................... 133

GF64/13    Arrangements During Christmas/New Year Period for Decision Making and Schedule of Meetings for 2014............................................................................ 141

GF65/13    Council operating hours - Christmas and New Year 2013-14..................... 145

GF66/13    Affixing of the Council Seal - 627R Bunnerong Road, Matraville.................. 149

GF67/13    Withdrawal of Caveat and Affixing of the Council Seal............................. 153  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM96/13    Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Centenary of Maroubra Junction Public School      159

NM97/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Proposed Car Free Days....................... 161

NM98/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Ausgrid Maintenance Program................ 163

NM99/13    Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Child Care Centre Procedures................ 165

NM100/13  Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Review of the future for the Kensington & Kingsford Town Centres.................................................................................. 167

NM101/13  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Celebrating Cultural Diversity in Randwick City    169

NM102/13  Notice of Motion from Cr Andrews - Proposed Roundabout - Paine Street & Walsh Avenue, Maroubra............................................................................ 171

NM103/13  Notice of Motion from Crs Andrews & Stavrinos - Traffic safety measures at St Spyridons College, Maroubra............................................................................ 173

NM104/13  Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - Leachate from Malabar Headland Land Fill 175

NM105/13  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Possible replacing of Coogee Bay Road/Mount Street roundabout with traffic lights............................................................. 177

NM106/13  Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson - Improved equipment for the disabled at the Des Renford Leisure Centre...................................................................... 179

NM107/13  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Support for a market based system for setting a price on carbon....................................................................................... 181

NM108/13  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Non restrictive response to public expressions made through chalking.............................................................................. 183

NM109/13  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Additional funding for Coogee Community Garden   185

NM110/13  Notice of Motion from Cr Smith - Proposed Cycle Path - Centennial Park to Clovelly Beach.................................................................................................... 187

NM111/13  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Preserving Randwick's drinking water..... 189

NM112/13  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Possible pedestrian crossing on Carr Street near Barker Park..................................................................................... 191

NM113/13  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Response to Planning Bill 2013.............. 193

NM114/13  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Review of Council's outdoor dining fees and charges.................................................................................................... 195

NM115/13  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Coogee Bay Road Upgrade.................. 197

NM116/13  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Angle parking at Dolphin Street, Coogee 199  

Closed Session

GF68/13    23-27 Adina Avenue, Phillip Bay - Sale

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                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP82/13

 

 

Subject:                  40 Arden Street, Clovelly (DA/616/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/616/2013

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen     

 

Proposal:                     Ground level alterations and additions to the existing childcare centre which caters for children aged 0-3 years, including upgrade of laundry, reconfiguration of bathrooms and staffroom, alteration to main entry and provision of an accessible path of travel

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Randwick City Council

Owner:                         Randwick City Council

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application is referred to Council as it relates to a child care centre, which is under the care, control and management of Randwick City Council and Council is the applicant. The assessment of the application has been undertaken by Plandev Urban Planning Consultants.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is for upgrade works to the existing child care facility involving:

·         alterations to the layout of the existing laundry to accommodate:

-       3 x washing machines;

-       linen cupboards;

-       broom cupboard;

-       dryer;

-       sinks; and

-       access from the adjacent children’s bathrooms.

 

·         alterations to the layout of the bathrooms to accommodate:

-       new toilet suites/pans;

-       new wall and floor tiles;

-       vision panels between rooms;

-       storage cupboards above basin areas;

-       external access and access from play areas; and

-       installation of nappy change benches to both play area.

 

·         alterations to the existing accessible/disabled toilets and shower area to comply with AS1428.1: Design for Access and Mobility (2009).

 

·         alterations to new and any affected parts of the building to comply with AS1428.1: Design for Access and Mobility (2009) including:

-       the access ramp at the main entry;

-       the hallway and staff corridor;

-       the laundry from the staff room; and

-       the play areas to the children’s toilets.

 

Site and surrounds

 

The site is located on the south-western corner of Arden Street and Brandon Street, Clovelly. The site contains a range of community facilities including the Clovelly Child Care Centre (the Centre) which accommodates 30 children from 0-3 years (the subject of this DA). The subject building is a modern single storey brick and weatherboard clad with a pitched metal roof.

 

The scout hall located south-west of the subject building accommodates 25 children from 3-5 years.

 

The Centre is licenced for a total of 55 children a day and caters for 90 children over the course of a week. The Centre is a non-profit community based service. A maximum of 15 staff are employed by the Centre.

 

The Centre operates from 8:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday.

 

Vehicular and pedestrian access to the building is from Brandon Street, via a 3m wide driveway. There are 10 off-street parking spaces available.

 

The site also contains a Senior Citizens Centre and a Baby Health Centre.

The surrounding area is predominantly residential comprising single and two storey dwelling houses. Brandon Street and Arden Street provide separation to neighbouring residences to the north and east. The western (rear) boundary adjoins a residential property at No. 1 Brandon Street.

 

Submissions

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

 

Key Issues

Equitable Access

The Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standards 2010 (the Premises Standards) commenced on 1 May 2011. The Premises Standards apply to the construction of new buildings and new parts of existing buildings. Any application seeking approval for an upgrade of an existing building on or after that date triggers the application of the Premises Standards.

 

Unlike the Building Code of Australia (BCA), the Premises Standards also apply to a specified path of travel in an existing building (the ‘affected part’) and require a mandatory upgrade where that part does not comply with the Premises Standards.

 

The proposed alterations will ensure the affected parts of the building comply with the Premises Standard. The changes are shown on the architectural drawings submitted with the application.

 

An accessible path of travel is currently available from Brandon Street to the main entry of the Centre. The entry door width complies with the Premises Standard however the access ramp is required to comply with the Premises Standard. There is an accessible path of travel throughout the building to the external play area but they need upgrading to comply with the Premises Standard. The existing accessible toilets, laundry and shower will also need to be upgraded to comply with the Premises Standard. The detailed design of these upgrade works will be provided as part of the Construction Certificate (CC) stage.

 

The proposed building is also required to comply with the BCA. The details of compliance with the BCA will be provided at the CC stage.

 

The proposed alterations will provide better accessibility throughout the building with wider door widths and circulation space. The improvements will enhance the function and services of the Centre. The proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of equitable access.

                                                                                                           

Asbestos

An asbestos survey of the existing buildings and a risk assessment was undertaken by Parsons Brinckerhoff in June 2010.

 

The following asbestos containing materials (ACMs) were identified during the inspection:

 

-      asbestos cement sheet linings surrounding the joey’s room buildings (existing scout hall southwest of the subject building); and

-      presumed asbestos containing electrical backing board within the Pugles Room entry patio (the subject building).

 

The ACMs identified were generally in good condition at the time of the survey. It was recommended that if the works proposed could damage the materials then they should be removed in advance. If their condition deteriorates or they suffer some damage then they should be replaced or repaired. The report also recommends a full access, intrusive asbestos survey be conducted prior to the commencement of any demolition or major refurbishment work.

 

It is recommended that standard conditions in relation to asbestos removal and management are imposed on any consent.

 

Residential Amenity

The proposed building works are largely internal and not visible from adjoining streets or properties. The additional floorspace required to enlarge the existing laundry and toilet facilities equates to 9m2.

 

There will be no change to the number of staff or licenced children at the Centre and no additional traffic or pedestrian movements to and from the site as a result of the proposed upgrade works.

 

Also, the approved hours of operation will not change.

 

Given the minor nature of the proposal there will be no adverse impact to the surrounding residential area.

 

Education and Care Services National Regulations

In 2012 the Australian Government established a national framework to ensure a high quality standard for early childhood education and care.

 

The proposed alterations and upgrade works are required to comply with Part 4.3 Physical Environment of the National Regulations.

 

Part 4.3 sets out requirements in relation to the physical layout of centres including laundry and hygiene facilities, indoor and outdoor space, ventilation, natural light, furniture and equipment. The Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the application addresses the relevant requirements in Part 4.3 of the National Regulations. The proposed changes will comply with the relevant requirements in the National Regulations.

  

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 alterations are largely internal to the building and will not have any adverse impact on the surrounding residential area given they are minor in nature and the use of the Centre in terms of staff and capacity will not change.

 

The proposed alterations will provide the Centre with a more efficient layout and enhance its function and services to the community.

 

The proposed upgrade works will also ensure it complies with the Premises Standards resulting in better access and facilities for disabled persons.

 

The proposal is therefore suitable for approval subject to standard 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. 616/2013 for ground level alterations and additions to the existing childcare centre including upgrade of laundry, reconfiguration of bathrooms and staffroom, alteration to main entry and provision of an accessible path of travel at No. 40 Arden Street, Clovelly, subject to the conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 40 Arden Street, Clovelly

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP83/13

 

 

Subject:                  40 Earl Street, Randwick (DA/544/2011/D)

Folder No:                   DA/544/2011/D

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 (2) modification to approved development to relocate stairs externally with privacy screening, deletion of pergola and altering size of openings in eastern elevation of building

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                S Clark and C Loneragan

Owner:                         S Clark and C Loneragan

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

This application seeks consent to modify the approved development to delete the pergola in front of the garage/studio, delete an approved internal staircase and install an external staircase with screen to the landing to provide access to the studio/loft and modify the windows and doors to the ground level of the building to accommodate the external staircase.

 

Site

 

The site is on the western side of Earl Street Randwick and contains a dwelling which forms half of a pair of semi detached dwellings. The locality is primarily residential in nature and contains a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings. The site has a frontage of 6.57m to Earl Street, a site area of 271m² and has rear lane access to Earl Lane. The locality is within the North Randwick Conservation area.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Submission

Comment

38 and 42 Earl Street Randwick

-The external stairs will enable overlooking into their clients properties from all points of the stair regardless of the screening to the landing.

 

 

 

-The external stairs do not meet the objectives of Visual Privacy in the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

-The provision of planting is not considered appropriate screening.

 

 

 

 

-The applicant already has existing internal access through the garage which will not affect the neighbour’s amenity.

 

 

 

-If approval is granted to the application a fixed privacy screen of a minimum of 85% opaqueness must be built to the whole balustrade with a height of 1.8, parallel with the angle of the balustrade.

 

 

The proposed stairs are of conventional design and will provide access only to the upper level with the width of the stairwell and size of the landing not allowing residents to sit or gather as may occur on an upper level deck or balcony.

 

The Randwick Comprehensive DCP refers to habitable rooms, balconies, terraces or decks. The Randwick Comprehensive DCP does not refer to access stairs to upper levels. It is also noted that this stair is to the building only and not to any external balcony or deck off the upper level of a building.

 

The application includes a fixed privacy screen to the landing, a condition of consent is recommended to ensure that the privacy screen is of satisfactory design.

 

The original DA was approved with internal stairs. The existing stair that the objector is referring to is to allow temporary access to the first floor level and does not form part of the original approval or proposed modification.

 

A condition of consent is recommended to require that the privacy screen comply with the controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Privacy

Part 5.3 of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 provides the following objectives relating visual privacy:

 

·           To ensure a high level of amenity by providing for reasonable level of visual privacy for dwellings and neighbouring properties.

 

·           To ensure new development is designed so that its occupants enjoy visual and acoustic privacy, whilst maintaining the existing level of privacy of adjoining and nearby properties.

 

The main issue for consideration of impacts to the amenity of the adjoining properties is privacy. The proposed external staircase provides access to the upper level studio of the building, which was previously provided by an internal staircase from the ground level garage.

 

The staircase is 1m in width and includes a 1m wide x 1.2m long landing at the top of the stair for access to the new external door. The width and dimensions of the stair and landing are such that will not allow for the congregation of persons on the stair or landing or use for any purpose that would potentially result in a significant impact to the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

Notwithstanding, a condition of consent is recommended to require that the privacy screens to the landing be designed and installed to comply with the relevant objectives and controls of Part 5.3 Visual Privacy of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan.

 

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 modification is considered to result in a development which is substantially the same as that previously approved and will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining premises.

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/544/2011/D for permission to delete pergola, relocate the stairs externally and change the size of openings on the eastern elevations for 40 Earl Street, Randwick in the following manner:

 

·                 Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

DA. 1001 Issue B

Home Environment Design Group

April 2011

DA. 1002 Issue A

Home Environment Design Group

April 2011

DA. 1003 Issue A

Home Environment Design Group

April 2011

DA. 1004 Issue B

Home Environment Design Group

April 2011

DA. 1005 Issue B

Home Environment Design Group

April 2011

DA. 1006. Issue A

Home Environment Design Group

April 2011

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

 

A117763

14 July 2011

 

As amended by the Section 96 ‘A’ plans

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

S96. 1001 Issue A

Home Environment Design Group

March 2012

S96. 1004 Issue A

Home Environment Design Group

March 2012

S96. 1005 Issue A

Home Environment Design Group

March 2012

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

 

A117763_03

14 March 2012

 

          As amended by the Section 96 ‘B’ plans

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

S96.200 Issue B

Home Environment Design Group

June 2012

S96.201 Issue B

Home Environment Design Group

June 2012

S96.202 Issue B

Home Environment Design Group

June 2012

 

As amended by the Section 96 ‘D’ plans

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

S96.200 Issue D

Home Environment Design Group

June 2012

4 September 2013

S96.201 Issue D

Home Environment Design Group

June 2012

4 September 2013

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

 

A117763_04

6 June 2013

 

Only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

·        Delete Condition No. 2(a) and replace with the following:

 

            Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.  To maintain a reasonable degree of privacy into the private outdoor living areas of the adjoining properties, the privacy screens on the external staircase landing to the studio loft above the garage must be permanently fixed and have a height of 1,800mm as measured from the finished floor level of the landing and 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.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

S96 DA Compliance Report - 40 Earl Street , Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP84/13

 

 

Subject:                  2-8 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/148/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/148/2013

Author:                   Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing structures and construction of a 4-storey residential flat building containing 18 units, car parking for 16 vehicles, landscaping and associated works (variation to height and floor space ratio standards)

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Oxide City Productions Pty. Ltd.

Owner:                         M K Carey & Oxide City Productions Pty. Ltd.

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The development application has an estimated cost of $4,539,630 and is therefore referred to Council.

 

1.      Proposal

 

The proposal includes the following components:

 

·      Demolition of the existing structures on the site.

·      Construction of a 4-storey residential flat building containing 18 units.

·      Construction of a basement car parking for 16 vehicles and 8 bicycles, accessible via a car lift off Abbotsford Lane.

·      General landscape works.

 

The dwelling mix is summarized in the table below:

 

Type

Number of Dwellings

Studio

8

1-bedroom

4

2-bedroom

5

2-bedroom + family room

1

Total

18

 

Photomontage showing the proposed development as viewed from Anzac Parade

(source: Viali Architects)

 

2.      Site

 

The subject site is described as Nos. 2-8 Anzac Parade, Kensington and comprises the following land parcels:

 

·      Lot 2 in DP 4601

·      Lot 1 in DP 519814

·      Lot 2 in DP 519814

 

The individual allotments together form an irregularly shaped development site with a total land area of 803.3m2 and frontages to Anzac Parade (west), Tay Lane (south) and Abbotsford Lane (east).

 

The site and the surrounding areas are subject to flooding risk due to the district wide topography. Accordingly, the habitable levels and the car park entry are required to be elevated above the 1% annual exceedance probability (AEP) plus appropriate freeboards. In this case, the 1% AEP flood planning level is determined at RL30.70 AHD. A freeboard of 300mm and 500mm is required for the habitable floors and car lift respectively. 

 

At present, a single-storey detached dwelling occupies No. 2-4 Anzac Parade. A pair of single-storey semi-detached dwellings is located at Nos. 6 and 8 Anzac Parade.

 

The surrounding environment to the site is described as follows:

 

North

To the north across Tay Street is a triangular shaped public reserve (also known as “Tay Park”) that adjoins the intersection between Alison Road, Anzac Parade and Dacey Avenue.

 

Due to its contextual setting, the site has good exposure to northern sunlight and enjoys views towards Tay Park, Centennial Park and Moore Park.

 

Public open space to the north of the site across Tay Street.

 

North-East

To the north-east is a 3-storey residential flat building with frontages to both Alison Road and Tay Street (No. 1-3 Tay Street). The building is setback approximately 3.8m to 4.5m from the north-eastern boundary of the site. There is an existing landscape buffer strip along this common boundary within the above property.

 

Existing residential flat building at No. 1-3 Tay Street, as viewed from the corner of Alison Road and Tay Street.

 

The interface between the property at No. 1-3 Tay Street and the subject site. Note the existing landscape buffer strip within the adjoining residential flat development.

 

From a mutual privacy perspective, the future development should seek to minimise cross viewing to this adjoining building and reinforce the existing visual buffer by incorporating appropriate landscape elements.

 

East

To the east across Abbotsford Lane are two x 4-storey residential flat buildings featuring 3 habitable floors above ground level garages, which were developed in the 1960’s (Nos. 1 and 3 Alison Road). The Abbotsford Lane frontage of these developments is characterized by hard-paved access areas with no landscaping.

 

Existing 4-storey residential flat buildings at No. 1 (left) and No. 3 Alison Road (right), which are situated to the east of the site across Abbotsford Lane.

 

South

To the south across Tay Lane is a 4-storey residential flat building, which is substantially completed (No. 10-20 Anzac Parade). The above development was approved under Development Consent 161/2011 and has been the subject of two Section 96 Modifications. The modified development features the following:

 

·      Building height: 16.72m (top of pergola on roof terrace: RL46.305)

·      External wall height: 15.42m (top of parapet: RL44.62)

·      FSR: 1.18:1

·      Landscaped area: 52% of site

 

Photomontage showing the approved development as viewed from Anzac Parade (source: Fox Johnston Architects).

 

Photomontage showing the approved development as viewed from Abbotsford Lane (Fox Johnston Architects).

 

West

The site has frontage to Anzac Parade, which is a 6-lane arterial road. On the opposite side of Anzac Parade is the Sydney Athletic Field.

 

Aerial photograph of the subject site and surrounding environment with the floor plans superimposed (source: Traffix)

 

3.      Submissions

 

The subject application was advertised and notified from 27 March to 12 April 2013 in accordance with the Randwick DCP. No submissions were received.

 

4.      Key Issues

 

4.1    Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards – Height & FSR

The proposal contravenes the building height and floor space ratio development standards contained within RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request that seeks to justify the contravention of the standards pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP.

 

(i) Building height

Clause 4.3 and the height map of the LEP specify a maximum building height of 12m for the subject site. The proposed maximum building height amounts to 14.5m (RL44.135, west wing), and exceeds the standard by 2.5m. The above departure is equivalent to 20.8%. The non-compliance is illustrated in the drawings below.

 

12m building height line

 

Anzac Parade elevation of proposed development

12m building height line

 

Tay Lane elevation of proposed development

 

(ii)    Floor space ratio

Clause 4.4 and the map of the LEP specify a maximum FSR of 0.9:1 or 723.0m2 GFA for the subject site. The proposal has an FSR of 1.196:1 and exceeds the development standard by 0.296:1. This represents a variation to the development standard of 32.9%. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

 

 

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Gross Floor Area (GFA)

Proposed development

1.196:1

960.8m2

Permissible FSR / GFA

0.9:1

723.0m2

FSR / GFA in excess of LEP standard

0.296:1

237.8m2

 

(iii) Assessment against the applicant’s written justifications for the contravention of the development standards

In assessing the applicant’s written justifications for the contravention of the building height and FSR standards, the principles established from the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 are relevant to the subject proposal. The above case specifically relates to objections to development standards pursuant to the then State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards, which has already been superseded by the provisions of Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards of RLEP 2012. Notwithstanding, the key matters for consideration are still applicable to the proposed variation to the development standards under the new LEP. The relevant matters are addressed as follows:

 

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

 

Comments:

The objectives of the building height standard are as follows:

 

(a)    to ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality,

(b)    to ensure that development is compatible with the scale and character of contributory buildings in a conservation area or near a heritage item,

(c)    to ensure that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

The objectives of the FSR standard are as follows:

 

(a)    to ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality,

(b)    to ensure that buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

(c)    to ensure that development is compatible with the scale and character of contributory buildings in a conservation area or near a heritage item,

(d)    to ensure that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

Note:

The objectives for the height and FSR standards are essentially the same, except that there is an additional objective for FSR relating to the articulation and environmental design of a building.

 

The applicant’s written justifications outline the following key arguments for the departure from the building height standard:

 

 

 

The applicant’s written justifications outline the following key arguments for the departure from the FSR standard:

 

 

In assessing the proposed variations and the applicant’s ‘Exceptions to Development Standards’ reasoning, it is considered that the proposal achieves a high level of consistency with the objectives of the standards in question and would lead to a good urban planning and design outcome for the following reasons:

 

·      In terms of site planning, the proposed floor space has been distributed in a “perimeter block” arrangement that defines the street and laneway boundaries. This is particularly important as the site occupies a prominent location close to a major intersection with a main frontage to Anzac Parade, which is a 6-lane arterial road. In this context, a strong urban presence to the street delivered by the proposed height and scale is highly desirable and will reinforce the spatial definition of the entire urban block. 

 

·      The size and scale of the proposed building are compatible with the emerging development pattern in the locality. The approved residential flat building to the south of the site on the opposite side of Tay Lane (No. 10-20 Anzac Parade) has an approved height of 15.42m (top of parapet RL44.62) to 16.72m (top of pergola on roof terrace RL46.305) and an FSR of 1.18:1. In terms of the absolute height to the parapet, the proposal is commensurate with that of the aforementioned neighbouring development, but is 0.485m to 0.785m lower.  

 

Note: It should also be emphasised that the freeboard requirement for flood risk management has necessitated the ground floor level to be raised by approximately 1m above the footpath levels.

 

·      In terms of articulation, the development appropriately addresses the street and laneways.

 

The front walls are parallel to the Anzac Parade boundary and the building will reinforce the spatial definition of the urban block.

 

Due to the close proximity to the carriageway of Anzac Parade, the design adopts a higher solid-to-void ratio for the western facades to assist in acoustic insulation. Nevertheless, this prominent street elevation is articulated by horizontal ribbon windows with infill aluminium panels. The external walls will also be finished with a combination of off-form face concrete and cement rendering and painting. The lift lobby will be open-air and enclosed with louvre screens only, which will visually divide the building into two distinct segments in lieu of a monolithic mass. 

 

The eastern elevations are more delicately articulated with balconies and a higher proportion of glazing.

 

Overall, the façade compositions will present a human scale and contribute to the character of Anzac Parade and the side lanes.

 

·      The Randwick DCP has been adopted and became effective on 14 June 2013. The DCP is very specific in terms of the built form outcome it seeks to achieve. In particular, it requires that the structures above the 10.5m wall height limit be expressed as a roof form. In this case, the architectural expression, form and façade articulation of the building are considered to be appropriate and would offer a better alternative solution to the above DCP control.

 

·      In terms of energy efficiency and environmental design, the majority of the apartments are cross ventilated. The building layout and massing have maximized solar access to the living areas within the constraints of the complex and irregular site geometry.

 

·      In terms of the amenity of the adjoining and neighbouring residential developments, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable privacy and overshadowing impacts. These matters are further elaborated in the following paragraphs.

 

The development scheme has reserved a generous communal courtyard in the north-eastern part of the site, which will maximize spatial separation from the adjoining residential flat building at No. 1-3 Tay Street. Planter boxes are also included along the street and laneway frontages of the site. A set of detailed landscape concept and planting plans has been submitted. The landscape design proposes a variety of trees, shrubs and under-storey planting, which would deliver a green ambience to the development at maturity. The landscape elements would achieve a high level of visual amenity for the neighbouring residences and the public domain.

 

On a merit basis, the subject site would be capable of accommodating the development in the form, scale and massing as proposed. However, any permitted variation to the extent being sought would compromise the integrity of the new LEP, given that the numerical standards contained therein are the result of considerable community consultation and detailed analysis of the existing and emerging development patterns in the Randwick LGA.

 

The LEP development standards are key determinants in achieving a certain urban character and density. Whilst there may be very good strategic planning reasons for increasing density and height within a highly accessible precinct in terms of the integration of land use and transport and the efficient use of urban resources, ultimately the desired future character for a locality is based on community preferences. In this respect, a considerable weight must be given to the development standards as they presently stand in the new LEP, which envisage a particular height and density outcome, rather than allowing ad hoc increases in the density and scale of development on a project by project basis.

 

Whilst the proposed development has merit, the variation to the standards is not appropriate in the circumstances where Council has adopted a clear policy position, which has been subsequently endorsed under the new RLEP 2012. On this basis, it is considered that the upholding of the height and FSR standards is necessary in this particular case and is within the public interest.

 

Whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and the public benefit of maintaining the planning controls adopted by the environmental planning instrument.

 

Comments:

The proposed development and variation from the development standards do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical height and FSR standards will be of greater contribution to the public benefit in this instance. 

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

Preston C J expressed the view that a variation to a development standard may be well founded in a variety of ways:

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standards in question is reasonable and necessary.

Second

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standards is relevant to the subject development. As discussed, compliance with the standards is considered necessary in this particular instance.

Third

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

 

Comments:

The objectives of the height and FSR standards would not be defeated or thwarted as full numerical compliance in this particular instance is reasonable and necessary. The proposed height and FSR are significantly over those controls introduced by RLEP 2012.

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

The development standards contained in RLEP 2012 have not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council. RLEP 2012 was recently gazetted on 15 February 2013 and the control provisions of the LEP are the result of comprehensive analysis of the development patterns in the Randwick LGA. There has been no precedent established by Council’s assessment decisions, which in effect would abandon the development standards prescribed in the LEP.

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

RLEP 2012 was recently gazetted on 15 February 2013 and the zoning provisions of the LEP are the result of comprehensive analysis of the development patterns in the Randwick LGA. RLEP 2012 has zoned the site to R3 Medium Density Residential, where the key objective is to “provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment”. The current zoning has a sound basis and is not considered to be unreasonable and inappropriate.

 

4.2    Landscape

The DCP stipulates the following requirement for residential flat buildings:

 

i)   A minimum of 25% of the site area should incorporate deep soil areas sufficient in size and dimensions to accommodate trees and significant planting.

 

The objectives of the landscaping controls are extracted below:

 

·      To provide landscaped open space of sufficient size to enable the space to be used for recreational activities, or be capable of growing substantial vegetation.

·      To reduce impermeable surface cover including hard paving.

·      To improve stormwater quality and reduce quantity.

·      To improve the amenity of open space with landscaped design. 

 

The development scheme reserves 24% of the site as deep soil landscaped areas, which equates to 189m2. The proposal deviates from the DCP control by 1% or 12m2. Notwithstanding, the proposed soft landscaping is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The degree of departure from the DCP control (being 1% of the site area) is very minor in nature.

·      The proposal fully meets the landscaped open space requirement of the DCP. The shortfall in deep soil areas is compensated by on-slab planting.

·      The proposal has included a detailed and elaborated landscape design incorporating a variety of canopy trees, shrubs and under storey planting, which would offer high amenity to the occupants and enhance the presentation of the development to the street and laneways.

 

4.3    Car Parking and Access

Car Parking Provision:

The DCP stipulates the following car parking requirements:

 

1 space per 2 studios

1 space per 1-bedroom unit (over 40m2)

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

 

A total of 20 car spaces (including 4 visitor spaces) are required. The proposal provides 16 parking bays and entails a shortfall of 4 spaces. The shortfall in parking could arguably be attributed to visitor parking. The proposal is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The need to operate the mechanical car lift is likely to discourage the use of the basement visitor spaces by persons who are not familiar with the site.

 

·      The site is highly accessible for pedestrians. It is within walking distance from local services and businesses at the Kensington Town Centre.

 

Frequent and regular public bus services are available along Anzac Parade and Alison Road within walking distances from the site, which operate from Monday to Sunday. These bus routes include:

 

Bus Routes

Services

339

Circular Quay - Clovelly

372, 373, 374

Circular Quay – Coogee

376, 377

Circular Quay – Maroubra Beach

391

City – Port Botany

392

Circular Quay - Little Bay

393, 394

City – La Perouse

395

Railway Square – Maroubra Beach

396

Circular Quay – Maroubra Beach

397

Circular Quay – South Maroubra

399

City – La Perouse

Metrobus 10

Leichhardt - Kingsford

 

·      The site is located within close proximity to the future light rail route to Randwick and Kingsford.

 

A condition could be imposed to require all car parking spaces to be allocated for the apartment units without the need for designating visitor bays.

 


Motorcycle and Bicycle Parking Provision:

Under the DCP, the development is also required to provide 1 x motorcycle bay and 11 x bicycle spaces. The proposal provides nil motorcycle parking and only 8 bicycle spaces, and does not meet the DCP controls.

 

The basement level has constrained dimensions due to the complex and irregular site geometry. Any expansion of the basement would inevitably reduce deep soil planting, which is considered undesirable in this instance. Given that the proposal meets the resident parking requirement, motorcycle parking could be waived in this instance. Additional bicycle parking could potentially be accommodated within the communal open space areas at the rear. A condition could be imposed to require full compliance with the bicycle parking requirement (i.e. 11 spaces) under the DCP. 

 

Vehicular Access to Car Park:

The proposal requires a car lift for vehicular access to the basement car park due to flood management considerations and the site constraints.

 

The submitted traffic report has demonstrated that vehicles can manoeuvre between the car lift and the lane efficiently. Council’s Development Engineer considers that the volume of traffic associated with 16 car spaces would not result in significant queuing into Abbotsford Lane and Tay Lane.

 

However, in order to minimise traffic conflicts and to facilitate the passing of vehicles intending to enter and exit the car lift, Council’s Development Engineer has recommended the creation of a passing bay via a requirement for land dedication. Specifically, a condition would be imposed to require the dedication of land 1.2m wide adjacent to the Abbotsford Lane boundary, between its intersection with Tay Lane and the driveway entry to the site. Furthermore, an additional condition would be imposed to require the installation of a signals system to provide indication when the car lift is in use.

 

It is considered that the access arrangement is acceptable, subject to the above recommended conditions.

 

Location of passing bay

 

Proposed location of vehicle passing bay via land dedication as would have been required by a condition of consent.

4.4    Solar Access

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

 

(i) Living areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours access to direct sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June (mid winter).

(ii) At least 50% of the landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June (mid winter).

(iii) Where existing development currently receives less sunlight than this requirement, the new development is not to reduce this further.

 

Based on the plan-view shadow diagrams, the proposed development will not affect solar access to the existing residential flat buildings at No. 1-3 Tay Street, No. 1 Alison Road and No. 3 Alison Road throughout the day on 21 June. The property that will be directly affected is the approved flat building at No. 10-20 Anzac Parade, which is located to the south of the site on the opposite side of Tay Lane. The expected impacts are described in the elevational shadow diagrams which are extracted below. 

 

There are two apartments facing north on each storey from G/F to 3/F within the development at No. 10-20 Anzac Parade. Apartments A contain north-facing living room and bedroom windows and wrap-around balconies. Apartments B contain north-facing living room windows. The elements are marked in the following diagram.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


9am, 21 June

10am, 21 June

11am, 21 June

11:30am, 21 June

12noon, 21 June

1pm, 21 June

2pm, 21 June

3pm, 21 June

 

Impacts on Apartments A:

The shadow diagrams show that the living room and bedroom windows and balconies on all levels will receive at least 4 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

 

It is noted that the shadow diagrams do not model the expected impacts from the 4-storey residential building at No. 1 Alison Road. Based on the azimuth and vertical sun angles, it is estimated that the north-facing windows and balconies on the ground and first storeys would subject to a degree of overshadowing at 9am. The amount of sunlight will gradually increase from 10am onwards. These units would still meet the 3 hours requirement of the DCP.

 

Impacts on Apartments B:

The shadow diagrams show that the living room windows on all floors will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight to part of the glazed areas between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

 

It is noted that the shadow diagrams do not model the expected impacts from the 4-storey residential building at No. 1 Alison Road. Based on the azimuth and vertical sun angles, it is estimated that the living room windows of the ground and first floor units would subject to a degree of overshadowing at 9am. Notwithstanding, the amount of sunlight will gradually increase from 10am onwards. These units would still receive at least 1.5 hours of direct sunlight in mid winter, which is considered reasonable given the existing built context.

 

Overall, the proposal is considered to comply with the objectives of the DCP controls and will result in relatively minor impacts on the north-facing windows of the neighbouring apartments.

 

Impacts on Common Courtyard:

The expected impacts on the common courtyard within No. 10-20 Anzac Parade are described in the following shadow diagrams:

 

Communal courtyard

 

9am, 21 June

12noon, 21 June

 

3pm, 21 June

 

 

The shadow diagrams demonstrate that the subject development will not affect the communal courtyard within No. 10-20 Anzac Parade at 9am and 12noon on 21 June. The proposal will only affect the communal courtyard in the afternoon period on 21 June.

 

From 9am to 12noon, 21 June:

It is noted that the shadow diagrams have not modeled the impacts from the 4-storey residential flat buildings at Nos. 1 and 3 Alison Road. Where the shadows from these neighbouring properties are taken into account, the courtyard will be significantly overshadowed at 9am until late morning (by Nos. 1 and 3 Alison Road, and not by the subject development).

 

From 12noon to 3pm, 21 June:

The common courtyard in question would only receive unrestricted sunlight at 12noon, 21 June. At 1pm, it is estimated that the majority of the courtyard would still be under direct sunlight. By 2pm, it is estimated that approximately 1/3 of the courtyard would be under sunlight.

 

Based on the above analysis, it is concluded that the courtyard within No. 10-20 would not receive the level of sunlight as intended in the DCP, being 3 hours of sunlight to 50% of the landscaped open space. However, a functional portion of the courtyard, which is capable of supporting passive recreational activities, would still receive approximately 2 hours of sunlight in midwinter.

 

It should be emphasized that the overshadowing in the morning period is predominantly caused by the existing residential flat buildings on the eastern side of Abbotsford Lane (being Nos. 1 and 3 Alison Road). The impact in the morning period is attributed to the existing development pattern in the area.

 

In relation to the 3pm shadows as described in the diagram, a significant portion of the overshadowing is caused by the development at No. 10-20 itself. The shadows created by the west wing of the proposed development, which exceeds the 12m height limit, would substantially coincide with this shadow attributed to No. 10-20 itself. The remaining shadows that could be clearly attributed to the subject development are generated by its east wing, which is fully compliant with the 12m height limit in the LEP. Arguably, even when the top floor level of the west wing is substantially reduced or removed to comply with the 12m height limit and the FSR control, the shadows cast on the courtyard in question would not experience material reduction.

 

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the relatively restricted solar access to the communal courtyard of No. 10-20 is not a result of poor design for the subject proposal. To a large extent, it is attributed to the cumulative impacts generated by the existing buildings in the vicinity and the approved building at No. 10-20 itself. The proposed development will not result in unreasonable impacts upon the communal landscaped open space within No. 10-20 Anzac Parade.

 

4.5    Privacy

The potential privacy impacts of the proposed development are addressed as follows:

 

Elements

Elevation

Comments

Balconies

East

(west wing)

The balconies to Units 2 and 3 on levels 1 to 3 are oriented away from the residential flat building at No. 1-3 Tay Street. These balconies are separated over 9m from the side elevation of the aforementioned neighbour.

 

The balconies are also well separated from the residential flat buildings at Nos. 1 and 3 Alison Road by Abbotsford Lane.

 

Therefore, these elements in the development are not considered to result in detrimental privacy impacts on the adjoining and nearby dwellings.

Balconies

North

(west wing)

The north-facing balconies to Units 1 and 2 are oriented towards Tay Park and are not directly facing the side windows of the residential flat building at No. 1-3 Tay Street. No significant privacy impacts would result from these areas.

Windows

South

(east and west wings)

The south-facing windows are well separated from the residential flat building at No. 10-20 Anzac Parade by Tay Lane, and will not result in unreasonable privacy impacts on the latter’s northern windows and balconies.

 

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 subject proposal seeks substantial variation to the building height and floor space ratio development standards under RLEP 2012.

 

Whilst the proposal has merit in terms of its architectural, streetscape and amenity outcomes, and suitability to the site’s location within a highly accessible and urbanized precinct with frontage to an arterial road, it is not considered appropriate in the circumstances to support the variation to the standards. This is owing to the fact that Council has adopted a clear policy position in relation to height and FSR in the R3 Medium Density Zone, which has subsequently been endorsed under the new RLEP 2012. The approval of this application would be contrary to the adopted policy direction and community expectation.

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 148/2013 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 4-storey residential flat building containing 18 units, car parking for 16 vehicles, landscaping and associated works at Nos. 2-8 Anzac Parade, Kensington, for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal does not comply with the height standard pursuant to Clause 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the “Exception to Development Standard” sought by the applicant is not well founded.

 

2.       The proposal does not comply with the floor space ratio standard pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the “Exception to Development Standard” sought by the applicant is not well founded.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 2 - 8 Anzac Parade, Kensington

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP85/13

 

 

Subject:                  1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville (DA/994/2011/A)

Folder No:                   DA/994/2011/A

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of approved development by addition of a roof terrace to each dwelling, increase in size of bedroom 1 to each dwelling, and alter entry stairs

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Mr B Flentzeris

Owner:                         Mr B Flentzeris

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

1.      Proposal

 

This Section 96(2) application is referred to Council as the original was determined at a Council meeting. This section 96 application seeks to make the following modifications to the original development:

 

§ Increase the size of the ensuite to ground level bedroom within each occupancy

§ Construct a roof terrace to each dual occupancy (top of roof = RL41.83)

§ Reconfigure the entry stairs to part internal and part external configuration resulting in an increase in the height of the external entry landing by 0.51m

 

The applicant was advised on the 3rd September that the proposed roof terrace could not be supported due to the non compliance with the relevant controls and objectives of the RDCP 2013. The applicant submitted amended plans received by Council on 25 September maintaining the roof terrace albeit reduced in size and dimensions. These plans and the floor layout plans originally received with the application are the subject of assessment.

 

2.      Site

 

The site is located on the western side of Anzac Parade between Hilary Parade to the north and Lawson Street to the south. Pioneers Park and national parkland with the sea further on is located directly to the east of the site on the opposite side of Anzac Parade.

 

The lot presently contains a single level detached brick dwelling house and detached fibro garage located in the rear yard of the site were approved in 1955 (BA/324/1955). Subsequently a brick carport located level with the front setback to the south of the dwelling has been approved and constructed.

 

The site has a frontage to Anzac Parade of 15.24m and a total site area of 557.9m2 (as per survey). The site has a depth of 39.355m on the southern boundary and is slightly irregular in shape. The topography of the site slopes down from the rear (west) of the site to the front (east) at an overall grade of approximately 6.3%. The proposal does not involve the removal of any significant vegetation.

 

Development in the locality is characterised by low density residential development including, primarily, detached dwellings and attached dual occupancy development. The scale of existing development on surrounding sites varies between single storey and three stories in scale.

 

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. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

1177 Anzac Parade

Issue

Comment

Invasion of Privacy and breach of height controls

The proposed roof terrace will result in an adverse privacy impact.

See further discussion under key issues section of this report

 

35 Meehan Street Matraville

Issue

Comment

Loss of privacy and existing views

See discussion under key issues section of this report

Overshadowing

The proposed roof terrace will not result in any additional overshadowing to the objectors premises as a result of the non compliance with the external wall and overall height controls and development standards respectively and is therefore considered unreasonable.

 

33 Meehan Street Matraville

Issue

Comment

The proposed roof terrace does not comply with the RDCP 2013 objectives and controls for Roof Design, Visual Privacy, Acoustic privacy and view sharing

Acknowledged. See discussion under the key issues section of this report.

 

1181 Anzac Parade Matraville

Issue

Comment

Additional bulk, height and scale will lead to unreasonable visual and acoustic privacy impacts, overshadowing and they are unreasonable as they are directly related to non compliances with Councils controls and development standards relating to height of buildings and floor space ratio controls.

The proposed development will result in additional bulk, height and scale that are inconsistent with the Randwick DCP 2013 objectives. For further discussion see key issues section of this report.

 

4.      Key Issues

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 and Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013

The original application was assessed against the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP 2000, however since their repeal, the RLEP 2012 and the RDCP 2013 are the principle statutory and policy documents which guide assessment of this application and the key issues associated with the proposed modifications as follows:

 

Floor space

Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012 states that the maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map. The floor space ratio map (FSR_009) related to the subject site indicates a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1. The proposed modification seeks to add 3sqm of floor area to create ensuites at the front ground level of each occupancy resulting in a floor space ratio of 0.534:1 (originally approved at 0.524:1). The additional floor area is minor and will not pose any significant material impact on neighbours or its appearance from the public domain.

 

The additional level of non compliance is considered acceptable and will continue to satisfy the following objectives under the RLEP 2012:

 

(a)  that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality,

(b)  that buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

(c)  that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

Whilst this aspect of the proposal is satisfactory, a refusal of the application is necessary due to the fact that the main component of the application relates to a roof terrace and other works that contravene the specific controls and objectives under the RDCP 2013 and the Randwick LEP 2012.

 

Height

Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012 and Section 3.2 of the RDCP 2013 provide objectives and controls for maximum heights. The main objectives are:

 

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

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

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

 

The numerical RDCP 2013 controls are that for sloping sites the external wall height not exceeds 8m and the RLEP 2012 provision is that the overall heights not exceed 9.5m above ground level. The proposed modifications have an external wall height of between 9.45m and 10m and an overall height of 10.4m significantly exceeding the RDCP 2013 and RLEP 2012 maximum height control and development standard.

 

The information submitted with the application is not considered to have adequately addressed or justified these non-compliances. The non compliances are a direct result of the proposed roof terrace that contravenes Section 4.4 of the RDCP 2013 explicitly prohibiting roof-top terraces to the uppermost or main roof of dwellings and dual occupancy in low density residential areas.

 

In addition, this section 96 application seeks to increase heights to RL41.83, which is above and beyond the height originally proposed at RL40.89 and subsequently reduced to RL40.2 upon determination.

 

Moreover, the non-complying heights will directly result in adverse impacts on the streetscape character, solar access and views from neighbouring properties as discussed below.

                                    

In relation to streetscape character, a site visit and walk through the locality reveals some larger dwellings and dual occupancies; however these developments were not approved with roof top terraces. In addition, the proposed height would represent a significant disparity between the scale of the development and that of the adjoining part-two part-three storey development on the northern neighbour’s property at No. 1177 Anzac Parade - as shown in the elevation plan excerpt below.

Plan excerpt 1: Front elevation shows the proposed roof terrace and adjoining development at No. 1177 Anzac Parade, Matraville (at right)

 

Overshadowing

In relation to overshadowing, the objectives under Section 5.1 of the RDCP 2013 are:

 

§ 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 proposed development will result in additional overshadowing to the southern neighbours dwelling and private open space areas. The applicant has not submitted amended shadow plans that demonstrate compliance with the controls or the objectives under the RDCP 2013. Notwithstanding, it is considered that based on the angle of the sun during the winter solstice, the proposed roof terrace will cast additional overshadowing to the roof and rear yard of the southern neighbours site at No. 1181 Anzac Parade Matraville. As this additional overshadowing is directly associated with non complying wall and overall heights it is not considered that the application meets the abovementioned objectives having particular regard to maximizing solar access to the neighbouring dwellings and their private open space.

 

View Loss

In relation to views, the objectives under the RDCP 2013 are

 

§ 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 skillfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain

 

The original development assessed view loss from the rear of 35 and 37 Meehan Street where it was found that based on the reasonableness of the developments height, the quality of the views and the level of view loss that the proposed development would be acceptable when considered against the Principles of View Sharing established by the Court in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.

 

The photos below show the original view loss from the rear of 35 and 37 Meehan Street dwellings. These are distant views of the Malabar Headland and water views obtained over the rear and side boundary of the subject site and the ridge of the existing dwelling

 

Original image from southern side of rear terrace, 37 Meehan Street. Approximate extent of impact shown in red.

 

Original image from eastern side of No 37 Meehan Street, first floor. Approximate extent of impact shown in red.

 

The proposed modification seeks a further increase in the height of the development to RL41.83 which is above and beyond that originally sought and subsequently reduced at determination (RL40.2). This height was approved despite it having non-complying external wall heights, due to the clerestory roof having a similar scale to a traditional pitched roof form (illustrated by green pitch superimposed on the plan excerpt below). The assessment revealed the scale of the roof would not result in any appreciable increase in adverse impacts of overshadowing or view loss than that caused by a development with a complying external wall height and would therefore satisfy the relevant objectives under the DCP and the principles of view sharing established by the Court in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.

                                

Using a similar analysis for the proposed modifications, the illustration below shows a similarly superimposed pitched roof form over the section 96 proposed roof terraces (red pitch). It reveals a vastly steeper roof pitch which both exceeds the maximum external height control under the RDCP 2013 and the maximum overall height standard under the RLEP 2012. These increases will exacerbate view loss raised in the assessment of the original application and as indicated earlier result in greater disparity across the adjoining dwellings. More specifically, based on the photos above, the proposed modification will obstruct horizon views. The loss of these views as a result of a modification that explicitly contravenes specific height controls and development standards cannot be considered as reasonable development and therefore cannot achieve compliance with the principles of view sharing established by the Court in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.

 

Plan excerpt 2: Section of the proposed development showing the superimposed pitched roof forms of the original (green) and proposal (red) as well as the ridge line of the northern neighbours dwelling at no. 1177 Anzac Parade Matraville (orange line).

 

The non-complying external wall height and overall height will result in adverse impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of streetscape amenity, overshadowing and view loss. These impacts will occur at the very least, at greater levels than that which would occur from both the approved development and a development that complies with the controls. Hence, the proposed section 96 modification to the height of the development cannot be supported.

 

Roof Terrace

Section 4.4 of the RDCP 2013 provides objectives and controls for roof terraces. The main objectives are:

 

§ 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 proposed roof terrace to the uppermost or main roof of the building is explicitly prohibited under subsection i) of the RDCP 2013 and the proposed roof terrace cannot be supported on the basis of direct contravention of this control.  Further, there are no such roof terraces in the immediate locality and it will be inconsistent with the majority of dwellings along this section of Anzac Parade. Moreover the application does not contain reasonable justification of compliance with the objectives under Clause 4.3 height of RLEP 2012 or the objectives under Section 4.4 Roof Design and feature of RDCP 2013.

 

Privacy

In relation to the proposed roof terrace it is considered that adverse privacy impacts on the neighbouring dwelling at No. 1177 Anzac Parade will occur; it will also limit the development potential of No. 1181 Anzac Parade and afford an outlook towards the rear of dwellings backing onto the subject site. Hence, it is considered that the proposed roof terrace does not comply with Section 5.3 of the RDCP 2013 Visual Privacy. In terms of acoustic privacy, the proposed roof terrace does not contain any noise attenuation measures at this level and it is considered that were attenuation measures employed then this would merely add to the scale of the development at the roof level. Hence, it is not considered that the proposed roof terrace can reasonably comply with the objectives under Section 5.4 of the RDCP 2013.

 

In relation to the reconfiguration of the main side entries, the external relocation of internal portions of the entry stairs will result in a 500mm increase in the landing level which is directly opposite respective side neighbours. The main concerns with these changes relate directly to maintaining privacy to southern and northern neighbours window openings and indirectly to the streetscape amenity.

 

Proposed modifications to entry stair layout

 


Proposed entry landing as shown in elevation relative to side boundaries

 

In relation to the southern elevation, the increased landing level results in significant privacy impacts to the southern neighbours kitchen and dining room windows whereby the landing level will be only 87cm below the neighbours kitchen and dining room window sills and the existing 1.8m fence only achieves an effective height of 1.05m above the proposed landing level resulting in adverse privacy impacts. It is not considered that a privacy screen can reasonably ameliorate this privacy impact, as it would both be obtrusively high (2.53m) in relation to the neighbours ground level and it will also present poorly from street level due to the fact that a privacy screen is not required along the northern side landing (as it sits 1.77m below the window sill level opposite).

 

Consequently in the interests of reducing obtrusive elements adjacent to neighbouring sites and maintaining a consistent form across the dual occupancies, it is not considered that this aspect of the Section 96 application is suitable for the site having regard to adverse privacy impacts and maintaining streetscape amenity.

 

Overall, the visual bulk and scale of the proposed modifications are not considered to be compatible with the approved dual occupancy at the subject site and will visually dominate the street elevation of the dual occupancy and the neighbouring properties and result in unreasonable adverse privacy and overshadowing impact. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

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

 

Overall, the majority of the proposed Section 96 modifications do not satisfy the relevant objectives and controls for height and roof terraces under the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 and neither do they satisfy the relevant height and R2 low density residential zone objectives under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. It is generally considered that most parts of the proposed section 96 modifications will result in adverse impacts upon the character of the locality and neighbouring properties and are largely avoidable.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/994/2011 by way of addition of a roof terrace to each dwelling, increase in size of bedroom 1 to each dwelling, and alter entry stairs, at No. 1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville, for the following reasons:

 

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

 

  a)   recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form that contributes to the desired future character of the area.

 

2.       The proposed increase in overall height is excessive and does not comply with development standards and objectives under Clause 4.3 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that it fails to:

 

  a)   ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality;

  b)   ensure that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing and views

 

3.       The proposed increase in the external wall height is excessive and does not comply with the Controls and objectives under Section 3.2 of the Randwick DCP 2013 in that it fails to:

 

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

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

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

 

4.       The proposed roof terrace does not satisfy the objectives and controls under Section 4.4 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 – Roof Design and Features in that it fails to:

 

a)     Adhere to the control that roof terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces must not be provided on the uppermost or main roof of the building

 

5.       The proposed roof terrace and entries does not satisfy the amenity objectives under Section 5.3 and 5.4 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 – Visual and Acoustic privacy in that it fails to:

                                          

a)     ensure development minimise overlooking or cross viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.

b)     ensure the siting and design of development minimise the impacts of noise transmission

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP86/13

 

 

Subject:                  1 Dampier Street, Chifley (DA/348/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/348/2013

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new two storey child care centre for 44 children including associated site and landscaping works

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Proteus Architects P/L

Owner:                         1 Dampier Street Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is for demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new two storey child care centre for 44 children (24x 2-3 year olds and 20 x 3-5 year olds) including associated site and landscaping works.

 

The proposed hours of operation of the centre are from 7:30am to 5:30pm weekdays. The centre is closed during weekends and public holidays. There are 5 fulltime staff members with an additional staff member employed as a cook (during the hours of 11am to 1pm, Monday to Friday).

 

Site

 

The subject site is a corner allotment having a dual road frontage to both Dampier Street and Wassell Street.  The boundary to Dampier Street is 14.02m long with a 45 degree angled boundary to Wassell Street of 4.31m.  Wassell Street boundary is 29.87m length.  The site has an area of 556.4m².

 

To the south, the common boundary shared with 3 Dampier Street is 32.92m length and the shared boundary to 57 Wassell Street is 17.07m width.

 

The site’s topography is relatively flat rising slightly from the corner of the road frontages to the rear of the site.  The current level at the boundary to Dampier Street varies between RL 20.81 to around RL 21.58.  The level at the rear of the property is RL 22.02.   The rise to the rear of the property therefore is around 0.6m – 1.2m.

 

The site is presently occupied by an existing detached single storey dwelling. Warlee Market Garden reserve is located opposite the site on Wassell Street. The surrounding area is otherwise residential in character and consists predominantly of single and two storey dwelling houses. To the south of the site at no. 3 Dampier Street is a single storey detached dwelling with a single garage to the rear of the dwelling sited to the south eastern side of the subject site.  To the west of the site at no. 57 Wassell Street is a single storey detached dwelling.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.  In total seven (7) submissions and 2 petitions with one of the petitions having 9 signatures and the other having 32 signatures objecting to the proposal were received by Council from the following properties:

 

§ 3 Dampier Street, Chifley

§ 4 Dampier Street, Chifley

§ 6 Dampier Street, Chifley

§ 7 Dampier Street, Chifley

§ 55A Wassell Street, Chifley (32 signatures)

§ 57 Wassell Street, Chifley

§ 61 Wassell Street, Chifley (9 signatures)

 

Issues raised in the objections are summarised in the table below:

Issue

Comment

Noise impacts

The amount of noise that the centre will create will affect the peace and tranquillity of the area. This is what attracted some of the residents to the area. Continuous noise from children playing outside will significantly impact on there lives.  There are several shift workers in the area who sleep during the day, lack of rest will cause unnecessary stress and associated health problems.

 

The acoustic report calculates the noise impact at no. 3 Dampier Street from a measurement which has been made over a fixed period in Wassell Street.  The noise should be measured from no. 3 Dampier Street in order to determine the exact noise impacts.

 

Does not believe the installation of acoustic screen fencing will be affected to eliminate the high pitched screaming from children.

 

One of the residents owns two watch dogs that bark at any unusual or foreign noises.  Children screaming for hours each day will result in continuous barking and disturbance for neighbours and children their supervisors.

 

The proposed child care centre catering for 44 children is quite substantial in size and is concerned about the proposed hours of operation, the noise and loss of privacy this additional congestion would cause.

Concerned that the centre would need to have constant outdoor play to cater for the age ranges which is a requirement for this amount of children in care causing continues noise impacts.

 

There is currently a pony club in Wassell Street and a child care centre in Carnegie Circuit called Care A Lot Kindly.  The noise from this centre can be heard from one of the residents.

 

 

Potential impacts of noise have been investigated by Council’s Environmental Health Unit. The noise expected to arise from the proposal is capable of complying with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1999 and Council’s Comprehensive DCP 2013.

 

Suitable conditions to protect surrounding amenity from noise of the operation are recommended where necessary. 

 

These noise concerns are discussed further in the Key Issues section below under Visual and Acoustic Privacy.

 

 

 

Privacy Impacts

Invasion of privacy as the children and staff will be able to observe into their bedroom windows as well as their back yard.

 

Appropriate screen fencing is provided around the perimeters of the site boundaries. 

 

This issue is discussed further in the Key Issues section below.

Traffic and congestion

Disruption from additional traffic. Dampier Street is a busy thoroughfare for vehicles and buses. There are two bus stops very close to the corners of Wassell Street and Dampier Street (one next door to the centre and the other opposite the corner). The buses already have extreme difficulty negotiating the corner of Wassell Street and Dampier Street and require a wide birth to safely negotiate the corners. Vehicles have to overtake buses whilst people alight causing high safety risk.

 

The design of the drop off and lack of street parking is inadequate to address residents concerns in relation to on street parking and traffic safety for vehicles and pedestrians.

 

Also, buses already find it awkward to turn from Dampier Street into Wassell Street due to cars parked on both sides of Wassell Street, which makes it very difficult for a two-way traffic flow. This will further be exacerbate from the child care centre causing traffic flow problems and dangerous hazardous concerns when parents are dropping off and picking up their child/children.

 

There is a Pony Club in Wassell Street.  The owners arrive with cars and trailers on a daily basis to exercise, feed and pick up their horse with the proposed centre this will further impact on traffic and parking in the area.

 

Inadequate parking spaces are provided for staff and for drop off and pick up.

 

 

These issues are discussed further in the Key Issues section below.

 

Both Council’s Development Engineers and Integrated Transport Unit have assessed the application. Advice from each Department indicates the proposed parking situation is acceptable given the availability of on street parking within the surrounding street network.

 

Also, there are frequent bus services to facilitate the proposed child care centre. 

 

 

Randwick LEP 2012

The child care centre does not meet the relevant zone objectives of the R2 Low Residential Density.

 

Also, the child care centre will not protect the amenity of adjoining residents in that it will cause additional traffic and parking concerns, fire safety risk, overshadowing impacts and the bulk and scale of the development including acoustic barriers will visual impact on the streetscape.

 

The proposed use is permissible under the current zoning and meets the objectives of the zone in that it will provide a facility and service that meet the day to day needs of the community without significantly impacting on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings.  Also, the proposal will generally meet the requirements of Council’s child Care Centres Policy.  Refer to Compliance report.

 

Potential impacts of noise, parking and traffic have been assessed by Council’s technical officers. The proposed use and intensity can be reasonably accommodated within the residential area, subject to suitable conditions and updated recommendations made by acoustic consultant to protect surrounding amenity.

 

In relation to fire safety, the building is required to comply with BCA requirements.

 

Disable access is addressed with the inclusion of a stair lift near the staircase.

 

Overshadowing impacts are addressed the Key Issues section below.

Child care centre

The claim that there is a lack of day care centres in the Eastern Suburbs and specifically, the Randwick City Council area is a generalised broad weeping statement. There is already sufficient child care centres facility within the immediate vicinity, which services to meet the day to day need of residents and questions why another one should be approved.

 

There is currently a child care centre in Carnegie Circuit, Chifley called Care A Lot Kindly which is in very close proximity to the subject site.

 

 

 

Regardless of the number of child care centres in the locality, Council is required to respond to the environmental impacts of the proposal and not on the market demand associated with the establishment of a child care centre.

 

The presence of similar uses in the area does not provide grounds to refuse the application.

 

Also, the proposed development is permissible within the zone and discussions with Councils Coordinator of Community development have indicated that there is a shortage and demand of Child Care Centre’s within the Randwick area.

Dangerous substances and children’s health

One of the residents at no. 3 Dampier Street is concerned that the children will be exposed to the risk of inhaling asbestos from either their garage or house. 

 

 

 

In relation to the works carried out on the subject site appropriate conditions will be included to ensure all hazards and asbestos material has been removed from the site in accordance with the following requirements:

 

·     Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements.

 

·     Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy.

 

§ Asbestos waste is stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

 

In addition to the above, the applicant is required to clearly display a sign to the front of the property noting that the site involves the removal of asbestos and details of the licensed contractor.

 

Risk of inhaling of asbestos material from neighbouring property is a separate issue and given that no building works are currently proposed on the site the level of danger will not be increased by this DA.

Devaluation of property

Potential house seeker may find living near a child care centre a little distracting which may deter certain buyers in the market.  

 

 

The effect of a proposal on property values is not a factor that can be considered under Section 79C of the EP&A Act in the determination of a development application.

 

Key Issues

 

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

The main environmental impact assessed with the proposal is noise generated from the external play areas, the general operations of the centre and air conditioning unit. The proposed external play areas are located fronting Wassell Street and back onto the neighbouring residential property at no. 57 Wassell Street, Chifley and to the side at no. 3 Dampier Street.

 

Randwick Councils Comprehensive DCP 2013 control adopts that noise levels generated from the child care centre, when measured over a 15 minute period (at any point on the boundary of the site) will not exceed 5dBA above the background level.

 

A guideline for the assessment of noise from Child Care Centres has been prepared by the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants (AAAC) as a result of a NSW Australian Acoustical Society (AAS) Technical Meeting held in September 2007 on Child Care Noise. The document, AAAC Technical Guideline Child Care Centre Noise Assessment, provides criteria for the assessment of noise intrusion into and noise emissions from Child Care Centres and also provides recommendations for treatment to minimise acoustical impacts upon neighbouring premises. This document is widely used and accepted for the assessment of Child Care Centres, by acoustic consultants as best practice within the industry.

 

Initially the acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Dynamics PTY LTD indicates that predicted noise levels for the development will comply with relevant noise criteria. However, the consultant has used the AAAC noise level criteria of 10 dB above background noise level for a duration of up to 2 hours (total) per day, which meant restricting the play area to two hours per. Having regard to the National Quality Framework for the education and care of children, limiting the time or duration for children to play outside to comply with the noise criteria will not result in an appropriate social outcome in that it does not promote good access and participation and hence a quality experience for children in care. 

 

As a result of the above the applicant was advised to review the Acoustic Report to ensure the increase in background noise of 5dBA is not extended to enable unrestricted use of the external play area.

Consequently, an amended acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Dynamics PTY LTD, Report No:  3263L001.AB.131112 was submitted which includes a revision of the nominated noise criteria particularly in relation to the outdoor play areas based on compliance with measurements of the operation of the childcare centre when over a 15 minute period not exceeding the background noise level by more than 5dBA.  The report indicates that the predicted noise levels for the development will comply with relevant noise criteria of 5dBA.  In order to achieve compliance with the above and to ensure that noise impacts are appropriately managed on the site to protect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties the acoustic report recommends noise mitigation measures to be implemented

 

The acoustic report has included assessment of the cumulative impact of all children in the indoor and outdoor areas as well as the air conditioning system proposed. These are as follows:

 

§ Acoustic screening within the site along the western boundary from the south western corner to the junction of the western and northern boundary fence, and extend along the southern boundary from the rear western corner to the access gate, closest to the car park.  The height and distance of the screens are as shown in the plan below.  Refer to Figure 1. 

 

§ In addition to the above boundary acoustic screens, additional acoustic screens must be constructed at both ends of the north play area extending from the building to the boundary fence and the north western corner of the level 1 outdoor play area. The height and distance of the screens are as shown in the plan below.  Refer to Figure 1.

 

§ The Child Care Centre shall adopt relevant management procedures to ensure number of children playing in the west outdoor play area is limited to 10 children.

 

§ The air conditioning unit must be located on the ground level within the access way and not mounted high up on the southern façade of the childcare centre; and

 

§ The area of the southern façade behind the air conditioning unit and the area of the southern boundary fence directly opposite should be lined with acoustic absorption. The two absorption areas should each be around 3m2, with an acoustic performance equivalent to minimum 50mm thick polyester insulation (Tontine TSB2 or equivalent) and perforated (min 10% open area) foil faced.”

 

In addition to the above, a plan of management has been submitted detailing activities with a mixture of ‘passive’ and ‘active’ play times.  A requirement of the acoustic report is that the western play area be restricted to a maximum of 10 children within a play group and that these play groups be rotated throughout the day.

 

The recommendations for a 3m high boundary acoustic fence along the south western boundary and a 2.4m high acoustic fence to part of the south eastern boundary are not considered to create significant amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties.  Adjacent to the south eastern boundary on the subject site there was an existing garage which is to be removed as part of this application, whilst the garage is not directly on the boundary, the height of the acoustic fence is similar to the height of this existing garage.  Therefore, any additional overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring windows at no. 57 Wassell Street would be very minor and limited to the morning. The new 2.4m high fence to the south eastern boundary will be mainly directly adjacent to the neighbouring properties garage (at 3 Dampier Street) and will not impact the main recreational private open space to this property.

 

 

 

Figure 1: Acoustic boundary fence and screens recommended.

 

In relation to the upper level outdoor play area it is not considered that this area will result in any adverse amenity impacts to neighbouring properties in that:

 

§ The play area directly faces Wassell Street rather than neighbouring residential dwellings and is setback 12.7m from the nearest residents at no. 57 Wassell Street.  Also, directly opposite Wassell Street is Warlee market Garden reserve which will filter much of the noise.

§ The plans indicate that a maximum of 8 children at any given time throughout the day will be playing in this area.

 

The location of the subject property on a corner ensures that visual impacts are limited, with No.’s 57 Wassell Street and 3 Dampier Street being the only potentially properties being impacted in this regard. As discussed above, appropriate fencing height between the properties and relevant management procedures will ameliorate any of these potential impacts. 

 

The proposed hours of operation, i.e. Monday to Friday, 7:30am to 5:30pm are considered appropriate in a residential area and for much of the day the children will be inside. 

 

The proposed childcare centre locates outside play areas to the front of the site (Wassell Street) and the south western side. As discussed above, the front play area on the ground and first floor levels are likely t have minimal impacts to adjacent residents as it lies opposite street and is buffered by reserve to the Wassell front of the property which will filter much of the noise. To the south eastern side boundary and south western rear boundary appropriate acoustic fencing is proposed and a condition will be included requiring compliance with the recommendations made by Acoustic Dynamics PTY LTD and the exiting garage at no. 3 Dampier Street will also filter some of the noise.

 

There are no overlooking impacts generated from the proposal, the impact lies mainly with noise.  It is considered that this level is reasonable and the Environmental Heath department has imposed appropriate conditions with respect to noise.

 

Given the above design measures and recommended conditions, the proposed use and intensity can be reasonable accommodated with in the residential area without resulting in unacceptable impacts to neighbouring properties.

 

Traffic and Parking

Council’s comprehensive DCP 2013 Part B7 specifies that parking be provided for childcare centres at the rate of 1 space per two staff plus 1 space per 8 children for pickup and drop of children.

 

For the proposed development consisting of 44 children and 5 staff this will require 3 spaces for staff and 6 spaces for pickup and drop off.  A cook will be present at the centre for approximately two hours in the middle of the day; any parking generation potential from this is considered minor.   

 

The proposed development will provide 3 off-street parking spaces thereby meeting the demand for staff parking; however there is no provision on site for pickup and drop-off.  The proposed development will therefore be relying on the availability of on-street parking to meet this demand.

 

The applicant has submitted a Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment which assesses the impacts of the proposal on the availability of on-street parking. The study undertook parking surveys over two days and concludes that there is sufficient parking available on street.  With the removal of the existing vehicle crossing near the southwest corner of the site on Wassell Street it is estimated that four spaces for pick-up and drop-off can be accommodated along the Wassell Street frontage. The remaining 2 spaces required can be accommodated on the Dampier Street frontage. As all parking for pick up and drop off can be accommodated on the two site frontages this will minimize the impact on surrounding properties.

 

The application was also referred to Council’s Traffic Engineers who raised no objections to the proposal but highlighted a concern about resulting footpath grades. This is addressed in the civil works comments in the compliance report under Development Engineering comments.

 

Due to the ample supply of on-street parking is not considered necessary to install a time restricted zone in front of the site.

 

Bulk, Scale and Streetscape

The Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 encourages that child care centre buildings be of single storey.  The child care centre proposes a two storey building.

 

The proposal is considered acceptable in that the building height is consistent in bulk and scale with other residential dwellings within the immediate vicinity and will satisfy the FSR and height control requirement in the LEP.  The building is well modulated with articulated walls, low windows and interesting façade and architectural elements that provide visual interest along both street facades.

 

Further, the location of the second storey classroom and its balcony is designed so that noise impacts will be directed away from adjoining dwellings overlooking Wassell Street and the market garden reserve. Also, the upper level classroom does not have any windows that overlook the neighbouring dwellings.  In relation to emergency access and egress, there are two escape routes from the second storey level which the applicant has indicated in the Statement of Environmental Effects that it will comply with the BCA requirement.

 

In relation to disabled access a stair lift has been provided directly next to the staircase for people with disabilities.

 

Given the above, it is not considered that the second floor level will result in unacceptable amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties and streetscape to require its removal.

 

Solar access and overshadowing

Under Part D11 - Child Care Centre of the Comprehensive DCP the requirements for solar access and overshadowing are general and suggest that this section of the DCP should be read in conjunction with Part C Residential Controls. Under this section the control requirement for solar access are as follows:

 

§ Solar access to proposed development:

i)     A portion of the north-facing living room windows of proposed development must achieve a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

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

 

§ Solar access to neighbouring development:

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

 

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

 

v)    Existing solar panels on neighbouring dwellings, which are situation not less than 6m above ground level existing), must retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

The proposal is considered to generally satisfy the objectives of the DCP control in relation to solar access and overshadowing.

 

The proposed windows to the internal play rooms are orientated to face north west and receive good sunlight, achieving a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm.

 

The outdoor play areas are generally orientated to face north west and receive good solar access between 8am and 4pm on June. 

 

The north facing windows to the living areas of the neighbouring dwelling at no. 3 Dampier Street will only be impacted in the afternoon and between 8am to midday these windows will receive the minimum 3 hours of direct sunlight. Due to the orientation of the site a limited amount of sunlight will be obtained to the private rear yard area of this neighbouring dwelling during 8am to 4pm on 21 June.  Despite this, during midday to 4pm part of the rear yard at no. 3 Dampier Street will still receive sunlight to the rear private recreational area; this level of solar access is considered to be acceptable given the site constraints. 

 

The proposal will not be impacting any existing solar panels on neighbouring dwellings.

 

Operation and Management

 

The proposed childcare centre will operate 7.30 am to 5.30 pm Monday to Friday and will be shut for weekends and on public holidays. These hours are considered to be acceptable in a residential area provided other impacts of the use such as noise and traffic/parking generation are also acceptable. As detailed above, the proposal is acceptable subject to proposed conditions of consent, in particular compliance with the recommendations made by acoustic consultant and implementation of the updated plan of management.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2a:      Enrich our range of community services that meet our community’s needs.

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 objective for development in Zone R2 Low Density Residential and the controls for height of buildings and floor space ratio. The application is also considered to satisfactorily address the relevant provisions of Council’s Comprehensive DCP in relation to Part D11 – Child Care Centres, given the implementation of appropriate conditions of consent, recommendations made by acoustic consultant and implementation of the updated plan of management.  The proposed built form is not uncharacteristic scale in the context of surrounding development.

 

With regard to traffic, parking and safety concerns, the proposal is considered suitable for approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.  Also, acoustic screen fencing and proposed conditions of consent will ensure any noise impacts are acceptable.

 

Given the above, the proposed child care centre is considered to have merit and will contribute a necessary service to the community.  Consequently, the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to the application of the recommended conditions of consent.

 

 

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/348/2013 for demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new two storey child care centre for 44 children including associated site and landscaping works, at No. 1 Dampier Street, Chifley, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard onditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

2a.   The colour of the rear canvas shade structures must be of light coloured material to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

55.   The childcare centre is to be operated in accordance plan of management titled “Plan of Management A Place To Grow” dated 13 November 2013 at all times.

 

56.   The recommendations detailed in acoustic report by Acoustic Dynamics PTY LTD,     Report No 3263L001.AB.131112 dated 13 November 2013, section 6 shall be fully complied with. Details of compliance are to be confirmed in writing by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant and provided to the certifying authority with the construction certificate plans prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

67.   The outdoor play areas are to be operated in accordance with plan of management titled “Plan of Management A Place To Grow” dated 13 November 2013, submitted with the application and any operational recommendations detailed in acoustic report by Acoustic Dynamics PTY LTD, Report No 3263L001.AB.131112 dated 13 November 2013.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 1 Dampier Street, Chifley (DA/348/2013)

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP87/13

 

 

Subject:                  10-20 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/161/2011/B)

Folder No:                   DA/161/2011/B

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of approved development by changing Condition No. 71 to allow for aerial bundling of power lines rather than undergrounding of power

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Dosan Pty Ltd

Owner:                         Dosan Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

The subject Section 96 (1A) modification application is referred to Council for determination as it seeks the modification of a condition requiring the undergrounding of power cables, which is contrary to Council policy. In addition, the original application was determined at the Planning Committee meeting on 13 September 2011.

 

The original application proposed the demolition of all structures on site and the construction of a four storey multi unit housing development comprising 31 dwellings with two levels of basement car parking.

 

The application seeks consent to modify condition 71 of Development Consent to allow for aerial bundling the cables instead of placing them underground.

 

Site

 

The site is on the eastern side of Anzac Parade Kensington and has street frontages to Abbotford Lane and Tay Lane as well as Anzac Parade. The site has an area of 1580m² with a 44m frontage to Anzac Parade and is generally rectangular in shape.

 

Submissions

 

Given that the application is made under Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which relates to modifications which have minimal environmental impact, formal notification of the proposal is not necessary under Council’s Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposals.

 

Key Issues

 

The policy for replacing overhead wires with underground cables was adopted at the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on the 8th November 2005. The policy requires that applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site when the cost of works on the site exceeds $2 million.

 

Condition No. 71 currently reads:

 

71  The applicant shall meet the full cost of the overhead power lines and telecommunication cables located in the vicinity of the development site to be relocated underground and all redundant power poles to be removed. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the wires/cables to be relocated. All wires and cables must be relocated underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

In support of their application the applicant noted that quotations for the works have been received from service providers which vary from between $270 000 to $340 000.

 

It is also noted by the applicant that the locality is characterised by overhead wires/cables and placement of the cables overhead would therefore not have a significant effect on the visual streetscape of the locality. It is therefore considered that it is an unreasonable economic burden on the applicant to require the placement of the cables underground.

 

The cost for undergrounding of the power lines based on the quotations received by the applicant represents between 4.45% - 5.65% of the total development cost, which is an additional cost that significantly exceeds the applicable 1% Section 94A contribution of $60,530.10. 

 

The indicative costing supplied was considered to be relatively accurate based on other projects. Council requested the applicant to provide additional information on costings and a quotation for the works was received on 13/11/13. The quotation is generally consistent with the figure provided in the Section 96 Application (being in the order of $260,000 inclusive of GST with a likely variation required to accommodate upgrading of poles).

 

On the Anzac Parade naturestrip (immediately north of the subject site) there are 2 Plane Trees. In considering a development application for a multi unit development at 2-8 Anzac Parade, Council’s Landscape Development Officer has recommended that the requirement for undergrounding of power be changed to aerial bundling to protect these trees. If this recommendation was to be supported it would limit the extent that undergrounding of power could occur going north of the site. This restriction/impediment potentially limits the benefit of undergrounding power in front of the development site.

 

It is also noted that the policy for undergrounding cables was constrained by the judgement of Commissioner C Brown of the case of Kain Projects Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council (2009) NSWLEC 1407 which identified a number of inadequacies in the policy and the questionable benefits of placing cables underground where existing overhead cabling in the surrounding area is likely to remain. Therefore the Court has held that this policy is not a satisfactory basis to impose such a condition.

 

Having regard to the applicant’s arguments and the intent of Council’s policy it is considered unreasonable for Council to require the undergrounding of existing power lines when a reasonable alternative can be provided by aerial bundling of the relevant frontages of the site.

 

The aerial bundling of cables will provide a more practical measure than undergrounding of power given the cost of insulating wires are significantly less, will improve the visual appearance by reducing the number of overhead wires and reduces the potential safety hazard of overhead uninsulated wires.

 

Consequently, in this instance it would be unreasonable for Council to request that the applicant underground existing power lines and it is recommended that Council support the amendment to condition 71 to provide aerial bundled cables.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 12:     Excellence in urban design and development – The proposal has a good architectural quality in that it maximises the potential of the subject site whilst minimising impacts on adjoining and nearby residential properties.

Direction 4a:      Improved design and sustainability across all development – The proposal will achieve a good design in conjunction with a significant sustainable outcome for the proposed development.

 


Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal does not alter the form and nature of the approved development. Having regard to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed modification of condition No. 72 is considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

Approval of the modification will not result in any significant environmental impact and will not detract from the integrity of the development nor its relationship with adjoining development. It is therefore considered that the modification to the original development consent is reasonable.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, modify the development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, for Development Application No. DA/161/2011/B for 10-20 Anzac Parade, Kensington in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 71 to read: 

71    The applicant shall meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with aerial bundled cable along the Anzac Parade site frontage. The aerial bundling works must be undertaken in accordance with a design approved by Ausgrid (or other relevant service utility authority), and a full compliance certification must be provided to the Certifying Authority at the completion of the aerial bundling works. All aerial bundling works must be completed to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to either the issuing of a final occupation certificate, or 12 months from the date of the issuing of an interim of an interim occupation certificate, which ever occurs first.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

S96 Compliance Report 10 - 20 Anzac Parade, Kensington

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP88/13

 

 

Subject:                  65-71 Belmore Road, Randwick (DA/606/2011/B)

Folder No:                   DA/606/2011/B

Author:                   Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) modification of the approved development by deletion of the terrace, landscaping and laundry on the roof, installation of solar panels on the roof, relocation and expansion of the residential communal room on level 1, and provision of an additional serviced apartment on level 3 by reconfiguring the floor layout

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                ABC Planning Pty. Ltd.

Owner:                         S Paino

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

This Section 96 modification application is referred to the Council as the original proposal was determined by Council.

 

1.      Proposal

 

Current Approvals:

Application No.

Details

DA/606/2011

Conversion of an existing motel building into 74 dwellings, 16 serviced apartments, 2 ground floor retail units, retention of the existing office space on 1/F, provision of a communal room for residents on 1/F, provision of parking for 46 vehicles (43 for residents and 3 for retail premises), 6 motorcycles and 38 bicycles, construction of a communal rooftop terrace, and Stratum and Strata subdivision.

 

The application was approved on 9 October 2012 by Deferred Commencement.

 

The consent became operational on 17 December 2012, following the approval of amended and additional design details by Council.

 

Photomontage showing the approved development as viewed from Belmore Road.

 

DA/606/2011/A

Section 96(1A) modification for reconfiguration of the main entry, lobby, shop front and hydrant booster room.

 

The application was approved on 21 May 2013.

 

 

Proposed Modification:

The subject application is made pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. DA/606/2011. The proposed modification includes the following elements:

 

Rooftop

·       Deletion of the approved communal terrace, landscaping and laundry on the rooftop of the building.

 

·       Demolition of a number of existing brick walls and enclosures on the rooftop.

 

·       Installation of solar panels on the rooftop.

 

Level 1

·       Relocation of the approved residential common room to the southern side of level 1. Enlargement of the room from approximately 56m2 to 107m2 (internal area).

 

·       Creation of an open-air terrace attached to the residential common room with an area of approximately 48m2.

 

·       Reconfiguration of the office unit. The size of the office will be reduced from approximately 275m2 to 128m2. 

 

·       Provision of toilet facilities.

 

·       Minor alteration to the western (street) elevation to provide fixed glass louvres in open position to the terrace, and operable glass louvre windows to the office unit.

 

Level 3

·      Splitting of the approved 1-bedroom serviced apartment (number 3.12) into two studio serviced apartments (number 3.10 and 3.12). 

 

 

The proposed changes to the Belmore Road elevation are described in the following drawings:

 

Approved Belmore Road (West) Elevation

 

Proposed Belmore Road (West) Elevation

 

2.      Site

The subject site is described as Lot 10 in DP 84436, No. 65-71 Belmore Road, Randwick. The site is located on the eastern side of Belmore Road, to the south of its intersection with Alison Road. The dimensions and land area of the site are summarized in the following table:

 

Boundary

Length

Land Area

Northern, side boundary

49.23m

975.7m2

Southern, side boundary

51.16m

Eastern, rear boundary

16.66m

Western, front boundary

19.81m

 

The site is occupied by an 8-storey building constructed in the 1970’s to 80s containing a retail tenancy on the ground floor, commercial units on the first and second floors and motel suites in the storeys above. Car parking is provided at the rear of the ground, first and second floors. At present, the building has been substantially refurbished pursuant to Development Consent No. DA/606/2011. The subject building is the tallest within Randwick Junction and is visually prominent. As a result, the upper storeys enjoy expansive views to the ocean, Port Botany, Randwick Racecourse, Sydney CBD and the surrounding suburbs.

 

Belmore Road is the main commercial and retail strip of Randwick. The area contains a diversity of built form, height and character reflective of the varied mix of land uses.

 

To the north of the site is a 4-storey mixed use development (No. 57-63 Belmore Road) with retail uses at street level and shop top housing units above. The subject site has the benefits of a right of way across this property in an “L” shaped arrangement running along the eastern and northern boundaries.

 

The Royal Randwick Shopping Centre (Lot 104 DP 812174) adjoins the subject site along both the south and much of the eastern boundaries. The shopping centre has a height of 2 to 3 storeys fronting Belmore Road and up to 5 storeys at the rear on Avoca Street.

 

To the west on the opposite side of the site are a range of 3-storey mixed use buildings.

 

3.      Submissions

 

The application was advertised and notified from 7 to 21 August 2013 in accordance with the Randwick DCP. No submissions were received. 

 

4.      Key Issues

 

4.1    Removal of rooftop terrace

During the course of conversion of the existing motel suites into dwelling units and serviced apartments, the existing ducted gas supply has been removed. This has resulted in the revised BASIX commitments relying upon the introduction of roof-mounted photovoltaic cells to achieve the required energy rating. Due to this requirement, the majority of the roof areas will be covered by solar panels. To address this issue, the proposal has opted to remove the approved rooftop terraces and laundry. This is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons: 

 

·      Following the installation of the solar panels, the remaining rooftop areas (including the western end of the roof where the terrace was originally approved) would become highly constrained in terms of size and dimensions. The creation of a usable terrace for outdoor passive recreation would not be feasible.

·      The Design Review Panel has recommended that a canopy structure be installed over the western end of the roof, with some of the solar panels mounted above it. This would free up some space for a function communal terrace.

 

Although the above solution is technically possible and feasible to install screens to the antenna facilities, the terrace would still be located very close to the existing telecommunications antennas mounted at the north-western and south-western corners of the roof and not provide for a pleasant space. Such structures may also complicate the appearance of the rooftop areas and create visual clutter.

·      At present, there is no lift or disabled access to the roof. The existing maintenance staircase from 8/F to the roof is less than 800mm in width, and is not suitable for frequent access by residents. To extend the lift to the roof or reconfigure the existing staircase would necessitate significant alterations that increase the size of the rooftop overrun structures, and would also be outside the scope of the development.

·      The overwhelming majority of the dwelling units on levels 4 to 8 have access to a private balcony. Those balconies on the uppermost floors enjoy views to Sydney CBD, Botany Bay, the ocean and the surrounding suburbs and have high amenity.

·      The current proposal contains an upgraded communal room with open-air terrace, which would provide alternate recreation space for the residents in lieu of a rooftop terrace.

·      Internal laundry will be provided within the dwelling units and serviced apartments.

 

Existing antennas

 

Existing condition of the western end of the rooftop areas. Note the existing telecommunications facilities at the corners.

 

Existing antennas at the south-western corner of the roof.

4.2    Amenity of residential communal room on level 1

The approved development scheme contains an internalized residential common room of 56m2, which does not have any outlook to the street.

 

The proposal will significantly improve the functionality and amenity of the residential common room by increasing its size to 107m2 and relocating it adjacent to the street façade. A 48m2 semi-outdoor terrace directly accessible from the common room will also be created. It is considered that the expanded and upgraded common areas will be adequate to overcome the deletion of the rooftop terrace.

 

In order to further enhance the open-air quality of the terrace, it is recommended that the proposed fixed glass louvers at the windows be removed.

 

The current floor plan shows that the doorways to the common room are opened from the reconfigured office unit. This may eventuate to a situation where the residential common room may become a de facto extension to the office tenancy. Therefore, a condition is recommended to require a hallway to be created in between the office and the common room, so that independent access (without passing through the office areas) is provided to the communal recreation space.

 

4.3    Amenity of serviced apartments

The approved 1-bedroom serviced apartment number 3.12 was created by amalgamating two existing motel rooms into a larger apartment. The current proposal will split this double-sized unit back into two studio apartments (being 3.10 and 3.12). The new apartment 3.10 will have its balcony facing a rooftop installation above the adjoining shopping centre building.

 

It is considered that the proposal is acceptable as the serviced apartments are catered for transient visitors, who would have a short term stay at the premises. This is in contrast to dwelling units where the occupants would live in the premises on a longer term basis. In this case, the more extensive use of air conditioning and artificial lighting is considered to be acceptable.

 

4.4    Car parking

The proposal will increase the number of serviced apartments from 16 to 17 via internal alterations to the layout of an approved serviced apartment. However, the proposal will not increase the car parking demand, or exacerbate the approved level of parking shortfall, having regard to the controls in the DCP. The detailed calculations are provided in the “Compliance Report”.

 

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 modification to the original development consent satisfies Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, in that it will constitute substantially the same development, and approval of the modification will not result in any significant additional impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises or the streetscape.

 

Therefore, the proposed modification is recommended for approval subject to amendment to the existing conditions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. DA/606/2011 for deletion of the approved terrace, landscaping and laundry on the roof, installation of solar panels on the roof, relocation and expansion of the residential communal room on level 1, and provision of an additional serviced apartment on level 3 by reconfiguring the floor layout, at No. 65-71 Belmore Road, Randwick, in the following manner:

 

Non-Standard Conditions

It is recommended that the following additional non-standard conditions be included in the consent:

 

Imposition of Condition 71 to read:

71.     The fixed glass louvres attached to the western windows of the “Semi-Outdoor Terrace” adjacent to the Residential Communal Room shall be DELETED, in order to improve the function of the above terrace as a semi-outdoor living space.

 

Imposition of Condition 72 to read:

72.     The layout of level 1 shall be amended to create a hallway in between the “Existing Office Space” and the “Residential Communal Room”, so that independent access (without passing through the office areas) is provided to the above residential communal room. Details demonstrating compliance shall be submitted to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of any Construction Certificate relating to level 1. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

S96 DA Compliance Report - 65 - 71 Belmore Road, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP89/13

 

 

Subject:                  30 Carr Street, Coogee (DA/236/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/236/2013

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of the existing dwelling house and construct a new two storey dwelling house with double garage including installation of rain water tank and air conditioning unit, associated site and landscaping works

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Momentum Partnership

Owner:                         Mr L Bonic & Mrs T Bonic

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Bowen, Neilson and Stevenson.

 

1.      Proposal

 

The demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new two storey dwelling house with double garage including installation of rain water tank and air conditioning unit, associated site and landscaping works. Specifically, the proposal comprises the following:

 

Basement

Double garage with driveway access from Carr Street

Cellar and stairs

 

Ground Floor

Kitchen, dining, family and living room

WC

Laundry room

Lift

 

First Floor

4 bedrooms, one with ensuite

Bathroom

Media Room

 

2.      Amendments to the proposal during assessment

 

The following amendments received in Council on 4 September 2013 and 15 October 2013 have been made to the original proposal to address issues raised by Council and concerns raised by adjoining residents:

 

§ Deletion of the ground floor extension at the rear such that the building ends as a two storey built form with an increased rear setback of 6.48m compared with the 1.95m originally

 

§ Relocation of the protruding double garage from the ground floor to a basement level within the proposed building envelope.

 

§ Deletion of a proposed study room on the ground level

 

§ Creation of a bedroom in an area previously marked as a void space under the original plan

 

§ Installation of a lift

 

§ Deletion of frame and roof over proposed front balcony and installation of frameless glass balustrade

 

§ Deletion of bedroom 4 and installation of void

 

The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is located on the southern side of Carr Street in Coogee.

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview64141.png

Figure 1 : Aerial view of subject site and locality

 

The site is roughly rectangular in shape with a frontage to Carr Street of 12.19m; a western boundary of 28.23m; a southern boundary of 12.8m; and an eastern boundary of28.45m.

 

The site falls from the rear to the Carr Street front by approximately 600mm.

 

The site is currently occupied by a free standing single storey rendered brick and tiled roof dwelling house .

 

Figure 2: Subject site with existing single storey dwelling house. In the background rear is the adjoining property fronting 4A Waltham Street.

Figure 3: No 28 Carr Street which is a residential flat building.

Figure 4: Existing dwelling house on 32 Carr Street which is the subject of DA for a residential flat building.

Figure 5: Residential flat buildings directly opposite on the northern side of Carr Street.

 

To the north of the subject site on the opposite side of Carr Street are predominantly residential flat buildings; to the west is a two storey rendered brick residential flat building at No 28 Carr Street; to the east is a single storey brick and tiled roof dwelling house at No 32 Carr Street; and to the south is a part1, part2 and part 3 storey dwelling house at No 4A Waltham Street.

 

3.      Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. Submissions were received from the following addresses:

 

4A Waltham Street, Coogee

1/28 Carr Street, Coogee

4/28 Carr Street, Coogee

 

As the amended proposal contained improvements to the development that addressed concerns raised by Council, the amended proposal was not renotified but shown to the objectors. All objectors maintain objections to the amended proposal which are addressed below:

 

§  Inadequate information supplied with the application including poor shadow diagrams.

The objectors in the adjoining southern property at No 4A Waltham Street raises a concern that inadequate details have been provided with the DA including poor  shadow diagrams. The amended proposal has provided adequate details to allow for  proper assessment of the DA. Amended shadow diagrams to indicate the impact of overshadowing from the amended proposal upon adjoining properties have been assessed and the impact on adjoining properties is appropriately addressed in relevant sections of this report.

 

§  Inadequate rear setback from the adjoining rear southern property at No. 4A Waltham Street.

The objectors in the adjoining southern property at No 4A Waltham Street have objected to the rear setback of the proposed development as it does not comply with the minimum 8m rear setback requirement of the Randwick DCP 2013. The proposal has been amended such that the rear setback has been increased from the original minimum 1.95m to the current 6.48m. While the latter still falls short of the minimum 8m DCP control, the proposal will meet the objectives of the rear setback control and results in reasonable amenity impacts on adjoining properties in terms of solar access, privacy, views and visual bulk and scale as indicated in the key issues assessment section below and in the DA Compliance Report. Furthermore, the proposed setback is greater than the rear setback of the existing house which is at a minimum 5.6m.

 

§  Overshadowing of adjoining properties

The objectors in the adjoining southern property at No 4A Waltham Street and the adjoining western property at No 28 Carr Street have objected to the overshadowing impacts of the proposed development. The overshadowing impacts of the proposal are addressed in the key issues assessment section below and the DA Compliance Report. Overall, the shadow impacts are considered reasonable and acceptable, having regard to the orientation, size and width of the subject site, the proposed setbacks and the compliant FSR and building height. 

 

§  Loss of privacy

The objectors in the adjoining southern property at No 4A Waltham Street and the adjoining western property at No 28 Carr Street have objected to the overshadowing impacts of the proposed development. The privacy impacts of the proposal on adjoining properties have been addressed in the key issues assessment section below. Essentially, the proposal will have reasonable privacy impacts on adjoining properties especially given that it has a typical dwelling house layout with bedrooms on the first floor and living areas on the ground floor.

 

§  Loss of views

The objectors in the rear property at No 4A Waltham Street have raised concerns regarding loss of views, as well as an objector on the first floor unit (Unit 4) with an east-facing aspect at No 28 Carr Street has raised a concern that the proposed front balcony will affect the outlook to the sea from her front balcony. These concerns have been addressed in the key issues assessment section below. Overall, the view loss impacts of the amended proposal will be acceptable and reasonable given the compliant FSR and building height, and in the case of the view loss to No 28 Carr Street, subject to a condition to reduce the depth of a proposed front balcony (see relevant assessment section below).

§  The proposal does not accord with the planning principle for general amenity impacts established by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Pafburn v North Sydney Council [2005] NSWLEC 444.

The objectors in the adjoining southern property at No 4A Waltham Street have raised a concern the proposal does not address planning principle for general amenity impacts established by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Pafburn v North Sydney Council [2005] NSWLEC 444. Pafburn v North Sydney [2005] NSWLEC 444 established a planning principle for assessing general amenity impacts which, basically, requires consideration of the following questions:

 

§ How does the impact change the amenity of the affected property? How much sunlight, view or privacy is lost as well as how much is retained?

 

Comment: All amenity impact issues have been specifically addressed in the key issues assessment sections below and in the DA Compliance Report. 

 

§ How reasonable is the proposal causing the impact?

 

Comment: As indicated in Section 2 above, the applicant has made significant amendments to the proposal, including deleting the rear ground floor extension and increasing the rear setback and relocating the garage behind the main front building line into a basement. These amendments result in a scaled-down and compact dwelling house with reduced amenity impacts in an area that is zone R3 where, typically, residential flat buildings are the predominant development type. In this context, the proposal is considered reasonable.

 

§ How vulnerable to the impact is the property receiving the impact? Would it require the loss of reasonable development potential to avoid the impact?

 

Comment: The properties receiving the impact are predominantly the rear adjoining dwelling house at No. 4A Waltham Street and the western residential flat building at No. 28 Carr Street:

 

4A Waltham Street – this property is vulnerable to overshadowing and loss of privacy given its southern position to the proposed development and its non-compliant rear setback (ie., its closeness to the subject site) and elevated position.

 

28 Carr Street - this property is vulnerable to overshadowing and loss of views given its western position and non-compliant side setback (ie., its closeness to the subject site) and elevated position.

 

The vulnerability of these properties has been reduced by the measures that have been undertaken by the applicant to amend the proposal deleting the rear ground floor extension and increasing the rear setback and relocating the garage behind the main front building line into a basement. Accordingly, the proposal has been amended to mitigate amenity impacts on these adjoining properties at the expense of a reduced development potential of the subject site.

 

§ Does the impact arise out of poor design? Could the same amount of floor space and amenity be achieved for the proponent while reducing the impact on neighbours?

 

Comment: The amended proposal has resulted in a significantly improved building in terms of design and amenity impacts compared with the original proposal. As detailed in the assessment section of this report, the overshadowing, privacy and visual bulk and scale impacts associated with the poor design of the original proposal have all been mitigated as a result of the redesign of the proposal. The redesign has resulted in a reduction in floor space such that the proposal now complies with the FSR standard of the Randwick LEP 2012.

 

§ Does the proposal comply with the planning controls? If not, how much of the impact is due to the non-complying elements of the proposal

 

Comment: The amended proposal now complies with the Randwick LEP standards relating to FSR and building height.

 

§  Inadequate western setback from No 28 Carr street

The objectors in the adjoining western property at No 28 Carr Street have objected to the inadequate setback of the proposal along the western boundary. The western side setback of the proposal is 1500mm along the majority of the wall (which complies with the minimum 1500mm setback requirement under the Randwick DCP 2013) except for two separate stretches of this wall where the setback will be 1050mm (shortfall of 450mm). The encroachments have been assessed in the key issues section below and the DA Compliance Report. They are considered minor and do not result in any significant amenity impacts on adjoining properties. 

 

§  The proposal does not conform to current standards/controls.

The objectors in the adjoining southern property at No 4A Waltham Street and the adjoining western property at No 28 Carr Street have objected to non-compliances in the DA relating to the Randwick LEP 2012 standards and Randwick DCP 2013 controls. The amended proposal is fully compliant with the Randwick LEP 2012 standards for floor space ratio (FSR) and building height (being max FSR 0.9:1 and max building height 12m) which apply to the R3 zoning of the locality and primarily allow for higher and denser residential flat developments. The proposal will fall short of the rear setback of the Randwick DCP 2013 control by 1520 mm; by 450mm in parts for the western side boundary and by 300mm in part for the eastern side boundary.  These non-compliances have been addressed in the key issues section below and in the Compliance Report and, as assessed, do not give rise to any adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties especially considering that the proposal fully complies with the LEP height and FSR standard which as indicated above would potentially allow for a higher and denser (apartment) development than that proposed.

 

§  Loss of eastern sunlight in winter morning

The objectors in the adjoining southern property at No 28 Carr Street have objected to the overshadowing impact of the proposal on east facing windows of both the ground floor and first floor units in No 28 Carr Street in the winter morning.  As detailed in the key issues section below, the morning overshadowing is a natural impact arising from the north-south orientation of allotments on the southern side of Carr Street so that any development that fully complies with the 12m and 0.9:1 FSR would have a similar, if not, worse impact (in the winter morning) on No. 28 Carr Street. Furthermore, the proposed development will not overshadow No 28 Carr Street in the winter midday and afternoon. Additionally, No. 28 Carr Street, being a residential flat building on a higher slope, will overshadow the subject site and proposed development in the winter afternoon to a greater degree than the overshadowing generated by the smaller proposed development in the winter morning. In short, overshadowing from the proposed development onto 28 Carr Street in the winter morning and, vice-versa in the afternoon, are distributed naturally and fairly between the two properties. It would be unreasonable to refuse the proposed low density dwelling house on the subject site on the grounds of morning overshadowing when this proposed dwelling house will itself be overshadowed to a greater degree by larger existing and future residential flat buildings at various times of the winter day.

 

§  Proposed air conditioning unit will cause noise

The objectors in the adjoining southern property at No 28 Carr Street have raised concerns as to the location and potential noise impacts of proposed air conditioning units. It is not compulsory to show air-conditioning units on DA drawings especially given that installation can be considered exempt development so long as, among other things, they are located a minimum 450mm from a common boundary and no higher than 1.8m. However, given the objectors concern at No 28 Carr Street, a condition is recommended for any air-conditioning unit for this development to be located only on the southern and eastern (courtyard) sides of the proposed development where the setback to adjoining properties is greater.  

 

4.      Key Issues

 

Rear and Side Setback

The proposal has a maximum rear setback of 6.48m from rear southern boundary which falls short of the 8m rear setback control by 1.52m. The proposal also falls short of the required 1.5m side setback by 450mm in two short separate stretches of the proposed western wall and by 300m for a stretch of 8m along the eastern wall.  The non-compliances in the rear and side setbacks are considered reasonable and acceptable as the proposal will meet all the setback objectives of the DCP as indicated below:

§  To maintain or establish a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the character of the neighbourhood.

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

The proposal will present as a two storey dwelling house to Carr Street set in the context of a Residential R3 zone where several neighbouring medium to large residential flat buildings exist. In this context, the rear alignment of the proposed building from the rear boundary will not have any significant visual impact to and from the street front. The proposal will maintain the rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens along the southern side of Carr Street. Similarly, the non-compliances in the side setback are limited to two short stretches on the proposed west elevation where the encroachments will be 450mm, and one encroachment of 300mm along an 8m stretch on the east elevation, both of which are considered minor and will be imperceptible from the street. Specifically, the non-compliance in the eastern side setback will be screened as it will be located towards the rear and will be off set by a significantly greater setback of 5.6m along this east elevation where the eastern side courtyard is proposed. In essence, the proposal presents as a typical two-storey dwelling house of moderate proportions and visual bulk and scale in an area where larger and bulkier residential flat buildings are permissible. Accordingly, given the small size of the subject site, the proposal has been designed to allow for a reasonable sized new dwelling house while minimising visual bulk and scale to the street as well as overshadowing impacts on the adjoining rear yards.

 

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

The proposal has been amended to significantly increase the rear setback such that the proposal will now exceed the rear setback of the existing dwelling house. The non-compliant rear setback will still allow for an open corridor between buildings. Similarly, the non-compliances in the side setbacks are limited to two short stretches on the proposed west elevation and to one moderate stretch along the east elevation where these encroachments are considered minor. Specifically, the eastern encroachment will be off set by the provision of a greater 5.6m  courtyard setback that will allow generous separation to the adjoining eastern property. The proposal will perform adequately in terms of allowing for occupants and neighbours to have adequate access to sunlight (see assessment on solar access below) natural/day light, and fresh air especially considering that the proposed development will be located on a lower slope and will have a lower built form than the adjoining southern and western buildings.

 

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

The non-compliant rear setback will still allow for an adequately sized rear yard, having dimensions of 6.4m x 12m with an area of 76.8 sqm, to be provided. The overall landscape provision of 47 % is considered generous compared with the DCP control of min 25%.   

 

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

There are no view loss impacts arising from the 1.5m encroachment into the rear setback and the 450mm and 300mm encroachments into the western and eastern side setbacks (see assessment in next section below).

 

View loss

 

4A Waltham Street, Coogee

Following a view loss assessment at No 4A Waltham Street, and having regard to the principles in Tenacity vs Warringah Council, it is considered that the proposed dwelling house will not have an unreasonable view loss impact for the following reasons:

 

§ The view from the living room and roof top terrace over the rear elevation of the proposed development is directly north (red arrow in Photo 1) across a rear boundary. While some significance may be given to the view as it is gained across a rear boundary, it comprises a typical street and district view gained over the  roof of the existing dwelling house and considerably filtered by existing development in Carr Street. It is a view of moderate significance and is not an iconic view in terms of the planning principles in Tenacity vs Warringah Council such that refusal of the proposal to accommodate such a view would be unreasonable. 

Photo 1: Non-iconic street view looking north over the rear elevation and single storey roof of the existing dwelling house (red arrow) obtained from the north-facing living room window of No 4A Waltham Street .

 

§ The proposal is a reasonable two-storey dwelling house with a compliant maximum building and maximum wall height as well as maximum FSR, in an area zoned R3 Medium Density. As such, the proposal has been skillfully designed to minimise view loss consistent with the view sharing principles in Tenacity vs Warringah Council. Relocating the rear elevation of the proposed development a further 1.5m north to comply with the DCP rear setback control will have minimal view gain to No 4A Waltham Street.

§ There are more significant district views available to the residents of 4A Waltham Street that will be unaffected by the proposed development (see Photos 2 and 3). 

 

Photos 2 & 3: Existing district and sea views from the roof top terrace of 4A Waltham Street that will be unaffected by the proposed development.

 

 

No 28 Carr Street

An objector on the first floor unit with an east-facing aspect at No 28 Carr Street has raised a concern that the proposed front balcony will affect the outlook to the sea from her front balcony and living area. A cantilevered first floor balcony 1m in depth is proposed facing the street which will be constructed in frameless glass and is located within the front setback of the main building line.

 

Photo 4 : View from the objectors front first floor balcony to the ocean is obtained looking due east and is currently obstructed by an existing tree which is to be removed in the proposed development. Height pole indicating top of balustrade and northern edge of proposed front balustrade superimposed in red.

 

An inspection of the objector’s property indicates that the view from the objectors front first floor balcony to the ocean is obtained looking due east and is currently obstructed by an existing tree which is to be removed under the proposed development (Photo 4 above). A height pole erected to the top of the balustrade of the proposed balcony was erected on site and is shown in red in the photo. Following a view loss assessment, having regard to the principles in Tenacity vs Warringah Council, it is considered that the protrusion of the proposed balcony from the front wall of the proposed dwelling house will not have an unreasonable view loss impact for the following reasons:

§ The view is a distant, filtered and non-iconic view of the Pacific Ocean that is obtained against a side boundary and therefore not rated as highly as views obtained across front and rear boundaries under Tenacity. 

§ The proposed balcony has been amended by deleting its originally proposed frame and roof structure and by including a frameless glass balustrade so that in effect the balcony will be a light and transparent structure. In this regards, the amended proposal accords with the principles of Tenacity vs Warringah Council in that it has been skillfully redesigned to minimize view loss impacts.

§ While the proposed balcony will protrude 1m into the front setback of the proposed dwelling house, it is not considered to be an encroachment into the proposed front setback as the Randwick DCP 2013 provides for the following:

 

·      “Setback distances are measured perpendicular (that is, at 90 degrees angle) from the boundary to the outer face of the building elevation, excluding eaves, gutters, unroofed terraces, decks or landings not more than 1m above ground level (finished) and minor projecting features, such as awnings, sun hoods, screening devices and the like” (Section 3.3, page 13).

 

The proposed balcony is considered an elevated, unroofed terrace, and therefore a form of articulation feature attached to the outer face of the building elevation. In this articulated form, and with no solid walls, the proposed balcony will not result in any adverse view loss to the objector’s property.

§ To further reinforce its articulation to the street front, a condition will be applied requiring the balcony width to be reduced to a maximum 600mm, effectively making it a juliette-type balcony that will not be conducive for seating nor the installation of privacy screens that could potentially affect views. 

§ The proposal is a reasonable two-storey dwelling house with a compliant maximum building; maximum wall height and maximum FSR in an area zoned R3 Medium Density. As such, the proposal has been skillfully designed to minimise view loss consistent with the view sharing principles in Tenacity vs Warringah Council.

 

 

The objector at 28 Carr street also has a view looking east across the subject site from the living room as shown in Photo 5 below. The view comprises a distant and filtered view of the ocean.

 

Photo 5 : View from the objector’s front first floor living room window looking east.

 

Following an assessment of the view impact from this living room and having regard to the principles in Tenacity vs Warringah Council, it is considered that the proposal will not have an unreasonable view loss impact for the following reasons:

 

§ The view from the living room is directly over the eastern side boundary and comprises a highly restricted non-iconic view of the horizon with partial water views which are punctuated by existing buildings and vegetation and is obtained against a side boundary and therefore not rated as highly as views obtained across front and rear boundaries under Tenacity. 

§ When the estimated minimum height of a compliant development being the 8m external wall height is superimposed on the view (horizontal line in red), it is anticipated that the ocean views will be lost. The proposal is a reasonable two-storey dwelling house with a compliant maximum building height of 8.6m and compliant maximum wall height of 6.8m, as well as compliant maximum FSR of 0.73:1, in an area zoned R3 Medium Density. This compliant building will block the subject view from the living room. As such, it is considered that the proposal has been skillfully designed to minimise view loss consistent with the view sharing principles in Tenacity vs Warringah Council. Redistributing the second storey level of the proposed development to accommodate the view will not be feasible given the limited depth of the subject site.

 

Solar Access

The proposal will result in increased overshadowing of the east facing windows of the adjoining western residential flat building at No 28 Carr Street in the winter morning. This overshadowing is considered reasonable for the following reasons:

 

§ The proposal complies with the Randwick DCP 2013 in that the increase overshadowing will not occur on any north-facing living room windows of dwelling units in No 28 Carr Street which will continue to receive sunlight unobstructed by the proposed development. This is primarily because the proposal will have a compliant front setback that is consistent with that of No 28 Carr Street (that is, the proposal will not project forward of the front building line of No 28 Carr Street).

§ The ground floor unit (Unit 1) of No 28 Carr Street will have east-facing windows that will be overshadowed by the proposed development in the winter morning. This overshadowing is considered reasonable for the following reasons:

The overshadowing is generated by a building that has a wall and building height that complies with the Randwick DCP 2013 and LEP 2012 respectively.

The morning overshadowing occurs as a natural consequence of the north-south alignment of existing allotments and development along Carr Street and, in the case of the proposed development, overshadowing of Unit 1 will begin to ease from late morning becoming completely free by 12 midday.   

The proposed development will not overshadow No 28 Carr Street in the winter midday and afternoon. In the winter afternoon No. 28 Carr Street, being a residential flat building on a higher slope, will overshadow the subject site and proposed development to a greater degree than the overshadowing generated by the smaller proposed development in the winter morning. In short, overshadowing from the proposed development onto 28 Carr Street in the winter morning and, vice-versa in the afternoon, is distributed naturally and fairly between the two properties. It would be unreasonable to refuse a low density dwelling house on the subject site on the grounds of morning overshadowing when this proposed dwelling house will itself be overshadowed to a greater degree by larger existing and future residential flat building at various times of the winter day.

§ The second floor dwelling unit (Unit No. 4) of No 28 Carr Street will continue to receive adequate solar access when assessed against the solar access principles established in the case of The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082. In that case, adequate solar access is considered to be achieved in the built space behind any exposed glazed area by the sun falling on the comparatively modest portion of the glazed area of the subject window. The elevational shadow diagrams show that in the winter morning solar access will still be available to upper portion of all east facing windows of Unit 4

There will be some increase in overshadowing of the rear yard of No 28 Carr Street but this impact is considered reasonable for the following reasons:

 

§ The overshadowing will be limited to the winter mornings with the adjoining rear yard being free of overshadowing from the proposal in the winter midday and afternoon. Opportunities for this adjoining rear yard to obtain solar access in the winter midday and afternoon unobstructed by the proposed development will still be available.

§ The proposal has been amended to significantly increase the rear setback such that it will exceed the rear setback of the existing dwelling house. Accordingly, given the small size of the subject site, the proposal has been designed to allow for a reasonable sized new dwelling house while minimising overshadowing impacts on the adjoining rear yard.

In relation to the adjoining southern property at No 4A Waltham Street, the shadow diagrams indicate that in the winter solstice morning only the western portion of the rear yard of this adjoining property will be overshadowed with the eastern portion being free from overshadowing from the proposed development. By midday, the rear yard will be predominantly overshadowed by the proposed development. However, in the winter afternoon, the proposal’s shadow will shift to the east so that the western portion of the rear yard will be free of overshadowing. Additionally, the shadow diagrams indicate that with the increase in the rear setback of the amended proposal, the north-facing living room windows on the first floor of No 4A Waltham will not be overshadowed by the proposed development.

 

The west facing windows of the adjoining eastern property, an existing single storey dwelling house at No 32 Carr Street, will be overshadowed by the proposal in the winter afternoon. This overshadowing is considered reasonable as it occurs as a natural consequence of the north-south orientation of allotments on the southern side of Carr Street. Overshadowing from the proposed development onto 32 Carr Street in the winter afternoon and, vice-versa in the morning, are distributed naturally and fairly between the two properties.

 

Overall, due to the increased rear setback of the amended proposal, its shadow impact will be such that it will allow for solar access to be reasonably distributed to all adjoining properties over the mid-winter day such that it will meet the objectives and controls for solar access in the DCP.  

 

Privacy

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

 

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

All living areas will be on the ground floor. The proposed first floor contains only bedrooms and bathrooms with a small balcony to a media room facing Carr Street which will be required to be reduced in width (see relevant assessment above). These uses will not be intensive or conducive to overlooking into the habitable rooms and private open space of the adjoining properties. Notwithstanding this, the window of bedrooms 3 will be set back and off-set at an angle from the windows of the adjoining property at No 28 Carr Street in compliance with the DCP to further minimise any loss of privacy. Furthermore, the amended proposal has deleted one bedroom (Bedroom 4) and replaced it with a void over the ground floor dining area so that no overlooking will be possible from the associated void window. The south-facing window to Bedroom 2 may overlook the rear yard of No 28 Carr Street but this overlooking is not considered unreasonable as it is not associated with a living room but rather a bedroom that, as a matter of practice, does not generate intensive activities for overlooking

 

Fencing along the common boundary to the adjoining western and southern properties are considered adequate to screen pedestrian activity along the proposed pathway on the western boundary.

 

The proposal has provided adequate consideration for privacy and therefore meets the relevant objective of the DCP relating to privacy.

 

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 works have been assessed against Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and are considered satisfactory.

 

The proposal has been subjected to extensive amendments such that it now complies with all the relevant standards of the Randwick LEP 2012. While there will be some variations from the setback controls in the Randwick DCP 2013, the proposal will meet the objectives of these controls and will not have a significant impact on the amenity of surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access, privacy and views.

 

The proposed works are considered appropriate within the context of the site. The application is recommended for approval subject to the attached conditions of consent.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 236/2013 for demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new two storey dwelling house with double garage including installation of rain water tank and air conditioning unit, associated site and landscaping works at No. 30 Carr Street, Coogee, 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.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements:

 

§ The first floor north-facing balcony linked to the media room shall be reduced in depth to 600mm, shall have frameless clear/transparent glass balustrades and no screens to its sides.

 

§ Any air-conditioning unit shall be located in a location that is adjacent to the wall of the proposed building in the rear yard and/or eastern courtyard and away from any habitable opening in the adjoining property.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 30 Carr Street , Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP90/13

 

 

Subject:                  330 Anzac Parade, Kensington - JRPP (DA/748/2011/B)

Folder No:                   DA/748/2011/B

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Introduction

 

The subject s96(2) application seeks to modify a Crown development consent having a capital investment value of more than $5 million. Pursuant to Section 23G and Schedule 4A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal will be referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for determination.

 

The original approval was for the demolition of the Basser College and Goldstein College buildings and the construction of three buildings (varying between 5 and 8 storeys) for the purpose of student accommodation and associated facilities, and for retail ‘cold shell’ spaces. The buildings are collectively known as the ‘Kensington Colleges’.

 

A subsequent s96(2) application (DA/748/2011/A) was approved for various modifications to the approved college buildings; including the reconfiguration of stairs at the northern end of the development on High Street, the relocation of a substation within the basement level, the provision of 33 additional parking spaces within the basement level of the development. Balconies were redistributed on the college elevations; primarily in the interests of safety, so that students would be less likely to attempt to jump between the balconies.

 

The subject application involves various modifications to the approved materials for the student colleges; with the aim of increasing the safety of residents and to address perceived building maintenance issues. Materials are proposed to be amended on the northern and southern elevations from timber to anodised aluminium blades; and are to be reoriented from the horizontal to vertical plane in order to discourage students from using them as climbing frames. Similarly, ‘hit and miss’ brickwork is to be replaced by revised façade treatments, in order to discourage residents from climbing the brickwork.

 

To the rooftops it is proposed to increase the area of the plant and equipment and to increase the height of the plant and equipment on the rooftops by 0.9m. Fences are proposed to be increased around the plant and equipment to 2m however these works will not be readily visible from surrounding streetscapes. Balustrades surrounding rooftop courtyards are proposed to be amended to discourage dangerous behaviour.

 

Issues

 

The subject application was notified to surrounding property owners by letter dated 2 October 2013 and the proposal was also advertised in the local newspaper. The notification period ended on 17 October 2013. No submissions were received at the conclusion of the public notification process.

 

The subject site is zoned SP2 Infrastructure under the Randwick LEP 2012. The development involves the provision of student accommodation with associated car parking and floor space for supporting services, which will be ancillary to the primary educational function of the Kensington Campus. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the zone objectives.

 

The amended development will generally be consistent with the objectives and planning controls of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan. There will be no distinct change in the apparent scale of the approved colleges as viewed from High Street and from within the university. The proposed changes to materials will not detrimentally affect the sense of place which will be provided by the development; and the proposal will not affect the existing fig trees on High Street and the historical buildings within the Old Tote Courtyard. It is also considered that the proposed changes to the approved development will result in a safer environment for the residents of the student colleges.

 

The proposed modifications do not give rise to unreasonable additional amenity impacts and generally maintain the perceived bulk and scale of the approved development. The proposal is considered to be substantially the same development as was originally approved and satisfies Section 96 of the Act.

 

The proposal satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and is recommended for approval.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.        

Direction 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The development complies with the objectives and performance requirements of relevant State and Local planning controls and it is considered that the proposed changes to the external facades of the approved Kensington Colleges will maintain a satisfactory streetscape outcome for High Street and the internal roads within the campus. The amended development scheme will not result in unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the surrounding areas in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access, privacy and traffic.

 

The proposal represents an economic and orderly use of the site and will deliver positive planning benefits.

 

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

 

Recommendation

That the assessment report for the Joint Regional Planning Panel in relation to DA/748/2011/B (330 Anzac Parade, Kensington – UNSW) be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

1.

JRPP Report - 330 Anzac Parade, Kensington

Included under separate cover

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP91/13

 

 

Subject:                  The Spot Festival - Licence for Spot Festival Bar

Folder No:                   F2013/00011

Author:                   Katie Griffith, Coordinator Events & Marketing     

 

Introduction

 

This report seeks the Council’s endorsement to implement a formal quotation process to select an official festival bar operator for The 2014 Spot Festival. The Spot Festival is one of a number of high profile events that is fully funded and managed by Randwick City Council.

 

Introduced in 2011, the festival bar has been running for 3 years.  It is a popular and positive addition to the event because the bar provides a safe and convenient way for festival attendees to enjoy a variety of beverages.  Recently, a number of local businesses have expressed to council officers their interest in running the festival bar stall and Council Officers have also discussed the requirement for a professional bar operator to manage the bar and the opportunity to request a reasonable fee from the bar operators.

 

 

Current Situation

 

The Spot Festival has been held on the last day of the Australian Film Festival, an event that is independently organized.  The Council, in conjunction with the Australian Film Festival and The Spot Business Association, made the strategic decision to hold The Spot Festival on the last day of the Australian Film Festival, because of the connection between Australian actors and the Walk of Fame component of The Spot Festival.

 

The proprietor of the Australian Film Festival (AFF) in 2011, 2012, 2013 applied for a Liquor Licence for the festival bar to the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing. This application was supported by The Spot Business Association.

 

In recognition of the Australian Film Festival’s contribution to the Walk of Fame event at The Spot Festival, Council raised no objection to this activity. In making this decision, it was envisaged that income from the bar would help the Australian Film Festival organizers with subsidising the cost of the Australian Film Festival event.  In 2013, the Film Festival did not take place. However, the AFF still ran the festival bar in partnership with two other businesses, El Bulli Restaurant and The Ritz, as a commercial operation.

 

Issues

 

In the past two years other local businesses have expressed an interest in running the festival bar. The festival bar has become a profitable business venture. 

 

As the Australian Film Festival was granted the rights to the bar to assist in defraying the costs of the Film Festival, which did not occur last year, it is considered only fair and equitable that the future rights to run the bar be offered to all interested parties, and that a professional organisation be considered to limit the risk to Council.

 

It is appropriate that other businesses be given an opportunity to operate the festival bar.  A fair and equitable way to select a preferred festival bar operator is via a competitive quotation process. As with all competitive selection processes, the successful operator is selected on the basis of an agreed set of selection criteria.

As part of the selection criteria, experience in running a bar needs to be a requirement in order to offer a professional and responsible service to the community and limit the risk to Council.

 

Contact has been made with other Councils regarding their processes for appointing such licences at events. In some cases external hospitality companies are brought in to run the bar given the experience and professionalism they bring to the event.

 

Suggested Quotation Process

 

Subject to the Council’s endorsement, the request for quotation will take on the following process in identifying a preferred festival bar operator:

 

Selection Panel

An external committee to be responsible for reviewing and selecting the preferred supplier, comprising representatives of:

 

·      Spot Business Association;

·      Eastern Beaches Local Area Command officers (licensing police);

·      Relevant Council staff.

 

Application of Selection Criteria

When putting together the request for quotation, some criteria may include:

 

1.  Giving local businesses additional weighting;

2.  Demonstrated experience and proven ability to run a responsible bars at festival events – (Festival bar management);

3.  Pay a bar licence fee towards the running of The Spot Festival – either a one-off payment or a percentage of takings;

4.  Complying with Council’s relvant policies including the Green Events policy

5.  Accountable and auditable management of stock & cash;

6.  Staff: fully trained, experienced and trusted personnel; and

7.  Risk assessments provided by the bar operator outlining potential risks.

 

In relation to point 3 above, there is an opportunity for Council to request the bar organisers become a ‘sponsor’ of the Festival, thereby charging an amount from the day’s taking to help subsidise the cost of holding The Spot Festival. 

 

This cost of running the event is currently borne by the Council at $130 000.00 per annum. The current stallholder income to Council is approximately $30,000, with the net cost of the event running at $100,000.00.

 

Subject to the Council’s approval, a request for quotation will be put together, and businesses will be invited to apply. The selection committee will meet to review the applications and a recommendation report will be put to the Council.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

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

 


Financial impact statement

 

An income will be generated from the appointment of a professionally licensed organisation to pay a fee towards the cost of the event. This income will be returned to the event budget to defray the cost of holding The Spot Festival.

 

Conclusion

 

To ensure greater accountability and transparency, it is reasonable for Council to issue a request for a quotation process to identify a preferred official festival bar operator at The Spot Festival. The bar collects significant revenue as a commercial operation through the staging of this event.  The successful bar operator will be asked to pay a fee to operate at the event, a practice that is commonly adopted by other local councils and commercial events of this size.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)       Council approve the request for quotation for the running of the bar at the Spot Festival;

 

b)       Council approve a licence fee to be charged to the successful bar operator; and

 

c)       a report comes back to council with the recommendation from the committee for approval.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP92/13

 

 

Subject:                  Randwick Environment Park final draft Plan of Management

Folder No:                   F2010/00407

Author:                   Bronwyn Englaro, Senior Sustainability Officer     

 

Executive Summary

 

On 25 June 2013 Council endorsed the draft Plan of Management (PoM) for the Randwick Environment Park for public exhibition (Moore/Smith). The draft Plan was exhibited for approximately six weeks from 9 July 2013 to 26 August 2013 with an extensive community consultation process including two open days and a public hearing. The draft PoM consultations were undertaken in conjunction with the draft PoM for the adjacent Randwick Community Centre, given their proximity and synergies of use.

 

A total of 54 submissions were received, with 49 specifically related to the Environment Park and 5 specifically related to the Community Centre (for which a separate Council report has been prepared). A total of eight residents attended the public hearing.

 

Of the 49 submissions for the draft Park PoM, 42 were from residents, 3 from precinct committees (Moverly, the Spot and Coogee), 2 from government agencies (the Commonwealth Department of Defence as adjacent land owner and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage OEH), and 2 from interest groups (WIRES with a facility within the park, and the SOS childcare group within the Community centre).

 

Most submissions were supportive of the plan’s focus on environmental protection and passive recreation. There was strong support for additional facilities such as extending the walking/cycle path around the wetland, providing a toilet, shade trees in the picnic area, and other additional facilities across the park such as dog waste bins and signage. Key issues raised were the need for improved maintenance regimes for the bushland and rubbish removal (already raised with site contractors) and the need for toilets to be accessible on the weekend and locked at night. While the OEH was strongly supportive of the proposed management measures for the bushland and Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS) in particular, the precincts requested that change and additional facilities should be minimised to protect the park’s environmental attributes.

 

Attachment 1 contains a summary of all submissions and Attachment 3 and 4 contain the proposed amendments to the draft Concept Plan and PoM (in tracked changes) to reflect this feedback received during consultations.

 

A number of changers have been made to the draft PoM in response to issues and priorities raised during the consultation processes including measures to improve the park maintenance, enhance existing facilities and introduce new facilities while being mindful that these need to be low impact and comprise sustainable materials.

 

This report reviews all submissions and issues, discusses proposed amendments and recommends that Council adopt the Randwick Environment Park Plan of Management in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Background

 

On 3 November 2010 the Randwick Environment Park (REP) was officially dedicated to Council by the Department of Defence. On 11 October 2011 Council resolved (Andrews/Procopiadis) to commence the process to review the 2003 draft Plan of Management for Randwick Environment Park. An expert landscape design consultant was appointed in mid 2012 to prepare the new draft PoM. Preliminary consultation in late 2012 included a park user survey and a stand at the Ecoliving Fair.

 

The Randwick Environment Park is a 13.1 hectare park on the eastern side of the Bundock Street Defence site and located adjacent to Moverly Green development and Argyle Street, South Coogee. This park contains approximately 3.6 hectares of the rare and nationally listed Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS) plant community.

 

As part of Defence's redevelopment of the Bundock Street site, Defence dedicated the Park to Council. The area contains a significant amount of threatened species and wetland requiring a high level of maintenance. Council agreed to the dedication subject to the Department of Defence providing funds for a twenty year maintenance period. Upon the dedication of the Park the Department of Defence provided $2.5 million (inclusive of GST) for this maintenance period. This money is kept in a separate fund and is only used for maintenance of the REP (in accordance with the conditions of consent and the Deed of Agreement).

 

Recreational needs study & Community Survey

The PoM has incorporated the recommendations of Council’s Recreational Needs Study (adopted May 2008) and has taken directions from the 2012 user survey.

 

Council’s Recreational Needs Study (adopted May 2008) considered the existing and future users and needs for all open space in Randwick City and noted the Regional park classification of the Park and it’s environmental significance. The following recommendations from the Study for remnant bushland areas were considered and incorporated into the new draft PoM:

 

§  Provide facilities that encourage participation in passive outdoor recreation, where appropriate, which may include walking trails, viewing areas, and picnic areas.

§  Management must reflect the need to ensure environmental protection for sensitive bushland areas and rare and endangered flora and fauna as a high priority, and the recreation needs of the community as a secondary or lower priority.

§  Support controlled (or managed) access to the bushland area(s), where appropriate.

 

In September/October 2012 approximately 290 responses to a park user survey were received by Council via postage paid information postcards. These survey postcards were distributed at the Eco Living fair, to approximately 1500 residents living in close proximity to the site and further, made available at Council’s administration centre, libraries and community centres and an equivalent online survey at yoursayrandwick website.

 

Key outcomes from the survey were that the highest proportion of the respondents (25%) visited the park at least once a week, stayed for less than an hour (39%) and lived within 1km (56%) from the Park. They particularly valued the park for it’s bushland, walking paths and wetland lookouts.

Key opportunities for the Park supported by the survey respondents were for toilet facilities, completion of the walking track around the wetland and for the preservation of the wetland and/or bushland areas within the Park.

 

The draft Plan of Management

The draft PoM is consistent with the requirements of the NSW Local Government Act and the Department of Local Government Public Land Management - Revised Practice Note. The exhibited draft PoM in summary includes measures to:

 

§  Continue and enhance extensive bushland management/rehabilitation and weed control;

§  Enhance the park entrance at Dooligah Avenue with improved signage and landscaping;

§  Provide a demonstration ESBS area near the community centre for use by schools/interest groups in association with the sustainability education program based at the community centre;

§  Improve pedestrian access around the site including the completion of a continuous loop walk around the wetland;

§  Facilitate improved pedestrian access and connectivity to surrounding residential areas;

§  Better integrate the Park’s pedestrian walkways with the adjacent community centre walkways and facilities;

§  Improve underutilised open space area on the southern side of the wetland;

§  Enhance recreational facilities at the picnic area including shade trees and a toilet;

§  Consider options for a new park eastern lookout with outstanding views accessed via low impact access track;

§  Improve useability of the southern and western wetland lookouts to increase wetland enjoyment;

§  Relocate within the Park the Wildlife Information and Rescue Service (WIRES) east branch aviary facility to reduce impacts on the bushland while maintaining amenities and seclusion of the facility for the benefit of the animals in care; and

§  Utilise environmental friendly materials in additional infrastructure proposed i.e. footpaths and future upgrades/maintenance.

 

The action plan within the draft PoM notes a range of priority management actions and measures, which can largely be provided partially through the existing maintenance budget and staff resources for the park. Capital works improvements would need Council’s approval in future capital work budget (subject to their priority).

 

The Concept plan included in Attachment 3 shows the key elements of the new draft PoM .

 

Consultation

The draft PoM was on exhibition for public comment for approximately 6 weeks from 9 July 2013 to 26 August 2013, in conjunction with the community centre draft Plan of Management.

 

The public exhibition and consultation process for the draft plan included: 

 

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

§  exhibition of the draft at Council’s Administration Building and Bowen, Margaret martin and Malabar Libraries

§  two community open days to speak directly with Council staff and view the proposals

§  presentations and questions and answers at the Moverly precinct committee meeting in August; and

§  direct notification to:

adjoining and nearby local residents and land owners

community centre lessees and users

Bushcare/interest groups

local schools

precinct committees and chambers

 

A total of 54 submissions were received during the exhibition period and of these 5 were related to the community centre and 49 were relevant to the Randwick Environment Park.

 

These 49 submissions included:

 

§ 42 from residents;

§ 2 from Government Agencies (NSW Office of Environment and Heritage and the Commonwealth Department of Defence);

§ SOS Childcare (lessee of the Randwick Community centre);

§ WIRES East Branch; and

§ 3 precinct committees including The Spot, Moverly and Coogee

 

The 42 residential submissions were largely in support of the proposed improvements to the Park with specific issues or improvements regarding the maintenance of the park with respect to litter and dog faeces, the location and operation of the proposed toilet block within the vicinity of the picnic area and the completion of the loop walk around the wetland.

 

Eight of the submissions were template emails supporting the addition of a toilet block within the Park. The need for these facilities was supported by groups using the BBQs and having children’s parties, and those wanting to spend extended periods enjoying the park’s facilities.

 

The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage submission commended Council on the plan and inclusion of a fire management plan. Their submission suggestions are for some additional recovery actions specific to Acacia terminalis ssp. terminalis.

 

The Commonwealth Department of Defence sought clarification of matters relating to their land, including assurance that no inconsistent land uses would occur and clarification of site boundaries.

 

Of the three precinct committee submissions the Moverly precinct committee made a comprehensive submission and noted the need for a clear vision of the park to focus on it’s environmental protection and to improve rehabilitation. The committee particularly expressed concern about the current maintenance issues within the Park and stability of the banks of the wetland and recreational area and suggested that all future proposals at the park should enhance the environmental assets of the park, noting minimal changes should occur in the form of the new facilities. They also provided suggestions for the signage at the park, encouraged the provision of regular guided tours and recommended speed limits on the paths for cyclists to ensure the park is safe and accessible for all user groups. Regular ranger patrols of the area were also suggested.

 

The Coogee Precinct Committee similarly noted that the plan should have a greater focus on maintenance and recommended capital expenditure to protect the environmental asserts of the park including the banks of the creek and a request to undertake urgent feral animal control of pest fauna especially foxes.

 

The Spot Precinct Committee was mostly supportive and made a number of suggested improvements in line with the Moverly precinct committee’s submission.

 

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

 


Public Hearing

A public hearing under section 40A of the Local Government Act was held on Thursday 29 August at the Randwick Community Centre to categorise the community land for the first time, as a “natural area” under the Act.

 

The independent facilitator from SJB Planning undertook the hearing for both plans with eight attendees.

 

A report on the public hearing (Attachment 2) concludes that the submissions fall into two (2) categories – those who advocate no or very little change to the Park (and so do not generally support any additional requirements in the PoM) while seeking that the Council improve Park management and maintenance; and those who are generally supportive of the works proposed in the PoM and make additional suggestions.

 

The public hearing report concludes that no significant concerns were raised with the draft PoM, but rather suggestions for additional activities and additional facilities, many of which are already nominated within the draft PoM or already exist within the Park.

 

The report recommends that Council give consideration to the provision of toilets, continuation of the path around the wetlands, improvement to lookouts, dog waste bag facilities and additional shade trees in the picnic area and that the Council adopt the Plan of Management.

 

Key Issues and Proposed Plan amendments

Following the public exhibition and consultation, a number of changes have been made to the PoM to address the issues raised. These are summarised as follows:

 

Vision

A draft vision in PoM document was previously located in section 4 on page 35. Given comments that this should appear up front and clear, this has been moved to section 1 in conjunction with the objectives to show a clear purpose for the plan.

 

Environmental Management

In response to submissions concerned with maximising the park’s environmental values, this element has been strengthened in the PoM to reflect the site’s natural heritage values and the plan now includes an action to ensure sustainable materials for all new infrastructure/facilities.

 

New facilities

Toilet facilities are an existing action proposed within the exhibited draft plan based on a Council resolution (Bowen/Tracey) endorsed on 13/12/11 and preliminary consultations. This was supported by 62% of submissions received, with many of these submissions requested funding for this action to be prioritised in the 2013/14 capital works budget. Currently in the low priority category in the draft PoM, for approximately 6-10 years, this priority is revised to high (1-2 years) which will be subject to Council budget priorities and appropriate approval and consultation requirements.

Park Maintenance

Rubbish and bushland maintenance of the park was a key issue raised in submissions. This has already been raised with contractors in the site and actions have been strengthened to emphasise the importance of maintenance. These include, noting a requirement for regular inspections and emptying of the GPTs and dog waste bag bins. It has been noted since by residents that these issues have improved, yet that rubbish also becomes exposed as the wetland dries out, and this has also been flagged with the contractors. Other actions in the plan will also assist, including signage and educational measures.

Completion of a loop walk

A loop walk around the wetland was also a highly supported proposed action in the plan with many submissions being supportive of this initiative. There were many requests for this to be built in an environmentally sensitive manner as to minimise any potential impacts upon the wetland embankment.

 

A gravel path was identified as an action in the existing draft plan in this area, suitable for walkers, cyclists and wheel chair access, to be investigated. This action has been strengthened to confirm that concrete will not be used and notes that gravel or other sustainable materials should be used to ensure ESBS is not adversely impacted.

 

Signage

There was support for educational/interpretation signage at the park by numerous submissions and this is proposed to be addressed via the proposed signage strategy action included in the plan. The draft plan has been amended to increase the priority of this action.

 

Infrastructure

Submissions raised concerns that storm water entering the wetland may result in pollution. Clarification has been included in the PoM that all stormwater inlets to the wetland have existing GPTs and their inspection clearance frequency to minimise litter in the wetland.

 

The plan was also amended to clarify that solar lights already exist within the Park (and noted locations) in response to solar lighting suggestions by some of the submissions.

 

Play Area

A play area proposed on the southern bank of wetland is clarified in the PoM and concept plan as being intended only as a minor structure and not a children’s playground, and will contain sculptural/educational elements consistent with the natural values of the site.

 

Lookout options

Due to concerns for introduction of new structures within the park, one of the lookouts proposed in the north near the proposed Department of Housing entry is to be removed. An investigation for the other lookout has been given a low priority in the action plan given other priorities and that this should be considered with any education strategies. An action to improve the existing lookouts around the wetland have been changed form a low to moderate priority in the plan due to a number of supporting submissions.

 

Dog areas and facilities

Due to environmental significance of this park it has always been envisaged as an on leash dog area. This aligns with a number of submissions calling for dog access within the Park to be controlled to reduce opportunities for conflict with other use groups, especially small children.

A Signage strategy will address responsible dog ownership issues and this is a high priority action within the plan.

 

Social issues

In response to submissions raising concerns of vandalism and antisocial behaviour Council has organised ranger patrols of the park. To address this issue Council has also discussed these issues with the Police Local Area command.

 


Ecological management

Ecological burns as proposed in Fire Management Plan (Attachment 5) have been endorsed by OEH in its submission on the draft plan. This FMP has been updated from the exhibition version to clarify the definition of the Asset Protection Zone (APZ). It remains 10 metres wide while the FMP now clarifies inner and outer protection areas of 4 and 6 metres which reflect the current management of the REP and suitable future management.

 

In response to issues raised in the OEH submission additional species specific actions for the protection and recovery of Acacia terminalis ssp terminalis have now been included in the action plan to meet these requirements.

 

In response to submissions raising concerns of foxes and feral animals within the park and their impact on native species the implementation of a feral animal control strategy for REP has been changed to a high priority action in the plan.

 

WIRES

The Wildlife Information and Rescue Service (WIRES) East branch facility currently provides bird and possum aviaries in the park. The current facilities are within a designated ESBS buffer zone and adjacent to high value ESBS areas. In consultation with WIRES East branch a new location to the south of the Randwick Community Centre is proposed to be established and managed in accordance with a facility management plan. WIRES noted in its submission relocation requirements; these are not anticipated to add to any cost to the PoM.

Some submissions have raised concerns that the relocation would impact on ESBS. The location will in fact be located outside the ESBS buffer area and will reduce potential impacts on the ESBS and enable WIRES to avoid driving through the community centre park space. The location shown in the concept plan was marginally to the south of the proposed location. The concept plan has been amended to correct this location.

 

Summary of Changes

The proposed changes in summary are therefore:

 

·      Strengthening the environmental management requirements of the plan including a clear vision and enhanced measures for the protection and maintenance of the bushland;

·      Enhanced maintenance and rubbish monitoring regimes;

·      Increased the priority for a toilet in the picnic area from low to high (subject to Council budget and approvals);

·      Strengthened the requirements to use sustainable materials on new pathways;

·      Increased the priority for the proposed signage strategy and implementation;

·      Clarified the existence of key infrastructure including GPTs and solar lights;

·      Removed one of the 2 proposed lookouts and the proposed children’s play area at the southern end of the park and clarifies that it will actually be a small sculptural element to create an interest point along the southern pathway; and

·      Increased priority for pest/feral animal control.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

Outcome 10:      A Healthy Environment.

Direction 10c:            Land use planning and management enhances and protects biodiversity and natural heritage.

 


Financial impact statement

 

This plan was prepared with a combination of expert landscape, bushland and fire management expertise ($75,000) and in house staff input equivalent to one full time staff for 6 months).

 

The majority of the works proposed on the plan are to be funded through the existing maintenance budget. The proposed capital works items of high and moderate priority actions (1-5 years) are at an estimated cost of $930,000 (including $600,000 for toilet facilities) and low priority actions of approximately $230,000 (6-10 years)which will be partially funded through s94 contributions, the environment levy and Council’s capital works budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The PoM provides the community, user groups and Randwick City Council with a clear directions on the future use and management (short, medium and long term) of the Randwick Environment Park focussed on environmental protection. It facilitates essential rehabilitation and revegetation works; upgrades of the Park’s facilities for passive recreation and improves the quality, safety and useability of the site while taking into consideration the environmental sensitivities of the site.

 

A number of changes have been made to the draft plan in recognition of the issues and priorities raised during the consultation processes including measures to improve the park maintenance, measures to enhance existing facilities and introduce new facilities while being mindful that these need to be low impact and comprise sustainable materials.

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     endorse the Randwick Environment Park Plan of Management; and

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

REP PoM Submission summary

ALL INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

2.

Public Hearing Report by SJB Planning

 

3.

A3 Concept Plan with proposed changes

 

4.

Draft final Plan of Management with proposed changes

 

5.

Final Bushfire Management Plan

 

6.

Unchanged Draft PoM Appendices

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP93/13

 

 

Subject:                  Randwick Community Centre Draft Final Plan of Management

Folder No:                   F2004/06764

Author:                   Teresa Mok, Manager Community Planning & Development     

 

Introduction

 

On 25 June 2013 Council resolved as follows:

 

‘(Moore/Smith) that Council:

 

a)     endorse the attached draft Randwick Community Centre Plan of Management for public exhibition and a public hearing, to be held in conjunction with the Draft Plan of Management for the Randwick Environment Park which adjoins the subject site;

 

b)     Agree that the Director City Planning may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors as required in preparing the Plan of Management for public exhibition/presentation.’

 

The draft Plan was exhibited for approximately 6 weeks from 9 July 2013 to 26 August 2013.  As part of the public consultation process, council officers held two open days at the Centre to give residents and interested parties the opportunity to gather information about the draft Plan.  In accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act, 1993 (LG Act), the public hearing was held on 28th August 2013 at the Randwick Community Centre.

 

This report recommends Council adopt the Plan of Management for Randwick Community Centre, which has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the LG Act.

 

Background

 

The Centre is located at 21-29 Munda Street, Randwick. Currently, the vehicular entry point to the Centre is via a right of way extension of Munda Street. Although Munda Street is a gazetted road, the section leading to the Centre has yet to be constructed.  The community centre complex with its surrounding park has a site area of 1.424 hectares. The site is zoned RE1 Public Recreation under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP 2012). The Centre was constructed and dedicated to the Council by the Department of Defence as part of a major residential development undertaken on an excised portion of Randwick Barracks declared as surplus land.  Officially opened to the public in June 2006, the Centre has been operating for 7 years, providing a wide range of community activities on site

 

The Centre is divided into three main buildings.  Building 1 and 2 are leased to three community organisations – South Eastern Area Health Services (Annabel House), Randwick South Sydney Family Care, and SOS Pre-school. Building 3 provides office accommodation for the Council’s Sustainability and Environmental Unit and offers a variety of venues (e.g. hall, a meeting room, shaded outdoor playground, permaculture demonstration garden area, and a large grassed open space area) to support a range of community and environmental sustainability uses.


The Draft Plan of Management

The draft Plan recognises the role of the Centre in facilitating our residents’ cultural and community needs. It will provide a practical framework for council staff to manage and maintain the Centre for the benefit of our residents. The draft Plan aims to achieve the following objectives:

 

§ to assist the community in understanding the role of the Centre, and describe the facilities and amenities provided for the use and enjoyment of the City’s residents;

§ to meet the Council’s obligations under Chapter 6 of the LG Act in respect to public land management;

§ to enable the Council to renegotiate or enter into contracts, leases, licences and hire agreements for the Centre in relation to the provision of services and utilities; and

§ to provide for an effective program of asset management, maintenance and improvements to the Centre.

 

As required under the LG Act, the draft Plan contains a detailed description of the land and building, authorises the current and future uses of the Centre, specifies the scale and intensity of any permitted use/development and categorises the land as “general community use”.

 

The draft Plan covers a variety of key operational issues, including access, asset management, environmental sustainability, operational management, safety/security and waste management. Management strategies and performance measures have been developed in terms of these issues to:

 

§ maintain the asset condition of the building to acceptable industry standards;

§ promote the Centre’s role as a demonstration building for retrofit environmental products;

§ manage, coordinate and promote events/activities, and enhance social interaction with the community;

§ provide an accessible environment with clear signage, improving convenience for people with disabilities and secure emergency access; and

§ provide a safe environment for staff, visitors and all users of the Centre.

 

Consultation

 

The draft PoM was on exhibition for public comment for approximately 6 weeks from 9 July 2013 to 26 August 2013. The public exhibition and consultation process for the draft plan included: 

 

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

§ exhibition of the draft at Council’s Administration Building and Bowen, Randwick and Malabar Libraries

§ direct notification to:

1.  adjoining residents and land owners;

2.  interest groups, e.g. community groups;

3.  precinct committees; and

4.  Chamber of Commerce.

 

§ 2 x community open days in conjunction with the Plan of Management for the Randwick Environment Park.

Submissions

A total of 54 submissions were received during the joint exhibition period with the draft Plan for Randwick Environment Park. Of this total, 5 submissions related to the Randwick Community Centre, while 49 were relevant to the Randwick Environment Park.

 

Key issues raised, that are relevant to the draft Plan for Randwick Community Centre, were:

 

1.  The need to amend the statement in the draft plan to clarify that vehicular access to the Centre is not via a public road, but via a ‘right-of-way” on Defence land; and to correct a reference in the plan about the future use of the adjoining land west of the Centre for housing as the future use is still under consideration by Defence Department.

2.  Provision of additional bbqs and picnic facilities in the large open space area adjacent to the Community Centre.

3.  Perception of under utilisation of the Centre, in that more infrastructure and activities should be provided such as basketball court, gym, and a range of recreational/leisure/hobby related classes.

4.  Perception that the fee are too high, which could prevent greater use of the Centre.

5.  Provision of public toilets outside the Centre for park users.

6.  Improve linkage between the Park and the Community Centre.

 

The Council’s response to the key issues raised is detailed in Attachment 3 – Summary of Key Issues from Public Submissions.  In terms of points 3 and 4 above, it is worth noting that in the last financial year (2012/13), the Centre took a total of 539 bookings, of which only 14 bookings paid a commercial rate for the use of the premises. During the day, the Centre, also serves as a sustainability education hub, hosting site visits for groups of local school children. These visits are not counted as ‘bookings’.

 

In terms of the perception that the hall rental fees are too high, the charge for hiring the hall with a seating capacity of over 200 people is $64 per hour (Monday – Friday to 5pm) and $92 per hour after 5pm, during weekends and public holidays.  There is also the option for not for profit organisations to rent half the hall (147 square metres) for half the full fees.  In determining the amount of fees to be charged for goods and services provided by the Council, the following factors had to taken into account:

 

·              The cost of providing the service

·              The importance of the service to the community

·              Prices fixed by the relevant industry body or bodies

·              Any factors specified in the Local Government regulations

·              Equity factors

·              User-pays principle

·              Financial objectives

·              Customer objectives

·              Resource use objectives

·              Goods and Services Tax (GST)

·              Market prices

·              Cross-subsidisation objectives

 


Public hearing

A public hearing under section 40A of the Local Government Act Council was held on Thursday 29 August at the Randwick Community Centre to categorise the community land for the first time, as a “community facility” under section 36I of the Act.

 

A report on the outcomes of the public hearing is provided as Attachment 2 of this report.  This report concluded that:

 

There have been no significant concerns raised with the draft PoM, but rather suggestions for additional activities and additional facilities.  Many of the activities suggested in submissions are already possible and are specifically nominated within the draft PoM.  Some of the works suggested also already exist, such as BBQ facilities.

 

It will be a matter for the Council to determine whether additional capital works, outlined above in Section 5.1.3 are included in the PoM. (Page 20)

 

These additional capital works refers to the provision of additional bbq and picnic facilities, a basketball court, toilets within the grounds of the Community Centre, and accessible outdoor tap for drinking water, improved linkage between the neighbouring Environment Park and the Community Centre premises.

 

Amendments

Following the public exhibition and consultation, a number of minor changes have been made to the PoM to address valid issues raised. These changes are summarised below:

 

1.  Rewording of a paragraph in 2.3 Site Context (Page 6) to emphasise the Community Centre and adjoining open space as focal point for leisure, recreation and education pursuits for residents in potential future neighbouring development.

2.  Including the accommodation of the sensory walking trails in the principles for the management of and use of the community centre. (Page 11).

3.  Expanding the vehicular access details to explain that: access to the centre is via Munda Street, a gazetted public road; Munda Street is yet to be extended past the community centre and, until it is constructed, vehicular access to the community centre is provided by a right of way extension to Munda Street (Page 11).

 

In relation to the additional capital works referred to in the public hearing report, the construction of outdoor toilets within the grounds of the Centre has commenced and will be completed before year end. The PoM has also indicated the provision of a walking and cycling trail connection between the Centre and the Environment Park.

 

In relation to the remaining capital works, it would be more practical for Council to consider, review, and (if appropriate) deliver these items, such as the provision of a basketball court, an outside tap for drinking water, and additional bbq and picnic facilities, via the Council’s 2014/15 annual capital works program.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2a:     New and updated community facilities that are multi purpose and in accessible locations.

 

 


Financial impact statement

 

The PoM has been prepared in-house, in consultation with the Strategic Planning and Sustainability Teams.  A small budget of $2,000 was allocated to cover the costs for exhibition, and finalisation/printing of the Plan.

 

Conclusion

 

The PoM provides clear guidelines, requirements and strategies for utilising and managing the Centre. The implementation of the PoM will ensure that this valuable asset continues to be maintained to a high standard and retains its importance as a vibrant and active space, to meet the cultural and community needs of our residents across the City.

 

The PoM is now proposed to be finalised after consideration of the community feedback received during the consultation period. This report recommends that the Council adopt the attached Plan of Management for Randwick Community Centre, as amended.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

a)     endorses the Draft Randwick Community Centre Plan of Management with the minor amendments listed in this report.

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Plan of Management Randwick Community Centre

Included under separate cover

2.

Report on Public Hearing, Draft Plans of Management: Randwick Community Centre & Randwick Environment Park

Included under separate cover

3.View

Summary Key Issues from Public Submissions and Council Response

 

 

 

 


Summary Key Issues from Public Submissions and Council Response

Attachment 3

 

 

ATTACHMENT 3

Summary of Key Issues from Public Submissions – Plan of Management - Randwick Community Centre

 

Key Issues

Council response

1

The need to amend the statement in the draft plan to clarify that vehicular access to the Centre is not via a public road, but via a ‘right-of-way” on Defence land; and to correct a reference in the plan about the future use of the adjoining land west of the Centre for housing as the future use is still under consideration by Defence Department.

The Draft PoM has been amended to explain that access to the centre is via Munda Street, a gazetted public road.  Also that Munda Street is yet to be extended past the community centre.  Until it is constructed, vehicular access to the community centre is provided by a right of way extension to Munda Street.

2

Provision of additional bbqs and picnic facilities in the open space area/playground

 

BBQ facilities already exist in the area near the permaculture garden.  However it is recommended that Council review the need for additional picnic facilities in the open space area of the centre, for possible inclusion in the Council’s 2014/15 capital works program

 

3

The need to address under utilisation of the Centre, in that more infrastructure and activities should be provided such as basketball court, gym, and a range of recreational/leisure/hobby related classes

 

The Centre is already well utilised.  In the 2012/13 financial year, the Centre took a total of 538 bookings, of which 14 were for commercial purposes. This figure does not take into account school children visiting the Centre’s sustainability education facility.  The Council has no plans to provide a second indoor gym, since it has recently built one at the Des Renford Centre. The Council makes available affordable facilities that can be rented out to the community for a variety of recreational pursuits, activities and classes.

4

Fees are too high, preventing greater use of the Centre

 

The charge for hiring the hall with a seating capacity of over 200 people is $64 per hour (Monday – Friday to 5pm) and $92 per hour after 5pm, during weekends and public holidays.  There is also the option for not for profit organisations to rent half the hall (147 sq metres) for half the full fees. The fees are set to ensure that the Council recoup the cost of maintaining the building and its surrounds.

5

Provision of public toilets outside the Centre for park users

The Council has commenced construction of public toilets on the grounds of the Community Centre.

6

Improve linkage between the Park and the Community Centre

 

The PoM has, as one of its principals for the management of and use of the community centre and open space to accommodate the sensory walking and cycling trails at its peripheries that are linked into the existing footpath and cycle way networks.

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP94/13

 

 

Subject:                  Community Health Programs Addressing Suicide Prevention

Folder No:                   F2006/00216

Author:                   Ilana Kaplin, Coordinator Community Programs and Partnerships     

 

Introduction

 

At its meeting on 24 July 2012, Council adopted the following resolution:

 

‘(Matson/Andrews) that Council officers consult with the Black Dog institute and other relevant suicide prevention expertise organisations in order to bring back a report assessing options for better suicide prevention at the cliffs north of Dolphin Point including wether we ought to put up signage along the fence with wording such as “there is hope” with a phone number for Lifeline for people to call.’

 

A report in response to the above resolution was bought to Council on 26 February 2013, wherein Council resolved as follows:

 

‘(Matson/Stavrinos) that:

a)    Council fund and promote a mental health awareness program based on Option 1, to be held at Council venues throughout the year; and

 

b)    Council staff engage The Black Dog Institute and The NSW Schizophrenia Fellowship to deliver a range of suitable topics at a cost not exceeding $2,000, to be allocated to the Council’s Community Development annual budget.

 

c)    a report be brought to Council not later than March 2014 providing an assessment of the impact and effectiveness of the activities conducted as result of the items (a) and (b) of this resolution including as a minimum:

 

1.    the number and type of activities conducted

2.    attendance numbers and attendee feedback

3.    aspects that were considered successful and those that were not

4.    suggested improvements or variations to enhance the program

5.    consideration for role Council might play in future mental health awareness programs.

 

d)     a Councillors’ briefing be arranged on this subject.’

 

Issues

 

Randwick City Council Project Officers have worked closely with community service organisations in the Randwick City area to identify specific mental health awareness and suicide prevention program needs in our local community.

 

In July 2013 Randwick City Council hosted a popular and successful Community Mental Health Forum, followed by another very successful event, Alzheimer’s Information Day, in August 2013. 

 

On 6 November 2013, an information session entitled Understanding Depression and Suicide Prevention (designed for general audience) was held in the Vonnie Young Auditorium, Bowen Library.  The session was highly successful, was fully booked and received very positive feedback.  Due to popular demand another Understanding Depression and Suicide Prevention session in February 2014 has been scheduled, followed by sessions focusing on specific themes.

 

Randwick City Council officers have begun negotiating with organisations such as the Schizophrenia Institute and the Black Dog Institute.  Suicide prevention information/workshop sessions are being planned and scheduled for delivery in the following months:

 

February 2014    Understanding Depression and Suicide Prevention session (targeting

                       the general community);

March 2014       Designed to focus on issues facing older people;

April 2014                 Designed to focus on issues facing carers;

May 2014          Designed to focusing on issues facing older men; and

June 2014                 Focusing on issues facing young people; this session aims to attract parents, carers, custodians, family members, and high school teachers.

 

Given the timing of the workshops and information sessions, it is suggested that the councilor briefing and reporting requirements to Council by March 2014 (Council resolution (c), 23 February 2013) be deferred to July 2014.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2b:      Enrich our range of community services that meet our community’s needs.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no additional financial impact for this matter. On 26 February 2013 Council resolved funding not exceeding $2,000.00 be made to the Community Programs and Partnerships budget for the provision of these programs.

 

Conclusion

 

To date, community response to mental health, understanding depression and suicide prevention workshops have been positive.  Randwick City Council project officers will continue to work with mental health and community wellbeing service providers to finalise the information/workshop sessions within the current financial year.  This will enable a comprehensive report to be prepared for Council’s consideration about its future role in the provision of mental health awareness programs.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Randwick City Council note and endorse the status of suicide prevention information sessions to be delivered within the first six months of 2014;

 

b)     A report be brought to Council in July 2014, providing an assessment of the impact and effectiveness of the suicide prevention information sessions held, including as a minimum:

 

1.   the number and type of activities conducted

2.   attendance numbers and attendee feedback

3.   aspects that were considered successful and those that were not

4.   suggested improvements or variations to enhance the program

5.   consideration for role Council might play in future mental health awareness programs.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP95/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Child Welfare programs

Folder No:                   F2006/00216

Author:                   Ilana Kaplin, Coordinator Community Programs and Partnerships     

 

Introduction

 

On 23 July 2013 Council resolved:

 

‘(Garcia/Moore) that Council bring back a report detailing options that could promote child welfare outcomes within Randwick, including options such as community education drives and awareness programs.’ 

 

Issues

 

Randwick City Council currently supports and/or funds a wide variety of educational and awareness programs and projects that promote the welfare and safety of children in our local government area, as follows:

 

Parenting Workshops
Randwick City Council, community local family support agencies, neighborhood and community centres deliver over 140 educational workshops and seminars for parents with young children each year. Examples of courses and workshops delivered include: personal safety programs for parents and children, raising confident children, nutrition, parenting programs, First Aid and CPR for parents.

 

Council staff play an important role in the production, printing and distribution of the twice yearly parenting workshop calendar and booklet. In addition to the programs offered by our local service providers, Council Officers liaise with the local service providers to identify gaps in the training and workshops, and then presents specific training to address those gaps.

 

Domestic Violence and safety
Randwick City Council supports and works closely with The Eastern Suburbs Domestic Violence Network (ESDVN).  The ESDVN is a group of services in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney that provide a variety of support services to people who experience domestic violence. The Network provides services to Randwick City and surrounds. Membership includes Randwick City Council, domestic violence specialist services who are qualified and experienced in providing domestic violence specialist agencies, NSW Police, Health Services, and Family support services.

 

Library based educational programs
The Randwick City Libraries offer a range of educational programs for children, their parents or carers.  These programs and activities are designed to encourage children to enjoy books, and nurture literary skills.  Examples of library based activities for children include home work and study programs, book clubs for children and teens, as well as programs to encourage parents to introduce reading and books to their children, Babies Love Books in English, Little Pandas in Mandarin, Ladushki Ladushki in Russian and Los Bebes Amon Los Libros in Spanish.

 

School Holiday Activities and Programs
The Randwick City Council offers local parents and carers of children a wide variety of educational and recreational holiday activities.  These are accessible to low income families by offering a variety of free and low cost activities.  The Marine and Coastal Adventure Program is run by the Sustainability Unit and offers environmentally focused activities each school holiday period.  In addition school holiday activities are offered at Council Libraries and the Des Renford Leisure Centre.

 

Kooloora Play Groups
Randwick City Council provides staff one day per week to help run this twice weekly program.  The play group is an early intervention initiative, designed to improve the welfare of young children and family carers, predominantly mothers in the south ward.  It provides the opportunity to educate and assist parents and carers of young children of services and support programs available to them, while overcoming issues of social isolation.

 

Over 40 families attend the playgroup, Randwick City Council’s Community Project Officer is present each w eek to assist parents in need, and to help them access vital support services.

 

Kooloora Vacation Care Program
Randwick City Council funds a 10 weeks vacation care program for socially disadvantaged families living in public housing in the South Ward.  The vacation care program gives parents much needed respite while children attending the program enjoy day excursions and other on-site activities. 

 

The Shack Youth Services and Kool Kids Club
The Shack Youth Services receives ongoing financial and subsides accommodation from Randwick City Council.  The Shack Youth Services provides essential casework and welfare programs for young people including afterschool activities.  The Kool Kids Club runs out of The Shack premises and offers afterschool programs, primary to high school transition programs and various education, diversionary programs for children aged 7 to 13 living in La Perouse and surrounding areas.

 

Randwick City Council officers ensure they the organisation is responsive and is aware of current child welfare issues through participation in local network meetings like the Inner Eastern Child and Family Interagency and the Eastern Suburbs Domestic Violence Network. 

 

Youth Off the Streets Outreach Program
Youth Off the Streets launched their Outreach Program for South Maroubra and La Perouse in October 2013. This is a long term intervention program aimed at local youth and young people.  The Outreach service will provide recreational, diversionary and capacity building programs that strengthen the wellbeing of individuals, and by extension the wellbeing of the community.

 

Local Early Intervention Programs
There are a number of local organisations, including SENC, The Shack and JNC, who are funded to support families through the State Government’s Early Intervention and Placement Prevention Program.  They receive direct funding from the Communities NSW to provide caseworkers to work with vulnerable and at risk children and their families.

 

Randwick City Council is not a recipient of this type of funding and does not provide direct caseworker support. These early intervention programs are run by highly specialized and trained staff to work directly with vulnerable and high needs members of our community. Randwick City Council works closely to support these organisations, identify changing community needs and gaps, and run complementary programs and projects.

 

Council’s Community Partnership Funding Program

 

Through its funding program, Randwick City Council provides financial assistance to a range of support services that delivers welfare related programs to children and families.  Examples of recent grant recipients include:

 

§ Learning Links (assisting children with learning issues)

§ Red Cross Young Parents Program (providing accommodation and parenting training to young mothers)

§ The Deli Centre for Women and Children (provide support programs/activities for women and children who have escaped domestic violence)

§ South Eastern Neighbourhood and Junction Neighborhood Centre (providing specially designed training for new fathers)

§ Malabar Community Midwifery Link Service (provide transportation/taxi fares for women in need throughout their pregnancy, birth and the first 6 weeks after the birth).

 

Discussions

 

In recent years, the State Government increased its funding to enhance its Early Intervention and Placement Prevention Program.  A number of local support services such as the Junction Neighbourhood Center and The Shack Youth Services received funds to support families and to address the well-being of children.  In response, the Council also directed its resources towards supporting and partnering local organizations such as Kooloora Community Centre, The Deli and Children’s Centre, Youth Off the Streets and The Shack Youth Services to support their early intervention projects.

 

In other words, the Council is already responding to identified needs, and continues to work with expert local family support providers to obtain the best possible outcomes for families and children.  Therefore, additional options to further promote child welfare outcomes are not necessary, given the Council’s already significant contribution towards child welfare related programs.  Council staff will however, continue to work with local providers to identify and address service gaps through its 4 year delivery plan.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

OUTCOME 2: A vibrant and diverse community

Directions 2a: Meet the needs of our diverse community and provide equitable access to social services and infrastructure.

 

OUTCOME 3: An informed and engaged community

Directions:3b. The Council actively promotes the community services offered by other agencies.

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no additional financial impact for this matter as all projects are accommodated within the Community Development annual budget.

 

Conclusion

 

Addressing child welfare, safety and opportunities are a priority for Randwick City Council. There are already many programs in place to assist families in need, children and young people.  These are largely delivered by specialist family support workers.  The Council’s role is to provide funding through its grants programs, and in supporting local welfare organizations to deliver services to clients.  Randwick City Council is already working closely with a number of local service providers, and attending interagency meetings, to enable it to promptly respond to emerging priority needs of families with young children, and vulnerable young people. 

 

New programs and projects are continually being developed and current projects assessed and improved by Council officers in collaboration with local service providers.  It is important that all new programs are evidence-based, and clearly addresses identified needs to ensure that they accurately target our most vulnerable residents.

 

The priority areas for action have been identified in the Council’s social plan, An Inclusive Randwick City, adopted in March 2010.  This is the second year of reporting against the Targets in the Action Plan.  Randwick City Council Officers respond to changing community needs by developing appropriate programs and partnerships with our key community organisations working within the children, families, youth, wellbeing and mental health sectors. These priority actions are then implemented through the Council’s 4 year Delivery Program.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

A)  note the programs and projects that promote child welfare that are being delivered directly by Randwick City Council, and in partnership with our local service providers;

B)  endorse the welfare of children as an area of priority for Council initiated and supported programs;

C)  endorse the current programs, and the ongoing work that is currently underway to identify and address community needs in relation to child welfare.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM23/13

 

 

Subject:                  Review of the 2013-14 Annual Operational Plan – September Quarterly Report

Folder No:                   F2012/00177

Author:                   Renee  Saville, Coordinator Integrated Planning & Knowledge Management     

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to update Councillors and the community on the implementation of the 2013-14 Annual Operational Plan.

 

Issues

 

This is the September 2013 Quarterly Review of the 2013-14 Annual Operational Plan. Against each of the 2013-14 Operational Plan actions comments are provided as well as highlights where appropriate.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction1a:       Council has a long term vision based on sustainability.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of the September Quarterly Report is to inform and update Council and the community on the progress of all actions as set out in the adopted 2013-14 Annual Operational Plan. In addition, given that the Operational Plan is based on the 20 year Randwick City Plan and that Council’s reporting format is based on outcomes rather than organisational structure, the September Quarterly Report also provides a level of accountability against our long term vision for the City of Randwick.  

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the information contained in the September 2013 Quarterly Review of the 2013-14 Annual Operational Plan be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

RCC September 2013 Quarterly Report

Included under separate cover

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS14/13

 

 

Subject:                  Supporting "Sense of Community" Street Parties

Folder No:                   F2004/07232

Author:                   Tony Lehmann, Manager Integrated Transport     

 

Introduction

 

Council has received requests for approval to temporarily close roads for street parties. Street parties can be a positive way of allowing residents and neighbours to interact, reinforcing community values and creating a true “Sense of Community”.

 

Under the Roads and Traffic Authority’s guidelines temporary road closures for such street parties are able to be approved by Council directly, provided that the applicants adhere to Council’s Schedule of Conditions. The standard conditions that Council imposes on event organisers are to keep the general public and the participants of the event safe, to direct traffic safely around the event, to inform the emergency services of the event and to reduce the impacts of the event on non event users.

 

Issues

 

The usual way to manage traffic for temporary road closures, in order to comply with the relevant WHS act, is to create a Traffic Control Plan (TCP). A TCP describes the layout of traffic control devices such as barriers and signs. The layout should be designed by suitably qualified traffic control designers. However, in some circumstances further transport management measures are required. For example, Council has recently received a request from residents of Aboud Avenue, Kingsford, to temporarily close the road for a street party. As Aboud Avenue, is within 100m of a state road, the RTA requires a Road Occupancy Licence (ROL) and a Transport Management Plan (TMP). A TMP is a report on how Traffic and Transport will be managed, the likely traffic impacts of the event on the regional or state road network and its impacts on the public transport and emergency services.

 

Organising traffic control can be a complex process and many resident organisers require assistance to correctly design and implement appropriate traffic control. Council’s officers can assist residents in preparing simple traffic control plans for the events.

 

To further assist residents of Randwick, and to improve opportunities for residents to build a sense of community, it is proposed that traffic control measures required for neighbourhood street parties be arranged by Council, on behalf of the event organiser.

 

Council’s insurers confirm that approved street party events may be able to be provided cover under Council’s Casual Hirers protection through Statewide Mutual for a public liability claim arising from an incident which occurs upon the street.  Event organisers will need to satisfy the requirements of Council’s insurer prior to the approval of the street party being granted.

 

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:     A Vibrant and Diverse Community.

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

Outcome 6:     A Liveable City.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

Depending on the dates and times of the proposed street party the traffic control would be undertaken by Council staff or by external contractors (arranged by Council). The costs for traffic control would be approximately $1,650.00 per site. At this stage Council has received seven applications for such street parties. The subject streets are:

 

·      Aboud Avenue

·      Blackwood Avenue

·      Nagle Avenue

·      Roberts Avenue

·      Monmouth Street

·      Second Avenue, Maroubra

·      Mirrabooka Crescent

·      Farnham Avenue

·      Pardey Street

·      Park Avenue

·      Eastmore Place

 

It is likely that a few late applications will also be made.  Applications for street parties will be accepted up to the end of November 2013. 

 

Council should allocate $18,150 to cover the costs associated with these 11 events, as well as any late applications, with funds being allocated from the 2013-14 Contingency Fund.

 

Conclusion

 

As part of Council’s commitment to building “a sense of community”, support should be given towards neighbourhood street parties. To safely close the road to facilitate street parties, appropriate traffic control should be implemented. To assist residents and encourage them to hold neighbourhood street parties, it is proposed that Council arrange, on behalf of the residents, all traffic control measures associated with street parties.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

1.    support “Sense of Community” street parties by arranging, on behalf of residents:

 

a)     traffic control plans

b)     the preparation of traffic management plans and road occupancy licences for submission to the RMS (if necessary), and

c)     all traffic control measures associated with street parties including all signage and other materials as well as labour on the day of the event.

 

2.    vote $18,500 to cover the costs associated with the street party applications, with funds being allocated from the 2013-14 Contingency Fund.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF60/13

 

 

Subject:                  Kensington Bowling Club - Future Use & Occupation

Folder No:                   F2011/07367

Author:                   Sharon Plunkett, Property Coordinator     

 

Background

 

In 2009, the Kensington Bowling Club approached Council for a renewal of their five year licence agreement. The Club is located on Crown Land, known as Kensington Park Reserve, which is managed by Council as Reserve Trust Manager. The lease was renewed in accordance with the Community Facilities Management Policy and in 2012 Council entered into a variation of the licence with the Kensington Bowling Club to permit Kikoff Pty Ltd to conduct five-a-side soccer matches on one of the bowling greens.

 

In early February 2013, Kensington Bowling Club closed their doors due to financial issues leading to the non payment of rent. In order to ensure the continual occupation of this lease, a six month licence agreement was entered into with Kikoff Pty Ltd commencing 5 February 2013.

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 26 February 2013, Council (Stavrinos/Nash) resolved that:

 

a)    a Council Briefing be conducted on the future options of the Bowling Club site including use of the site as a community facility.

b)    an Expression of Interest process be undertaken for the occupation of the site.

c)    a six month licence with Kikoff for the occupation of the site be entered into.

 

The Expression of Interest process was undertaken and concluded on 12 March 2013.The Councillor Briefing session was conducted on 19 March 2013 detailing the future options of the site, including a community centre.

 

A Councillor Briefing session was held on 16 April 2013 detailing an overview of the expressions of interest received and their respective proposed rentals. Expressions of interest for the use of the site are detailed below.

 

Castellorizian Club

Whole Site

Club

KikOff Soccer Centres

Soccer Fields

Mini Sport Pitches

Platinum Preschool

Part Building/Bowling Greens

Childcare

Soccer League Pty Ltd

Whole Site

Multi-sports recreational facility

Gammadim Pty Ltd

Whole Site

Childcare

KikOff Soccer Centres

Bowling Greens

Mini Sport Pitches

Beach Volleyball

Whole Site

Sand Sports Coaching & Playing

Waverley College

Whole Site

Multi Purpose Sports Centre

Beach Soccer Association

Part Building/Bowling Greens

Various Beach sports

Harris Childcare Group Pty Ltd

Building & Bowling Greens

Long Day Care Centre

 

A Councillor Briefing session was also undertaken by the Buildings for Our Community Coordinator providing options for a Community Centre, given the overwhelming support from letters provided by residents and some sporting groups.

 

 Following these briefing sessions the matter was tabled at Council and at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 28 May 2013, Council resolved (Stevenson/Garcia) that:

 

‘this matter be deferred for further consideration at a Councillors’ briefing session.’

 

A further Councillor Briefing was presented by the Director of Governance & Financial Services on 29 October 2013 detailing an overview of the four options available to Council for the future of the site which addressed the submissions, petitions and expressions of interest raised in regard to the site.

 

Issues

 

During the Expression of Interest process Council received the abovementioned expressions of interest. 256 signatures of support to continue KikOff on the site were also received by Council.  A total of 104 petitions were received from residents, generally by way of a pro-forma document, asking for the upgrade of the building on the site for community use and the return of the bowling club grounds to parkland.  Other submissions requested basketball courts, a Seniors Gym, a Community Centre, a café and off leash dog area as well as parking for cars and gardens.

 

The Kensington West Kingsford Precinct Committee Resolution from 30 September 2013 included the support for an outdoor gym facility, an urban park architect to design the upgrade of the park for passive recreation, the use of the clubhouse as a community centre, objection to a licence to KikOff and an objection to the basketball courts.

 

The licence to KikOff Pty Ltd remains on a month to month holding over basis pending the resolution of Council.  Since opening in August 2011, Kikoff have hosted 5-a-side competitions in which a total of 357 teams have entered, 56 of which were ladies teams and 102 of which were junior teams.

 

There are 3,765 registered users of the Kikoff facility and over 1,000 unregistered users. Of the registered users, 2,013 of them are from within the Randwick Council area and 872 of these are children under 16 years old. The majority of the remainder of users are based in the Waverley/Woollahra area and the final 200 or so have come from outside of the Eastern Suburbs. On the sheer weight of numbers it has been generally agreed that Kikoff remain as part of all options to be considered.

 

Notices of Motion

Running in unison with this proposed use of the Kensington Bowling Club site, at the Ordinary Council meeting on 26 February 2013 Council resolved (Neilson/Andrews) that:

 

a)     Council investigate establishing at least a half basketball court and hoop/s in    various wards across the city, as well as full basketball courts.

b)     a report come back to Council with some appropriate locations so that action can be taken to address this shortcoming as soon as practicable.

 

Also at the Ordinary Council meeting on 23 July 2013 Council resolved (Seng/Andrews) that:

 

Council refers the following to the Parking Taskforce:

 

a)     the serious shortage of car parking facilities in commercial and residential areas, in particular in Clovelly, Coogee and Kingsford,

b)     identification of the utility of underground parking stations and suitable sites for the construction of underground parking stations, and

c)     development of a long-term budget for the future construction of these parking stations and taking into account Council’s policy of no parking meters.

d)     investigation of the particular issue of underground parking at the light rail terminal to be built at Anzac Parade, Kingsford.

 

Finally, at the Ordinary Council meeting on 23 April 2013 Council resolved (Garcia/Stavrinos) that:

 

Council:

 

1.   notes that according to the Australian Research Alliance for Children & Youth (ARACY) report card released on March 15, while a majority of Australian children attend an early childhood education program in the year before primary school, Australia's attendance rates are still lower than those of most other OECD countries. Indeed, according to the report card, Australia is ranked 30 out of 34 in the OECD in the category "% attending preschool or preschool program before starting school";

2.   notes there are waiting lists for childcare centres in a number of Randwick City childcare centres;

3.   recognises the importance of access to early childcare for children in Randwick City. Access to quality childcare can lead to healthy development and improved school readiness;

4.   recognises the importance of access to early childcare for parents in Randwick City. Access to quality childcare can enable parents to re-engage in the workforce and improve household finances;

5.   request a report be brought back to Council on possible changes to the relevant planning instruments that might further the development of quality child care centres in Randwick City; and

6.   request a report be brought back to Council on the ways in which Randwick City Council might make its provision of child care services more affordable to Randwick residents.

 

As a result of the identified needs highlighted in the abovementioned Notices of Motions and the Councillor Briefing sessions attended, consultancy firms were engaged by Council to prepare alternative plans. Four costed options were prepared in order to address the identified needs as mentioned in the Notices of Motion and presented at the Councillor briefing on 29 October 2013.  Of the four options, Option 1 (Community Centre only) & Option 2 (Child Care & Community Centre) were preferred by all Councillors in attendance.

 

We are at the point where Council needs to determine an “in principle” decision in order to continue with the process prior to;

 

a.  the lodgement of a Development Application,

b.  consultation process

c.  preparation of traffic studies, and

d.  enter into a selective tender process.

 

It should also be noted that the “in principle” decision, on which option to progress with, is also open to modification, e.g. relocation of the basketball court and open air gym to alternative locations within Kensington Oval.

 

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

 

Depending on the outcome of the “in principle” decision the financial impact of the works will be brought back to Council.

 

Conclusion

 

In order to progress this matter, Council must provide an “in principle” position for the upgrade of the Kensington Bowling Club site and write to all participants of the Expression of Interest process to advise of Council’s “in principle” decision and to commence the consultation process with the community.

 

 

Recommendation

That:

 

a)     Council gives its “in principle” support to Option 1 for the upgrade of Kensington Bowling Club which includes a 315sqm community centre, half basketball court, KikOff, seniors outdoor gym and a 34 space car park, or

 

b)     Council gives its “in principle” support to Option 2 for the upgrade of Kensington Bowling Club which includes a 47 place childcare centre, 135sqm community centre, half basketball court, KikOff, seniors outdoor gym and a 14 space car park, and

 

c)     Council writes to all participants of the Expression of Interest process and advise of Council’s “in principle” decision and commences the consultation process with the community.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Options 1 & 2 - Former Kensington Bowling Club Site

 

2.View

Former Kensington Bowling Club Site Plan

 

 

 

 


Options 1 & 2 - Former Kensington Bowling Club Site

Attachment 1

 

 



Former Kensington Bowling Club Site Plan

Attachment 2

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF61/13

 

 

Subject:                  Contingency Fund and Funding of Capital Works for other Organisations

Folder No:                   F2004/07396

Author:                   David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services     

 

Introduction

 

At its ordinary meeting held in November 2012 Council resolved (Matson/Neilson) that the General Manager will draft a policy to cover Councillor requests for funding of non budgeted capital works intended to assist community service groups.”

 

In addition, at the 11 June 2013 Administration & Finance Committee meeting, it was resolved “(Garcia/Smith) that a report be brought back to Council addressing how the budget allocation for the Contingency Fund can be better managed to address the expected expenditure level.”

 

Issues

 

Funding of non budgeted capital works intended to assist community service groups

Council has an Asset Management Strategy which sets the framework for planning, construction, maintenance, and operation of Council owned (and managed) assets. It is through this strategy, in conjunction with Council’s Asset Management Plans, that the Capital Works Budget is prepared.

 

Under the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice any works that are undertaken on assets that are neither owned nor controlled by Council are not classified as Capital Works and are required to be treated as a donation. Any requests of this nature, therefore, should only be dealt with via Council’s community grants program (see below). This ensures not only that the awarding of grants, donations and subsidies support Council’s priorities, but that they also meet public sector accountability and equity requirements.

 

Contingency Fund budget allocation

On 28 November 2006 Council adopted its Grants, Donations and Subsidies Policy. This policy was designed to provide equity in determining grants and subsidies and to ensure equal access to our grants and subsidies program across the entire community. Further, in March 2008, Council adopted its Community Partnerships Funding Program (which provides financial assistance to social service providers to deliver programs or services designed to improve the health and well-being of disadvantaged residents) and in April 2009, the Council adopted the Cultural Community Grants Program. This program supports a range of cultural activities and events that promote community participation, creative or artistic pursuits that will enrich the lives of our residents. These two programs form the basis of Council’s grants and subsidies framework.

 

In 2009-10, in conjunction with the annual budget process, the budget for the Contingency Fund was reduced by $105,000 and this amount was transferred to the two new grants program budgets (ie. the Community Partnerships Funding Program and the Cultural Community Grants Program). These two (2) programs combined now award almost $250,000 worth of grants and donations each financial year to community service groups. After the redistribution of the Contingency Fund budget in 2009-10, that budget was reduced to $35,000. This was considered sufficient at the time as it was envisaged that most of the programs that had been funded in the past from the Contingency Fund would, moving forward, be funded from the new Community Grants Programs. The small budget left in the Contingency Fund was for unexpected or unforseen requests of a humanitarian/charitable nature.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:           A vibrant and diverse community.

Our community will be proud to be part of our City and celebrate its range of cultures and people.

Direction 2b:         Enrich our range of community services that meet our community’s needs.

Key Actions:         Support the provision of services and facilities to meet the needs of our Target Groups and celebrate the range of cultures and people within Randwick City.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Council has allocated $75,796 in the 2013-14 Budget for contingencies and as at 30 September 2013 had allocated $91,296.11 (of which $28,570 is for annual (ie. ongoing) contributions. The budget allocation for the Contingency Fund will be adjusted as part of the September quarterly budget review.

 

Conclusion

 

Contingency Fund allocations are unpredictable and, given, it is not recommended that the Contingency Fund be utilised for grants, subsidies and donations that fall within either the Community Partnerships Funding Program or the Cultural Community Grants Program, it is not considered appropriate to set the Contingency Fund budget based on past years expenditure. The practice, therefore, has been to set the budget at a low level and to adjust it, as necessary, at quarterly budget reviews, based on allocations.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the current processes for Contingency Fund budget allocations and the funding of non budgeted capital works intended to assist community service groups, be endorsed.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF62/13

 

 

Subject:                  Quarterly Budget Review - September 2013

Folder No:                   F2012/00511

Author:                   Mitchel Woods, Manager Corporate and Financial Planning     

 

Introduction

 

As part of the integrated planning and reporting framework for NSW Local Governments, the Division of Local Government has a set of minimum reporting requirements for Councils, in order for them to facilitate progress reporting against the original and revised annual budgets at the end of each quarter.

 

Collectively, these documents are known as the quarterly budget review statement (QBRS) and are reported to council in accordance with the relevant legislation at the end of each quarter.

 

Section 203(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that at the end of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that indicates the latest estimates of income and expenditure for the 2013-14 year.

 

The regulation (Section 203 (2)) also requires that the budget review statement must include, or be accompanied by:

 

I.      A report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the Statement indicates that the financial position of the Council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure; and

II.     If that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

 

Issues

 

This report is a review of the Council’s 2013-14 current budget and recommends adoption of a revised budget for the 2013-14 financial year.

 

It proposes variations to Council’s adopted budget, which will result in a projected surplus at year end of $9,490. Major variations to the budget are highlighted below:

 

FINANCIAL POSITION

$

 

 

Current projected deficit/(surplus)

(9,422)

 

 

Variations Proposed This Review

 

Increases in Income

(260,605)

Increase in Expenditure

260,537

Total Variations This Review

(68)

 

 

Projected deficit/(surplus) as at 30 June 2014

(9,490)

 

 

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The proposed variations in this report and listed in the attachment will result in a projected surplus at year end of $9,490.

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Director Governance and Financial Services, as the responsible accounting officer, advises that the projected financial position is satisfactory.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the report in relation to the September 2013 budget review be received and noted; and

 

b)     the proposed September 2013 budget variations shown in the attachment to this report be adopted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS) - September 2013

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF63/13

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - October 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 – October 2013” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of October 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 decreased by $7.217 million during October 2013. The decrease is representative of a negative cash flow for the month as expenditure exceeded income.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

The following graph shows the investment returns achieved against the UBS Bank Bill Index and the official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate for the previous twelve months.

 

Investment performance for the financial year to date is above the industry benchmark UBS Australian Bank Bill Index with an average return after fees of 4.14% compared with the benchmark index of 2.65%.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate at the end of October was 2.50%. The cash rate remained unchanged at 2.50% at the meeting of 5 November 2013.

 

Credit Quality of Portfolio

 

The credit quality of the portfolio is of very high quality with approximately 93% of assets rated “A” or better. The 7% allocation to “BBB” and above reflects the short-dated term deposits with regional banks. The recent update to Council’s Investment Policy restricts allowable investments to only Prime, High Grade and Upper Medium Grade investments. This will result in all new investments having a minimum Standard & Poors  long term credit rating of A-. Council will no longer invest in any products with a credit rating of BBB+ or less. Current investments held with a rating of BBB+ or less will be held to maturity.

.The credit quality maximums as per Council policy and the actual portfolio holdings are shown in the table below.

Credit Quality

Maximum

Credit Quality (Holding)

Capacity

 

 

 

 

AAA

100%

5%

95%

AA

100%

42%

58%

A

75%

46%

29%

BBB

0%

7%

0%

 

 

 

 

Ministerial Investment Order

In late 2007, the NSW Government commissioned a review of NSW local government investments. The review, known as the Cole Report included eight recommendations that were all adopted by the NSW Government and incorporated into the Ministerial Investment Order dated 31 July 2008. This Ministerial Investment Order included transitional arrangements that allow councils to continue to hold investments that were made in compliance with the previous Ministerial Order dated 15 July 2005. Council’s investment portfolio contains a number of investments that fall into this category including both Managed Funds and Structured Products.

 

A revised Investment Order was issued on the 12 January 2011, which replaces the Order dated 31 July 2008 and includes changes that:

 

Ÿ      remove the ability to invest in the mortgage of land;

Ÿ      remove the ability to make a deposit with the Local Government Financial Services Pty      Ltd;

Ÿ       and includes the addition of “Key Considerations” with a comment that a council’s General Manager, or any other staff, with delegated authority by a council to invest in funds on behalf of the council must do so in accordance with the council’s adopted investment policy.

 

Managed Funds

The liquidation of The Blackrock Care & Maintenance Fund (CMF) has been completed. Council received the balance of funds held, $4,017.87 in capital distribution and a income distribution of $133.68.

 

Floating Rate Notes

The investment portfolio includes $15.488 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 $6,935.04 bringing the book value to $1,986,648.05.

 

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1c:      Long term financial viability is achieved.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Funds are invested with the aim of achieving budgeted income in 2013-14 and outperforming the UBS Australian Bank Bill Index over a 12 month period.  The current budget provision for investment income from this source is $2,221,084.00. Investment income to 31 October 2013 amounted to $961,402.74

 

Following is the detailed Investment Report – October 2013:

 
Conclusion

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF64/13

 

 

Subject:                  Arrangements During Christmas/New Year Period for Decision Making and Schedule of Meetings for 2014

Folder No:                   F2004/06565

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

This report outlines a method for matters to continue to be processed during the Christmas/New Year meeting recess period and suggests a Council and Committee meetings schedule for the forthcoming calendar year.

 

Issues

 

This year the meetings recess will commence after the ordinary Council Meeting scheduled to be held on 10 December 2013. A meeting schedule for the 2014 calendar year has been prepared (based on the practice of past years) and is attached for Council’s endorsement.

 

Should the necessity arise for any meeting dates to be altered, the provisions of Council’s delegation to the General Manager ‘Council & Committee Meetings – Authority to vary dates and times’ will be utilised.  The delegation is as follows:

 

‘That the General Manager is authorised to vary the schedule of meeting dates and times for meetings of Committees and the Council, when it is not practicable or desirable to hold meetings on a particular designated night to ensure that one meeting of each general committee and an ordinary meeting of the Council is held each month, except for the month of January.’

 

It has been the practice for many years for the council to take a recess following the last ordinary meeting in December, to give Councillors and officers the opportunity to either take a break over the Christmas holiday period or to finalise the year’s activities and plan for the following twelve months.  During previous recess periods, Council policy ‘Council in Recess Procedure’ has prevailed.  This policy provides a means of attaining decisions on urgent or important matters during the meeting recess and provides:

 

‘The Mayor, the Chairpersons of the Planning Committee, the Administration & Finance Committee, the Community Services Committee and the Works Committee or, in his/her absence (or if the Mayor is the Chairperson of the Committee) the Deputy Chairpersons, and the General Manager jointly be authorised to make decision which would otherwise be made by the Council and any such decision are to be unanimous and circulated to Councillors for their information.’

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

 

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Urgent and important Council business can be dealt with during the Christmas/New Year period without the requirement for formal Council and Committee meetings by utilising the ‘Council in Recess Procedure’ during that time.  Any matters that are unable to be dealt with under the Council in Recess Policy, due to extenuating circumstances, could be dealt with at an Extraordinary Council Meeting.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the Council Meeting recess commence following the ordinary Council Meeting scheduled to be held on Tuesday 10 December, 2013 and meetings be resumed on Tuesday 11 February, 2014 (with Committee meetings being held on that night) and during the recess period the ‘Council in Recess Procedure’ be utilised, subject to the need for any extraordinary Council Meetings, which may be called in extenuating circumstances; and

 

b)     the Meeting Schedule for the 2014 calendar year be adopted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Draft meeting schedule for 2014

 

 

 

 


Draft meeting schedule for 2014      

Attachment 1

 

 

 

DRAFT COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETING DATES FOR 2014

 

January

February

March

April

May

June

 

Fri

 

31 January

 

 

2

 

Fri

Sat

 

1

1

 

3

 

Sat

Sun

 

2

2

 

4

1

Sun

Mon

 

3

3

 

5

2

Mon

Tue

 

4 Committee Agendas Issued

4 Committee Agendas Issued

1 Committee Agendas Issued

6 Committee Agendas Issued

Committee Agendas Issued

Tue

Wed

1 New Year’s Day (Holiday)

5

5

2

7

4

Wed

Thu

2

6

6

3

8

5

Thu

Fri

3

7

7

4

9

6

Fri

Sat

4

8

8

5

10

7

Sat

Sun

5

9

9

6

11

8

Sun

Mon

6

10

10

7

12

9 Queen’s Birthday Holiday)

Mon

Tue

7

11Committee Meetings

11 Committee Meetings

8 Committee Meetings

13 Committee Meetings

10 Committee Meetings

Tue

Wed

8

12

12

9

14

11

Wed

Thu

9

13Deadline: Council 25/2

13 Deadline: Council 25/3

10 Deadline: Council 22/4

15 Deadline: Council 27/5

12 Deadline: Council 24/6

Thu

Fri

10

14

14

11

16

13

Fri

Sat

11

15

15

12

17

14

Sat

Sun

12

16

16

13

18

15

Sun

Mon

13

17

17

14

19

16

Mon

Tue

14

18Council Agenda Issued

18 Council Agenda Issued

15 Council Agenda Issued

20 Council Agenda Issued

17 Council Agenda Issued

Tue

Wed

15

19

19

16

21

18

Wed

Thu

16

20

20

17

22

19

Thu

Fri

17

21

21

18 Good Friday (Holiday)

23

20

Fri

Sat

18

22

22

19 Easter Saturday

24

21

Sat

Sun

19

23

23

20 Easter Sunday

25

22

Sun

Mon

20

24

24

21 Easter Monday (Holiday)

26

23

Mon

Tue

21

25 Council Meeting

25 Council Meeting

22 Council Meeting

27 Council Meeting

24 Council Meeting

Tue

 

Wed

22

26

26

23

28

25

Wed

Thu

23

27 Deadline: Committees 11/3

27 Deadline: Committees     8/4

27

29 Deadline: Committees 10/6

26 Deadline: Committees 8/7

Thu

Fri

24

28

28

25 Anzac Day (Holiday)

30

27

Fri

Sat

25

 

29

26

31

28

Sat

Sun

26 Australia Day

 

30

27

 

29

Sun

Mon

27 Australia Day (Holiday)

 

31

28

 

30

Mon

Tue

28

 

 

29

 

 

Tue

Wed

29

 

 

30

 

 

Wed

Thu

30Deadline:Committees 11/2

 

 

1 May Deadline: Committees 13/5

 

 

 

6.00 pm


 

DRAFT COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETING DATES FOR 2014

 

July

August

September

October

November

December

 

Tue

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tue

Wed

 

 

 

1

 

 

Wed

Thu

 

 

 

2 Deadline: Committees 14/10

 

 

Thu

Fri

 

1

 

3

 

 

Fri

Sat

 

2

 

4

1

 

Sat

Sun

 

3

 

5

2

 

Sun

Mon

 

4

1

6 Labour Day (Holiday)

3

1

Mon

Tue

1 Committee Agendas Issued

5 Committee Agendas Issued

2 Committee Agendas Issued

7 Committee Agendas Issued

4 Committee Agendas Issued

2 Committee Meetings Council Agenda Issued

Tue

Wed

2

6

3

8

5

3

Wed

Thu

3

7

4  

9

6

4

Thu

Fri

4

8

5

10

7

5

Fri

Sat

5

9

6

11

8

6

Sat

Sun

6

10

7

12

9

7

Sun

Mon

7

11

8

13

10

8

Mon

Tue

8 Committee Meetings

12 Committee Meetings

9 Committee Meetings

14 Committee Meetings

11 Committee Meetings

9 Council Meeting

Tue

Wed

9

13

10

15

12

10

Wed

Thu

10 Deadline: Council 22/7

14 Deadline: Council 26/8

11 Deadline: Council 23/9

16 Deadline: Council 28/10

13 Deadline: Council 25/11

11

Thu

Fri

11

15

12

17

14

12

Fri

Sat

12

16

13

18

15

13

Sat

Sun

13

17

14

19

16

14

Sun

Mon

14

18

15

20

17

15

Mon

Tue

15 Council Agenda Issued

19 Council Agenda Issued

16 Council Agenda Issued

21 Council Agenda Issued

18 Council Agenda Issued

16

Tue

Wed

16

20

17

22

19

17

Wed

Thu

17

21

18 Deadline: Extraordinary Council 30/9

23

20 Deadline: Committees 2/12

18

Thu

Fri

18

22

19

24

21

19

Fri

Sat

19

23

20

25

22

20

Sat

Sun

20

24

21

26

23

21

Sun

Mon

21

25

22

27

24

22

Mon

 

Tue

 

22 Council Meeting

 

26 Council Meeting

23 Council Meeting & Extraordinary Agenda issued

 

28 Council Meeting

25 Council Meeting  Committee Agendas Issued

 

23

 

Tue

Wed

23

27

24

29

26

24

Wed

Thu

24

28Deadline: Committees 9/9

25

30Deadline:Committees 11/11

27 Deadline: Council 9/12

25 Christmas Day (Holiday)

Thu

Fri

25

29

26

31

28

26 Boxing Day (Holiday)

Fri

Sat

26

30

27

 

29

27

Sat

Sun

27

31

28

 

30

28

Sun

Mon

28

 

29

 

 

29

Mon

Tue

29

 

30 Extra Ord Council Meeting (Elect Mayor & Deputy Mayor)

 

 

30

Tue

Wed

30

 

 

 

 

31 New Year’s Eve

Wed

Thu

31Deadline:Committees 12/8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting times: Committee Meetings – 6.00pm - Ordinary Council Meetings – 6.00pm

 

 

Deadlines close - 12 noon

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF65/13

 

 

Subject:                  Council operating hours - Christmas and New Year 2013-14

Folder No:                   F2006/00304

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

For a number of years Randwick City Council has reduced opening hours during the Christmas/New Year period in line with community expectation and usage during this time of year. It is proposed to continue with this arrangement during the 2013-14 Christmas/New Year period similar to last year while ensuring minimal impact on Council’s customer service levels.

 

Issues

 

The following arrangements are proposed for the Administration Building, Depot and libraries during the Christmas and New Year period this year:

 

Administration  Building and Depot( normal operating hours with the following exceptions)

Tuesday 24 December

Normal operations closing at 12pm

Wednesday 25 December (Xmas Day)

Closed

Thursday 26 December (Boxing Day)

Closed

Friday 27 December (MM 82/13)

Closed

Tuesday 31 December

Normal operations closing at 3pm

Wednesday 1 January (New Years Day)

Closed

 

Bowen Library and Community Centre:

 

Tuesday 24 December

9.30am-12 Noon

Wednesday 25 December (Xmas Day)

Closed

Thursday 26 December (Boxing Day)

Closed

Friday 27 December (MM 82/13 )

Closed

Saturday 28 December

9.30am - 4pm

Sunday 29 December

12noon - 4pm

Monday 30 December

10am - 5pm

Tuesday 31 December

10am - 3pm

Wednesday 1 January (New Years Day)

Closed

 

Margaret Martin Library:

 

Tuesday 24 December

9.30am-12 Noon

Wednesday 25 December (Xmas Day)

Closed

Thursday 26 December (Boxing Day)

Closed

Friday 27 December (MM 82/13)

Closed

Saturday 28 December

9.30am - 4pm

Sunday 29 December

12noon - 4pm

Monday 30 December

9.30am - 5pm

Tuesday 31 December

9.30am - 3pm

Wednesday 1 January (New Years Day)

Closed

 

Malabar Community Library:

 

Tuesday 24 December

9.30am-12 Noon

Wednesday 25 December (Xmas Day)

Closed

Thursday 26 December (Boxing Day)

Closed

Friday 27 December (MM 82/13)

Closed

Saturday 28 December

9.30am - 12 noon

Sunday 29 December

Closed

Monday 30 December

10am - 5pm

Tuesday 31 December

10am - 3pm

Wednesday 1 January (New Years Day)

Closed

 

Des Renford Leisure Centre:

 

Tuesday 24 December

6am to 5pm      

Wednesday 25 December (Xmas Day)

Closed

Thursday 26 December (Boxing Day)

8am to 5pm

Friday 27 December (MM 82/13)

6am to 8:30pm      

Saturday 28 December

7am to 6pm      

Sunday 29 December

7am to 6pm

Monday 30 December

6am to 10pm

Tuesday 31 December

6am to 5pm      

Wednesday 1 January (New Years Day)

8am to 5pm

 

The days of reduced opening are relatively quiet in terms of contact with the community and a number of staff take annual leave over this period.  There will be a staff function at lunch time on 24 December 2013 to celebrate the Christmas season and thank the staff for their efforts during 2013.

 

Essential operational services including Waste Service, Rangers, Storey Street Depot, Leisure Centre and the Beaches will be maintained through the Christmas/New Year period. Staff required to work during this period will be paid the appropriate penalty rates in accordance with our Award.

 

Unfortunately there will be some staff from Information Technology, Waste Service, Rangers, Storey Street Depot and the Beaches required to work after 3.00pm on Tuesday 31 December (in lieu of New Year’s Eve). Arrangements have been made already with these staff members.

 

The early closing times will be advertised in the Mayoral column and notices will be displayed at council offices and the libraries to minimise any inconvenience for members of the public.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The financial impact for this matter has been allowed for in the 2013-14 budget.

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed hours of Council operations are in line with community expectation for this time of year and have been in place for a number of years.  Given adequate publicity, it is felt that the reduced opening hours will create minimal impact on Council’s customer service levels.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the proposed 2013-14 Christmas and New Year opening hours for the Administration Building, Depot, Libraries and Leisure Centre, be adopted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF66/13

 

 

Subject:                  Affixing of the Council Seal - 627R Bunnerong Road, Matraville

Folder No:                   F2011/07367

Author:                   Sharon Plunkett, Property Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

Further to an investigation into the status of the land at 627R Bunnerong Road, Matraville, currently held by Council under a permissive occupancy from the NSW Trade & Investment, and leased to the La Perouse Pony Club, the Crown advised the correct agreement formalizing the occupation of the land is a licence agreement.  The licence agreement has been prepared and submitted by NSW Trade & Investment and requires the execution and affixing of the Council seal.

 

Clause 400 (Part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

Issues

 

It is necessary for the Council’s Seal to be affixed to the signing of agreements between Council and NSW Trade & Investment in relation to a licence of crown land for the purpose of sporting facilities, access, occupation, and pony club activities at 627R Bunnerong Road, Matraville.

 

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

 

A licence with NSW Trade and Investment for 627R Bunnerong Road, Matraville, will result in costs to Council of $2,720.00 + GST per annum indexed annually.

 

Conclusion

 

As Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorising the Affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities.

 

A copy of the licence will be available for Councillors (from Council’s Manager Administrative Services) at the Council meeting.

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the Council’s Seal be affixed to the signing of agreements between Council and NSW Trade & Investment in relation to a licence of crown land for the purpose of sporting facilities, access, occupation, and pony club activities at 627R Bunnerong Road, Matraville.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

627R Bunnerong Road, Matraville - Aerial Photograph

 

 

 

 


627R Bunnerong Road, Matraville - Aerial Photograph

Attachment 1

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF67/13

 

 

Subject:                  Withdrawal of Caveat and Affixing of the Council Seal

Folder No:                   F2004/06862

Author:                   Sally Fernandez, Property Officer     

 

Introduction

 

Clause 400 (Part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

Issues

 

It is necessary for the Council’s seal to be affixed to the ‘Withdrawal of Caveat’ form to remove a caveat number ‘K598948’ from the title of property at 4/6 Ford Street, Maroubra (Torrens Title 4/SP2441 & 21/SP2441).  This caveat placed a restriction on the re-sale of the said property within a period of three (3) years from the date of its acquisition by the registered proprietors, Ivan and Maria Ritosa. As the date of the acquisition was between 1966 and 1969, the caveat is now redundant.  The Ritosa’s need to lodge the Withdrawal of Caveat form with the Land Titles Office to allow them to sell the property in the future.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

As Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorising the Affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Council’s Seal be affixed to the Withdrawal of Caveat form for the property at 4/6 Ford Road, Maroubra also known as Lots 4 & 21 in Strata Plan 2441.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

4/6 Ford Street, Maroubra - Patrick Hargraves & Co - Letter requesting withdrawal of caveat

 

 


4/6 Ford Street, Maroubra - Patrick Hargraves & Co - Letter requesting withdrawal of caveat

Attachment 1

 

 




 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM96/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Centenary of Maroubra Junction Public School

Folder No:                   F2004/07396

Submitted by:          Councillor D'Souza, South Ward     

 

That Council:

 

1)     Congratulate and acknowledge the Centenary of Maroubra Junction Public        School and the great contribution it has made to the education of children in the     Maroubra area; and

 

2)     Acknowledge the dedication and effort of the many teachers over the 100       years in particular Mrs Joan Williamson and its present principal Mr Garrie Russell for their belief and support of the Public education system, which has      given many Australian children an opportunity to become literate at a minimal    cost.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM97/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Proposed Car Free Days

Folder No:                   F2009/00508

Submitted by:          Councillor Garcia, South Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

a)     Note that developed nations have a special responsibility to ensure global fuel   security and address global climate change;

 

b)     Note that our communities have become car dependent and many of our streets, formerly places of human interaction, have become dominated by cars;

 

c)     Note that while cars have benefited society in many different ways, they have also had an impact on air quality, noise, levels of obesity, energy security,       congestion and, for those who do not possess or enjoy the benefits of cars, a        level of isolation and dislocation;

 

d)     Note that car free days can provide opportunities for residents to take a step   back and reconsider the possibilities of their urban environment and alternative    transport options; and

 

e)     Consider and report back on the possibilities and benefits of car free days in     parts of Randwick.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM98/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Ausgrid Maintenance Program

Folder No:                   F2004/08164

Submitted by:          Councillor Garcia, South Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

a)     Note  that Ausgrid has an ongoing maintenance program to keep trees and their        branches clear of power lines and poles;

 

b)     Note that Ausgrid trim trees at growth points, in accordance with Standard      AS4373, in an attempt to protect trees from infection or disease;

 

c)     Note that, on occasion tree trimming under powerlines can leave local trees      looking unsightly and detract from the overall aesthetic of a street;

 

d)     Consider and report back on what actions Council might undertake to protect   the health and aesthetic of trees under powerlines including, for example:

 

                (i)    writing to Ausgrid requesting more regular pruning/trimming of trees                 under powerlines;

 

                (ii)   writing to the relevant state government minister about the                                   development of a state government policy to fund the placing of                            overhead power lines underground.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             26 November 2013

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM99/13

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Child Care Centre Procedures

Folder No:                   F2005/00357

Submitted by:          Councillor Garcia, South Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

a)     Note the Commonwealth's decision to set up a Productivity Commission inquiry into child care and early childhood learning;

 

b)     Consult with local parents about any concerns they might have about the level         and standard of child care and early childhood learning facilities in Randwick     City;

 

c)     Prepare a submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry based on its community consultation with local parents about child care and early childhood learning issues.