Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 27 May 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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 on Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 6:00pm.

 

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

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

Amen”

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

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

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 29 April 2014

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 Minute

MM32/14   Randwick Boys & Girls High Schools - request for financial assistance............ 1  

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.

CP51/14    17 Baden Street, Coogee (DA/23/2014)................................................... 3

CP52/14    44 Arthur Street, Randwick (DA/617/2013)............................................. 11

CP53/14    23 Byron Street, Coogee (DA/138/2009/B)............................................. 35

CP54/14    765-765A Anzac Parade, Maroubra (DA/214/2014)................................... 47

CP55/14    3 Sully Street , Randwick (DA/140/2014)................................................ 51

 

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP56/14    Report variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 -  between 1 and 30 April 2014........................... 61

CP57/14    Report on investigation of impacts of proposed Council requirement to relocate overhead power lines to a dwelling from a power pole underground......................... 65

CP58/14    Overview of NSW Government's recently released strategic waste framework 69

CP59/14    Updating Council's Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan................. 73

CP60/14    Establishment of a Childcare Centre Master Waiting List for centres in the Randwick LGA...................................................................................................... 77

CP61/14    Safety of residents during Halloween celebrations.................................... 81

General Manager's Reports

GM14/14   Review of the 2013-14 Annual Operational Plan - March Quarterly Report..... 85

GM15/14   Randwick Community Day at Randwick Racecourse - a partnership between Randwick City Council and the Australian Turf Club................................................ 87

Director City Services Reports

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF24/14    Quarterly Budget Review - March 2014.................................................. 91

GF25/14    Investment Report - April 2014............................................................ 93

GF26/14    Affixing of the Seal - KU Children's Services......................................... 101

GF27/14    Affixing of the Seal - Orora Fibre Packaging Australasia.......................... 103

GF28/14    Withdrawal of Caveat and Affixing of the Council Seal............................. 105  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM47/14   Notice of Motion from Crs Andrews & Stavrinos - Pedestrian Safety.......... 107

NM48/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Andrews - Proposed Clearway, Bunnerong Road (northbound).................................................................................................... 109

NM49/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Possible Introduction of general practice co-payment.................................................................................................... 111

NM50/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Commonwealth Budget cuts................. 113

NM51/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Future of Malabar Headland................. 115

NM52/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Reported Development of North Centennial park    117

NM53/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Proposed merge of Centennial Parklands Trust with Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust.............................................. 119

NM54/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Response to Proposed Federal Government Financial Assistance Grants Reductions for NSW Councils..................................... 121

NM55/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - “Shift to renewable energy to power electric grid based transport systems in NSW”....................................................... 123

NM56/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - “Response to social inequities in the Federal Budget 2014”............................................................................................ 125

NM57/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Greater flexibility for residential parking 127  

Closed Session (record of voting NOT required)

GF29/14    Ongoing Engagement of Utility Asset Management

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.

 

Closed Session (record of voting required)

GF30/14    Tender T2014-07 - Medical and Related Health Services

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.

 

GF31/14    Tender T2014-05 - Replacement of Library Management System

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                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM32/14

 

 

Subject:                  Randwick Boys & Girls High Schools - request for financial assistance

Folder No:                   F2004/07396

Author:                   Councillor Nash, Mayor     

 

Introduction

 

I have received a request for financial assistance from Ms Maxine Ford, Liaison Teacher at Randwick Boys High School requesting financial assistance for a combined Randwick Boys and Randwick Girls High Schools production to be held at NIDA in August 2014.

 

Ms Ford, in her correspondence, says:

 

‘I am writing to express my appreciation of Randwick City Council's support for Randwick Girls' and Randwick Boys' High Schools' past four Shows.  Without Randwick City Council's sponsorship, our four productions, 2010’s “Australian Stories”, 2011’s “Once Upon a Time…”, 2012’s “Portraits” and 2013’s “Lights, Camera, Action!”, would not have been so successful.’

 

Issues

 

For more than 20 years, Randwick Girls’ and Randwick Boys’ High Schools have shown incredible prowess and achievement in the creative and performing arts.  The combined effort of the schools has resulted in success in the Rock Eisteddfod Challenge since 1992. In 2010, the schools began to produce our own full-length professional shows using the facilities at NIDA.  These shows have become an annual program that give over 220 students the opportunity for their skills in dance, drama, singing, music and stage production to be showcased before an 800-strong audience in NIDA’s Parade Theatre.  This year’s production will take place at the end of August, and will include one matinee and two evening performances.

 

220 students are involved in the combined performance and each one signs a pledge not to smoke, drink or use any drugs during the production year.

 

The Schools have asked for financial assistance from Council for the August 2014 production and have indicated that they will ensure that Council’s contribution is acknowledged on the students' jerseys, fliers, and school newsletters, fostering a strong community awareness of our involvement.

 

Financial impact statement

 

If the report recommendation is adopted, the donation will be funded from the 2014-15 Contingency Fund budget.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has provided financial support for the Randwick Girls/Randwick Boys Rock Eisteddfod team for a number of years and supported the combined show at NIDA since 2010. It is recommendation that Council contribute towards the cost of the Schools’ 2014 production as this is an important community event and worthy of continued financial assistance from Council. The event will be ‘drug-free’ which positively encourages a healthy lifestyle for those involved, as well as fostering the development of the students' talents in the creative arts.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council donate $4,000.00 to the Randwick Girls and Boys High Schools for the   combined production to be held at NIDA in August 2014, such funds to       come        from the 2014-15 Contingency Fund budget.

 

b)     the Schools undertake to appropriately and prominently promote Council’s        sponsorship of the event.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP51/14

 

 

Subject:                  17 Baden Street, Coogee (DA/23/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/23/2014

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to existing dwelling located on same site as existing residential flat building development.

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                R Mallick

Owner:                        R & D Mallick

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the application includes a variation to the maximum floor space ratio standard of greater than 10%.

 

Proposal

 

The application details alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house which is at the rear of a residential flat building that also is situated on the subject land. The works detail an addition to the existing upper level of the dwelling to provide for two additional bedrooms, two bathrooms and an upper level balcony to the front of the dwelling. The proposal will provide for 47m of additional floor area to the dwelling.

 

Site

 

The subject site is on the northern side of Baden Street and is a rectangular shape having a street frontage of 14.9m, a depth of 39.625m and an area of 592m. The site contains at present a three storey residential flat building at the front of the site and to the north western rear corner of the site a free standing single dwelling house. There is an existing driveway along the western side of the site which is utilised as stacked parking by the residents. 

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

1.      Request to vary development standard

The proposal contravenes the maximum FSR and height of buildings development standards contained in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

(i) Floor Space ratio

The site area is 592m2. Clause 4.4 of the LEP and the Floor Space Ratio Map stipulates that for the purpose of development, a maximum floor space ratio of 0.9:1 applies. The proposed additional floor area to the dwelling house when added to the existing floor space of the buildings on the site results in a floor space ratio of 1.16:1.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor space ratio

Proposal

1.16:1 (687m2 )

Existing Floor Space Ratio

1.08:1 (640m)

LEP Development Standard

0.9:1 (5332)

Excess above or less than the LEP Standard

29% excess (154m2)

 

Assessment against the applicant’s written justifications for the contravention of the development standard

Pursuant to clause 4.6(3) of RLEP 2012 development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

 

(a)    that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

 

(b)    that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

(i)     the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

 

(ii)    the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

 

The concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

 

In relation to the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3) there are various ways that may be invoked to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as discussed by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. Although the Wehbe case was decided in relation to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards (“SEPP 1”) and not clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 it remains of some assistance in relation to identifying the ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the FSR standard are set out in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012 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.

 

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

 

 

The proposal does not satisfactorily address the purpose of the FSR standard, as the further breach of the maximum FSR will significantly compromise the internal amenity of the site and that of neighbouring properties.

 

The subject dwelling house is a free standing single structure at the rear corner of the site which would be normally occupied by open space within a site containing a residential flat building. Whilst Council’s DCP allows for a site strategy that provides a central open space area between two distinct built forms, it should constitute a substantial spatial separation. In its present location, the dwelling house creates significant amenity impacts due its breach of the side and rear setback requirements and the limited landscaped area that remains between the two buildings on the site. The dwelling house is also at the northern end of the subject site thereby significantly contributing to overshadowing of its own site and to the adjoining properties to the east and west. The internal amenity of the site is significantly compromised by the additional overshadowing to the remnant of passive open space that exists between the dwelling house and the residential flat building. The proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling house will compound the impacts of solar access and privacy to an unacceptable degree.

 

Overall, it’s considered that the proposed distribution of floor area on the site is such that it does not “ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality”. Council’s built form controls envisage either generous rear setback areas to residential flat building development or transferring that open space centrally within a site. The remnant open space on the site is too small and will be severely impacted on by the proposed additions to the north. Hence, any changes to building mass should be carried out in a manner that is consistent with the existing pattern of development, which would concentrate the built form to Baden Street. The proposal is contrary to this objective and if approved would exacerbate an already undesirable built form outcome.

 

In the circumstances of this particular case, it is considered that the exception sought is not well founded and FSR standard should not be varied in the manner suggested by the applicant.

 

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

The proposal has been not been skillfully designed to achieve the planning objectives for the locality and to fit in with the character of development in the context of Baden St

 

The applicant’s written request has not successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

Will the proposed development be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out?

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is not consistent with the objectives of the FSR standard. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R3 – Medium Density Residential) are:

 

§ To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.

§ To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

§ To enable other land uses that provides facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

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

§ To protect the amenity of residents.

§ To encourage housing affordability.

§ To enable small-scale business uses in existing commercial buildings.

 

It is considered that the proposed development is inconsistent with the objective relating to character and amenity. As discussed above, the enlargement of the building to the rear of the site would be inconsistent with the pattern of neighboring development and it’s siting to the north of the property leads to increased overshadowing. The introduction of an upper level balcony also introduces additional cross viewing opportunities with the windows of the adjacent residential flat buildings.

 

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

(a)    whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b)    the public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes a development standard

 

The variation sought by the applicant will detract from the orderly use of the site and there is a public benefit in not allowing the development standard to be further breached in this instance.

 

2.      Randwick DCP 2013

 

Side and rear boundary setbacks

The proposed addition to the dwelling house has a side boundary setback of 1010mm to the western boundary which does not comply with the control of the DCP which requires a minimum setback of 2500mm. The non compliance in the side setback control when combined with the excessive FSR and inappropriate siting of the additions results in significant additional impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining properties both in terms of privacy and solar access.

 

The rear boundary setback maintains the existing rear setback of the ground level of the dwelling. The DCP requires a setback of 8m and the development provides a setback of 900mm  There will not be any adverse impact to the amenity of the property at rear as the development is adjacent to the garden and swimming pool area of the neighbouring adjacent property at 23 Baden Street. All of the swimming pool and landscaped garden of 23 Baden Street are elevated up to 3m above the ground level of 17 Baden Street. There is also a dividing fence and landscaped screen on the common boundary with a combined height of approximately 2.5m above the higher level of 23 Baden Street.  However, the breach in the rear setback control in conjuction with the excess in floor space does significantly inpact on the internal site amenity and generates additional overshadowing to the neighbouring properties. In relation to privacy, the proposed upper level balcony also introduces additional cross viewing opportunities with the windows of the adjacent residential flat buildings.

 

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 application relies on a request for an exemption to the FSR development standard under RLEP 2012. In the circumstances of this particular case, it’s considered that the exception sought is not well founded and FSR standard should not be varied in the manner suggested by the applicant. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council does not support the exception to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Floor Space Ratio respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development does not satisfy the objectives of the above clause, and will  adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Sections 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 23/2014 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 17 Baden Street Coogee for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as the development does not recognize the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form and will not protect the amenity of residents.

 

2.     The proposal does not comply with the maximum FSR standard pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Clause exception is not well founded.

 

3.     The proposal does not comply with the objectives and controls of Randwick DCP 2013  in relation to side and rear setbacks 

 

4.     The proposal will adversely impact on the internal amenity of the site and that of adjoining and neighbouring residents in terms of overshadowing and loss of privacy.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 17-19 Baden Street, Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP52/14

 

 

Subject:                  44 Arthur Street, Randwick (DA/617/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/617/2013

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing building, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building containing 13 units, 1 level of basement carparking for 8 vehicles and associated works

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Urban Future Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Anthony Kassis

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The subject application is reported to Council on the basis that the estimated development cost is valued over $2 million.

 

Proposal

 

The application seeks approval for the following works:

 

·      Demolition of the existing building;

·      Construction of a new residential flat building containing 13 x one bedroom apartments of which 50% of the units will be used for affordable housing;

·      7 car parking spaces including an additional disabled car parking space at basement level (total of 8 car parking spaces); and

·      Associated landscape works.

 

On each level the work specifically include:

 

Basement:

The basement parking level contains 8 vehicles which one of the spaces will be used for disabled access, 13 storage spaces, bin storage room, utility room, 8 bicycle spaces, a motorcycle space and lift.

 

Ground level:

The ground level comprises of 3 self contained apartments 1, 2 & 3, rear private open spaces for apartments 2 & 3, front private open space for apartment 1 and garden beds to the eastern and western side boundaries.

 

Typical floor plan first, second and third floor levels:

Four self contained apartments on each level with balconies, lift and stair access and entries are accessed to the eastern and western side of the building.

 

Note: The assessment is based on the amended elevation plans received by Council on 5 March 2014 and the amended floor plans received by Council on 6 May 2014.

 

Given the proposed amendments reduced the scale of the development, formal re-notification was not considered necessary; however, the neighbouring property at no. 42 Arthur Street was notified of the amendments as a common area and drying facility is to be proposed along the western side boundary.  An additional objection was received from this 1 resident and is addressed in the submissions section below.

 

Site

The subject site is described as Lot 16 in DP 4642, known as 44 Arthur Street, Randwick. The site is located on the southern side of Arthur Street and is currently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling. The site is rectangular in shape and has a fall of approximately 1.3m from north to south along the western side boundary and approximately 1.44m from north to south along the eastern side boundary.

 

The dimensions and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

North, front boundary

12.19m

504.7m2

East side boundary

41.33m

South, rear boundary

12.19m

West side boundary

41.49m

 

The site is presently occupied by a single storey brick building with a rear lower ground level.  The site is zoned R3 - Medium Density Residential under the Randwick LEP 2012.

 

3.2      Surrounding Area

The site is located on the northern side of Arthur Street and is within 200 metres from Belmore Road and Randwick shopping centre.  The site is surrounded by a mix of residential buildings ranging from single to four stories in height.  The site is close to the University, the Racecourse and Randwick shopping centre and the area is well serviced by public transport. The site is within 200 metres of a bus stop on Belmore Road that forms part of the bus service from the Sydney CBD to the eastern suburbs. 

 

Submissions

 

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

 

21 Arthur Street, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

Parking and general facilities

This street cannot deal with this type of high density development as it will result in additional pressure on both parking and general facilities.  A four storey development is to height for this street and feel that a smaller development maybe better in keeping with the quite nature of street.

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which addresses traffic & parking.

 

 

26 Arthur Street, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

Population density & FSR

Density ratio to the population. FSR is excessive.

 

The proposed gross floor area is in accordance with the FSR provision under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 for in-fill affordable housing. The proposal will promote the objectives of the Zone R3 Medium Density Residential by providing infill development within the area which will assist in providing of housing types that will increase the supply and diversity of affordable housing in the Randwick locality.

 

In addition to the above, the development has been modified scaling down the number of units from 15 to 13 units which will improve the amenity of the site and achieve a better planning outcome resulting in increased landscaped area and solar access to adjoining properties.   

 

The amended design scheme has incorporated appropriate measures to minimise the visual scale and bulk of the building and meets the Building Envelope control in the DCP.  The facades are appropriately articulated with balconies and walls, screening devices and a combination of surface finishes on all elevations, which serve to create visual interest.

 

Parking impacts

Additional parking pressure on an already chaotic street.

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which addresses traffic & parking.

 

Flooding concerns

Concerned that the development will cause additional flooding impacts as they are on the lower end of the street.

The application has been reviewed by Councils Development Engineers and no flooding and stormwater issues where identified. Appropriate conditions are included within the recommendation to address stormwater runoff.

 

28 Arthur Street, Randwick (42 signatures are attached with this submission)

 

Issue

Comment

Parking impacts

Parking is already difficult along Arthur Street and they believe the intended 15 apartments which only provide 7 + disabled parking spaces are not adequate to cater for the proposed development and therefore will result in a shortfall of parking spaces on the street.   They also believe that there is not enough space within the basement for cars to be able to manoeuvre safely into the car spaces and is concerned that they will start parking on the street.

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which addresses traffic & parking.

 

Water table disruption

Concerned that the excavation of the under ground basement level will disrupt the water table for the street and result in excess water to enter the basement level and then cause flooding to the street.

 

Council’s Development Engineers have advised that there are no ground water issues identified on this site. Conditions are included which requires the basement to be fully tanked to address seepage water.  Stormwater run off will be managed by standard conditions.

 

Streetscape

The proposed development does not fit in with the character of the street.  The proposed development is a white monolithic concrete box and the front building line is further forward than that of other development in the street and excesses the FSR by such a significant percentage.

 

A streetscape analysis was carried out by the applicant, which demonstrates that the height of the proposed development is not dissimilar to that of other adjoining sites. 

 

The height, scale and massing of the proposed development, are considered to be generally consistent with the character of the streetscape and will provide a contemporary building design which will assist in providing of housing types that will increase the supply and diversity of affordable housing in the Randwick locality.

 

The proposal meets the overall building height standard under Council’s LEP 2012 and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality and the size and scale of building envisaged by the Building Envelope controls under the Comprehensive DCP 2013.

 

The facades are adequately articulated with balconies, louvre screening devices and a combination of surface finishes on all elevations, which will create visual interest.

 

Minimal adverse impacts are considered to be imposed upon adjoining properties and the street as a result of the variation in the external wall height.

 

The existing front building line along Arthur Street varies from approximately 2.73 metres to 6 metres.

 

The proposal provides a front setback of 6.63 metres on the ground floor and 4.73 metres for the remaining floor levels from the edge of the balcony which is generally consistent with the setback of adjoining development along Arthur Street.

 

Green space

Currently there are many trees and a huge garden that sits on this property, all green spaces will be lost as a result of the proposed development which exceeds the FSR and covers majority of the site.

 

The development has been modified scaling down the number of units from 15 to 13 units which will improve the amenity of the site and achieve a better planning outcome resulting in increased landscaped area and solar access to adjoining properties.   

 

In addition to the above, the proposed landscaped area & FSR are in accordance with the provisions under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 for in-fill affordable housing.

 

Removal of advertising sign

The advertising information on this DA has been removed from the site and is not available for all to view.

Given the scope and scale of the works this DA should be displayed prominently. The neighbouring properties at no. 26 & 30 Arthur Street

Noted.  The sign on site was placed on display from the 2/10/2013 to 18/10/2013. The application was also advertised in the local papers in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.   

 

33 Arthur Street, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

Number of storeys

In the option that Randwick Councils policy was to only approve 3 storey residential flat buildings not 4 storeys.

 

The site is surrounded by a mix of residential buildings ranging from single to four stories in height. 

 

The proposal meets the overall building height standard under Council’s LEP 2012 and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality and the size and scale of buildings envisaged by the Building Envelope control under the Comprehensive DCP 2013. 

 

Further, the proposed external wall height of the development will not create unacceptable overshadowing impacts to the subject and adjoining sites.  

 

Lack of parking

There is already a short supply of parking spaces in Arthur Street, concerned the proposed development will cause further parking problems.

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which addresses traffic & parking.

 

Federation building

The existing dwelling is a beautiful and good federation style home which should be kept.

 

The application was referred to Councils heritage planner that has raised no objections to its demolition.  An appropriate condition is included which requires the existing building to be professionally photographed and recorded prior to its demolition. 

 

Overshadowing impacts

Concerned that the proposed development will create overshadowing impacts making the side of their property dark and cold.

Refer to Key Issues and Areas of Non Compliance section of this report which addresses solar access.

 

 

40 Arthur Street, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

FSR and scale

They believe the proposed development is well outside the scale of the FSR set by Council and the existing residential flat buildings in Arthur Street are of 3 storey not 4.

 

The maximum FSR in accordance with clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 for the site is 0.9:1.  The applicant is seeking approval for affordable housing in accordance with the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and therefore utilises Clause 13(2)(a)(i) of the SEPP that provides an incentive of an additional FSR of 0.5:1 for the provision of affordable housing. 

 

The floor area calculations have been checked and the proposal has an FSR of 1.4:1 (or 706m²) which complies with the provisions of Clause 13(2)(a)(i) for floor space ratios under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. 

 

The height, scale and massing of the proposed development, are considered to be generally consistent with the character of the streetscape and will provide a contemporary building design which will assist in providing of housing types that will increase the supply and diversity of affordable housing in the Randwick locality.

 

The proposal meets the overall building height standard under Council’s LEP 2012 and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality and the size and scale of buildings envisaged by the Building Envelope control under the Comprehensive DCP 2013.

 

Adequate separation between neighbouring buildings is provided to allow for reasonable levels of solar access and privacy; and visual and acoustic privacy has been addressed below in the Key Issues section of this report.

 

In addition to the above, the development has been modified scaling down the number of units from 15 to 13 units which will improve the amenity of the site and achieve a better planning outcome resulting in increased landscaped area and solar access to adjoining properties.   

 

Lack of parking

Concerned by the insufficient parking already experience in Arthur Street and the further impact the development will have on this street.  Parking is virtually impossible for residents and this will further effect the traffic congestion in the immediate area.

 

The proposed vehicle entry and exist route to the development is already overcrowded with vehicles that are parked in the street concerned that the development will make the area far more dangerous for pedestrians.

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which addresses traffic & parking.

 

Water table

Concerned regarding the impact of the disturbance of the water table that flows under this property onto the surrounding properties and what effect it may have on their property.

 

Council’s Development Engineers have advised that there are no ground water issues identified on this site. Conditions are included which requires the basement to be fully tanked to address seepage water.  Stormwater run off will be managed by standard conditions.

 

Overshadowing impacts

Concerned that the proposed development will create significant overshadowing impacts onto their property.

 

Shadow diagrams prepared by the applicant and included with this application illustrate the extent of shadow that will be cast by this development. As a consequence of the orientation of the site, there will be some additional shadow impact to adjoining premises. The overall impact of overshadowing is discussed in detail Key Issues section of this report.

 

Privacy loss

The proposed development will cause a loss of privacy to their property.

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which addresses visual privacy.

 

42 Arthur Street, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

FSR

The gross floor area is understated and exceeds the FSR under the LEP and Affordable Rental Housing SEEP.

 

Also, the development does not meet the minimum dwelling size under the SEPP.

 

As discussed above, the floor area calculations have been checked and comply with the provisions of Clause 13(2)(a)(i) for floor space ratios under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. 

 

The amended plans also indicate that the minimum dwelling sizes for the apartments have been achieved.

Solar access

Adverse shadowing and substantial loss of solar access to the rear yard.

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which addresses solar access.

 

Parking

Council’s DCP requires 19 car spaces and 1 accessible parking space in a building housing 15 one-bedroom apartments. The problem is that the flats only need to be used for affordable housing for ten years, after which they no longer need to be offered as affordable housing and therefore in the future will require additional parking.

 

There is already a lack of parking in Arthur Street the addition of 15 apartments will only make this substantially worse.

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which addresses traffic & parking.

 

Side setbacks

The proposed side setback of 1.5m does not comply with the minimum side setback control of 2m set out under the DCP.  This combined with the maximum height of 12m will effectively close their property increasing mould build up as a result of no sunlight reaching their bedrooms and kitchen.

 

The side setback controls aim to allow occupants and neighbours adequate natural lighting and ventilation. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory and will meet the above requirements. 

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which addresses side setbacks.

 

External wall height is exceeded

The external wall height of 12m exceeds the LEP height limit of 10.5m.  The excessive height will add to the adverse overshadowing impacts.

 

The proposed development proposes a maximum building of 12m which is within the building height limits of the control standard of the Randwick LEP 2012.  However, the external wall height of the development does not comply with the external wall height control in the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. 

Refer to Key issues section below which demonstrates that a compliant development will still result in similar amenity impacts to this property. 

 

Rear setback

The proposed rear setback does not conform to Council’s planning controls.

 

The plans have been amended increasing the rear setback to 6 metres.  This setback is considered to be generally consistent with the established rear setbacks along this section of the street; thereby satisfying the objectives of the control and is not considered to result in any unreasonable amenity impacts in terms of overshadowing, privacy or views as discussed in the Key Issues sections of this report.

  

Water table & damages to property

Concerned the effects the development will have on their property as a result of the disturbing the water table that exists under 44 Arthur Street.

 

An assessment condition report will need to be carried out to ensure that damages to their property as a result of any construction is compensated and remedied to the cost of the developer.

 

Council’s Development Engineers have advised that there are no ground water issues identified on this site. Conditions are included which requires the basement to be fully tanked to address seepage water.  Stormwater run off will be managed by standard conditions.

 

Standard conditions are included in the recommendation requiring a dilapidation report and that any excavation and construction meet the relevant standards.

 

 Loss of privacy & noise impacts

The westerly facing windows and southerly balconies will cause loss of privacy to their property.

 

The common area and drying area along the western boundary will have an adverse privacy impact on their bedrooms.

 

Refer to Key Issues a section of this report which addresses visual privacy.

 

The actual surrounding context

The proposed development is completely out of character with the surrounding context and does not comply with a large number of DCP and LEP requirements.

 

Contrary to the statements made in the applicants SEE, Arthur Street only has 8 three or more storey buildings with the street being predominately semi-detached and free standing homes.

 

The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of Section 79C of the EPA Act 1979.  This requires (amongst other matters) that the application is assessed against any relevant controls, which includes the SEPP, LEP and DCP.

 

Overall, it is not considered that the proposed development is of a bulk that is likely to have any unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area and adjoining residents or be out of character with the scale of the existing streetscape. 

 

The proposal meets the overall building height standard under Council’s LEP 2012 and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality and the size and scale of buildings envisaged by the Building Envelope control under the Comprehensive DCP 2013.

 

Adequate separation between neighbouring buildings is provided to allow for reasonable levels of solar access and privacy; and visual and acoustic privacy has been addressed below in the Key Issues section of this report.

 

Lack of landscaped open space

In order to maximise developed dwelling capacity the open space landscape has been sacrificed. As a result the DA proposes a monolithic concrete structure.

Despite the proposal not complying with the minimum landscaped requirement setout in the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013, the proposed development satisfies the landscape provisions under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. 

 

Notwithstanding this, a reasonable degree of amenity has been afforded to the future occupants with the quality of landscaping in the communal area.

 

43 Arthur Street, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

Parking impacts

There is already a problem with vehicles being parked on their driveway. The proposed development will accentuate the parking problem that already exists along Arthur Street. 

Refer to Key Issues of this report which addresses Traffic & Parking.

 

 

22 Eurimbla Avenue, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

Lack of parking

There is already insufficient parking for residents and visitors around the Randwick shops and the Hospital precinct.  Arthur Street has a 2 hour parking restriction and all parking spaces are taken during the day and night.  Concerned the proposed development will further impact parking problems along Arthur Street.

Refer to Key Issues of this report which addresses Traffic & Parking.

 

 

2 submissions without addresses attached

 

Issue

Comment

Parking impacts

The proposed 8 car spaces are not sufficient to cater for the proposed 15 apartments and will cause illegal parking and troubles in this street.

This will further contribute to the lack of on street parking and local traffic congestion.

 

Refer to Key Issues of this report which addresses Traffic & Parking.

 

Density of building

The proposed building design will destroy the environmental and living conditions within this area.  Suggest that the FSR and number of rooms be decreased to fit in with the surroundings.

 

The total number of apartments have been reduced from originally a total of 15 units all being one bedroom apartments to 13 units consisting of 2 bedroom units, 10 one bedroom units and an accessible studio unit. The building has also been reduced in length by 1.4m to increase the landscaped area on the site.

 

The proposed development is not considered to unreasonably impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties as discussed in the Key Issues section of this report.

 

Noise pollution during construction

Concerned that their quality of life will be significantly impacted due to increased noise pollution and poor air quality during demolition and construction process.

 

Appropriate conditions have been included within this consent to limit any potential noise impacts which may arise during construction.  Also, a condition is included which restricts the working hours for all demolition and site work, including site deliveries.

 

Streetscape impacts

The proposed development will impose on their northerly aspect and will tower over other surrounding homes. The development will have a significant impact on the streetscape and will be out of character when compared to other surrounding homes.

 

This will result in decreased resale values of properties.

Streetscape impacts are discussed above.

 

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

 

SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

A number of objections were received in relation to lack of parking, traffic congestion and safety.

 

The SEPP Affordable Housing states that:

A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds:

 

(a)  parking
if:

(i)  in the case of a development application made by a social housing provider for development on land in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom, at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms and at least 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling containing 3 or more bedrooms, or

 

(ii)  in any other case—at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom, at least 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms and at least 1.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 3 or more bedrooms,

 

Comment

The proposal provides 2 x 2 bedroom apartments, 10 x 1 bedroom apartments and 1 studio apartment.

 

The proposal provides 8 car parking spaces within the basement level which complies with the parking provision requirements under the SEPP.

 

The proposed development is located within an area well served by public transport and it is considered that the parking provided will meet the demand generated by the development.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has not identified any significant impact on service levels in the surrounding street network that would arise from the anticipated trip generation rate of the development. The proposal complies with the relevant Australian Standard and the RMS Guidelines for parking layout and dimensions (for car spaces, aisles, disabled, grades etc.) and the car parking facilities is considered to be efficient, adequate and safe. There are no objects to the front of the building that will restrict view of the street and pedestrian footpath. The basement wall to the western side boundary is low and there is adequate sightlines for vehicles to safely manoeuvrer and safely exit and enter the site. 

 

In addition to the above, the development has been modified scaling down the number of units from 15 to 13 units which will improve the amenity of the site and achieve a better planning outcome resulting in increased landscaped area and solar access to adjoining properties.   

 

Clause 16A   Character of local area

The SEPP Affordable Housing requires a consent authority to take into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

 

The NSW Heritage Office booklet “Design In Context” is a guideline for the assessment of infill development and it is useful for the assessment of the impact of the subject application on the character of the area. It states that the following contribute to the character of an area:

 

·      The underlying natural landform;

·      Distinctive landscape elements;

·      The date and style of the buildings;

·      The scale and form of the buildings;

·      Street and subdivision patterns;

·      Setbacks of the buildings;

·      Materials, building techniques and details;

·      Views, vistas and skylines. 

 

The applicant has described the character in the vicinity of the subject site as follows:

 

Table 1 – Proposed Development Character Assessment

Criteria

Assessment

The underlying natural landform

The proposal does not alter the natural landform and levels of the site at its boundaries. In addition, the proposal does include large cut and fill sections to alter levels across the site. The proposal is an in-fill development that respects the natural levels at the boundaries of the site and especially the existing level to Arthur Street. Therefore, the proposal is wholly within the character of the natural landform.

Distinctive landscape elements

The proposal includes landscaping to the front and rear of the properties. The proposed landscaping provides a soft edge to the streetscape, while allowing for a variety of species and planting styles. In particular, the rear of the property allows for landscaped areas that can accommodate larger plants that would assist with shading and privacy. The proposed landscaping arrangement is consistent with the character of the local area, which all have some element of landscaping to the front and rear of the properties.

The date and style of the buildings

The proposal is a contemporary design that responds to the surrounding scale, appearance and built form of the surrounding development. The proposal offers a high quality modern finish to the streetscape.

In particular, the character of the area consists of a number of different architectural styles, where this proposal highly contributes to that interesting character and variety of styles of the streetscape and area.

The scale and form of the buildings

The proposal is a residential flat development that responds to the surrounding scale and built form. As demonstrated in the architectural package, specifically drawing DA01_01 that includes a detailed contextual analysis, the proposal is of a similar scale and bulk with other surrounding residential flat development. Most residential flat buildings in the area are of three/four storeys in scale and bulk. The overall envelope of the proposal is consistent with the setbacks and envelop of other residential flat development.

Importantly, the proposal achieves a high quality of amenity for future residents.

Setbacks of the buildings

 

The proposed front setback of the residential flat building will be consistent with the front setback alignment of the adjoining development and the general front setback alignment pattern of the southern side of Arthur Street.

The proposed side and rear setbacks of the residential flat building will be generally consistent with the setback pattern of other residential flat buildings located within the streetscape and surroundings sites. As demonstrated in the architectural package, specifically drawing DA01_01 that includes a detailed contextual analysis.

The proposed side and rear setbacks will not result in any adverse impacts upon amenity of surrounding properties in relation to significant view loss, sense of enclosure, loss of visual and acoustic privacy or loss of winter sunlight. Furthermore, the width of the rear and side setbacks will ensure pedestrian access to rear of the site and enable the planting of mature trees and screen planting to improve the visual amenity of the locality.

Street and subdivision pattern

The proposal does not proposal to the change the street and subdivision pattern. The proposal is on one allotment. Therefore the proposal maintains the street and subdivision pattern / character of the area.

Materials, building techniques and details

The proposal is a contemporary design that provides an interesting and contributory style the streetscape. Currently, the character of the area consists of a number of different architectural styles of differing materials. The proposal provides materials and architectural elements that consistent with modern building practices.

Views, vistas and skylines

The proposal is consistent with scale and setback of the development in the streetscape. Therefore, the proposal reinforces the same vistas as other development along the streetscape as well as to the rear of the proposal. In addition, given the similar scale of the proposal with surrounding development it provides a consistent height plane to the skyline.

Importantly, the proposal does not detract or impact on any important views to the local area and provides a modern development that enhances the visual quality of the streetscape.

 

Comment

The SEPP was introduced on 31 July 2009 to increase the supply and diversity of affordable rental and social housing in NSW. The SEPP was amended on 20 May 2011 to require new in-fill development; low rise development; boarding houses, and Housing NSW proposals to be subject to a local character test to ensure that developments are consistent with the design of the local area and the affordable housing component being provided as a percentage of the total floor space.

 

The SOEE provides a streetscape analysis which demonstrates a reasonable relationship of the proposed development within the surrounding built context and notwithstanding the single storey scale on the site immediately to the west.  The height, bulk and scale of the development will be generally consistent with the established 3 to 4 storey development in the streetscape.

 

The proposed development will not be out of character with any underlying natural landform or landscape element and will maintain the existing street form and general subdivision pattern.  The proposal is generally consistent with the front, side and rear setbacks of neighbouring buildings in the street as discussed in the relevant sections of this report and compliance report.  

 

The landscape areas to the front, rear and sides of the boundaries will screen and soften the lower levels of the building and adequate communal and private open landscaped areas are provided to the development. 

 

The facades are adequately articulated with balconies, louvre screening devices and a combination of surface finishes on all elevations, which will create visual interest. The vertical black screen aluminium louvers provided to the lift and stair access, will visually divide the building into two distinct segments in lieu of a monolithic mass. 

 

Visually, the proposal will have a design that contributes to the existing streetscape whilst being consistent with the desired future character of the area having regard to the transitional nature of development in the area; and will also assist with the promotion of housing types which will increase the supply and diversity of affordable rental and social housing in the Randwick locality.

 

Overall, it’s considered that the proposal will comfortably fit within the character of the locality.

 

 

Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

 

Part C2: Medium Density Residential

 

Setbacks

The objectives of the setback controls are:

 

·      To define the street edge and establish or maintain consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the local character.

 

·      To ensure adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views.

 

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

 

Side setback

The site has a frontage width of 12.19 metres. The proposed development is setback 1.5m from the eastern and western side boundaries not complying with the requirement of 2m for a site frontage width between 12 to 14 metres.

 

The non compliance side setbacks of the development are considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·           The FSR bonus provided under the SEPP Affordable housing is a competing factor in achieving the setback control as it acts to significantly increase the size of the building.

·           The applicant has provided additional shadow analyse to demonstrate that a compliant building will not significantly improve the amenity impacts to neighbouring dwellings.  The diagrams show the building being setback 2m from the side boundaries with the external wall height being reduced to a maximum height of 10.5m from the existing natural ground level.  The shadow diagrams indicate minimal improvement of solar access to the neighbouring property at no. 46 Arthur Street.

·           The north facing windows along Arthur Street will not be impacted by the proposed development as these windows face Arthur Street.  The shadow diagram plans in figure 4 below also indicate that the adjoining properties at no.’s 13, 15 & 17 Blenheim Street will receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight to a part of there north facing windows and rear yard between 8am and 4pm on 21 June (mid winter). 

·           The proposed development meets the objectives of the Building Envelope control in the Randwick DCP 2013 in that adequate separation is provided to neighbouring sites to allow for solar access and natural ventilation. The proposal also provides highlight windows to the side elevations to minimise privacy impacts.

·      The proposed landscaped area & FSR are in accordance with the provisions under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 for in-fill affordable housing. The landscape areas to the front, rear and sides of the boundaries will screen and soften the lower levels of the building and adequate communal and private open landscaped areas are provided to the development.  

·      The facades are adequately articulated with balconies, louvre screening devices and a combination of surface finishes on all elevations, which will create visual interest. The vertical black screen aluminium louvers provided to the lift and stair access, will visually divide the building into two distinct segments in lieu of a monolithic mass. 

 

The proposal will achieve the objectives of the side setback controls.

 

Rear setback

The DCP requires a rear setback of 6.2m from the rear boundary.  The applicant provides a rear setback of 6m from the rear boundary not complying with the above control. 

 

Although the proposed rear setback does not strictly achieve numerical compliance with the DCP control, the proposed setback is considered to be acceptable given the context of the site that sees large building footprints dominating the ground plane to the front and rear of the site.  As indicated in figure 1 below, the rear setback of the building will provide a cohesive built form when seen in conjunction with the existing neighbouring development.  Further, quality landscaped areas have been provided resulting in adequate areas of private and communal open spaces which will screen and soften the lower levels of the building.  The proposal will not result in unacceptable shadow impacts on the surrounding private open spaces.  Adequate separation between buildings has been provided for visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Therefore, the proposed rear setback is considered acceptable and meets the objectives of the control.

 

 

Subject site

 

Red dotted line indicates the approx. location of proposed rear building line

 

Figure 1: Indication of the established and proposed rear building line.

 

External Wall Height

The objectives of the external wall height control are:

 

·      To ensure that the building form provides for interesting roof forms and is compatible with the streetscape.

 

·      To ensure ceiling heights for all habitable rooms promote light and quality interior spaces.

 

·      To control the bulk and scale of development and minimise the impacts on the neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity.

 

The subject site has a building height limit of 12 metres under the LEP and therefore, a maximum external wall height of 10.5 metres applies to the site. The proposed development has a maximum external wall height of 12 metres on the western elevation and 11.5 metres on the eastern elevation.  The development has a ceiling height of 2.7m for all floor levels.

 

The non compliance external wall height of the development is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The FSR bonus provided in the SEPP Affordable Housing has the effect of increasing the allowable volume of the building thereby either having to be accommodated in a fourth storey or on a larger footprint.

 

·      The building when viewed from the street level has an external wall height of less than 10.5 metres and is well under the maximum building height of 12 metres.

 

·      The proposed development will achieve compliance with the Building height development standard in the RLEP 2012, despite not strictly meeting the DCP external wall height control and will also satisfy the objectives of the standards.

 

·      The proposed landscaped area & FSR are in accordance with the provisions under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 for in-fill affordable housing.

 

·      The proposed non-compliance does not result in any inconsistencies with the objectives of the R3 zone in which the site is located or the general objectives for Building Envelope in the Randwick DCP 2013.  In particular, the proposed development will be in keeping with the existing height and scale of housing development in the streetscape and will not be a dominate element.

 

·      The non-complaint section of the external wall height is not considered to eventuate in any additional unreasonable impacts of bulk and scale and privacy to surrounding sites and streetscape, and as discussed in the relevant sections of this report, particularly in relation to overshadowing the variation in the external wall height will have minimal additional impact to adjoining properties.

 

·      The facades are adequately articulated with balconies, louvre screening devices and a combination of surface finishes on all elevations, which will create visual interest. The vertical black screen aluminium louvers provided to the lift and stair access, will visually divide the building into two distinct segments in lieu of a monolithic mass. 

 

The proposal will achieve the objectives of the external wall height controls.

Clause 5.1          Solar access and overshadowing

The objectives of the solar access control are to:

 

·      To ensure the design, orientation and siting of development maximises solar access to the living areas of dwellings and open spaces, and is encouraged to all other areas of the development.

 

·      To ensure development retains reasonable levels of solar access to the neighbouring properties and the public domain.

 

·      To provide adequate ambient lighting and minimise the need for artificial lighting during daylight hours.

Solar access for proposed development

The location of the proposed common area to the western side of the boundary in not appropriate as majority of this area is located under the building and will not receive adequate solar access and potential may cause acoustic privacy impacts to the neighbouring property at no 42 Arthur Street.  It is therefore recommended that the common area to the western side be deleted and the area designated for private open space to the rear of the building be converted as communal open space. This will require the deletion of the masonry wall to the centre of the site and the private open spaces to the rear of units 2 & 3 to be extended by 1m to allow adequate landscaping to divide the common and private open spaces.   This area will provide better amenity for the apartments.

 

Solar access for surrounding development

Submissions were received from the neighbouring properties at no. 40 & 42 Arthur Street objecting to the development in that it will impact on their solar access and significantly overshadow their properties.

 

The applicant has submitted shadow diagrams showing the effect on overshadowing if the building were to be setback 2 metres from that side boundaries and reduced in height to 10.5 metres to comply with the DCP control requirements for side setback and external wall height controls.  The shadow lines shown in hatch is the proposed development and the shadow lines shown in redline is the fully compliant development.  

 

The shadow diagrams below in figure 2 indicates that the west facing windows at no. 42 Arthur Street will remain overshadowed by the development and figure 4 indicates that there will be minimal improvements to the rear yard. 

 

Shadow diagrams below in figure 3 indicates that solar access on the first floor level at no. 46 Arthur Street will be regained to the east facing windows.   However, figure 4 indicates that there will be minimal improvements to the rear yard.

 

The shadow diagrams below in figure 4 indicate that the rear yard at no. 40 Arthur Street will only be impacted by the development at 9am.

 

The north facing windows to these properties along Arthur Street will not be impacted by the proposed development as these windows face Arthur Street. 

 

The shadow diagram plans in figure 4 indicate that the adjoining properties at no.’s 13, 15 & 17 Blenheim Street will receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight to a part of there north facing windows and rear yard between 8am and 4pm on 21 June (mid winter).  The properties at no.’s 15 & 17 Blenheim Street will be overshadowed by the development for a duration of 2 hours, while the property at no 13 Blenheim Street will be overshadowed for a duration of 1 hour.

 

This level of overshadowing is considered to be acceptable and will satisfy the objectives of the control.

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: 42 Arthur Street: Elevational shadow diagrams

 

 

    

 

 

 

Figure 3: 46 Arthur Street: Elevational shadow diagrams

 

 

Figure 4: Shadow plans of proposed development

 

5.3 Visual Privacy

The objectives in relation to privacy are:

 

·      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.

 

Objections were received from neighbouring property at no.’s 40 & 42 Arthur Street in relation to privacy loss.

 

Window and door openings

It is not expected that the amended proposal will result in any additional unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties. 

 

The window and door openings to the northern elevation will predominately overlook the front yards of the subject and adjoining sites and the street and to the southern elevation will overlook the rear yard of the subject site.

 

The window openings along the eastern and western elevations are highlight windows and privacy louvers are provided to the stairs and lift lobby area to minimise privacy impacts.  

 

The proposed window openings will satisfy the objectives of the DCP control for visual privacy.

 

Balconies

The balconies are orientated to the front and rear of the building inaccordance with the with control requirement.  The balconies to front of the dwelling will primarily overlook the front yard of the subject site and street.  The side blade walls to the balconies will minimise direct overlooking into the neighbouring properties at no. 42 & 46 Arthur Street. 

 

The property at no. 40 Arthur Street is located two doors down from the development and will not be affected by overlooking impacts from the proposed development.

 

The objectors concerns in relation to privacy impacts as a result of the common area will be addressed as it will now be used as a passage way to access the communal area which is recommended to be located to the rear of the building.

 

In addition to the above, the proposed 1.8m high boundary fencing along the western boundary and louvered screen to this side of the boundary are adequate in height to minimise privacy impacts when this area is in use. 

 

The development will satisfy the objectives of the DCP control for Visual 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 proposal remains within the bounds of the objectives of the zone and satisfies the relevant requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

The scale and design of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable for the site and in the context of the surrounding area. Overall, the development is considered to be consistent with the character of desired future development as envisaged in the Randwick LEP 2012 and DCP 2013.  The height, scale and massing of the proposed development, are considered to be generally consistent with the character of the streetscape and will not give rise to any unreasonable detrimental impacts to surrounding residential properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, views, solar access and privacy. 

 

Visually, the proposal will have a design that contributes to the existing streetscape whilst being consistent with the desired future character of the area having regard to the transitional nature of development in the area; and will also assist with the promotion of housing types which will increase the supply and diversity of affordable rental and social housing in the Randwick locality.

 

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

 

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/617/2013 for demolition of the existing building, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building containing 13 units, 1 level of basement carparking for 8 vehicles and associated works at No. 44 Arthur Street, Randwick, 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

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a)   The common area to the western side boundary must be deleted and the areas designated for private open space to the rear of the building must be converted as communal open space.  The masonry wall to dividing the rear courtyards shall be deleted; and the private open spaces to the rear of units 2 & 3 shall be extended by 1 metre to the south allow for adequate landscaping for privacy screening and visual amenity to divide the communal and private open spaces.  The landscape plan must be amended to reflect the above requirement and shall be designed to allow for a variety of recreation uses and facilities in the communal open space. Details to be submitted to the Director of City Planning for approval prior to issuing of a construction certificate.

 

b)   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the BASIX Certificate shall be amended to reflect the approved plans.

 

c)   A brief archival recording of the property shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  This recording shall be in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office 2006 Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Items using Film or Digital Capture.  Two copies of the endorsed archival recording shall be presented to Council, one of which shall be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library. 

 

d)   The proposed roof skylights must be ventilated to allow for good cross ventilation to the units located on the third level and to comply with the recommendations made by the Design Review Panel.   

 

e)   The concrete roof must have rigid insulation and ballast to achieve good thermal comfort to the units below on the third floor level.

 

f)   The balcony doors and windows to the upper levels must be weather protected to comply with the BCA requirements.

 

g)   Apartments 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 12 & 13 shall be used for affordable housing for 10 years from the date of the issue of the occupation certificate.

 

Prior to issue of an occupation certificate, the following is to occur:

 

i)   Written documentation is to be provided to Council from a registered community housing provider confirming that arrangements have been made to ensure that the use of the units for affordable housing will occur in accordance with this condition.

 

ii)  A restriction will be registered against the title of the property on which development is to be carried out, in accordance with section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, that will ensure that the requirements of this condition are met.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 44 Arthur Street, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP53/14

 

 

Subject:                  23 Byron Street, Coogee (DA/138/2009/B)

Folder No:                   DA/138/2009/B

Author:                   Scott Williamson, Senior Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by increase in size of basement carpark, changes to boundary retaining walls, internal layout of units, external facade including location and size of windows, roof including increase in height, increase in size of units six (6) and ten (10), alterations to entry paths, ramps and communal open spaces 

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                CSA Architects Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mr P J Morris & Mrs P S Morris

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval, subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council given the original application (DA/138/2009) was approved at the Planning Committee Meeting of 13 October 2009.

 

1.        Proposal

 

The original application of DA/138/2009 was approved for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new residential flat building containing eight (8) units in a detached four (4) storey building, two (2) units in a two (2) storey building and two (2) levels of basement car parking for 15 vehicles.

 

 

 

Figure 1: The subject site, prior to demolition occurring.

Figure 2: Montage of the most recently amended scheme of 28 January 2014.

 

The subject application seeks to make miscellaneous modifications to DA/138/2009, in the following manner:

Amendment location

Proposed amendment

General

 

 

·      Amendments to height of side and rear boundary retaining walls;

·      Amend room layouts of each apartment;

·      Amend a number of window locations and sizes;

·      Changes to the approved roof structure, resulting in creased height of 240mm;

·      Widening of roof above southern bedroom of Unit 10;

·      Changes to footpath, ramps and open space levels.

Basement

 

·      Reconfiguration of basement car park for manoeuvrability, including shifting two (2) retaining walls onto the south and west boundary shared with 25 Byron Street;

·      Square off splayed walls for manoeuvrability.

 

Lower ground floor

 

 

·      Extension to northern terrace associated with Unit 01 and replace windows with sliding doors;

·      Extend kitchen of Unit 02 to the west by roughly one (1) metre, providing roughly four (4) metres of floor area;

·      Extend study of Unit 06 into an undercroft, providing roughly six (6) square metres additional floor area;

·      Reconfiguration of internal layouts;

·      Relocate OSD tank under driveway.

Upper ground floor

 

·      Reduce level of central courtyard from RL 48.18 to RL 48.08 to remove stair and enable access;

·      Add a hood for weather protection of an external stair on the northern elevation, servicing Unit 6.

Level one (1)

 

·      New window adjacent corridor of Unit 8;

·      New windows on south elevation of units three (3) and four (4);

·      New south elevation window to bedroom two (2) of Unit 9;

·      Provide 1200mm high opaque balustrade to south elevation balcony of Unit 9, replacing approved privacy screen.

Level two (2)

 

·      Add floor space to bedroom of unit 10, comprising roughly four (4) square metres;

·      Delete approved rooftop pool associated with Unit 10 and replace with spa of smaller dimension.

 

2.        Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the originally proposed development between 25 September and 10 October 2013, in accordance with Council’s DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

9/4A Carr Street, Coogee;

Mersonn on behalf of 25 Byron Street, Coogee;

8/4A, 9/4A, 3/4A and 1/4A Carr Street, Coogee, (Group submission).

 

Issue

Comment

Built form:

o Object to the increase in length of apartment 10 on level 2. Building envelope in this location is already excessive in relation to 25 Byron Street;

o Increase in roof height is unacceptable adjacent the southern boundary, exacerbating bulk and scale;

o The amendments will mean the proposal does not comply with FSR, deep soil, or rear setback controls;

o Amended shadow diagrams have not been submitted for the additional bulk- shadow is already excessive;

o Changes in material and form are not acceptable.

 

The addition of floor space and roof height to Unit 10 is relatively minor and is not considered to eventuate in any material additional impact to that approved, particularly to 25 Byron Street.

The proposal maintains compliance with the floor space control and is not seeking to change the approved rear setback. A reduction of roughly 8.5 square metres in approved deep soil area does eventuate, however is not considered to substantially restrict the ability of the design to incorporate sufficient landscaping.

The applicant provided shadow diagrams with the application. The amendments proposed are considered to pose negligible additional shadow impact from the original approval.

The scheme makes use of much of the colour and materials palette that was approved under the initial scheme. The proposal does involve an increased use of rendered masonry, however avoids an outcome of large blank walls through means of variation in treatment and use of various architectural features.

Setbacks

o Object to relocation of basement wall to the boundary adjoining the north-east corner of 25 Byron Street;

o No geotech or structural supporting documentation is provided to support basement relocation;

o No consent is provided from 25 Byron Street to construct on the boundary.

 

The proposed relocation of basement walls to the boundary is discussed below. It is considered the amendment can be accommodated without substantial impact upon the adjoining heritage item, particularly given location below ground.

Suitable conditions of the original consent have regulated the adequate monitoring of excavation and construction and reinforcing of structures on the boundary. The conditions remain relevant to the subject amendment and are considered to provide sufficient safeguard in ensuring the ongoing structural stability of 25 Byron Street.

Consent of adjoining owners is not necessary to construct to the common boundary. All structures are still required to be contained wholly within the bounds of 23 Byron Street. 

Heritage:

o The proposal has overwhelming negative impact upon the significance of 25 Byron Street;

o The present application fails to address Clause 5.10(5)(c) of the LEP 2012;

o A Heritage Impact Statement has not been provided through the development, making the legality of the consent questionable.

 

Heritage implications and Section 5.10 of RLEP 2012 have been addressed in further detail below.

The application is accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement and has been reviewed by Council’s Heritage Planner. The Heritage Planner has advised that subject to conditions, the proposed amendments can be accommodated with out significant impact upon the significance of the heritage item.

The proposed basement car park changes will not be visible from the heritage item and are largely a continuation of what was initially approved on the boundary. Opportunity to overlook the heritage item through amendments has been prevented through recommended conditions. 

Privacy:

o Privacy concern over bathroom windows on the rear elevation of 4A Carr Street;

o Removal of privacy screens and changes to window height on northern elevation will allow direct overlooking of 4A Carr Street. Request screens be reinstated.

 

Privacy is discussed in further detail below.

The proposal was amended on 28 January 2014, reintroducing screening elements to the building where the initial scheme removed these privacy elements.

The proposed privacy measures are considered to be generally acceptable. Where a privacy issue is considered to remain, suitable conditions have been recommended by this assessment.

Tree removal

o Request Lilli Pilli on the northern boundary be trimmed to reduce overhanging;

o A tree shown on the plans at the rear of 4A Carr Street does not actually exist;

o Plans omit two (2) frangipani trees at the rear boundary wall of 4A Carr Street. Both are within one metre of the boundary wall and may be impacted when the retaining wall is constructed.

 

The subject application does not seek to make any significant amendment to the approved landscaping situation on the site, including that of existing trees.

Changes to retaining walls have been made conscious of existing trees, particularly to the south-west corner of the site, where a pine tree is being retained and protected during excavation works.

The required tree protection measures imposed under both DA/138/2009 and DA/138/2009/A are still required to be adhered to and as such, work to retaining walls is required to remain compliant with these conditions of Council’s Landscape Development Engineer.

Other:

Request fencing on shared boundary with 4A Carr Street be the same height as that existing;

Concern over location of future sewer lines;

Considerable negative financial impact upon 25 Byron Street;

In sufficient detail of the elevation that fronts 25 Byron Street has been provided.

 

The proposal includes change in fencing materials and makes marginal reduction to the approved fence height adjacent 4A Carr Street. The fence is of height that will continue to provide privacy and will eventuate in reduced bulk imposition on 4A Carr Street.

Sewer and associated facilities fall within the jurisdiction of Sydney Water Corporation under the Sydney Water Act 1994. A condition was included in the original consent that requires compliance with relevant requirements of Sydney Water.

Financial implications are not a matter that can be considered within the scope of a planning assessment, under S79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended).

Detailed elevations and sections have been provided and were available during notification. The elevations fronting 25 Byron Street are made clear on both the south elevation and Section A-A drawings.

 

3.        History

 

3.1                  DA/138/2009/A - 23 Byron Street, Coogee

Section 96(2) modification to an approved multi-unit housing development through:

 

·      Reconfiguration of the basement car park from two (2) levels (one (1) storey on top of another) to split levels.

·      Relocation and reconfiguration of the rainwater and on-site detention tanks.

·      Alteration to the internal room layouts of each apartment.

·      Alteration to the façade fenestration, including changes to the external wall alignments, window configuration, screening devices and surface finishes.

·      Reconfiguration of the landscaped areas.

 

The application was approved by Council on 28 June 2011.

 

4.        Assessment against key criteria of RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013

 

The subject site is zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal is permissible with consent of Council.

 

Council Standard

Approved

DA/138/2009/A

Proposed DA/138/2009/B

Complies?

FSR

0.9:1

(901.8 sqm)

0.89:1

(894sqm per

RLEP 1998)

0.897:1

(899.4sqm per RLEP 2012)

 

Yes, see below.

 

Height

12m

12.39m

12.64m

 

No, see below.

 

 

4.1      RLEP 2012 - Floor space ratio control

RLEP 2012 adopts an FSR of 0.9:1 to the subject site. The subject application proposes to increase the approved floor space of 0.89:1 to approximately 0.897:1.

 

The amended scheme seeks to make three (3) relatively minor floor space additions arbitrarily across the approved building, cumulatively being 14 square metres of gross floor area.

 

The additional floor space has been appropriately designed to be compatible with the approved scheme, the streetscape and minimises any resulting environmental impacts upon surrounds. The additional floor space is not considered to be of detrimental impact to the significance of the neighbouring heritage item. The proposed building bulk supports an intensity of use that is reasonable in the context of this site and considers adjoining amenity.

 

It should be noted the definition of gross floor area was altered with the introduction of RLEP 2012. As such, DA/138/2009/A and DA/138/2009/B have been subject to different means of floor space calculation. The new definition allows various exemptions that enable the proposed additional 14 square metres to remain within the bounds of the 0.9:1 control.

 

The scheme is considered to remain consistent with the objectives of the floor space standard.

 

4.2      RLEP 2012 – Height control

RLEP 2012 adopts a height of 12 metres to the subject site. The subject application proposes to increase the approved maximum height of 12.39 metres, to 12.64 metres. An objection under Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 is not necessary in respect of Section 96 of the Act.

 

The height variation proposed occurs to a small component of the roof above Unit 10. The increase eventuates given redesign of the roof, which now incorporates a skillion form with 5-degree pitch.

 

The height increase is localised and restricted to a minor portion of a secondary roof form sited centrally within the site. The increase will not be prominent from the streetscape and is not expected to eventuate in any significant impacts of bulk, scale, shadow or view loss to surrounding sites. 

 

Despite the variation proposed the scheme is consistent with the objectives of the height standard. The proposed height is acceptable with regard to adjoining sites, the streetscape and surrounds.

 

4.3      Heritage conservation - Section 5.10

The shape of the site is such that two (2) boundaries are shared with 25 Byron Street, which sits to the south of the subject site. The building at 25 Byron Street is listed as a heritage item under the LEP (“Byron Lodge”, c 1886).

 

Of most concern in the amended scheme is potential for:

 

Proposed additional building bulk to increase shadow and reduce outlook:

 

The additional building bulk proposed is minor and generally sited out of view of the heritage item. Additional bulk at second floor level is the only visible addition, with a 1200mm length that will be visible from the heritage item. This element is not of scale that will pose substantial change to the views that will be achieved to the east from the heritage item, when compared to the approved scheme.

 

Shifting of the basement walls to the shared boundary to box in the heritage item:

 

The basement relocation onto the shared boundary is discussed below and given this occurs only at lower ground level, is not considered to unnecessarily ‘box in’ the heritage item. This component being below ground and obstructed from view of the heritage site, is not considered to have any substantial prominence, or detrimental impact to the heritage site from that of the original approval.

 

Proposed windows on the south elevation eventuating in privacy implications:

 

New windows on the south elevation have ability to look straight onto the private spaces of the heritage item and as such, have been recommended for obscuring in accordance with the privacy provisions of the DCP.

 

The subject amendments are not expected to pose substantial impact to the heritage significance of associated fabric, settings and views of 25 Byron Street. The modifications are capable of being integrated sensitively with the heritage site, maintaining both the built form setting and reasonable amenity for ongoing livability to 25 Byron Street.

 

5.        Key issues:

 

5.1      Roof design

The originally approved scheme involved a complex architectural roof form that the applicant advises is not feasible to construct. The present application seeks to simplify the roof form.

 

The Design Review Panel commented on the initial scheme of the current application, which involved a flat cement roof with parapet. The Panel advised that the roof form would comprise the integrity of the original design and did not support the change in the context of SEPP 65. Specific comments of the Panel are provided in the attached Compliance Report.

 

The applicant amended the roof form on 28 January 2014, reinstating the timber and beam type construction and appearance, in order to respond to this issue.

 

The amended roof form is considered to satisfactorily contribute to the articulation of the building, integrating suitably into the design of the scheme. The roof form is considered capable of delivering the unique character to the building that was noted within the original design. The roof from does not pose substantial environmental impact to the streetscape or adjoining sites and is considered satisfactory.

 

5.2      Basement configuration and setbacks

The application seeks to make various amendments to the basement configuration, predominantly to facilitate improved vehicle maneuverability.

 

The most notable amendment to the basement involves relocating a wall on the south and west elevation with no setback to the site at 25 Byron Street. The walls were approved at 600mm off the boundary.

 

The proposed locations of nil setback are considered acceptable in this instance given the following:

 

The basement is already approved for construction to the boundary along the southern boundary shared with 25 Byron Street. Existing conditions will cover protection of the adjoining property;

Locations of proposed nil setback are located below ground level when viewed from 25 Byron Street. The boundary fence will prevent view to this component from 25 Byron Street;

No bulk above ground is proposed on the boundary, such that this amendment does not stand to enclose or overwhelm 25 Byron Street;

The proposed nil setback is not shown to prevent landscaping being provided along the common boundary. This landscaping will continue to provide screening and greenery to the outlook of 25 Byron Street, albeit without deep soil.

 

It is considered the basement can be reasonably constructed with a nil setback to the boundary of 25 Byron Street without any significant impacts, in lieu of the above points.

 

5.3      Reductions in landscaping and deep soil

The scheme seeks to readjust several aspects around the site that will have implication for the overall landscaping and deep soil provision on the site. Changes are summarised in the following table:

 

DCP

Approved

DA/138/2009/A RLEP 1998

Proposed DA/138/2009/B RLEP 2012

Landscaping

50% (501 m2)

 

53% (532m2)

 

52% (523.5 m2)

Deep Soil

50% (250.5m2) of landscaping req.

 

38% (190m2) of landscaping req.

36% (181.5m2)

 

The original scheme was approved with a variation to the deep soil planning control. The proposed amendments will increase this shortfall by approximately 8.5 metres to provide 181.5 square metres of deep soil planting.

 

The proposed reduction of deep soil landscaped area is attributed to the reconfiguration of the basement car park. Relocation of the basement walls onto the boundary compromises a strip of deep soil along the respective boundaries of the basement that now translates to the subject reduction in deep soil on the site.

 

Notwithstanding this variation, the proposal achieves compliance with the landscaped area requirement, where 52% of the site has been reserved as landscaped area. There are sufficient unbuilt upon areas to accommodate screen planting and communal recreational space. Notably, the proposal still seeks to provide screen planting in the area of reduced deep soil.

 

The approved landscape plans show the provision of a range of tree and shrub planting along the perimeter of the site, which will visually soften the building structures and offer privacy screening for the neighbours. The approved plans identify retaining significant existing vegetation on the site.

 

Appropriate private open space in the form of garden terraces or balconies will be provided for each and every apartment unit. The reduction in deep soil landscaped areas will not compromise amenity to the proposed dwelling units.

 

While the numerical attributes of the proposal are to change, it is not considered the performance of the scheme is significantly compromised. The site is still capable of providing for the necessary landscaping, open space and planting of that provided under the original scheme.

 

5.4      Privacy

The approved development was inclusive of screens and window sizes that generally facilitated privacy to the north, east and southern neighbouring sites.

 

The present scheme seeks to amend the privacy attributes of the development as it relates to its neighbours that may compromise privacy.

 

East elevation

A number of east elevation openings are being amended, however where elevated have had screening devices reinstated per the original approval. The screening devices are triangular, allowing northern light internally, while adequately offsetting view lines to avoid privacy issues to 100 Mount Street and articulating the building.

 

North elevation

Further to the amendments of 28 January 2014, the proposed north elevation windows are generally provided privacy screening or offset in accordance with the original approval.

 

Windows that are offset within the scheme allow that only oblique views to the adjoining residential flat buildings can be achieved. Together with landscaping along the boundary and substantial separation distance, the privacy implications of the building are considered typical of a medium density residential environment.

 

The northern elevation is considered acceptable as amended on 28 January 2014.

 

South elevation

The following south elevation windows are proposed for obscuring in accordance with the DCP:

Two (2) new south facing windows proposed to Units 3 and 4, with no sill.

 

The subject windows eventuate in overlooking to a number of properties to the south and as such, conditions have been recommended in accordance with the DCP.

 

A further south elevation window being proposed at level one (1) and corresponding to Unit nine (9) has view to the south toward 27 Byron Street. Adequate separation distance is considered to be provided such that the window should avoid opportunity for substantial overlooking.

 

West elevation and rooftop terrace:

The western edge of the approved rooftop terrace was previously prevented from any substantial overlooking of 25 Byron Street due to a pool along the length of the western edge, restricting trafficability. Amendments presently proposed to the pool will allow trafficable area up to the western edge of the terrace.

 

The amendment is of concern to maintaining suitable privacy to the rear open space of 25 Byron Street and as such, conditions are recommended that require a planter of commensurate dimension to that approved on the eastern edge, to be provided in the absence of the pool. This measure will prevent foot traffic within close proximity of the edge, discouraging view lines to the subject neighbour.

 

Further to the above discussion and proposed conditions, the amended application is considered to provide a sufficient degree of privacy, commensurate of a medium density residential zone, in the interest of future occupants and the adjoining sites.

 

5.5      Fencing

The proposal is inclusive of amendments to the approved fencing detail applying to the side and rear boundaries of the site. It should be noted that front fencing was amended under DA/138/2009/A and is not presently sought for amendment.

 

The approved fencing arrangements generally involve retention of an existing retaining wall and provision of a fibre cement wall above to achieve a varying height across each boundary to compensate for the falling landform. Fencing of substantial height eventuates in certain locations on side boundaries, where the landform falls away.

 

The present application seeks to replace the existing retaining wall with rendered masonry and provision of a timber fence to a height commensurate or marginally below that approved.

 

The amendment is considered to have merit and will not substantially change the approved fencing situation. Fencing is considered satisfactory in facilitating privacy to both occupants and neighbours in the circumstances of the site and poses improvement to the approved fencing height and presentation.

 

5.6      Materials and finishes

The original design approved under DA/138/2009 entailed complex façade fenestration and wall alignment, along with high quality finishes and materials. On this basis the development was considered to be capable of complementing both the streetscape and the heritage item located at 25 Byron Street.

 

Much of the complexity in the original elevations was removed through the approved amendments of DA/138/2009/A. Regardless, the application was supported given the design retained a satisfactory level of articulation and finishes that would complement the streetscape and the heritage item, consistent with the intention of the original approval.

 

The present application provides some detail of materials and finishes, however as the appearance of the proposed building should ensure that it achieves a positive relationship with the heritage item and the streetscape, further details will be required. In this respect, an additional condition is included in the recommendation to

ensure that the external appearance of each façade achieves a high degree of architectural resolution and material quality.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal entails a number of modifications that when considered on balance with resultant environmental impacts, eventuate in a generally positive development outcome for the site, the streetscape and surrounds. The proposal is not considered to pose a significant additional impact upon the heritage significance of 25 Byron Street.

 

In view of the issues discussed above, the proposal is considered satisfactory in relation to the intent of the planning controls and the specific context of the site. The application is recommended for approval, subject to the below recommended conditions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/138/2009/B through increase in size of basement car park, changes to boundary retaining walls, internal layout of units, external facade including location and size of windows, roof including increase in height, increase in size of units six (6) and ten (10), alterations to entry paths, ramps and communal open spaces at No. 23 Byron Street, Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in this report:

 

Non standard conditions:

 

§     Add the following at Condition 114:

Privacy measures

114)   Privacy measures shall be provided in accordance with the commitments detailed on the approved plans and the following additions;

 

a.     A planter of dimension commensurate of the eastern edge planter shall be provided to the western edge of the rooftop terrace, where the pool is being removed, as identified in red on the approved plans. The planter shall be provided similar landscape treatment to that on the eastern edge of the deck. The planter shall be of the same height as the approved pool;

 

b.     The two (2) new south elevation windows corresponding to Units 03 and 04 shall be raised or obscured to a minimum of 1500mm above finished floor level, to prevent overlooking of 25 Byron Street.

 

Further to the above privacy measures, obscuring may be achieved through raising sill heights, louvres or use of opaque/frosted glass, at the preference of the applicant.

 

§     Add the following Heritage requirement at Condition 115

115)   Detailed drawings of the design, height, materials and structure of fencing within the front setback area are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

 

§     Add the following Heritage requirement at Condition 116

116)   In the event that historical archaeological remains or deposits are exposed during the works, all work should cease while an evaluation of their potential extent and significance is undertaken and the NSW Heritage Office notified under the requirements of the Heritage Act. 

 

§     Add the following Heritage requirement at Condition 117

117)    Prior to the issue of any amended construction certificate, the applicant shall submit drawings that demonstrate the facades of the building are of a high architectural quality and that the composition of building elements, textures, materials and colours complement the adjoining heritage item and streetscape.

 

In this regard, construction drawings in the form of elevations and sections at 1:20 are required. The drawings shall detail the external appearance of each façade including the roof and be accompanied by samples of colors, materials and finishes.

 

The drawings shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to any amended construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 23 Byron Street, Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP54/14

 

 

Subject:                  765-765A Anzac Parade, Maroubra (DA/214/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/214/2014

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Proposal:                    Fit out and use of the premises as a Thai massage centre including new signage with hours of operation from 10am to 10pm Monday to Sunday

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Mr P Yimsiri

Owner:                        Tamiya Holdings Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves a change use to a remedial Thai massage clinic including signage, with hours of operation from 10am to 10pm Monday to Sunday. As the proposal involves massage services the application is referred to Council for determination.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Anzac Parade, between Wise Street and Maroubra Road. The site is presently occupied by an existing commercial development and form part of the Maroubra Junction Commercial centre.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

Nature of the Use:

The massage services will be carried out at the upper level in an open air treatment area, with individual spaces divided by curtains. A copy of the Thai massage qualifications held by the applicant were provided with the application however it is not stated whether other employees will be working at the premises. A condition of consent has therefore been included that the relevant remedial and therapeutic massage qualifications of all staff are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning prior to the commencement of the use. Council will then keep a record of the employees and their relevant qualifications. The applicant has provided details of signage indicating that its purpose is for “Thai Massage”. A condition is included that requires details of signage to the shop front windows that would display the legitimate types of massage services being offered. It is considered that the proposed use is legitimate and the premises are not intended to be used for the purposes of providing sexual services

 

Hours of Operation:

The proposed hours of operation are Monday to Sunday: 10:00am - 10:00pm. It is considered that the proposed hours of operation will not impose any significant amenity impacts with regard to noise generation. The proposed trading hours will be consistent with other nearby commercial/retail uses within the locality.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 


Conclusion

 

It is considered that the proposed use is legitimate and the premises are not intended to be used for the purposes of providing sexual services. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/214/2014 for fit out and use of the premises as a Thai massage centre including new signage with hours of operation from 10am to 10pm Monday to Sunday, at No 765-765A Anzac Parade, MAROUBRA, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 765-765A Anzac Parade, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP55/14

 

 

Subject:                  3 Sully Street, Randwick (DA/140/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/140/2014

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the existing attached dual occupancy including internal reconfiguration, new rear balconies, new attic with dormer windows, changes to front boundary fence, installation of solar panels on roof and construction of detached shed with associated deck at the rear of the site

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Ms A E Trickett and Ms S Williamson

Owner:                        Ms A E Trickett and Ms S Williamson

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 submission received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council determination as the proposed development exceeds the floor space ratio standard under Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 by more than 10%. The applicant has submitted an objection to Clause 4.4 under Clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves alterations and additions to the existing attached dual occupancy including internal reconfiguration, new rear balconies, new attic with dormer windows, changes to front boundary fence, installation of solar panels on roof and construction of detached shed with associated deck at the rear of the sit.

 

Site

 

The subject site is on the south western side of Sully Street, Randwick. The subject building sits on a steeply sloping site from front down to the rear presenting as a single level from street level and two levels at the rear (see photos below).

 

Street view of subject site.

 

Rear view of subject dwelling.

 

Similarly scaled developments occur along this side of Sully Street. To the south west a semi detached dwelling identified as 1A Sully Street is identified as a heritage item. To the north east, the site identified as 5 Sully Street contains a strata titled duplex sits.

 

The locality is primarily residential, consisting of a mixture of detached dwellings, semi detached and dual occupancy development.

 

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:

 

5 Sully Street Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

Privacy impacts from dormers.

The proposed dormer windows are shallow in height and service a low use attic area. These windows will only have an oblique view to the objector’s windows and not a direct view. As such it is not considered that treatment to these windows is required.

 

The shed is 1.5m high above the fence and too long

The shed has been amended by lowering its overall height by between 500mm and 900mm and its area reduced in length. The amended shed meets with the RDCP 2013 controls for outbuildings.

 

RLEP 2012 Clause 4.6 - Development standard for maximum floor space:

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention to the development standard for maximum floor space, as specified by RLEP 2012 and pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 “Exceptions to development standards”.

 

The maximum floor space ratios for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone is 0.5:1.

 

The overall site area is 487m2, the proposed attic space and associated shed measure will result in an increase in the existing floor space ratio (0.49:1) to 0.6:1 which represents a variation of 20% above the standard.

 

Essentially, the consent authority must be satisfied as required by sub clause 4.6(4) that:

 

i)        the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by sub clause (3), (that it is unreasonable and unnecessary and there are sufficient environmental grounds for the contravention) and

 

ii)       the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

 

Sub clause 4.6(5) also requires concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to be obtained for development contravening a development standard unless it is otherwise assumed by the consent authority. In this respect, reference is made to the discussion by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. Although the Wehbe case was decided in relation to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards (“SEPP 1”) and not clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012, it remains of some assistance in identifying the ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, there are sufficient environmental grounds for the contravention and therefore assumed concurrence.

 

An assessment of the applicant’s written justifications for contravening the development standard and whether they have demonstrated that compliance with the floor space ratio development standard satisfies clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012 is carried out against four main questions raised in the case of Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 as follows:

 

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

 

The relevant development standards relating to floor space ratio is set out in Clause 4.4 – Floor Space ratio as follows:

 

(1) The objectives of this clause 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.

 

The applicant has provided the following in support for the departure from the standard:

 

There is no change to the external bulk, shadow or views with the proposal with the exception of an alteration to the roof and attic space, scale is well within the local character, and the house is being designed to increase energy efficiency. There should be little to no impact on neighbours, including the heritage neighbour to the north. The existing dual occupancy will retain its general bulk; it is only attic space which will change. Thought the FSR is greater than the 0.5:1 for dual occupancies it is still less than the zoned 0.65:1 for dwellings.

 

The development meets Council’s requirements in regards to all requirements of the DCP. The soft surface area of the site is well in excess of Council’s requirements; all setbacks and heights also comply. The proposal is a reconfiguration of the rear yard at ground floor level and the addition of two new timber decks at the rear of the property. The attic and rear of the residence will have new windows installed to increase light, airflow, and views from the residence. All windows have been designed to limit impact on neighbouring properties. The new shed will be located at the rear of the site. Though the new shed will be constructed inside the rear setback, this should not be an issue as outbuildings are allowed within this area.

 

 

Assessing Officer Comment:

The submitted “Exception” to the development standard has addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the purpose of the FSR development standard specified by the RLEP 2012 and the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

In respect to the relevant objectives of the Floor space ratio clause the following comments are made:

 

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

 

Comment: The proposed development is of a size and scale that is consistent  with DCP envelope controls and will be compatible with the desired future character of the area. In this regard the dormer windows do not add significant bulk to the building and remain subservient to the existing roof form.

 

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

 

Comment: The proposed development is well articulated providing areas of functional recreational areas, habitable living rooms and areas of storage within the site without resulting in any significant adverse impacts on the environmental or energy needs of the neighbouring properties.

 

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

 

Comment: The proposed dormer windows and shed, are at the rear of the dwelling and site and will not result in any significant change to the existing building envelope.  It is considered that the proposed changes will not impact on the streetscape setting of the adjacent heritage item, will not affect views to and from the buildings, and will not dominate the heritage items.

 

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.

 

Comment: The proposal’s size and scale is generally considered appropriate for the site having regard to the context of the site and the surrounding area and will not result in any obtrusive elements or result in any significant adverse impacts on the streetscape or neighbouring properties.

 

Overall, with respect to the objectives of the floor space ratio provisions, it is considered that the applicant has appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

In respect to the relevant planning objectives of the R2 zone the following comments are made:

 

a)       To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

 

Comment: The proposal will add functional internal space that is mostly contained within the roof form with the only physical protrusion being the dormers and a small outbuilding which takes up a small portion of the rear yard. The proposal will not impose any significant impacts on the amenity of the occupants of nearby dwellings. In conjunction with general compliance of other controls, it is considered that the size, scale and site coverage of the resultant development will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts on the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area. In particular, the proposed floor area of the shed and that of the dormers that protrude outside of the area of the existing roof space is less than 20sqm which represents an effective FSR of only 0.527:1 which is only 2.7% over the allowable floor space ratio standard. As such, the actual floor area contributing to visual bulk is relatively minor as a significant proportion of additional floor area is situated in the existing roof.

                                       

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

 

Comment: The existing dual occupancy as a whole mostly relates to and has been integrated with the sloping topography of the subject site from street level to the rear. The proposed additional floor area is mostly limited to the rear comprising the two dormers and an outbuilding. These aspects are considered minor in the context of the existing building, streetscape and other buildings along this side of Sully Street. The proposed additional floor area will not detract from the desirable elements of the streetscape and built form along Sully Street.

 

c)       To protect the amenity of residents

 

Comment: The proposed dormers and outbuilding will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring residents.

 

Dormers: The proposed dormers face the rear of the site, have small shallow windows and service a small low use area of the dwelling affording only distant views to the rear and only oblique views to the sides. These dormers are not considered a significant source of privacy or general amenity impact such as overshadowing or general obtrusiveness.

 

Shed (Outbuilding): The shed as amended by a reduction in wall (2.4m) and overall height (3m) as well as an increased rear setback (900mm) when viewed from neighbouring properties will not present as an obtrusive element and nor will it result in any adverse amenity impacts in terms of overshadowing.

 

Overall, the arguments provided by the applicant are sustainable and well founded. The proposed additions will not set an undesirable precedent for the locality and will not impose any significant impacts on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings. Consequently, the applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

As discussed above, the proposal achieves the planning objectives for the locality and sits comfortably within the residential character of Sully Street. At the same time, it is considered that the proposal will not set an undesirable precedent for similar contraventions of the development standard.

 

In summary, the applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

Will the proposed development be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out?

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the aims of the RLEP 2012 in that additional floor space will be provided on the subject site; whilst not significantly affecting the amenity of the occupants of the subject duplex or neighbouring dwellings.

 

The proposed development is also considered to be consistent with, and will not contravene the zone objectives of the R2 Residential Area in which the site is located, in that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of residents.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it represents an orderly use of the site. The development does not contravene the underlying purpose of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 – Low Density Residential.

 

Council delegation exercising concurrence function for development that contravenes a development standard is subject to:

 

(a)      whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b)      the public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4), it is considered that the:

 

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

 

The variation from the adherence to the floor space ratio standard will not be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

Overall, the applicant’s written justification for contravening the floor space ratio standard is considered to be well founded and supportable; and the resultant layout is considered to be suitable for the site.

 

Key Issues

 

External wall height

The proposed development by virtue of the dormers has an external wall height of 8.5m above ground and does not meet the 8m maximum under Section 3.2 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP). The proposed external wall height is considered to satisfy the objectives in so far as it does not present an unsuitable scale to the street, it does not cause unreasonable impacts on neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy and visual amenity. Further, the additional form and massing is minor given the scale of the existing building on site.

 

 

Privacy from rear decks/balcony

The proposed elevated rear decks will have a direct view into the side windows of neighbouring dwellings at No. 1A and 5 Sully Street. In order to provide privacy to these windows, a condition is included installation of 1.6m high privacy screens to the eastern and western sides of the lower and upper level decks.

                                                                                                   

There are still views into the rear yards of neighbouring sites; however it is not unreasonable in the context of the sites topography and surrounding sites in so far as there is a level of acceptance that overlooking from rear balconies into the neighbouring properties rear yards areas is largely an unavoidable outcome. Rear decks and balconies on neighbouring sites also have an outlook into the rear yard of the subject site and their neighbouring sites. It is also considered that the proposed deck sizes have been kept to reasonable dimensions by internalising the stair access to the rear yard.

 

Outbuilding

The originally proposed elevated outbuilding was located in close proximity to the rear southern boundary exceeding the RDCP maximum wall and overall height controls. The outbuilding in this location and size would result in adverse visual impact when viewed from the neighbouring sites as well as overshadowing that was directly connected to the proposed outbuildings rear setback and height. It is also important to note that the southern neighbour’s rear yard level sits well below the subject sites rear yard level and would directly be affected by overshadowing from the proposed outbuilding.

 

In response to the abovementioned concerns amended plans submitted as part of the assessment process lowered the external wall height to a maximum of 2.4m along the rear elevation and increased the rear setback to 900mm. These amendments ensure compliance with the maximum 2.4m height controls for the rear elevation and will minimise adverse overshadowing and visual amenity impacts ensuring compliance with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development as conditioned will meet the relevant assessment criteria and will not contravene the objectives of the R2 zone Low Density Residential.

 

Specifically, the proposed FSR will not result in an undesirable precedent given that the majority of the proposed additional attic floor space has a limited physical presence where the majority of the floor area is accommodated within the existing roof form. The proposed external works inclusive of the rear decks/balconies are suitably sized and conditioned to protect privacy. The proposed outbuilding has been reduced in size and set further away from the rear neighbours rear yard area in order to meet with the RDCP controls and objectives.

 

As a whole, the proposed development will not result in any significant adverse impact on the streetscape or the amenity of the locality.

The proposal is, therefore, considered acceptable and is recommended for approval

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Floor Space Ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/140/2014 for Alterations and additions to the existing attached dual occupancy including internal reconfiguration, new rear balconies, new attic with dormer windows, changes to front boundary fence, installation of solar panels on roof and construction of detached shed with associated deck at the rear of the site, at No. 3 Sully Street, Radnwick, 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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

A1 Issue A

BDA

Feb 14

9 May 2014

A3 Issue A

8.5.14

9 May 2014

A4

Feb 14

18 March 2014

A5

Feb 14

18 March 2014

A6 Issue A

Feb 14

9 May 2014

A7 Issue A

Feb 14

9 May 2014

A8 Issue A

8.5.14

9 May 2014

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

A184502

17 March 2014

18 March 2014

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.       Privacy screens having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to north western and south eastern sides of the ground and first floor level decks.  The privacy screens must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screens 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.

DA Compliance Report - 3 Sully Street , Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP56/14

 

 

Subject:                  Report variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 -  between 1 and 30 April 2014

Folder No:                   F2008/00122

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in November 2008 advising Councils to adopt additional procedures in relation to the administration of variations to development Standard. The additional measures are largely in response to the ICAC inquiry into Wollongong City Council. Those additional measures are:

 

1)     Establishment of a register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6;

 

2)     Requirement for all development applications where there has been a variation greater than 10% in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6 to be determined by full council (rather than the general manager or nominated staff member);

 

3)     Providing a report to Council on the development applications determined where there had been a variation in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6;

 

4)     Making the register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 available to the public on council’s website.

 

This report is in response to point 3) above. A table is attached to this report detailing all SEPP1s and Clause 4.6 exceptions approved in the period between 1 and 30 April, 2014 – only 1 was approved during this period by Planning Committee meeting.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in 2008 advising of additional requirements Councils are required to adopt in relation to SEPP1 objections and Clause 4.6 exceptions. This report is in response to one of those requirements whereby a report is provided to Council on the development app

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 variation  Register April 2014

 

 

 

 


SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 variation  Register April 2014

Attachment 1

 

 

 

SEPP 1 AND CLAUSE 4.6 REGISTER BETWEEN 1 TO 30 APRIL 2014

Council DA reference No.

Lot No.

DP No.

Apart-ment/ Unit No.

Street No.

Street name

Suburb/ Town

Postcode

Category of development

Environmental planning instrument

Zoning of land

Development standard to be varied

Justification of variation

Extent of variation

Concur-ring authority

Date DA determined
dd/mm/yyyy

Approved by

DA/96/2014

2

70357

 2

90-96

Beach Street,

COOGEE

2034

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density Residential

Clause 20F - FSR =0.75:1

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

Existing FSR 1:26 increased grossfloor area by 10.4m2

NSW Dept of Planning

8 April2014

PCM

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP57/14

 

 

Subject:                  Report on investigation of impacts of proposed Council requirement to relocate overhead power lines to a dwelling from a power pole underground.

Folder No:                   F2012/00347

Author:                   Jason Rider, Development Engineer     

 

Introduction

 

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 10 December 2013 (item NM 126/13) resolved;

 

“(Smith/Andrews) that Council investigate the impacts of disallowing residential power poles on new development sites where utility power poles run past the front of the property, thus forcing the new development site to connect to the utility power pole via an underground conduit. “

 

Presently on new development sites within Randwick LGA, power supply is typically in the form of an overhead service feed from a power pole located on Council property, to a new private pole located within the development site. This is often done to avoid power lines crossing neighbouring properties and avoid any large trees or obstructions within the front yard. There will then be an overhead or underground connection between the private pole and the dwelling. To illustrate, the photos below were taken in the Clovelly precinct and show a typical overhead service feed from a power pole to the dwelling via a private pole. In these cases the mains power pole is on the opposite side of the road to the development site.

 

 

 

The proliferation of such poles has a cumulative impact on the visual amenity of our city. This report discusses the issues associated with requiring the power supply between a mains power pole and the dwelling to be relocated underground.

 

It should be noted that this is a separate issue to Council’s requirement for the undergrounding of mains power lines across the site frontage where developments exceed $2 million in value (see Council resolution of 8 November 2005, Councillors Nash and Belelli).

 

Issues

 

The undergrounding of power from the overhead distribution mains to the dwelling is known as an Underground Supply from an Overhead connection or UGOH.

The basic elements of overhead and underground connections to overhead mains is further illustrated in the diagram below obtained from the Service and Installation Rules NSW (Figure 1.1). A UGOH system is illustrated last as d.

 

The requirements of Ausgrid (who are the asset owners) and the Service and Installation Rules of New South Wales, published by the NSW Department of Resources and Energy are outlined below.

 


Ausgrid

The Ausgrid document ES 1 – Premises Connection requirements does not specify any requirement to place service feeds underground for single dwellings or duplexes. However it does require that “multiple residential developments (eg home units or villa homes)” make provision for connection to future underground distribution mains.

 

Section 2.4 states;

 

In such developments the customer must install;

·      An underground service line to a suitable existing street pole:or

·      Sheathed underground consumer mains to a customer pole erected near the front property boundary (within 1 meter)

 

Council’s conditions for such developments can potentially be amended to ensure the 1st option is undertaken.

 

Service and Installation Rules of New South Wales

The Service and Installation Rules restrict the number of underground supply feeds from a single street pole and so implementation of an underground policy will need to be carefully considered on a case by case basis.

Associated Costs

When mains power poles are located on the opposite side of the roadway from the development site with an existing overhead service across the roadway (as depicted in the photographs above), any requirement to underground the service feed will involve excavation or boring under the roadway, consideration of any conflict with other services, and careful management of traffic and pedestrians during installation. This will add significant costs to a project that may be onerous for many developments. The Network Planning Coordinator for Ausgrid has indicated these costs are likely to be in the order of $20,000-$30,000. As the costs associated with requiring an underground feed in circumstances where the pole is across the road would be equivalent to and in many instance significantly greater than Council’s S94A contribution, any condition that is imposed on the consent to this effect could well be argued to be manifestly unreasonable

 

When mains power poles are located on the same side of the roadway as the development site (as in the photograph below) the costs of undergrounding power to the development site will be greatly reduced. Some excavation will still be required (to a lesser degree) but no boring or excavation of roadway will be needed. If the power pole is located directly in front of the subject premises the costs of undergrounding power would be comparable to an overhead feed via an internal private pole. In these circumstances the requirement to install a UGOH system could be reasonably applied in development consent conditions and at a minimum cost to the applicant.

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A liveable City.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

There is scope to impose a consent condition to require the undergrounding of power between the mains distribution pole and the development site (UGOH system) in the circumstance where the distribution poles are on the same side of the roadway and/or in close proximity to the development site.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council require the undergrounding of power between the mains distribution pole and the development site (UGOH system) in the following circumstance;

 

Should a mains power distribution pole be located on the same side of the street  and within 15m of the development site, the applicant must meet the full cost for Ausgrid to relocate the existing overhead power feed from the distribution pole in the street to the development site via an underground UGOH connection.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP58/14

 

 

Subject:                  Overview of NSW Government's recently released strategic waste framework

Folder No:                   F2004/07280

Author:                   Talebul Islam, Coordinator Strategic Waste     

 

Introduction

 

Following an extended period of review and consultation with the community and local government, the NSW Government has recently released two strategic policy documents with important implications for Randwick Council and its own strategic approach to waste management and resource recovery.

 

The first of these strategies is the draft 2013 – 2021 Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy for NSW. The second is the NSW Energy from Waste policy.

 

This paper aims to provide a brief overview of these NSW Government policy statements and some of the implications these strategies have on Randwick Council’s own strategic waste framework. A separate report has also been prepared updating Council’s current progress against our own Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan.

 

Issues

 

Randwick’s 2010 Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan has previously mapped out Council’s approach in both our day-to-day waste operations as well as future resource recovery strategic directions. This roadmap for Randwick was prepared within the context of the NSW Government’s existing waste management requirements, set out at the time in the 2007 NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy.

 

Following the recent review and release of the updated Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy for NSW for the years 2013 to 2021, there are now updated or new targets related to Local Government across six key waste management areas. These include:

 

Action

Target

Avoiding and reducing waste generation

Reduce the rate of waste generated per person

Increasing recycling

By 2021-22, increase recycling from municipal waste to 70%

Diverting more waste from landfill

By 2021-22, increase waste diverted from landfill to 75%

 

Managing problem wastes including paint, batteries, smoke detectors, fluorescent tubes, gas bottles, oils etc

By 2021-22, the NSW Govt will establish or upgrade 86 drop off facilities to better manage these ‘problem’ wastes

 

Reducing litter including food wrappers, straws, bottle caps, cigarette butts etc

 

By 2016-17, reduce litter items by 40%

 

Reducing illegal dumping

By 2016-17, reduce illegal dumping by 30%

While the targets have been updated or adjusted in the most recent NSW Government Strategy, the key areas remain broadly the same and reflect most of the same issues Council has been working to in Randwick’s 2010 Waste Management Strategy.

 

The recently announced Waste Less / Recycle More funding of approximately $465.7 million over the next 5 years is intended to facilitate the implementation and progress of these targets across the NSW Government’s six key waste issues. Local Councils who understand or are working with these priority issues in their own waste management practices are likely to be early recipients of this Waste Less / Recycle More funding program. Randwick Council currently has prepared or supported funding applications worth more than $3 million in this first round of funding offered to Councils, recently receiving advice that 2 applications so far have been successful (see separate report to Council) .

 

As well as the release of the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy, the NSW Environment Protection Authority (NSW EPA) has also released the NSW policy statement on enabling wastes to be turned into energy via thermal treatment processes. With dwindling landfill space in NSW and increasing disposal costs, many local Councils, including Randwick and SSROC Councils, have been considering options for their residual waste (after maximum resource recovery) to be thermally treated and converted to biogas for energy production. These thermal treatment processes are utilized widely overseas in alternative waste treatment (AWT) facilities but are still progressively under consideration in the Australian context.

 

AWT technologies include various forms of this thermal treatment (gasification, pyrolysis processes) while other AWT technologies are applied to the organic component of the waste stream, converting waste material into high quality soil conditioner or bio-gas (as with current Randwick’s food waste collection and processing trial).

 

Energy from Waste processing

The long-awaited NSW EPA policy statement now sets out the criteria for Council’s processing of their municipal waste stream at energy from waste facilities. This criteria enables Councils with comprehensive programs to recover waste from the various waste streams to process different percentages of their remaining waste at energy from waste facilities. This means that: 

 

Councils with separate collection of  recyclables, garden organics and food wastes

 

Can process all remaining residual rubbish material at energy to waste facilities

Councils with separate collection of  only recyclables and garden wastes

 

Can process only up to 40% by weight of their remaining residual waste at energy to waste facilities

 

Council’s who only operate a separate recyclables program for their residents

 

Can only process up to 25% by weight of their remaining residual waste at energy to waste facilities

 

 

This approved criteria reflects extremely well in Randwick’s continuing waste management initiatives and improvements that are underway via our 2010 Waste Management Strategy. In fact this criteria from the NSW Government now confirms an effective pathway for Randwick to achieve a waste diversion rate in excess of current waste diversion targets of 75% set by the NSW Government. With these options clarified from a NSW Government perspective there are many Councils including Randwick, now stepping up their investigations to go beyond these current waste diversion targets and implement best practice resource recovery initiatives for their local communities.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 10:      A healthy environment.

Direction 10(d):  Waste is managed sustainably to ensure the highest level of resource recovery.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Waste management and initiatives to curb waste generation and increase resource recovery are key outcomes for State and Local Governments.

 

Council’s 2010 Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan continues to work to respond to priority waste management issues and reflects strategic waste directions set out in previous and current Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery priorities set out by the NSW Government.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council notes the updates from the NSW Government’s Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2013-21 and Energy from Waste policy statement and their implications on Randwick Council’s 2010 Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP59/14

 

 

Subject:                  Updating Council's Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan

Folder No:                   F2004/07280

Author:                   Talebul Islam, Coordinator Strategic Waste     

 

Introduction

 

Randwick Council’s Waste Management Strategy and Strategic Waste Action Plan were developed in 2010, providing the strategic framework and approach for waste management across the City. Actions identified related to short, medium and long term responses for Council to engage with and progress over time, with the primary aim of “managing Randwick’s wastes in a sustainable manner and in partnership with the community to achieve cost effective resource recovery”. 

 

With the recent release of the NSW Government’s 2013 – 2021 Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy and Energy from Waste Policy Statement, it is appropriate for Council to reflect on the progress of and review the status of actions undertaken by Council as part of our own Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan.

 

This report aims to establish the status of actions taken to date under Council’s 2010 strategic waste management approach and propose a way forward to ensure their currency in light of the recent NSW Government changes.

 

Issues

 

Council’s current municipal waste figures indicate the following disposal and diversion of waste over the past 2 financial years:

 

Year

Household Rubbish (tonnes)

Household Recycling (tonnes)

Garden Organics (tonnes)

Household Clean-up (tonnes)

Total*

 

(tonnes)

AWT diversion (tonnes)

Overall waste diversion

2012- 2013

27,266

12,159

6,863

2,907

49,195

5,013

48.9%

2011- 2012

27,294

12,821

6,787

4,832

51,734

nil

38%

(*This total excludes scheduled and kerbside ‘hard’ waste of approx. 5,000 tonnes / year)

 

Following approval by Council, approximately 13,000 tonnes (in the current 2013-14 financial year) and 9,000 tonnes (in the 2012-13 financial year) of Randwick’s household rubbish has been sent to the alternative waste treatment (AWT) facility operated by SITA at Penrith. This provides mechanical and biological processing of Randwick’s wastes. It is important to note this facility itself only achieves between 50% and 57% waste diversion of the material it receives. Our current overall waste diversion as at April this financial year is approximately 51%.

 

Randwick’s 2010 Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan has mapped out Council’s short (1-3 year), medium (3 – 5 year) and longer term (5 to 15 year) actions. These are reflected in both our day-to-day waste operations as well as future resource recovery strategic directions. This is in accordance with the requirements and targets set out in the 2007 NSW Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy.

Broadly speaking our priorities have resulted in the development and implementation of strategies and community education aimed at improving recycling and in tackling more specific waste streams. These streams include: electronic (e)-waste, illegal dumping and litter, and food organics.

 

Randwick’s results and achievements continue to demonstrate and be recognized across NSW for strong leadership in the investigation and implementation of measures to achieve our own waste management objectives as well as those of the NSW Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy.

 

A summary of short and medium term responses taken by Council as identified in our Strategic Waste Action Plan includes:

 

Council’s key task area

Current status / response by Council

Improving recovery and education around kerbside recycling and infrastructure improvements*

Randwick’s community education includes promoting our Perry Street Recycling Centre which accepts a wide range of problem and household waste materials for drop-off by residents and subsequent resource recovery and improved monitoring and follow up to minimise recycling contamination e.g. plastic bags in the recycling bins 

 

Dealing with problem wastes such as electronic waste

Establishing the first electronic waste collection and drop-off location for NSW at the Perry Street Recycling Centre

 

Responding to illegal dumping and litter issues*

Development and implementation of Randwick’s Illegal Dumping and Litter Management Plan including projects focusing on university students, new arrivals, short term tenants and investigation of CCTV cameras  at illegal dumping ‘hotspots’

 

Consider alternative waste treatment (AWT) technologies

Development of a Resource Recovery Roadmap for Randwick identifying a number of alternative waste treatment options for Council including implementation of the current food waste collection trial and investigation of waste to energy pilot or trial projects

 

*separate Council reports to be prepared for June and July Committee meetings

 

With the renewed emphasis of the NSW Government on certain waste streams such as food waste recovery and the potential for waste to energy projects, as well as the specific new funding provided via Waste Less / Recycle More, it is appropriate to carry out a review of Randwick’s Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan. This review would incorporate the new resource recovery initiatives commenced since 2010 and again establish the future directions for cost effective recovery of Randwick’s waste.

 

The review would also include an in depth engagement and analysis of community views on current waste management issues to ensure a new Council strategy is well understood and supported by the community.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 10:      A healthy environment.

Direction 10(d):  Waste is managed sustainably to ensure the highest level of resource recovery.

 

Financial impact statement

 

It is proposed to utilize funding provided under the Waste Less / Recycle More program to undertake this review, including the engagement with and analysis of community views and their understanding of these issues. It is expected to allocate a budget up to $80,000 for the review and community engagement process.

 

Conclusion

 

Actions taken against our 2010 Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan have not only provided important gains in waste management and resource recovery for the City, they have also contributed to Randwick’s reputation for demonstrating sustainability leadership across Local and State government.

 

A review and update of Council’s strategic waste framework will be an important way for Randwick to ensure currency with NSW Government waste management expectations as well as continue our leadership across the local Government sector and provide cost effective solutions to maximize our resource recovery efforts.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)  Council notes the progress of actions taken in keeping with the responses set out in Randwick’s 2010 Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan; and

 

b)  Approves community engagement and review of our strategic waste management framework, up to the amount of $80,000, funded from Waste Less / Recycle More funds provided to Council by the NSW Government.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP60/14

 

 

Subject:                  Establishment of a Childcare Centre Master Waiting List for centres in the Randwick LGA

Folder No:                   F2004/07676

Author:                   Teresa Mok, Manager Community Planning & Development     

 

Introduction

 

Council at its Ordinary meeting of 28 May 2013 resolved:

 

“(Stevenson/D’Sousa) that Council:

 

1.  proactively support immunisation of all children in our Community;

2.  ensure all Childcare centres operated, funded or subsidised by Council have up-to-date policies regarding immunisation of children accepted or put on waiting lists;

3.  contact the parents of all children on the waiting lists be contacted and provided with the up-to-date scientific evidence supporting immunisation of children;

4.  prepare a report to be considered by Council regarding the establishment of a childcare centre master waiting list to be used by all centres operated by Council, receiving a subsidy or funding from council and any privately owned Childcare businesses wishing to participate, that will give parents better information on the availability of childcare places and immunisation only centres in Randwick City; and

5.  prepare a report to be considered by Council that Council operated Childcare centres have a compulsory immunisation policy and that future funding of council supported Childcare centres be contingent on a requirement that they have a compulsory immunisation policy. This report is to take into consideration the upcoming legislative changes in this area.”

In relation to Resolution 1, a message supporting immunisation of all children will be publicised in the local paper twice a year, and posters with messages supporting immunisation of children will be designed and displayed in libraries, and other community centres where children’s activities are held. Resolutions 2 and 5 have been resolved following the introduction of state legislation applicable to all childcare centres in NSW. Actions arising from Resolution 3 were implemented in July 2013.

 

This report addresses resolution 4, summarising the outcomes of an investigation to determine the feasibility of establishing a master childcare centre waiting list to be used by all centres in Randwick City.

 

Issues

 

Current Situation

Parents wishing to access childcare located in or outside Randwick City contact each childcare centre to enquire about place availability, and arrange site visits prior to placing their children on wait list. In most instances, to increase the chances of securing a space in advance, parents join multiple wait lists. 

 

The Federal Government’s www.mychild.gov.au website provides parents/guardians with a contact list of approved childcare centres, listed by suburb preference.  This national website also provides information about the types of available child care service, fee rebates and costs. 

 

There are 48 long day care or occasional childcare centres in Randwick City. Of these, Randwick Council operates only one childcare centre (Moverly Children’s Centre) and has leased eight of its properties to community-based childcare service providers at subsidised rent.

 

Existing local councils with established childcare centre master wait list

To obtain a better understanding of what is needed to establish and maintain a centralised or master wait list, council staff spoke with a number of local councils in NSW and Victoria. Not all local councils operate childcare centres.  The following paragraphs summarises the outcomes of these discussions:

 

·      NSW local councils maintain a master wait lists for those centres operated by them in order to reduce duplication and streamline service delivery.  Councils that own and operate multiple child care centres, such as Campbelltown, Gosford, Hurstville, Penrith, and Sutherland Councils maintain this type of waiting list. They do not maintain a master wait list for centres not under their management.

 

·      Three (3) Victorian councils (e.g. Darebin, Maribyrnong and Port Phillip) operate master childcare waiting lists for their own, as well as for other participating community based childcare centres.

 

­  Port Phillip Bay Council (population 98,500) has a wait list register serving 12 long day care centres and 1 family day care service. The Council operates 5 of these centres while 7 others are housed within council properties.

­  Darebin Council (population 144,000) has a wait list register serving 9 childcare centres. All housed within council properties.

­  Maribyrnong Council (population 74,000) has a wait list register serving 9 childcare centres, 12 kindergartens and 1 family day care service.

­  All established their waiting lists to streamline placement of childcare across a region.

­  Do not currently manage wait list of private childcare centres.

­  Each council employs between one and two full time person to process waiting list applications, answer phone enquiries from parents about centre enrolment, wait times and current position in queue.

­  Requires participating childcare centres to sign confidentiality and operational in-principle agreements.

­  Uses a special computer software program to undertake the service.

 

Consultation with local childcare centres

Childcare centres based in Randwick City (48 in total) were asked via email if they would be interested in having their waiting list managed by a central point, conducted by Council. The childcare centre providers were asked to respond by email if they were interested. Of the 48 centres, only 4 (2 community based and 2 private centres) expressed an interest in participating. While this result was somewhat disappointing, it does confirm that most of our local centres prefer to manage their own wait list and enrolment enquiry process.

 

Assessment

The key objectives for establishing a master wait list is firstly to obtain a more accurate indication of demand for childcare places in the LGA, and secondly to provide a central point for parents to make enquiries, rather than having to approach individual centres.

 

Staff from Councils with responsibility for managing a master or centralised childcare centre wait list advised that significant upfront resources are required to establish and maintain a central or master waiting list service.  Councils that operate their own multiple childcare centres have, within their organisational structure, an established children’s services department.  Therefore it is logical for them to maintain a central point for processing and managing their own childcare applications or even extend this service to other community based centres. Unless all childcare centres located within a local government area are participants of a centralised wait list service, it would not be possible to obtain an accurate picture of demand for childcare places in any geographic setting.

 

All the councils managing a centralised or master wait list have a separate children’s services unit established within their respective organisation structure.  If Randwick City Council were to manage a centralised wait list for local childcare centres, it will need to employ additional staff, and secure resources such as office accommodation, IT equipment and software program subscription, in order to establish this service from scratch. Establishment cost is estimated to be in the vicinity of $100,000, which will include employment of additional staff or consultants.  The benefits that may be derived from establishing this service in Randwick City is expected to be marginal because:

 

1.  Only 4 childcare centres are interested in being part of this service, and

2.  Council won’t have better information for parents about the availability of childcare places in Randwick City.

 

It is therefore considered that there is insufficient interest among local childcare services for Randwick City Council to justify a commitment of resources to establish and maintain an effective master childcare centre enrolment and wait list service.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability.

Action 1a2:        Ensure sound long term financial strategies underpin the Council’s strategic vision and asset management policies.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The establishment of a new unit or staff within Council to set up and operate a centralised childcare wait list and enrolment service for local childcare operators is estimated to cost $100,000 in the first year. This would include the employment of staff and specialist consultant services to design and establish an operational framework.  Recurrent funding for dedicated staff and related resources will also be required to maintain this service.

 

Conclusion

 

A master or centralised childcare centre wait list could help Council develop a better understanding of childcare demand within a geographic area.  However, there is insufficient interest from local childcare centre providers to enable the Council to establish such a service. Randwick City Council does not have an existing children’s unit within its organisation structure to take on this role at minimal cost.

 

The Council in its submission (February 2014) to the Productivity Commission into Childcare Services has called for the Commissioner to investigate the practicality of implementing a central point where parents can register their requirements for childcare services without having to approach multiple childcare centres. Ideally, a single agency funded by the Commonwealth Government should be responsible for coordinating such a service.

 

Recommendation

 

That the establishment of a master or centralised wait list service for childcare centres in Randwick City cannot be justified at this point in time.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP61/14

 

 

Subject:                  Safety of residents during Halloween celebrations

Folder No:                   F2004/06290

Author:                   Avril Jeans, Project Officer     

 

Introduction

 

On 22 October 2013, the Council resolved as follows:

 

“(Garcia/Bowen) that Council:     

a)     note that Halloween is held on 31 October;


b)     note that an increasing number of residents including local children and young

adults participate in Halloween activities whether that be 'trick or treating' or Halloween parties;

 

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


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


e)     calls for a report to be brought back to Council on recommendations Council

may wish to consider to ensure the safety of residents on Halloween.”

 

Halloween celebrations have become popular in Australia, during which time families with primary school aged children participate in ‘trick or treat’ ritual, door knocking around their neighbourhood for sweet treats. Although good fun for children, there are risks associated with this activity.

 

This report suggests a number of precautionary measures that can be implemented by the Council to improve safety for children engaged in ‘trick or treating’ in their neighbourhood.

 

Issues

 

Many Australians celebrate Halloween, which occurs annually on 31 October. The main activity during this celebration is ‘trick or treating’ which involves children taking to the streets in costumes to door knock for sweet treats from neighbouring homes. Because of a larger than usual number of young children walking the streets of their neighbourhood to door knock, the following risks are potentially increased:

 

·      car accidents involving children in driveways and on streets as children can be difficult to see and can act impulsively; 

·      consumption of contaminated food or allergy triggers like peanuts;

·      getting lost or being intercepted by unknown adults;

·      injury caused by ill-fitting costuming, or masks that reduce vision.

 

It is acknowledged that many parents plan carefully to mitigate the above risks by:

 

·      only allowing their children to ‘trick or treat’ by joining an organised group which is supervised by a responsible adult;

·      only visiting houses that have been pre-arranged and are easily identified by their Halloween decorations of witches, cobwebs, brooms and/or pumpkins; and

·      ensuring costuming is appropriate and doesn’t restrict vision or movement. 

 

Sharing these sensible strategies developed by experienced parents with the broader community would further mitigate risk to children during this celebration.

 

In 2013, the Council and Eastern Beaches Local Area Command of Police NSW compiled a list of safety tips drawn from various websites, and published it on its Facebook page.  It is suggested that council staff work with the local police liaison officer to develop an advisory safety brochure that can be distributed to primary schools, childcare centres, cafes, libraries and other suitable public domain locations. 

 

The safety brochure will include the following advice to serve as a reminder and planning resource for parents whose children will be ‘trick or treating’ in October 2014 and beyond:

 

·      if your children are under 12, ‘trick or treat’ with them or put them in a group which is supervised by a responsible adult whom you know;

·      pre-arrange the homes your children are going to visit with the occupants, and only visit those homes;

·      if your children are mature enough to be out without supervision, remind them to stay together and only visit homes which are pre-arranged;

·      plan the walking route beforehand and avoid busy intersections and unsafe areas;

·      stay in familiar areas that are well lit;

·      instruct your children to never enter a house or car for a treat;

·      make sure children are visible by decorating costumes with reflective tape or stickers or carrying glow sticks or flashlights;

·      use non-toxic face paint instead of masks which can obstruct vision;

·      make sure that a child’s costume fits properly and is suitable to prevent trips, falls and injury. Avoid costumes that include weapons such as plastic swords or other sharp edges;

·      remember your road safety rules at all times;

·      remind all drivers to exercise caution by slowing down, especially when reversing, entering or exiting driveways.  

 

In addition to the distribution of brochures, this information could be published on the Council’s website and Facebook, including its e-newsletter which has a circulation of some 10,000 people.

 

It is also suggested that the Council take out a quarter page advertisement in the Southern Courier in the week leading up to Halloween Day (31 October), to remind motorists to be extra careful when driving in their neighbourhood, and be on the look-out for children in costumes, trick or treating. 

 

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A liveable City.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

It is estimated that the abovementioned initiatives will cost $3,500 per year, to cover the cost of advertising in the local paper, and for the design, printing and distribution of the Halloween safety brochures.  Subject to the Council’s approval, $3,500 will need to be identified and funded via the 2014-15 financial year’s budget.

 

Conclusion

 

It is estimated that the abovementioned initiatives will cost $3,500 per year, to cover the cost of advertising in the local paper, and for the design, printing and distribution of the Halloween safety brochures.  Subject to the Council’s approval, $3,500 will need to be identified and funded via the 2014-15 financial year’s budget.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     promote safe trick or treating tips on the Southern Courier by taking

        out a quarter page advertising space, Council website, newsletter and relevant social media sites; and

 

b)     officers design and distribute brochures (including e-brochure version)     containing practical information and safety tips jointly or in consultation with         the Police, to be distributed to the general community such as primary schools,     cafes, childcare centres and libraries.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM14/14

 

 

Subject:                  Review of the 2013-14 Annual Operational Plan - March Quarterly Report

Folder No:                   F2013/03001

Author:                   Karen Hawkett, Coordinator Integrated Planning & Reporting     

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to update Councillors and the community on the implementation of the 2013-14 Operational Plan.

 

Issues

 

This is the March 2014 Quarterly Review of the 2013-14 Annual Operational Plan. Comments are provided against each of the 2013-14 Operational Plan actions. Highlights are also provided where appropriate.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of the March Quarterly Report is to inform and update Council and the community on the progress of all actions at 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 March 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 March 2014 Review of the 2013-14 Annual Operational Plan be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Review of the 2013-14 Randwick City Council Annual Operational Plan - March Quarterly Performance Report

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM15/14

 

 

Subject:                  Randwick Community Day at Randwick Racecourse - a partnership between Randwick City Council and the Australian Turf Club

Folder No:                   F2013/00103

Author:                   Bessie Hassan, Communications Officer     

 

Introduction

 

Royal Randwick Racecourse is a major stakeholder in our City with a rich history that dates back to 1883. In addition to the Hospital precinct and University of New South Wales, the Racecourse is a landmark that is widely recognised and puts Randwick City on the global map. As a sporting and social destination, it attracts international attention and is enjoyed by thousands of people every year.

 

The Australian Turf Club, which manages Randwick Racecourse, has approached Council with a proposal for a Randwick Community Day on Saturday 23 August 2014, with the potential to make this an annual event. In collaboration with Council, they wish to engage the local community by inviting them to attend a day at the Races with their family at no cost, offering free entry to all Randwick City residents and ratepayers.

 

Issues

 

The proposed Randwick Community Day will feature an eight race line up highlighted by a feature race in Randwick Council’s name, for example, the Randwick Mayor’s Cup. The Mayor or Council representative will be involved in the trophy presentation for this race. The naming rights to the day on 23 August has been sponsored by Pro-Ride (a synthetic track surface technology company) and will be known as The Pro-Ride Warwick Stakes. The Turf Club is offering to promote the Randwick Community Day in communications materials as “The Pro-Ride Warwick Stakes Day featuring the Randwick Mayor’s Cup.” Additionally, the ‘family’ aspect will be widely promoted. Unlike usual Race meets, the Randwick Community Day will feature children’s rides and amusements, gift bags, promotions and trackside entertainment for the entire family.

 

The Turf Club has a current arrangement with Parramatta Council which, similar to what they’re proposing for Randwick Council, includes a Community Day at Rosehill Racecourse for local residents and ratepayers. This is promoted by both parties and has become a successful annual event, which attracts more than 10,000 local residents to the Day. The partnership is now in its fifth year.

 

The partnership between Randwick Council and the Australian Turf Club would involve the following commitment by both organisations:

 

Randwick Council commitment

 

·      Print and include a flyer in Council’s July rates notice sent to all ratepayers

·      Promote the event in the August edition of Council’s Randwick Community News which is hand-delivered to 55,000 local properties.

·      Promotion through Randwick eNews sent weekly to 10,000 subscribers

·      Promotion through Council’s social media channels

·      Promotion through the Mayoral Column in the Southern Courier

·      Promotion on website

·      Assist in PR opportunities

 

Australian Turf Club commitment

 

·      Provide free entry to all Randwick City residents and ratepayers on Saturday 23 August 2014, subject to people providing appropriate identification or proof of property ownership

·      Provide free kids entertainment and activities on the day

·      Supply artwork to Council to print to include in rate notice

·      Name one of the races The Randwick Mayor’s Cup

·      Promotion of the Randwick Community Day on ATC website, Facebook, Twitter

and work with Council on PR opportunities

·      Opportunity for the Mayor or Council representative to present the trophy to the winner of the Randwick Mayor’s Cup

·      Provide hospitality for Council representatives on the day

 

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.

Outcome 8:       A strong local economy.

Direction 8d:      Develop and strengthen effective partnerships with key locally based organisations.

 

Financial impact statement

 

This is a free event for local residents and ratepayers.

 

Council’s commitment to this event is mostly through value in kind and promotion through existing Council resources. The cost to print and include the flyers in Council’s rates notice is estimated at $2,000. This would be funded from Council’s contingency fund.

 

Conclusion

 

A partnership with the Australian Turf Club presents Randwick Council with an opportunity to continue Council’s mutually beneficial relationship with one of the largest and most recognised institutions in our City – at very little cost. In addition, such a Randwick Community Day complements Council’s motto – “a sense of community” – by encouraging everyone in our community to attend a fun day out at a local, world-class, sporting destination.

 

Recommendation

That:

 

a)       Council endorses the partnership with the Australian Turf Club for a Randwick Community Day on Saturday 23 August 2014 and associated marketing and promotion of the day to Randwick City residents and ratepayers.

 

b)       the Council agrees to name the highlighted race “the Randwick Mayor’s Cup.”

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

   


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF24/14

 

 

Subject:                  Quarterly Budget Review - March 2014

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 Office 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 $15,789. Major variations to the budget are highlighted below:

 

FINANCIAL POSITION

$

 

 

Current projected deficit/(surplus)

(13,588)

 

 

Variations Proposed This Review

 

Increases in Income

(302,201)

Decreases in Revenue

220,000

Increase in Expenditure

80,000

Total Variations This Review

(2,201)

 

 

Projected deficit/(surplus) as at 30 June 2014

(15,789)

 

 

 

 

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 $15,789.

 

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 March 2014 budget review be received and noted; and

 

b)     the proposed March 2014 budget variations shown in the attachment to this report be adopted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS) - March 2014

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF25/14

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - April 2014

Folder No:                   F2014/06527

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 the 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 Investment Policy.

 

The table in this report titled “Investment Register – April 2014” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of April 2014. 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 receipts of the Financial Assistance Grants.

 

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 $8.2 million during April 2014. The decrease is representative of a negative cash flow for the month as expenditure exceeded income.

 

The graph below illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from April 2011 to April 2014. Peaks are representative of the rates instalment periods.

 

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, floating rate notes, on-call accounts and covered notes.

 

The following graph indicates the allocation of investment types held at the end of April 2014.

 

 

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 the Council’s portfolio. Independent advice is sough 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 April 2011 to April 2014.

 

 

Investment performance for the financial year to date is above the industry benchmark UBS Australia Bank Bill Index with an average return after fees of   3.92% compared with the benchmark index of 2.65%.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate at the end of April remained at 2.50%.

 

Credit Quality of Portfolio

 

The credit quality of the portfolio is of very high quality with approximately 93% of assets rates “A” or better. The % allocation to “BBB” 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 and Poors long term credit rating of A-. Council no longer invests in any products with a credit rating of BBB+ or less. Current investments held with a credit 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%

33%

67%

A

75%

55%

20%

BBB+

0%

7%

0%

 


The graph below shows the actual percentage of funds held by Individual Institutions V the Maximum limits allowable under Council policy as at 30 April.

 

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.

 

A revised Investment Order was issued on the 12 January 2011, which replaces the Order dated 31 July 2008 and includes changes that:

 

·      Remove the ability to invest in the mortgage of land;

·   Remove the ability to make a deposit with the Local Government Financial Services Pty Ltd;

·   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 on the funds on behalf of the council must do so in accordance with the council’s adopted investment policy.

 

Floating Rate Notes

 

The investment portfolio includes $13.487 million in floating rates notes (FRN).

 

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 is being amortised on payment of the quarterly coupons. The amortised amount to date is $8,165.14 bringing the book value to $1,987,878.15.

 

The National Australia Bank FRN was purchased at a capital price of $3,006,360.00, the premium of $6,360 is being amortised on payments of the quarterly coupons. The amortised amount to date is $6,360 bringing the book value to $3,000,000.00.

On 17 April the NAB and the CBA FRN’s were both sold prior to maturity realising capital gains of $44,580 and $30,720 respectively. The sale of these FRN’s with lower yields to maturity enabled the switch into the newly issued Suncorp-Metway FRN in the amount of $5,000,000.00 with a coupon margin over the 3 month bank bill swap rate (BBSW) of 110bpts.

 

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

 

Covered Bonds

 

The investment portfolio includes a NAB covered bond purchased at a discount of $2,983,680.00.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction:  Long term financial viability is achieved.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Funds are invested with the aim of achieving budgeted income in the 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 $2,471,084.00. Investment income to 30 April 2014 amounted to $2,226,611.02.

 

Following is the detailed Investment Report – April 2014.

 

Conclusion

 

All investments as at 30 April 2014 have been made in accordance with Council’s 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 April 2014 be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF26/14

 

 

Subject:                  Affixing of the Seal - KU Children's Services

Folder No:                   F2014/07367

Author:                   Sally Fernandez, Property Officer     

 

Introduction

 

KU Children’s Services (A.C.N. 000 006 137) has occupied 30 Canara Avenue, Little Bay since 1969. The Licence Agreement is set for five (5) years for the period 15 July 2014 till 14 July 2019 and the Licensee will continue to use the premises for the operation and management of a child care centre.

 

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

 

The current licence agreement between Council and KU Children’s Services expires on 14 July 2014. A renewed five year licence agreement will allow continued operation and management of the child care centre.  The licence has been prepared in accordance with Councils adopted Community Facilities Management Policy and requires the execution of Council under seal.

 

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

 

Upon signing the licence the annual rental payable to council will be $30,957.89 + 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 Randwick City Council and KU Children’s Services in relation to the licence commencing 15 July 2014 for a period of 5 years.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF27/14

 

 

Subject:                  Affixing of the Seal - Orora Fibre Packaging Australasia

Folder No:                   F2014/07367

Author:                   Sally Fernandez, Property Officer     

 

Introduction

 

Orora Fibre Packaging Australasia (formerly called Amcor Fibre Packaging) have a pipeline located under Botany Road, Matraville. The pipeline has been in place for well over twenty years.  The prior agreement has expired, which has facilitated the need to renew the pipeline agreement.

 

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

 

A renewed five year pipeline agreement with Orora Fibre Packaging Australasia is required to formalise occupation commenced on 1 July 2012.  The pipeline agreement requires the execution of Council under seal.

 

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

 

Upon signing the pipeline agreement the annual rental payable to council will be $12,196.55 + GST 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 pipeline agreement 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 pipeline agreements between Council and Orora Fibre Packaging Australasia in relation to the pipeline located along Botany Road, Matraville.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF28/14

 

 

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 ‘M248602’ from the title of property at 13/85 Broome Street, Maroubra (Lot 13 & 33, Strata Plan 4974).  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 proprietor, Ellen Mary Ryan. As the date of the acquisition was between 1966 and 1969, the caveat is now redundant.  Ms Ryan needs to lodge the Withdrawal of Caveat form with the Land Titles Office to finalise the sale and permit transfer of the property.

 

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 13/85 Broome Street, Maroubra also known as Lots 13 & 33 in Strata Plan 4974.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM47/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Crs Andrews & Stavrinos - Pedestrian Safety

Folder No:                   F2005/00825

Submitted by:          Councillor Andrews, Central Ward; Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward     

 

 

That council

 

a)     Express its concern at the number of pedestrian fatalities that have occurred in        recent times.

 

b)     Bring forward a motion to the Local Government NSW Conference that a community education program be developed between the State government    and Local government to improve pedestrian safety throughout NSW.

 



 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM48/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Andrews - Proposed Clearway, Bunnerong Road (northbound)

Folder No:                   F2004/07233

Submitted by:          Councillor Andrews, Central Ward     

 

 

That Council make the necessary representations to the Minister for Roads requesting that Bunnerong Road northbound (between the intersection of Maroubra Road and Kingsford Roundabout) become a clearway between the hours of 7am to 10am. Further this matter be referred to Councils traffic committee.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM49/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Possible Introduction of general practice co-payment

Folder No:                   F2005/00213

Submitted by:          Councillor Garcia, South Ward     

 

 

That Council:

(a)      CALL on the Commonwealth Government to reconsider the introduction of              the general practice co-payment model;

(b)      NOTE the measure will see Medical Benefits Schedule rebates reduced by $5 and general practice patients charged a co-payment of $7 from 1 July 2015;

(c)      NOTE the Royal Australian College of Practitioners (RACP) believes this measure will “widen the gap to accessible healthcare with Australia’s most vulnerable to suffer”;

(d)      NOTE the opportunity for early detection of illnesses may be lost if residents delay their visits to the GP because of the co-payment;

(e)      NOTE the co-payment may mean that patients who fail to seek care at a primary healthcare level may present to public hospital emergency departments with more complex problems;

(f)     NOTE the RACP “is concerned the general practice co-payment will drive emergency presentations to a level that is financially unsustainable” for the State Government;

(g)      NOTE that 80% of Australians go to a bulk billing doctor, including many residents of Randwick City;

(h)      NOTE CHOICE claims the “GP co-payment, cuts to Medicare rebates and changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payments and safety net amount to $4.8 billion over 5 years that will effectively be transferred to household budgets”;

(i)      NOTE the introduction of the GP Co-payment is likely to have a deleterious effect on both the health and household budgets of Randwick residents; and

(j)      WRITE to the Commonwealth Minister for Health to express Council’s concerns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM50/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Commonwealth Budget cuts

Folder No:                   F2009/00065

Submitted by:          Councillor Garcia, South Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 (a)    NOTE with concern the Commonwealth Government’s proposed $80 billion in hospital and school funding cuts;

(b)    NOTE the residents of Randwick value the quality of the education provided to its children by local primary and secondary schools;

(c)     NOTE the residents of Randwick value the quality of the healthcare provided to the community by the Prince of Wales Hospital campus;

 

(d)    CALL on the Commonwealth Government to reconsider the $80 billion in hospital and school funding cuts;

 

(e)    WRITES to the Commonwealth Treasurer to express Council’s concerns.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM51/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Future of Malabar Headland

Folder No:                   F2004/06759

Submitted by:          Councillor Garcia, South Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

(a)    NOTE the front page article in the Southern Courier titled “Headland Backflip”    (13 May 2014);

 

(b)    NOTE the page four article in the Southern Courier titled “Promises in Pieces”    (13 May 2014);

 

(c)    NOTE the page four article reads: “The Coalition Government has broken its     promise to return the horses to the Malabar headland and has backflipped on its      claim it was safe to return”;

 

(d)    NOTE that a resident, quoted in the Southern Courier (p.5), is in “constant        contact” with the Commonwealth government about the proposal to return        horses to Malabar headland;

 

(e)  REQUEST the General Manager to advise Council what updates Council has received from the Commonwealth Government about the future use of Malabar headland;

 

(d)    NOTE there is significant uncertainty about the future of Malabar headland;

 

(f)    ORGANISE a meeting of elected local, state and federal representatives from   the area and government officials from relevant Commonwealth and State    departments to discuss the future of Malabar headland.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM52/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Reported Development of North Centennial park

Folder No:                   F2005/00501

Submitted by:          Councillor Bowen, East Ward     

 

 

That Council  notes that whilst Centennial Park is managed by the Centennial Parklands Trust, the park is located wholly within Randwick Council LGA and    enjoyed by residents and visitors throughout the South Eastern suburbs, wider Sydney and beyond and

 

expresses its concerns with reported proposals to develop the Northern part of Centennial Park by:

 

i.)    Immediately stating its opposition to the development or alienation of Centennial Parklands as contemplated by submissions provided to Waverley Council as part of the “West Oxford Street Precinct Plan".

ii.)   Calling on Waverley Council to unequivocally state it opposition to any development on Centennial Park as part of its precinct plan, noting it is outside Waverley Council area.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM53/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Proposed merge of Centennial Parklands Trust with Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust

Folder No:                   F2005/00501

Submitted by:          Councillor Bowen, East Ward     

 

 

That Council in recognising Centennial Park is located within the Randwick LGA and responding to the State Government’s recent decision to merge the administration of Centennial Parklands Trust with Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust

 

1. Notes

i.)    the recent controversy with the proposals for significantly increased commercial activity at the Botanic Gardens

ii.)   Randwick residents’ concerns about increased alienation of      Centennial Park for commercial activity and user pay charges for park facilities

iii.)  concern the Centennial Park Masterplan encourages an increased entrepreneurial role for the operations of the park

2.      Calls upon both the

i.)     Centennial Parklands trust to commit to no further increases in commercial activity at the Park, and

ii.)    State Government to permit Randwick City Council representation on the Centennial Parklands Trust.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM54/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Response to Proposed Federal Government Financial Assistance Grants Reductions for NSW Councils

Folder No:                   F2008/00607

Submitted by:          Councillor Moore, West Ward     

 

 

That Council, in response to the Australian Government’s 2014/15 Federal Budget proposal not to increase Financial Assistance Grants in line with CPI and population increases

 

a.)   notes Local Government NSW believes: “The freeze on these vital grants will have a significant impact on the lives of everyday Australians who are used to, and expect, quality services, roads and facilities from their local councils”,

 

b.)   recognises that Councils will need to fill the funding void left by the indexation freeze on Financial Assistance Grants, and

 

c.)   write to the Federal Treasurer, the Member for Kingsford Smith, the NSW Minister for Local Government and the NSW Shadow Minister for Local Government registering its opposition to the Commonwealth budget cuts that will see an estimated reduction in funding to local councils of some $288 million.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM55/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - “Shift to renewable energy to power electric grid based transport systems in NSW”

Folder No:                   F2009/00291

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

 

That Council writes to the Premier noting that electric grid based commuter systems such as the CBD to South East Light Rail represent golden opportunities for NSW to achieve reductions in carbon emissions from the transport sector via a shift to renewable energy power stations.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM56/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - “Response to social inequities in the Federal Budget 2014”

Folder No:                   F2009/00065

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

 

That Council advises local federal MP’s that it considers the proposed delaying of unemployment benefits for  up to six months to under 30 year olds, the deregulation of university fees, and the seven dollar fee for GP visits to be social inequities and likely to promote community alienation and anti social behavior within the Randwick City Council area.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      27 May 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM57/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Greater flexibility for residential parking

Folder No:                   F2004/07237

Submitted by:          Councillor Roberts, East Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

1.     Note the advantages of investigating, identifying and implementing ways of i    ncreasing the residential parking efficiency of its streets;

 

2.     Note that on occasion local residents need flexibility concerning parking in and   around their properties at particular times;

 

3.     Note that ultimately parking is regulated under the NSW Road Rules, and any    new measures need to be consistent with those rules;

 

4.     Bring back a report addressing the following ways in which more flexible residential parking could be facilitated:

 

a.     Allowing residents to park in the driveway between the property boundary and the public road (on the basis that the vehicle does not intrude onto the      footpath, or to an extent in excess of the usual width of a vehicle onto the road);

b.     Allowing residents to park partially or fully across their own driveways; and

c.     Allowing residents to park on the verge in front of their properties.

 

5.     To the extent any identified measures have merit but which may be inconsistent       with the NSW Road Rules, write to the relevant government department      requesting changes to the Rules to enable the implementation of such       measures.