Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 22 July 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                                                                                                      22 July 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, 22 July 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 - 24 June 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 Minutes

Mayoral Minutes, if any, will be distributed on the night of the meeting.

Urgent Business

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting required)

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

 

CP79/14    67 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington (DA/73/2014) ....................................... 1

CP80/14    7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/822/2013)..................................... 21

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP81/14    Report variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 to 30 June, 2014............................... 45

CP82/14    2014-15 Community Partnerships Funding Program - recommended allocations 49

CP83/14    Support for the Better Block Project 2014, Clovelly Road.......................... 57

CP84/14    Assessment of the impact and effectiveness of suicide prevention information sessions held in 2013-4................................................................................... 65

CP85/14    Transfer of services provided by The Shack Youth services to The Benevolent Society via a Memorandum of Agreement............................................................. 69

General Manager's Reports

GM21/14   The Light Rail Project - Proposed Amendments to the Development Agreement with TfNSW ........................................................................................... 75

Director City Services Reports

CS10/14    Kensington Bowling Club - Results of Public Consultation of community centre proposal...................................................................................................... 81

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF47/14    2013-14 Draft Financial Statements..................................................... 113

GF48/14    Investment Report - June 2014........................................................... 119

GF49/14    Coogee Bowling Club - Approach for Installation of a Group Fitness Centre on Premises.................................................................................................... 127

GF50/14    Submission of Motion at Local Government NSW Conference.................... 135  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM70/14   Notice of Motion from Crs Stavrinos & Andrews - Proposed Shopfront Improvement Grants Program............................................................................... 137

NM71/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Andrews - Wylies Baths Trust management model 139

NM72/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - High Cross Park Light Rail Interchange... 141

NM73/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Communication Strategy for Community Safety     143

NM78/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Fair Go for Kingsford, Fair Go for Randwick 145  

Closed Session

GF51/14    Tender for the Operation and Maintenance of Latham Park Tennis Centre - T2014-20

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

GF52/14    23-27 Adina Avenue, Phillip Bay - Expression of Interest

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

CS11/14    Tender for Building Trades and Building Management Services Panel Contract - T2014-14

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

CS12/14    Tender for City Services Schedule of Rates for Minor Works Contracts T2014-13

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil. 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP79/14

 

 

Subject:                  67 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington (DA/73/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/73/2014

Author:                   SJB Planning, Stuart Gordon       

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing structures, construction of two storey dwelling with double garage at front, swimming pool to rear and associated works

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                AAD Build Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mr J K Murdoch & Mrs L Wilson

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The development application has been assessed by an external consultant and referred to Council as a neighbouring property owner is related to a Council employee.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal includes the demolition of the existing single storey brick dwelling and rear fibro shed. The new dwelling is proposed to be a two storey freestanding brick dwelling with a gross floor area of 232sqm. The new dwelling is to contain three (3) bedrooms, a study room, a “playroom” (or rumpus room) three bathrooms (one of which is an ensuite to the master bedroom), a laundry, an open plan kitchen, dining area and living area and a covered living area attached to the internal dining and living rooms.

 

The dwelling contains a double garage with driveway access to Mooramie Avenue.

 

The proposal also includes a swimming pool within the rear yard.

 

Site

 

Figure 1 - Location of 67Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

 

The site is a rectangular shape 13.105m wide and 42.67m long. The total site area is 559.2sqm (or 556.4m2 by Title). The site has a slight fall from west to east of approximately 750mm.

 

There is a single storey brick dwelling with tile roof at the site with a fibro garage with metal roof in the rear north east corner of the site. There is a vehicular crossing in the north west corner of the site, fronting Mooramie Avenue and a driveway along the northern boundary to the garage.

 

The DA is supported with a Structural Engineers report which identifies structural failings with the existing building and concludes amongst other matters that structural repair works are required to most structures in the dwelling from “the upper roof down to the existing foundation”.

 

No significant vegetation exists on the site. Figures 2, 3 and 4 show the front and rear elevations of the existing dwelling as well as the rear yard and existing garage.

 

Description: IMG_0035

Figure 2 – Western elevation of existing dwelling at 67Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

 

There is an existing enclosed stormwater channel within a drainage reserve which runs parallel to Mooramie Avenue at the rear of the site.

 

Council has identified that part of the site is located in a floodway and a flood storage area.

 

Council’s engineers have identified a residential flood planning level for the site at 23.4m AHD

Description: IMG_0006

Figure 3 – Eastern elevation of existing dwelling at 67Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

 

Description: IMG_0022

Figure 4 – Rear yard and garage at 67Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

 

 

Description: IMG_0036

Figure 5 – Dwelling at 65 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

 

Description: IMG_0043

Figure 6 – Dwellings at 69 and 71 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

Application history

 

The application was lodged on 20 February 2014 and notified on 24 February 2014 with 18 submissions received in respect of 15 properties.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans on 16 May 2014. The amendments included:

 

-    Reconfiguration of internal layout of the first floor

-    Change to first floor roof form

-    Change to western (Mooramie Ave) elevation including addition of flat roof above the garage door and the dwelling entry

 

The applicant indicated that the amendments were proposed in response to issues raised in the submissions and by the assessing planner.

 

The application was re-notified on 5 June 2014 with submissions received in respect of 12 properties.

 

The applicant provided amended shadow diagrams on 17 June 2014 with additional support statements prepared by TT Projects and Design Collaborative respectively.

 

The amended shadow diagrams were forwarded to the owner of the property to the south (69 Mooramie Avenue) on 20 June 2014 and they were provided with an additional 7 days to make further comment.

 

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:

 

1.        32 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

2.        34 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

3.        36 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

4.        40 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

5.        44 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

6.        46Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

7.        48 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

8.        52 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

9.        56 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

10.      59 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

11.      65 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

12.      69 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

13.      71 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

14.      77 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

15.      85 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

 

Issues

Comments

Demolition:

Demolition of heritage fabric based on structural cracks is not the only remedy and alternative conservation methods should be investigated.

 

An independent structural report should be commissioned by Council

 

 

The site does not contain a heritage item and is not within a conservation area.

 

The demolition of the existing dwelling is permissible and is not objected to.

Built Form:

Dwellings in Mooramie Avenue are characterised by California Bungalow style dwellings.

 

The front gables proposed at ground floor are an appropriate contemporary design response however the additional storey does not present a façade which respects the distinctive character of the area and the skillion roof is unsympathetic to the single pitch second storey roof on the dwelling adjacent to the south.

 

The bulk of the second storey section is not situated in a location which would ensure that the new dwelling complements the desirable streetscape character.

 

A low level link is recommended between the double and single storey sections of the dwelling. Separation would ensure that the bulk does not visually dominate the presentation of the façade to Mooramie Avenue.

 

The use of Colorbond metal roofing is inconsistent with adjacent California Bungalow style of housing and the streetscape. Terracotta tiling or slate roofing should be used instead.

 

The proposed garage is proportionally half of the frontage of the house and is out of character with the streetscape.

 

The existing residence has a side driveway and existing garage and future development should make use of a similar design.

 

These issues also relate to the streetscape issues that have been raised in submissions.

The built form aspects of the proposal, in particular the roof form, roof materials and garage design, are considered in detail under the Key Issues section of this report.

 

Fences

Insufficient information regarding the height and materials for the proposed front fence and side fences.

 

Potential for adverse visual impact upon neighbours properties and streetscape.

 

Any pillar or fence located in the boundaries of 69 Mooramie Avenue should be retained and the design of any new pillars or boundary fencing at the site should be complementary to the style of adjacent fencing.

 

 

The fence issue was also raised in the second round of submissions and is addressed in table below.

Overshadowing impacts

Insufficient information to properly assess full impacts of the development upon No. 69 Mooramie Avenue, including the impact upon the northern windows, rear yard and swimming pool.

No shadow diagrams provided for 11.30am.

There will be an increase in overshadowing to the north facing windows and rear yard of No 69 Mooramie Avenue.

The proposal impacts the north facing windows on the dwelling at 71 Mooramie Avenue.

 

The proposal complies with Council’s solar access requirements.

 

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

Streetscape and Character

The design of the proposed dwelling is incompatible and inconsistent with the streetscape.

The proposal is likely to cause disruption to the streetscape by introducing a contemporary design that is inconsistent with the surrounding historic fabric.

The development will detract from the unique characteristics of Mooramie Avenue.

The proposal will detract from the outlook from surrounding properties.

The development will dominate the street.

The closed double garage is out of character with the streetscape.

 

 

It is noted that the proposal was amended on 16 May 2014 in effort to address some of these issues.

 

The built form and streetscape aspects of the proposal are considered in detail under the Key Issues section of this report.

Privacy:

Concern over visual privacy impact from the raised ‘open living area’ at the rear of the proposed dwelling upon the private open space at the rear of 65 Mooramie Avenue.

 

 

Privacy aspects of the proposal are considered in detail under the Key Issues section of this report.

Heritage Impacts

The DA has not properly considered the impacts that the new development is likely to have on heritage items and conservation areas in the vicinity.

 

The site is located within the vicinity of a heritage item and should be accompanied by a Heritage Management Document in accordance with clause 5.10 of the RLEP 2012.

 

The design as a whole is unsympathetic to the heritage items in the vicinity and such contemporary development (as proposed) should not be encouraged.

 

 

This issue was also raised in the second round of submissions and is addressed in the table below.

 

 

Non-Compliance with Section 79C of EP&A Act 1979

The SEE submitted does not clearly reflect the actual adverse impacts that the development would cause and the proposed development fails to comply with items 1(b) and 1(e) of Section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979.

 

 

 

Sufficient information has been provided in order to allow an assessment under Section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979.

Non-Compliance with LEP and DCP Provisions

The proposal does not comply with the following Part C4.1 (Building Design) of the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

The proposal does not comply with the following Desired Future Character of the Locality component of RLEP 2012.

 

The proposed development does not comply with Randwick City Councils Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The proposal is out of character to the desired building type (described in Section 2.3 A Vision for Randwick Desired Future Character – DCP (relating to Federation and California Bungalows).

 

 

 

 

These matters were also raised in the second round of submission are addressed in the table below.

 

The amended application was re-notified on 5 June 2014 with submissions received in respect of 12 properties.

 

The following submissions were received in response:

 

1.     32 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

2.     34 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

3.     36 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

4.     40 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

5.     46Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

6.     52 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

7.     56 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

8.     57 Mooramie Avenue, Kensignton

9.     59 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

10.   65 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

11.   69 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

12.   77 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

 

Issues

Comments

Demolition:

Demolition of heritage fabric based on structural cracks is not the only remedy and alternative conservation methods should be investigated.

 

An independent structural report should be commissioned by Council

 

 

The same issue was raised in first round of submissions.

 

Refer to comments in above table.

Built Form:

Dwellings in Mooramie Avenue are characterised by California Bungalow style dwellings.

 

The front gables proposed at ground floor are an appropriate contemporary design response however the broken pitched roof which tops the highest gable on the western façade is visually disjunctive with the flat roof behind it.

 

The amended proposed unsympathetic to the character of the streetscape.

 

The void to solid ratio of the second floor is dissimilar to that of dwellings in the vicinity and the dwelling will become a-rhythmical to the setting.

 

The bulk of the second storey section is not situated in a location which would ensure that the new dwelling complements the desirable streetscape character and it will dominate the western façade.

 

A low level link is recommended between the double and single storey sections of the dwelling. Separation would ensure that the bulk does not visually dominate the presentation of the façade to Mooramie Avenue.

 

The use of Colorbond metal roofing is inconsistent with adjacent California Bungalow style of housing and the streetscape. Terracotta tiling or slate roofing should be used instead.

 

The proposed garage is proportionally half of the frontage of the house and is out of character with the streetscape.

 

The existing residence has a side driveway and existing garage and future development should make use of a similar design.

 

These issues also relate to the streetscape issues that have been raised in submissions.

 

The built form aspects of the proposal, in particular the roof form, roof materials and garage design, are considered in detail under the Key Issues section of this report.

 

Fences

Insufficient information regarding the height and materials for the proposed front fence and side fences.

 

Potential for adverse visual impact upon neighbours properties and streetscape.

 

Any pillar or fence located in the boundaries of 69 Mooramie Avenue should be retained and the design of any new pillars or boundary fencing at the site should be complementary to the style of adjacent fencing.

 

 

The amended plans indicate that the existing northern side fence is to remain.

 

The plans indicate that a new southern side is proposed ranging between 650mm (at the front of the site) to 2.2m in height. The side fencing material is not indicated on the plans although the applicant has indicated that a timber paling fence is proposed.

 

A height of 2.2m is not supported for the southern side fence and a condition of consent has been recommended which limits the height of the southern side fence to 650mm forward of the dwelling building line and 1.8m behind the front building line.

 

The front fence is shown on the submitted plans to be rendered brick with paint finish. The front fence includes five pillars of 1.2m in height with an upstand that is 500mm in height.

 

The style and height of the proposed front fence is considered to be generally consistent with front fences in the vicinity.

 

A condition of consent has been recommended which requires the retention of the southern most existing front fence pillar (i.e. the pillar which straddles the boundary between 67 and 69 Mooraime Ave). It is considered that the northern side (being the section of the pillar that is contained wholly within the boundaries of 67 Mooramie Ave) may be may be rendered and painted to match the remaining section of the proposed front fence at 67 Mooramie Ave.

Overshadowing impacts

Insufficient information to properly assess full impacts of the development upon No. 69 Mooramie Avenue, including the impact upon the northern windows, rear yard, swimming pool and solar panels on the existing garage.

 

The shadow diagrams indicate there will be an undue impact on the two eastern most living areas of the dwelling at 69 Mooramie Avenue from 1pm onwards.

 

Adequate information has been provided to be able to determine compliance or otherwise with Council’s controls.

 

The proposal complies with the DCP 2013 solar access requirements.

 

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

Streetscape and Character

The design of the proposed dwelling is incompatible and inconsistent with the streetscape.

 

The proposal is likely to cause disruption to the streetscape by introducing a contemporary design that is inconsistent with the surrounding historic fabric.

 

The development will detract from the unique characteristics of Mooramie Avenue.

 

The proposal will detract from the outlook from surrounding properties.

The development will dominate the street.

 

The closed double garage is out of character with the streetscape.

 

The proposed Colorbond roofing is not in keeping with the streetscape.

 

 

The built form and streetscape aspects of the amended proposal are considered in detail under the Key Issues section of this report.

Privacy:

Concern over visual privacy impact from the raised ‘open living area’ at the rear of the proposed dwelling upon the private open space at the rear of 65 Mooramie Avenue.

 

 

Privacy aspects of the proposal are considered in detail under the Key Issues section of this report.

Lack of detail relating to vegetation

There is a lack of detail relating to the proposed plantings along the northern boundary.

 

 

Agreed. A condition has been included which includes some more parameters for the proposed hedge planting along the northern boundary.

Heritage Impacts

The DA has not properly considered the impacts that the new development is likely to have on heritage items and conservation areas in the vicinity.

 

The site is located within the vicinity of a heritage item and should be accompanied by a Heritage Management Document in accordance with clause 5.10 of the RLEP 2012.

 

The design as a whole is unsympathetic to the heritage items in the vicinity and such contemporary development (as proposed) should not be encouraged.

 

 

The site does not accommodate any heritage items.

The site is not located within a heritage conservation area.

Adjacent sites and sites opposite the subject dwelling do not accommodate any heritage items.

There are no heritage items located in the Mooramie Avenue street block bounded by Day Avenue to the north, Barker Street to the south and Doncaster Avenue to the east.

 

The closest heritage items are located at 24 Day Avenue (i.e. RLEP 2012 Item 121) and 167 Doncaster Avenue (RLEP 2012 Item 129) respectively.

 

Item 121 is approximately 135m in a straight line from the site and 160m walking distance. Item 129 is approximately 100m in a straight line from site and 130m walking distance.

 

The subject site is not visible from ground level from either site.

 

The nearest conservation area is the area identified on the RLEP 2012 Heritage Map as C3, being the Sacred Heart Heritage Conservation Area, which is approximately 380m in a straight line from the subject property or approximately 525m walking distance from the site.

The next closest heritage conservation areas are those identified on the RLEP 2012 Heritage Map as C13 (the Race Course Heritage Conservation Area) and C2 (the Old Tote and Figtree Theatre Heritage Conservation Area).

The C13 area is approximately 455m in a straight line from the site or approximately 730m walking distance and C2 is approximately 830m in a straight line from the site or approximately 1.3km walking distance.

The subject site will not be clearly visible from the location of any heritage items or conservation areas and it is considered that the site is not in what could be reasonably regarded as the vicinity of any heritage items or conservation areas.

Notwithstanding the above, the proposed demolition of the existing building and construction of a new two storey building at the site (as proposed) will have no discernible impacts upon the significance of any heritage items or any conservation areas.

 

In this instance it is considered that a Heritage Management Document is not required as part of the DA submission.

Non-Compliance with Section 79C of EP&A Act 1979

The SEE submitted does not clearly reflect the actual adverse impacts that the development would cause and the proposed development fails to comply with items 1(b) and 1(e) of Section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979.

 

 

 

 

The relevant matters for consideration for the evaluation of a Development Application as listed under section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979 have been addressed within the body of this report and the attached Development Application Compliance Report.

 

The SEE submitted with the DA is considered to fulfill the requirements for a Statement of Environmental Effects in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning And Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Reg. 2000).

Non-Compliance with LEP and DCP Provisions

The proposal does not comply with the following Part C4.1 (Building Design) and Part B4.2.4 of the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

The proposal does not comply with the following Desired Future Character of the Locality component of RLEP 2012.

 

The proposed development does not comply with “Randwick City Councils Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual

Occupancies”.

 

The proposal is out of character to the desired building type (described in Section 2.3 A Vision for Randwick Desired Future Character – DCP (relating to Federation and California Bungalows).

 

 

The development is considered to comply with the Part C4.1the DCP as outlined in attached Compliance Assessment.

 

Part B4.2.4 relates to the desired future character of the Bunnerong Power Station Heritage Conservation Area and so is not relevant.

 

The subject site is not within a conservation area and Part B4.2.4 is not applicable to the development.

 

The proposal complies with the zone objectives and relevant development standard objectives of the RLEP 2012.

This DCP has been replaced by the Randwick DCP 2013.

This DCP has been replaced by the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Amenity: Solar Access and Overshadowing

The objectives of the solar access control are to:

 

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

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

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

 

Submissions were received from the neighbouring properties at no. 69 and 71 Mooramie Avenue objecting to the development in that it will impact on their solar access and significantly overshadow their properties

 

The property immediately to the south of the development site is 69 Mooramie Avenue, and that property is affected by the proposed development in terms of overshadowing. The shadows from the proposed development will not impact openings or the rear private open space at No 71 Mooramie Avenue and no other property is significantly affected by shadow from the proposed development.

 

Shadow diagrams, including shadow elevations, indicating impacts between 8am and 4pm on 21 June have been provided with the application. These show the following:

 

The property to the south, 69 Mooramie Avenue has its primary internal living room located at the ground level at the rear. The primary source of sunlight in winter to the living room is via two windows in the northern wall.

 

The amended shadow diagrams submitted with the amended DA demonstrate that a portion of the two north living room windows will receive sunlight a minimum of 3 hours between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

Specifically, a portion of the eastern most north facing ground level window will receive sunlight for approximately 4.5 hours on June 21, such that sunlight will be received from approximately 8.45am to 1.15pm.

 

The second north facing ground level living room window, being the second from the eastern end of the northern wall, will receive approximately 3.5 hours sunlight on June 21, such that sunlight will be received from 8.45am to 9.45am, 10.15am to 12.15pm and 3.30pm to 4pm.

 

A formal lounge room on the ground floor of 69 Mooramie Avenue has a north facing window of which a portion will receive sunlight for approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes on June 21. This is a secondary living area.

 

The two western most north facing ground level windows, which serve a bedroom and bathroom, will receive in excess of 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 4pm on June 21.

 

The rear yard of 69 Mooramie Avenue includes a swimming pool and private open space. Significant portions of the private open space will receive sunlight for greater than 3 hours on June 21.

 

There are currently no solar panels on the north facing roof plane of the dwelling at 69 Mooramie Avenue. Nonetheless the shadow diagrams indicate that there will be sufficient space on the north facing roof plane to accommodate solar panels which will be capable of receiving in excess of 3 hours sunlight on June 21.

 

The rear garage at 69 Mooramie Avenue includes solar panels which is understood to heat the water for the swimming pool. The shadow diagrams indicate that shadow from the proposed dwelling will not reach the garage walls until 2pm on June 21 and will not reach the roof of the garage until approximately 3pm. The solar collectors on the garage roof therefore will receive sunlight for at least 3 hours (but more like 6 hours) on June 21.

 

In summary the proposal complies fully with the relevant solar access controls in Part C1, section 5.1 of the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

The proposal will result in increased overshadowing of the adjacent property to the south, however on balance, the proposal is considered consistent with the DCP objectives for solar access.

 

Importantly the southern side setback of the proposed dwelling complies with the required setback. Additionally, the proposal complies with the fundamental built form controls of FSR and building height.

 

The shadow impacts created by the proposed dwelling are of a level that could be reasonably expected for a compliant two storey dwelling in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

It is noted that an error was detected with the amended shadow diagrams. Specifically, the reference to “Bearing” on the top right of each drawing is in fact the Azimuth measurement for each drawing, where the Azimuth is the clockwise horizontal angle (in degrees minutes and seconds) from true north to the sun.

 

The reference to “Azimuth” on the top right of each drawing is in fact the nominated altitude measurement for each drawing where the altitude is the vertical angle (in degrees minutes and seconds) from the horizon, to the sun. This error is replicated on each drawing. Additionally, it is noted that the altitude at 10.30am and 10.45am appears to have been incorrectly nominated and plotted. Such that the altitude of the sun from the horizon at that time is higher than nominated and consequently the shadows are marginally shorter than those that have been plotted at 10.30am and 10.45.

 

The effect of the apparent errors on the assessment of the shadow impacts is negligible and in fact the result is that the two living room windows and the formal lounge window will receive slightly more sunlight at 10.30am and 10.45am than is shown on the elevation shadow drawings. This has been taken into consideration when assessing the application.

 

Amenity: Visual Privacy

The proposal is generally consistent with the objectives and controls for visual privacy outlined in DCP 2013.

 

Nonetheless it is considered that area located at the rear of the site identified as the “outdoor living” area on the submitted plans may result in overlooking into the rear private open space and southern side windows of the property at 65 Mooraime Avenue.

 

The finished floor level of the proposed partially covered ‘outdoor living’ area at the rear of the proposed dwelling approximately 1.05m above the existing ground level in that location and is also approximately 1.05m above the ground level of the adjacent covered private open space at the rear of 65 Mooramie Avenue.

 

The proposal indicates hedge plantings along the common boundary between the proposed raised outdoor private open space and side windows and covered open space at 65 Mooramie Avenue, although there are no details with respect to the type of plantings proposed. A condition has been recommended which places various requirements on these plants (i.e. the plants shall be of a suitable species to reach a height of 2.5m above the existing ground level).

 

It is noted that the elevated nature of the proposed outdoor living space results from a desire to have the outdoor living space connected to the internal living areas of the dwelling and the need to have the internal living areas at a height consistent with the residential flood planning level of 23.4m AHD as set by Councils engineers.

 

The arrangement of having outdoor private open space connected to internal living areas is generally supported.

 

Nonetheless it is considered that there will be an opportunity for overlooking from the proposed raised private open space into the covered private open space at the rear of 65 Mooramie Avenue which may not be sufficiently mitigated by hedging plants.

 

Therefore a condition has been recommended which requires the installation of a permanently fixed privacy screen of 1.6m in height (above the FFL of the living area) and with a minimum of 70% opaqueness. The screen is to be installed along the entire northern edge of the proposed raised outdoor living area.

 

Subject to this condition it is considered that an acceptable level of privacy will be achieved and maintained between the subject site and adjacent properties.

 

Streetscape and Built Form

Submissions have been received which nominate that the proposed two storey dwelling, with contemporary architecture, will be inconsistent with and have a detrimental impact upon, the streetscape and existing character of Mooramie Avenue.

 

Some objections also indicate that the proposal will have an adverse impact upon the heritage significance of heritage items and conservation areas.

 

Submissions nominate the proposed roof form and materials, the proposed double garage, materials and the bulk of the development as being inconsistent and detrimental to the existing Mooarime Avenue streetscape which is said to be dominated by California Bungalow style dwellings.

 

In this respect it is noted that there are various dwellings forms and architectural styles within the length of Mooramie Avenue, with the southern end of the street being dominated by California Bungalow style dwellings (some with ground and first floor additions and alterations).

 

It is noted that the locality and general precinct is characterised by free standing dwellings of predominantly one and two storey scale, with reasonably consistent building separation (i.e. side setbacks) and includes a mixture of architectural styles from California Bungalows to contemporary designs.

 

The site does not accommodate a heritage item, the precinct is not within a heritage conservation area and the site is not within the immediate vicinity of a heritage item or a conservation area.

The precinct shows evidence of a transition in some locations from older housing stock to newer styles of dwellings.

 

The contemporary design of the proposed dwelling, although different from the adjacent California Bungalows in architectural style, is nonetheless consistent with the low density, one and two storey scale, building separation and free standing form of development in the locality.

 

The façade to Mooramie Avenue is articulated through the use of gable ends at ground and first floor levels with pitched roof forms. The proposed roof form echoes the roof form of adjacent California Bungalow architecture, without replicating it.

 

The street façade also includes a horizontal element at ground level being a flat roof projecting forward of the front building line, providing an awning above the garage door and main entry to the dwelling. This horizontal element also echoes the flat roofs over front verandahs at the front of the adjoining California Bungalow style dwellings.

 

The side external walls are broken up by windows and stepped roof forms.

 

The painted rendered brick finish for external walls at the front and side facades is not inconsistent with other examples of painted dwellings in the vicinity of the site in Mooramie Avenue and the locality.

 

It is acknowledged that the proposed use of Colorbond metal roofing varies from the dominant tile roofing used on dwellings elsewhere in the street. Nonetheless, the proposed Colorbond metal roofing is appropriate to the style and form of the proposed dwelling, which as discussed above and elsewhere in this report, is considered acceptable in this location and precinct. Additionally it is considered that a tile roof would not be possible or suitable for all roof planes proposed due to the pitch and drainage requirements.

 

The proposed front fence is of a height and arrangement that is consistent with front fences in the street and locality.

 

The position of the proposed driveway to the northern side of the property is consistent with driveways elsewhere along the eastern side of Mooraime Avenue. It is considered that the width of the driveway at the property boundary is large and a condition requiring the driveway to be tapered has been recommended.

 

The proposed double garage is consistent with the context of the overall contemporary design of the new two storey dwelling and the requirement for two off-street car parking spaces.

 

The garage alignment has been recessed 1.1m from the front building alignment of the dwelling and a condition requiring a further recess to the actual garage door has been recommended in order to provide further articulation to this element.

 

The proposed flat roof element above the garage door and main dwelling entry will provide further articulation and visually recess the garage within the street elevation of the dwelling.

 

In summary, the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new two storey detached dwelling of similar scale and alignment as adjacent residential dwellings will not have adverse impacts upon the significance of any heritage items or conservation areas.

 

Additionally, it is recognised that the proposed dwelling is of a architectural style that is different to the California Bungalow style of dwelling which dominates the southern section of Mooramie Avenue. It is considered however that the overall proportions of the proposed dwelling, its height and scale, density, building separation, front and rear alignment, site coverage and landscaped area, are commensurate with the applicable built form controls for the locality, the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone and the general proportions and form of dwellings in the locality.

 

Given the site is not located within a conservation area and is not located near any heritage items, it is considered that the contemporary architectural style proposed is acceptable in this location.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the majority of controls and objectives of Randwick LEP 2013 and Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. In particular the proposal complies with the FSR, building height, site coverage, landscaped area, front, rear and southern side setback controls.

 

The proposal complies with the solar access and overshadowing controls and subject to the recommended conditions the proposal will not result in privacy impacts upon adjacent properties that would not reasonably be expected for this type of development.

 

The proposed variation to the northern side boundary setback is minor and will not result in adverse impacts upon adjacent properties or the streetscape and is considered reasonable in this instance.

 

The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Variations for the front and rear setbacks are considered reasonable in the circumstances.

 

The proposed dwelling is of a architectural style that is different to the California Bungalow style of dwelling which dominates the southern section of Mooramie Avenue, however the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new two storey detached dwelling of similar scale and alignment as adjacent residential dwellings is commensurate with the applicable built form controls for the locality, the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone and the general proportions and form of dwellings in the locality.

 

This application is considered to be acceptable and development consent is recommended 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. 73/2014 for demolition of existing structures, construction of two storey dwelling with double garage at front, swimming pool to rear and associated works, 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.     A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided along the entire northern edge of the elevated “Outdoor Living” area which is adjacent to the internal dining room and internal living room at ground level of the dwelling. The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 30% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with obscured or frosted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

b.     The southern edge of the driveway is to taper from the double garage door opening to a maximum width of 3.5m at the western (Mooramie Avenue) boundary of the property. The front fence shall be extended so that the opening in the fence for the vehicular crossing in no greater than 3.5m.

 

c.     The garage door is to be recessed a minimum of 200mm from the external face of the western wall of the garage.

 

d.     The piers of the front fence are to be no greater than 1.2m high and the solid sections are to be no greater than 600mm in height. The non-solid portion of the front fence is to be constructed with light weight materials (such as timber panels, slats or the like) that are at least 30% open and evenly distributed along the full length of the fence.

 

The southern most existing front fence pier (i.e. the pier which straddles the boundary between 67 Mooramie Avenue and 69 Mooraime Ave) is to be retained. The northern side (being the section of the pier that is contained wholly within the boundaries of 67 Mooramie Avenue) may be rendered and painted to match the remaining section of the proposed front fence at 67 Mooramie Ave. No work is approved for the section of the pier located on the property of 69 Mooramie Avenue.

 

e.     The southern boundary side fence is to be no greater than 650mm in height where it is located forward of the front (western) wall of the dwelling.

 

The southern boundary side fence is to be no greater than 1800mm above the existing ground level where it is located to the east of the front wall of the approved dwelling. The materials for the fence shall be timber palings or timber panels, slats or the like.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 67  Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP80/14

 

 

Subject:                  7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/822/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/822/2013

Author:                   Scott Williamson, Senior Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of 5 level dwelling with lower level swimming pool with plant room/storage area, double garage landscaping and associated works (Variation to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Mrs M Eleftheriades

Owner:                        Mrs M Eleftheriades

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council based on a cost of works exceeding $2 million.

 

1.        Proposal

 

The application seeks consent for demotion of the existing dwelling and construction of a five (5) storey dwelling, with swimming pool and outbuilding to the rear and associated works across the site at 7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee.

 

Specifically, the proposal is inclusive of the following:

 

New Dwelling

 

Construction of a new five (5) storey dwelling comprising the following;

 

·      Basement level: Media, gym, laundry and bathroom areas;

·      Ground level: Living, sitting, dining and kitchen areas;

·      Entry level: Double garage accessed from Seaside Parade. Entry, living space and voids. Small east- facing balcony associated with living area;

·      Level one (1): Three (3) bedrooms, two (2) bathrooms, small east and west facing balconies associated with bedrooms:

·      Level two (2): Fourth bedroom with associated bathroom and wardrobe areas. Roof garden along southern boundary and large east- facing terrace.

 

External works

 

Landscaping and site works, comprising the following:

 

·      Tiered landscaped areas with decking, pergola, ponds, landscaping and planters. Inclusive of retaining works across the site;

·      In-ground swimming pool corresponding to lower ground floor level, with subfloor outbuilding with bathroom, storage, plant room and elevator;

·      Terrace area cantilevered out from existing rock outcrop at ground level;

·      Roof garden at levels one (1) and two (2);

·      Roof plant including photovoltaic cells;

·      Boundary fencing to front and side boundaries of varying height.

 

Site inspections were carried out in January and February 2014.

 

 

Figure 1: The subject site, as viewed from Seaside Parade.

Figure 2: The rear elevation of the existing dwelling at 7 Seaside Parade.

 

 

Figure 3: Montage of the proposed dwelling, viewed from the Seaside Parade.

Figure 4: Montage of the approved dwelling at 9 Seaside Parade, viewed from the street.

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: Aerial view of existing development on the eastern side of Seaside Parade.

Figure 6: Aerial view of existing development on the eastern side of Seaside Parade.

 

2.        History

 

On 14 March 2014 Council requested the applicant address a number of issues.

 

The proposal was amended and additional information submitted on 24 April 2014 in response to Council’s request. Amendments relate to:

 

·      Increase rear setback of the dwelling to comply with rear building alignment;

·      Remove pergola above cantilevered terrace to the rear, at ground floor level;

·      Additional detail of levels along common boundaries and fencing arrangements;

·      Additional shadow and privacy detail.

 

The amended DA is the subject of this assessment.

 

2.1      9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee – DA/303/2013

Development consent was issued to the site adjoining to the south under DA/303/2013, inclusive of the following:

 

·      Demolish the existing dwelling and construction of a new four (4) level dwelling;

·      Cantilevered pool to the rear of the site;

·      Car hoist with parking for two (2) vehicles;

·      Variation of the floor space ratio standard of 0.6:1, allowing 0.65:1.

 

The application was approved at the Planning Committee of 3 December 2013, subject to conditions that sought to reinforce the existing rear building alignment of existing development on the eastern side of Seaside Parade.

3.        Site context

 

The subject site is described as Lot 3, Section 3, Lot 9452 known as 7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee. The subject site and those adjoining are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential.

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Seaside Parade, at the intersection of Seaside Parade and Edgecliffe Ave. The site has a single frontage to Seaside Parade. The parcel is of regular shape and oriented roughly east- west. The topography of the site falls significantly to the east, such that the front, Seaside Parade boundary sits approximately 11 metres above the rear eastern boundary.

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Western, Seaside Parade boundary.

14.02m

670.3m2

Northern, side boundary

50.29m

Southern, side boundary

46.635m

Eastern, rear boundary

14m

 

A two (2) storey dwelling is presently contained within the site. The upper floor of the existing dwelling is contained within a roof form when viewed from the streetscape. Surrounding development is residential, consisting predominantly of large contemporary dwellings.

 

The existing building and those surrounding do not have any individual heritage significance within the provisions of RLEP 2012.

 

4.        Request to vary a development standard – RLEP Clause 4.6

 

Clause 4.6 of RLEP provides a mechanism for variation to development standards in certain circumstances.

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) development standard of Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratio, contained within RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written justification that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6. The variation is addressed as follows:

 

4.1      Floor Space Ratio Control

Clause 4.4 (2A) (c) states that the maximum FSR of a site over 600 square metres in area (the subject site is 670.3 square metres) is 0.6:1.

 

The FSR resulting from the amended proposal is 0.62:1. The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

Variation

 

4.4 (2A)

Floor space ratio

 

0.6:1 (402m2)

 

 

0.62:1 (415.6m2)

 

No- Clause 4.6 variation submitted

 

3.4% (13.6m2) variation.

 

(i)        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 sub clause (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.

 

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.

 

(ii)       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 floor space ratio standard are set out in clause 4.4(1) 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 key arguments for the departure from the standard:

The proposal represents a well-considered architectural design offering minimal impacts and good visual amenity to contribute to the local character of the area. In addition, the design has employed innovative techniques to utilise otherwise wasted space and minimise any impacts on surrounding dwellings. The variation sought is numerically minor, however contributes to the overall design of the site. In this instance, the variation will achieve a better outcome and form of development.

 

Objectives of the standard:

 

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

 

The proposal presents a two storey dwelling with a garage basement to Seaside Parade. This scale is consistent with what can currently be observed within the immediate vicinity of the site and in the approvals, which Council has recently granted. The rear of the site is stepped down the steep slope, with various terraces and a swimming pool at the rear of the site. This layout is compatible with the surrounding dwellings and reflects the general character of the locality.

 

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

 

The proposal will be well articulated and has been designed to maximise solar access on the site and the thermal properties of the natural slope. The architect has arrived at the design through extensive consideration of the site. Additionally, the application will be accompanied by a BASIX certificate, demonstrating the sustainable elements of the proposal.

 

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

 

The site is not within a Conservation area.

 

(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 proposed design has been arrived at to minimize the potential for any adverse impacts. The overshadowing and privacy impacts were a priority to minimise. The house is orientated to the ocean to minimise overlooking and the height has been minimised while the setbacks have been maximized to protect the southern neighbours form potential overshadowing. As the site is sloped, the proposed dwelling is set into the slope where possible to minimise height and reduce the risk of view impacts for houses on the opposite side of Seaside Parade. These dwellings are set higher up on the slope and will maintain extensive views to the east.

 

Planning comment:

It is considered that the proposed development and variation from the maximum floor area standard is satisfactory in this instance. The submitted Clause 4.6 variation is considered well founded for the following reasons:

 

·      Regarding objective (a), the floor space breach is proposed on a site that is significantly steep and surrounded by dwellings of substantial size and scale. Each building has sought to compensate for topography in establishing a building platform of practical size. In doing so, the proposal seeks to locate roughly 100 square metres, or up to 23% of the proposed GFA underground, thus the breach will remain largely indiscernible. The proposed dwelling is considered to appropriately respond to topography and relates to surrounding development as existing and approved, in a manner that is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality.

 

·      In relation to objective (b), the scheme is highly articulated and makes effective use of the sloping site, eventuating in a scale that remains consistent with surrounding development. The proposed landscaping regime provides for deep soil, screening planting and canopy trees across the site to green the development from both the streetscape and the foreshore. Photovoltaic cells are detailed on the roof of the development. BASIX Certification accompanies the scheme.

 

·      Objective (c) is not relevant given both the proposed development and it’s surrounds have no heritage classification.

 

·      Regarding objective (d), the proposed development poses bulk, privacy, shadow and view implications to adjoining sites that are considered a reasonable expectation of any development on this site, with regard to the orientation, topography and built form context. Specifics of these impacts are further discussed in the relevant sections of this report.

 

The applicant’s written request is considered to have successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

 

(iii)      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 designed to achieve the planning objectives for the locality and to fit in with the scale and character of development in the immediate context, whilst minimising potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties.

 

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

 

(iv)      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 objectives of the floor space ratio standard. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 - Low Density Residential) are:

 

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

•    To enable other land uses that provide 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.

 

The proposed development is permissible within the R2 Low Density Residential zone of RLEP 2012. The proposal provides for an appropriate low-density housing development, both in the context of this site and as contemplated within the R2 zone.

 

The proposal has been designed with consideration of surrounding amenity, seeking to minimise environmental impacts upon neighbouring sites. The proposed built form serves to maintain the desirable attributes of the existing and desired future character of the residential area. The scheme provides a highly articulated development of appropriate scale that remains sympathetic to the foreshore area and allows for an appropriate economic use of the subject site.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 - Low Density Residential.

 

(v)       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 the development standard for floor space within clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical floor space 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.

 

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 and semi-detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

5.        Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the originally proposed development between 14 January and 29 January 2014, in accordance with Council’s DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

 

9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee;

5 Seaside Parade, South Coogee;

10 Seaside Parades, South Coogee.

 

Issue

Comment

Built form:

·    Concern over unnecessary height and bulk to the street;

 

·    Concern rear setback is inconsistent with the alignment approved at 9 Seaside Parade;

 

·    Floor to ceiling heights are insufficient for services and will require increase in building height later for adjustments, increasing wall height.

 

The built form is discussed in Section 7, below.

The proposed dwelling maintains compliance with the height controls when viewed from the streetscape, adopting the ridge level of the existing dwelling on the site. Appropriate architectural, landscaping and materials have been utilised to avoid appearance of substantial bulk from the street.

The amended scheme of 24 April 2014 adopts the rear building alignment approved at 9 Seaside Parade under DA/303/2013.

Proposed floor to ceiling heights are sufficient for the purpose of a single dwelling. Any change in building or wall height would be a matter for further consideration of Council in a future application.  

Legislative:

·    The proposal is inconsistent with SEPP 71, zone objectives and the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

The provisions of SEPP 71, the objectives of the R2 Zone and the foreshore scenic protection area are all addressed further below and in the attached Compliance report.

The proposal is considered to adequately satisfy each relevant legislative planning instrument.

View sharing:

·    Concern approved dwelling at 9 Seaside Parade will lose iconic views;

 

·    The parapet should be lowered for reasonable view sharing above the building from 10 Seaside Parade.

 

 

View sharing is discussed in Section 7, below.

The amended proposal of 24 April adopted the approved rear building alignment of 9 Seaside Parade and deleted a pergola. A condition has been recommended that will require the rear terrace also be deleted due to view loss, amongst other issues.

In respect of 10 Seaside Parade, the proposal adopts a maximum height that is marginally below that of the existing dwelling. Negligible view loss is expected to occur to this property, which receives views over the top of the site and would continue to do so.

Privacy:

·    Concern over privacy issues from terraces;

 

·    Concern the scheme involves east facing balconies in the same locations  that Council prohibited at 9 Seaside Parade under DA/303/2013;

 

·    Request additional privacy to northern elevation;

 

·    Acoustic issues may with plant to lift and AC units.

 

Privacy is discussed further in Section 7, below.

Proposed terraces are considered to eventuate in a generally acceptable privacy outcome. A rear cantilevered terrace has been recommended for deletion based partially on privacy issues.

The proposed terraces are contained within the building bulk, consistent with the rear building alignment. Those deleted at 9 Seaside Parade clearly exceeded the alignment.

Additional privacy measures were provided to the north elevation in amended documentation of 24 April 2014. Line of sight diagrams were also provided.

Suitable conditions have been recommended to avoid acoustic issues arising from plant and equipment.

Shadow:

·    Concern over shadow impact of cantilevered terrace and solid balustrade.

 

 

As discussed further within this report, a condition has been recommended to require deletion of the proposed terrace for reasons of shadow among others.

Other:

·    Recommend a 3D model and revised landscape plan be required;

 

·    Request conditions to prevent stormwater runoff onto 5 Seaside Parade;

 

·    Request dilapidation report be required;

 

·    Boundary fencing detail to 5 Seaside Parade is unclear.

 

The plans and associated documentation are adequate to allow for a proper assessment of the application.

A revised landscape plan is not necessary. Sufficient detail is provided on the present landscape plans and Council’s Development Engineers have reviewed the scheme, raising no objection to the proposed planting regime, in addition to providing suitable conditions to regulate stormwater.

A dilapidation report is recommended to be required where excavation is to take place in the zone of influence of any adjoining sites.

Boundary fencing detail was provided with amended information on 24 May 2014 and is discussed in further detail below, with conditions recommended where necessary.

 

The amendments of 24 April 2014 eventuated in a reduced impact to the streetscape and adjoining dwellings and as such were not required to be re-notified.

 

Regardless, the immediate neighbours were informed of the amended plans on 2 May 2014 and given opportunity to make further comment. The following submission was received: 

 

5 Seaside Parade, South Coogee;

 

Issue

Comment

·    Concern fencing and boundary detail along the northern boundary is inaccurate. Fencing of 500mm is insufficient;

 

·    Plant and equipment have not been identified on the plans;

 

·    Concern over impact of works to landscaping and trees in close proximity of the boundary shared with 5 Seaside Parade.

 

An error in the boundary profile provided in the amended application is acknowledged. A condition has been recommended that will require fencing detail along common boundaries to be revised and resubmitted to Council prior to a construction certificate being issued.

A condition has been recommended that will require detail of plant location and acoustic treatment to be submitted to Council prior to Construction Certificate.

Council’s Landscape Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and recommended appropriate conditions. Consent is provided only for the selected pruning of trees overhanging the subject site. No removal of tress on the property at 5 Seaside Parade may be undertaken without the prior consent of the owner.

 

6.        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.

 

6.1      View sharing - Section 5.6

The potential impact of the proposed development on views obtained from adjacent sites has been considered. Ocean and headland views are available to the east, north-east and south-east of the subject and adjoining sites.

 

The following is a four-step analysis of view loss impacts established in the NSW Land and Environment Court case Tenacity v Warringah (2004).

 

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

 

Anticipated view loss from No. 9 Seaside Parade:

 

·           No impact to south-east and east;

·           The existing dwelling will see loss of view from a sitting or standing position to Wedding Cake Island from the rear deck, in a north-easterly direction;

·           The approved dwelling (DA/303/2013) matches the rear alignment of the proposal and as a result poses negligible obstruction to the views likely to be obtained to the primary east facing elevation of the approved dwelling. Views to the north-east will be partially obstructed by a cantilevered terrace at lower levels of the approved dwelling.

Anticipated view loss from No. 10 Seaside Parade:

 

·           No impact to south-east and east;

·           Negligible to no view impact to the north-north-east ocean and horizon views. Through adopting the height of the existing ridge, the proposal is not expected to have any notable impact to existing views above the subject site.

 

 

 

 

Figure 7: Cadastre context of the view line obtained over 7 Seaside Parade from sites concerned at 9 & 10 Seaside Parade.

Figure 8: Aerial context of the view line obtained over 7 Seaside Parade from sites concerned at 9 & 10 Seaside Parade.

 

Step 2:  The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

·      9 Seaside Parade:

Views to be affected at 9 Seaside Parade are obtained over the northern side boundary and above the rear open space of the subject site.

 

In the case of the existing building, views are achieved from an elevated rear deck to the north-east, where Wedding Cake Island is visible at sitting and standing position. View of Wedding Cake Island is likely to be lost from the existing deck at both positions under the proposal.

 

The approved development (DA/303/2013) at 9 Seaside Parade, adopts a consistent rear building alignment with that of the proposal. The alignment allows that the proposed dwelling generally does not stand to obstruct north-east views to iconic elements such as Wedding Cake Island. Notwithstanding this, a proposed cantilevered rear deck stands to obstruct north-easterly views at standing and sitting position from lower levels of the approved development at 9 Seaside Parade.

 

·      10 Seaside Parade:

In respect of 10 Seaside Parade, horizon views are achievable to first floor living areas above Seaside Parade and the front and side boundaries of the subject site. The finished floor level of the first floor is such that sitting and standing views are possible, and would remain so under the proposed development.

 

Step 3: The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

·      9 Seaside Parade – Existing dwelling – Significant view loss

The existing dwelling at 9 Seaside Parade stands to see a substantial impact as part of the proposal from it’s rear deck, where Wedding Cake Island will be obstructed from most positions.

 

·      9 Seaside Parade - Approved dwelling (DA/303/2013) - Minor view loss

The lower level of the approved dwelling at 9 Seaside Parade will see some view obstruction due to a cantilevered terrace proposed at the rear of 7 Seaside Parade. The low level of the area impacted is unlikely to allow view to Wedding Cake Island over adjoining structures, however will have a notable component of ocean and horizon to the north-east hemmed by the proposed cantilevered terrace.  

 

·      10 Seaside Parade- Negligible view loss

The extent of the view sharing impact upon 10 Seaside Parade is considered negligible. The angle at which view is obtained above the subject site allows that view to Wedding Cake Island cannot be impacted. Views to the ocean and horizon would be maintained above the proposed roof form as in the existing circumstance, given the level of the existing ridge is being reinstated at marginally lower level.

 

Step 4: The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

In assessing whether the anticipated view loss to those sites concerned is reasonable, the following has been taken into consideration:

 

In the case of 9 Seaside Parade:

·      The property at 9 Seaside Parade, whether in the context of existing or approved development, retains expansive uninterrupted views from north-east through to the south at standing and sitting positions, from various locations on the property;

·      The most notable view impact occurs to the existing dwelling. The dwelling is abandoned and underdeveloped in the context of surrounding development. The view to be impacted is obtained over a side boundary, which is considered unrealistic to retain in this circumstance;

·      Any view lost to the existing dwelling at through that proposed development at 7 Seaside Parade, will be effectively recaptured once the approved development at 9 Seaside Parade is constructed;

·      The proposal adopts a consistent rear building alignment to that approved at 9 Seaside Parade (DA/303/2013), allowing that views are appropriately shared to the upper levels of each dwelling;

·      While variation are proposed in respect of floor space, setback and wall height, these attributes are not considered to be reflected in the view issue;

·      A cantilevered terrace proposed at the rear will unnecessarily hem views to the north-east from the approved lower level at 9 Seaside Parade. For additional reasons further discussed in this report, the terrace is considered unnecessary and is recommended for deletion via conditions. 

In the case of 10 Seaside Parade:

·           The dwelling at 10 Seaside Parade obtains view above the street and existing development on the eastern side of Seaside Parade, a method which is noted to be specifically difficult to protect should view loss occur;

·           The likelihood of any view loss occurring to 10 Seaside Parade is considered remote due to levels associated with this dwelling;

o   The existing building at 7 Seaside Parade comprises a north-south oriented ridge, achieving a height of 46 centimeters above the first floor level of 10 Seaside Parade, where views are obtainable;

o   The proposed building achieves a height of 44 centimeters above the first floor level of 10 Seaside Parade, where views are obtainable.

·           Any view that is obtainable at present would remain available under the proposed development given a marginal reduction in roof levels. It is considered unlikely the proposal can pose any notable impact upon the views of the dwelling at 10 Seaside Parade.

 

Significant alternate view will remain available to dwellings concerned. The potential view loss caused by the proposed development is considered to be acceptable, subject to a requirement for deletion of the rear, cantilevered terrace, for the reasons detailed above.

 

6.2      Cantilevered rear terrace

The scheme involves a rear terrace on the ground floor plan that extends out to the rear of the site and beside a rock outcrop to meet the foreshore building line.

 

The applicant was asked to delete the cantilevered terrace where it does not rest on the existing rock outcrop in a meeting with Council Officers on 3 April 2014. The applicant instead provided additional survey information in attempt to justify its location on 24 April 2014. 

 

 

 

Figure 9: Aerial diagram highlighting the proposed cantilevered terrace from the east, dashed red, with rock outcrop beside.

 

 

Figure 10: South elevation showing rear terrace in relation to the existing rock outcrop on the northern side of the site.

 

The cantilevered component of the terrace is considered unacceptable and should be deleted for the following reasons:

 

·         The proposed terrace seeks to provide a cantilevered viewing platform on the southern side of the site that will unnecessarily project out beyond the rear extent of bulk established to adjoining developments;

 

·         The level of the terrace has direct implications for 9 Seaside Parade in respect of bulk, view loss to the approved lower level, shadow and overlooking to the approved rear private open space and pool;

 

·         The applicant’s justification is based on the premise of continuation of a rock outcrop on the northern side of the site providing an established median rear alignment. The terrace does not sit on the rock outcrop and the argument is not supported. The structure seeks to replicate and add unsympathetic bulk to a natural feature of the site to the detriment of the foreshore, the natural topography of the site or the existing built form; 

 

·         The proposed terrace locates a bulky structure immediately up to the foreshore building line that will introduce precedent for similar development to continue this theme, in order to recapture views and avoid shadow;

 

·         A concrete outbuilding sits in this location at present, however sits at a level three (3) metres below the proposed cantilevered terrace;

 

·         Deletion of the terrace poses negligible impact upon the owner in respect of internal amenity. Uninterrupted views will be available from numerous vantage points, across the site. The scheme is inclusive of generous terraces, decks and landscaped open spaces to serve outdoor recreation needs;

 

·         The terrace appears to provide the sole function of a viewing platform that will obtain greater, uninterrupted angle of view around existing and approved developments on the same alignment.

 

The cantilevered rear terrace is considered to have a number of undesirable and detrimental environmental impacts upon the foreshore, neighbouring sites the existing built form. The terrace is recommended for deletion via suitable conditions of consent.

 


6.3      External wall height – Section 3.2

The DCP identifies a control of eight (8) metres in external wall height applicable to the subject site. The scheme proposes a wall height of nine (9) metres, occurring to the side and rear elevations of the proposed building.

 

The DCP identifies a number of objectives in respect of the wall height control, seeking to maintain a suitable scale to the street, minimise impacts to adjoining dwellings and respect the topography of the site.

                                      

 

 

Figure 11: Proposed north elevation with wall height variation highlighted.

 

The proposed variation of the external wall height control is considered acceptable on the following grounds:

 

·      The significant slope of the site renders strict compliance with the DCP control very difficult to achieve. The proposal steps from the front to the rear, following the contours of the site and will not result in significant adverse visual impact;

 

·      The dwelling will present a suitable scale to the streetscape and the foreshore, comparable with existing and approved development of large dwellings in the visual catchment;

 

·      The wall height proposed is evident in a similar manner to the recently approved dwelling at 9 Seaside Parade (DA/303/2013), involving a 9.5 metre wall height;

 

·      The proposal involves 1800mm in setback to the southern side boundary, allowing the necessary three (3) hours solar access to be retained to the southern neighbour’s primary east and west facing elevations and rear open space;

 

·      The building is highly articulated, with recessed elements, angled wall alignments, material variation and landscaping all combining to offset perceived bulk and privacy implications to north and south neighbouring sites;

 

The environmental impacts resulting from the proposed development are considered to be acceptable, as discussed in further sections of this report.

 


6.4      Side setbacks  – Section 3.3

The subject site has width of approximately 14 metres and as such, falls in to the following category of side setback requirement according to the DCP:

 

Dwelling Houses & Dual Occupancies

(Attached & Detached)

 

Frontage width

Ground storey

First storey

Second storey & above

12m and above    

1200mm

1200mm

 

1800mm

 

 

The scheme allows that the majority of the building achieves the above setback requirements, with localised variations occurring in the following circumstances. The proposal does not comply with the above requirements at ground and entry levels in the following instances:

 

Southern side elevation:

At ground floor level, the building is sited one (1) metre from the shared southern boundary for a length of roughly ten (10) metres. The DCP identifies 1200mm should be provided;

 

The 200mm ground floor setback variation occurs predominantly below ground level and as such, will remain largely indiscernible external to the site. The variation is considered incremental, localised and generally acceptable in the circumstances.

 

The proposed setback is not considered to eventuate in any unreasonable implications of bulk and scale, view loss or privacy to the northern neighbour. Importantly, the low sitting location of the variation where visible above ground, allows that unnecessary shadow does not eventuate to 9 Seaside Parade as a result. 

 

Imposition of the setback control in this instance is not considered to eventuate in any substantial appreciable benefit to the northern neighbour or the streetscape.

 

At entry level, the proposed garage is sited with no setback to the shared southern boundary, for a length of 11 metres. The DCP identifies an 1800mm setback should be provided. 

 

The garage is proposed to sit on the southern boundary shared with 9 Seaside Parade, at ground floor level only. The scheme subsequently seeks to vary the 1800mm DCP control. The nil setback has been considered with respect to the following points:

 

·         The nil setback is limited to an 11 metre length of the southern elevation. Beyond this to the east, the building steps off the boundary, providing a 1650mm separation;

·         The structure is of single storey scale. The corresponding finished level of the approved development at 9 Seaside Parade is such that a two (2) metre high structure will be apparent, marginally higher than a standard boundary fence;

·         The garage is ideally located, adjacent the approved garage of 9 Seaside Parade (DA/303/2013) and a side access path. Co-locating these components presents an ideal amenity outcome to both sites;

·         To the east of the approved garage at 9 Seaside Parade exists a small central courtyard along the northern boundary and corresponding living area. The proposed nil garage setback is not considered to directly eventuate in any unreasonable impacts of bulk, scale, shadow or privacy upon this component of the approved development;

·         The absence of setback at this level does not bring about substantial additional shadow to 9 Seaside Parade. Shadow is cast from upper levels of the proposed southern elevation, where compliant setbacks are implemented;

·         No opportunity for privacy issues will eventuate to 9 Seaside Parade as a result of the nil setback component given no openings are provided;

·         A roof garden is provided above the garage to soften any bulk impact to 9 Seaside Parade and assist with privacy to and from upper floors of the proposal; 

·         The absence of a setback in this location will not affect view corridors from the streetscape, which sits notably higher than the garage and as such views will be possible over the top of the nil setback component;

·      The owner of 9 Seaside Parade has not objected to the nil setback to the garage within their submission to the development, received by Council on 31 January 2014. The submission notes “the non- compliance of the zero setback to the garage is noted but not further commented on as it causes no additional overshadowing over and above that caused on the balance of the proposed structure.”

 

On balance, the proposed nil setback of the garage is considered to have a number of merits, remaining consistent with the objectives of the setback controls. The proposed southern boundary setbacks are supported by this assessment.

 

Northern side elevation:

At ground floor level, the building is provided a minimum 1050mm setback to the shared northern boundary for a length of roughly eight (8) metres. The DCP identifies 1200mm should be provided;

 

At first floor level the building is provided 1200mm to the shared northern boundary for a length of roughly eight (8) metres. The DCP identifies 1800mm should be provided in this location.

 

The proposed variations of 150mm and 600mm of the ground and first floor side setback controls respectively, are considered incremental, localised and generally acceptable in the circumstances. The proposed setbacks are not considered to eventuate in any unreasonable implications of bulk and scale, shadow, view loss or privacy to the northern neighbour.

 

In offsetting the variations, the building is highly articulated and has incorporated suitable privacy measures to openings, as discussed throughout this report. The ground floor setback variation occurs predominantly below ground and as such, will remain largely indiscernible external to the site.

 

Imposition of the setback control in the circumstances is not considered to eventuate in any substantial appreciable benefit to the northern neighbour or the streetscape and as such, the northern boundary setbacks are supported by this assessment. 

 

6.5      Solar access – Section 5.1

The subject site and those adjoining are oriented roughly east-west. As a result, the southern neighbour at 9 Seaside Parade will inevitably see an increase in shadow as a consequence of development on the subject site.

 

The DCP identifies that a portion of the north-facing living area windows of adjacent dwellings receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. Similarly, the private open space of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of three (3) hours direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.   

 

The existing dwelling at 9 Seaside Parade is relatively underdeveloped and would see significant shadow impact from the proposal throughout the day on 21 June. The dwelling is small and abandoned and there is a reasonable likelihood that the site would be redeveloped in the future. Should redevelopment occur, as has been approved under DA/303/2013, solar access conditions would be significantly improved as a result. Discussion below relates to shadow impact upon the approved development at 9 Seaside Parade. 

 

Shadow diagrams, including shadow elevations, have been provided which illustrate the impact of the scheme upon the approved development at 9 Seaside Parade, identifying the following impacts to the primary east and west facing elevations of this dwelling:

 

·           The primary east facing elevation will receive solar access between 8am and 12pm, allowing that in excess of three (3) hours is achieved during these hours;

·           The primary west facing elevation will not be prevented from achieving the necessary three (3) hours solar access between 12 noon and 4pm on 21 June;

·           The rear open space of 9 Seaside Parade, as approved, will achieve the necessary three (3) hours solar access between 8am and 12pm;

·           The north elevation of the approved development will see reduction in solar access from the existing situation

 

As noted above, the northern side elevation of the approved development at 9 Seaside Parade comprises a secondary elevation and will inevitably see substantial shadow from the proposed structure, as it does in the existing circumstance.

 

The secondary nature of this elevation indicates that such impact would be inevitable in the instance of any reasonable sized development at 7 Seaside Parade. While number of non- compliances occur within the development, these occur in a similar manner to the approved dwelling at 9 Seaside Parade and none are considered to directly eventuate in the subject shadow impact. It is considered this outcome is to be expected in the context of site orientation, topography and built form context. The impact to the secondary elevation is not considered to arise due to an excessive or badly designed building.

 

In respect of the above, the proposal allows that the necessary three (3) hours solar access is retained to both primary east and west facing elevations of the approved development at 9 seaside parade, in addition to the rear open space. As such, the proposal achieves compliance with the provisions of the DCP.

 

6.6      Privacy – Section 5.3

6.6.1   North elevation privacy

The north elevation of the scheme proposes a large wall of glass that introduces privacy concern to the northern neighbour. The glass wall was initially shown to have suspended planting structure parallel to the common boundary, however was clarified with the applicant on 24 April 2014, who provided further detail and privacy measures.

 


 

 



Figure 12: Proposed section illustrating privacy measures to be implemented along the north elevation and associated view lines likely to and from 5 Seaside Parade.

 

As illustrated in the figure above, the privacy impact upon the dwelling at 5 Seaside Parade can be effectively mitigated through use of a combination of opaque glass and louvers across the upper floors of the development. Accordingly, a condition is recommended to require the implementation of the proposed privacy measures, in order to ensure the ongoing amenity of the northern neighbor.

 

6.6.2   Terraces

Terraces proposed within the scheme are generally contained within the building mass with view directed to the east and west. As such, the majority of outdoor terrace areas are prevented any notable view loss across side boundaries. The following exemptions exist:

 

Rooftop terrace:

The proposal is inclusive of a terrace on the upper most floor of the dwelling, with eastern aspect. The trafficable area of the terrace has been centralised within the roof plate and is surrounded with a roof garden for additional privacy.

 

Section 4.4 of the DCP identifies that terraces and trafficable outdoor spaces may be provided in stepped buildings, but must not be provided on the upper most roof form of the building. The design of the terrace is consistent with this section of the DCP.

 

The applicant provided additional privacy information regarding the terrace on 24 April 2014, which is considered to effectively demonstrate the terrace will not allow any notable view lines to adjoining sites.

 

The terrace has been provided substantial setback from the edges of the dwelling, centralising trafficable area that will significantly restrict view lines that can be achieved over the edge of the building to adjoining sites. The terrace does not comprise any structures above, allowing no increase in height or bulk eventuates. The terrace is associated with the master bedroom, indicating that an unreasonable or high intensity of use is unlikely to occur.

 

Rear, cantilevered terrace:

The proposed rear cantilevered terrace is discussed in further detail above and has been recommended for deletion partially on the basis of privacy implications.

 

The terrace will allow elevated and unencumbered view over the southern neighbour’s rear private open spaces, pool and east facing internal areas. The terrace is

 

The terrace appears to provide the sole function of a viewing platform that will obtain greater, uninterrupted angle of view around existing and approved developments on the same alignment.

 

The cantilevered rear terrace is considered to have a number of undesirable and detrimental environmental impacts upon the foreshore, neighbouring sites the existing built form. The terrace is recommended for deletion via suitable conditions of consent.

 

6.6.3   Fencing and level changes

Fencing is proposed to north and south shared boundaries. The amount of excavation involved with the proposal, in conjunction with the approved development at 9 Seaside Parade and recommended conditions of this assessment, makes for a complex situation of level changes and boundary fencing outcomes. The following issues occur with boundary fencing as proposed:

 

Southern boundary fencing:

The above discussed condition requiring deletion of the rear cantilevered terrace adjacent the southern boundary may necessitate amendment to fencing arrangements to accommodate privacy in the interest of both the applicant and neighbour.

 

Northern boundary fencing:

In respect of the northern boundary, the design has misinterpreted the profile of the land to the rear of the existing dwelling at 5 Seaside Parade. This error eventuates in a fence height of roughly 500mm occurring to 5 Seaside Parade, which will be insufficient for privacy and separation.

 

In respect of the above issues on each boundary, a further condition has been recommended requiring the applicant to revise boundary fencing levels prior to the issue of a construction certificate. Subject to the application of this condition, it is considered the proposed boundary treatment is acceptable.

 

6.7      Earthworks  – Section 4.6

The DCP identifies objectives for development involving excavation, seeking to minimise change to natural ground, avoid adverse impacts to adjoining dwellings, enable usable private open spaces and avoid storm water implications.

 


 

 

 

Figure 13: A section of the proposed development, outlining the extent of excavation and response to site topography.

 

The proposal involves a substantial amount of excavation as the dwelling compensates for the very steep fall of the land. Excavation is proposed within 900mm of common boundaries. The excavation proposed allows for reasonable floor plates and recreational areas to be achieved for the purpose of occupants.

 

The amount of excavation is commensurate of that approved at 9 Seaside Parade under DA/303/2013. It is considered the excavation proposed is not uncharacteristic of the desired future character of the locality and will not pose uncharacteristic change to the existing landform. 

 

Further, the application has been reviewed by Council’s Development Engineers in respect of storm water. No issues have been raised subject to the application of standard conditions of consent.

 

The proposed amount of excavation is considered acceptable in this circumstance.

 

6.8      Foreshore Scenic Protection Area -  – Section B10

The development is capable of integrating effectively with existing development within the foreshore area, incorporating a high level of articulation and visual interest. Materials and finishes have been specified in detail, comprising generally neutral colours that will complement existing development within the foreshore area. A condition has been recommended emphasising that reflectivity must be minimised through treatment of materials as necessary.

 

The proposed building bulk responds satisfactorily to the topography of the site, stepping down toward the rear. It is unlikely that the development will interrupt drainage patterns or substantially change the appearance of the surrounding land. Numerous dwellings of similar scale exist in the vicinity the subject site, such that there exists a firm precedence for such development within the visual catchment.

The scheme presents satisfactory design merit in relation to the foreshore, in-so-far as it’s visual presentation, being generally consistent with that evident to surrounding development. The proposal is considered to be generally acceptable in relation to the foreshore.

 


7.        Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

 

The Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effective from 17 July 2012, is applicable to the proposed development. In accordance with the plan, the following monetary levy is required:

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost more than $200,000

$4,176,933.00

1.0%

$41,769.33

 

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.

 

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

 

A.        That Council supports the application to vary a development standard under clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.4 (2a)(c) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to maximum floor space ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality and that the Department of Planning and 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/822/2013 for demotion of the existing dwelling and construction of a part two (2), part five (5) storey dwelling, with swimming pool and associated works, at No. 7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions conatined 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, as indicated in red on the approved plans. The amendments shall be made to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager of Development Assessment, prior to the issue of a construction certificate:

 

a.     The cantilevered ground floor terrace at the rear of the dwelling shall be reduced in length by 3200mm prior to issue of a construction certificate, as indicated in red on the approved plans;

 

b.     Further detail of fencing on northern and southern side boundaries shall be provided to Council, with the boundary profile of 5 Seaside Parade corrected to accurately reflect the fall of the land. Fencing shall generally measure 1800mm in height when measured at existing ground level on 5 Seaside Parade’s side of the boundary and shall not exceed 2200mm where stepping is necessary;

 

c.     The front fencing shown to the Seaside Parade boundary on the approved plans shall be no higher than 1800mm above existing ground level at any point;

 

d.     The pergola structure shown at the rear of the site along the eastern boundary shall be deleted prior to the issue of a construction certificate;

 

e.     Any retaining wall encroaching upon the Foreshore Building Line must be constructed or clad with sandstone;

 

f.     Lift and air conditioning plant and equipment shall be contained within an acoustically treated enclosure sited centrally within the property;

 

g.     Solar panels and plant shown on the roof of the development shall not be elevated or inclinated to have the effect of increasing the approved maximum height of RL 32.9.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP81/14

 

 

Subject:                  Report variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 to 30 June, 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 June, 2014 – Only one (1) was approved during this period by the delegated authority.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in 2008 advising of additional requirements Councils are required to adopt in relation to SEPP1 objections and Clause 4.6 exceptions. This report is in response to one of those requirements whereby a report is provided to Council on the development applications determined where there had been a variation in standards under SEPP1 /Clause 4.6. 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

SEPP 1 & Clause 4.6 Report

 

 

 

 


SEPP 1 & Clause 4.6 Report

Attachment 1

 

 

 

SEPP 1 AND CLAUSE 4.6 REGISTER BETWEEN 1 TO 30 JUNE, 2014

Council DA reference No.

Lot No.

DP No.

Apartment/Unit No.

Street No.

Street name

Suburb/Town

Postcode

Category of development

Environmental planning instru-ment

Zoning of land

Develop-ment standard to be varied

Justifica-tion of variation

Extent of variation

Concurring authority

Date DA determined
dd/mm/yyyy

Approved by

DA/49/2014

10

1142748 (BEING LOTS 1-4 IN SP 82749)

3 & 4

47

 Avoca Street

RANDWICK

2031

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.9:1

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

FSR increased by 19.16sqm or 5%. Additional floor area contained mainly within roof space.

NSW Dept of Planning

12-Jun-14

Delega-ted autho-rity

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP82/14

 

 

Subject:                  2014-15 Community Partnerships Funding Program - recommended allocations

Folder No:                   F2008/00139

Author:                   Warren Ambrose, Senior Social Planner     

 

Introduction

 

The Community Partnerships Funding Program is now in its sixth year and offers not-for-profit social service providers the opportunity to apply for funding of programs and projects to address the needs of disadvantaged Randwick City residents. Allocated on an annually, this Program allows social services organisations to apply for a maximum of three year recurrent funds.

 

A total annual budget of $155,000 is available to this funding program. However, a total of $91,900.00 is available for allocation under the current 2014/15 funding round. This is because two (2) organisations will receive their second year and five(5) organisations their third year funding, totalling $63,100. Funds allocated under the 2014-15 program budget ($155,000) will fund these recurrent projects as well as applications recommended to receive funding under the new financial year.

 

Programs and projects prioritised for funding have been assessed in accordance with the program’s funding guidelines. This year the Council received 14 applications seeking a total of $181,932.21. The applications recommended for funding are summarised in the body of this report. Attachment One (1) contains details of applications recommended and not recommended for funding.

 

This report recommends seven (7) organisations to receive funding totalling $81,847.21 under the 2014/15 Community Partnerships Funding Program.

 

Issues

Role of the Community Grants and Funding Programs

Randwick City Council provides an extensive range of community and social welfare services to its residents, in keeping with the Department of Local Government’s social planning requirements. In addition to its advocacy, community development and information provision functions, the Council provides financial assistance to community organisations to improve their capacity to deliver much needed services to residents in need. The Council provides financial assistance is three ways, through its:

1.  Community Partnerships Funding Program, (one funding round per year) the subject of this report, which has an annual budget of about $ 155,000.

2.  Rental Subsidy Program, currently valued at nearly $1.23million per year, whereby service providers renting the Council’s premises pay substantially discounted market rents.  The value of the rent discounts enable savings to be directed towards provision of core service.

3.  Cultural Community Grants Program which allocates about $107,000 annually (2 funding rounds per year).  The aim of this program is to assist resident groups and not for profit organisations implement a range of cultural activities and events that encourage participation or promote social inclusion.

The total value of the Council’s annual social/community development program expenditure described above is $1.34million.

 

Community Partnerships Funding Program 2014-15

The 2014-15 funding round opened on 18 March 2014 and closed on 26 May 2014. The Program was promoted in the local media, on the Council’s website and through local community networks. The maximum annual grant available per project is $20,000 with organisations allowed to apply for three years recurrent funding to a maximum of $60,000. Organisations in receipt of recurrent funding are not eligible to apply for new funding until their funded project is completed (or in the year 3rd year of funding).

 

The Program requires and expects a high level of accountability from funding recipients. This is achieved by undertaking a robust annual reporting process for organisations receiving more than $5,000. If an organisation receiving recurrent funding is unable to meet its annual progress reporting requirements, funding for subsequent years will not be allocated, and returned to the budget.

 

Funds allocated under the new financial year 2014-15 ($155,000) will fund five organisations that are due to receive their third year recurrent funds totalling $48,800 approved in the 2012-13 Round and two (2) organisations ($14,300) approved in the 2013-14 round.  Thus, the total amount available for allocation under the 2014-15 financial year is $91,900, as shown below:

 

Recurrent funding commitments                  $48,800 (2012-13 funding round)

                                                             $14,300 (2013-14 funding round)

Subtotal     $63,100

 

Allocated budget 2014-15                           $155,000

Less recurrent funding commitments            $  63,100

Total budget available for allocation        $  91,900

 

Assessment of Applications

The assessment process was undertaken by a panel consisting of a representative from the Department of Family and Community Services, Council’s Internal Auditor, and, Council Officers with expertise in community services, governance and grants administration. All applications were placed on a grants program assessment broadsheet. They were assessed and given scores reflecting their compliance with the program’s funding priorities and guidelines and the organisation’s capacity to deliver the funded services. These scores were totalled and priority ranking based on those scores. The Council’s current priorities were developed in broad consultation with community representatives in 2007. These were projects, programs, or activities that meet one or more of the following descriptions:

 

§  Address the needs of disadvantaged people and families through direct service provision

§  Be consistent with the Council’s identified funding priorities or Social Inclusion Plan priorities/ actions

§  Support education, employment and training initiatives aimed at building life skills and capacity of young people

§  Involves working with disadvantaged children (including their carers) or with young people who are at risk, to develop an alternative path

§  Address social isolation issues and improve access to home support services for elderly and/or disabled residents

 

It is recommended that funding be provided to seven (7) projects being:

 

·      Break Through Respite (B Miles Woman's Foundation) Funds to provide a 3 day off-site respite program for homeless women or women at risk of homelessness with an mental illness to build on their life skills, break the cycle of isolation and promote community inclusion. There will be structured activities to help them face anxiety, fears, social isolation, and build self-esteem and positive personal outcomes. Amount recommended: $ 3,380.00 for one year

 

·      Greenlight Movement (Eastern Suburbs Community Youth Association) Funds for: a coordinator to develop a website with on-line booking system, marketing and community plan, and operational costs specifically to support learn-to-drive mentor program. Project is designed to help disadvantaged young people to gain driving licenses to improve employment opportunities and secure jobs. Young people are paired with volunteer mentors who supervise their learner driving using the Greenlight Movement’s car. Amount recommended: $13,977.21 for one year

 

·      First Hand Black Markets and Workshops (First Hand Solutions) Funds for monthly coordination of the markets and workshops, marketing and advertising of their markets and workshops at Bare Island aimed at generating employment opportunities for the local indigenous community. Amount recommended: $8,500.00 for one year

 

·      Supporting South Ward children and families living in Housing NSW  (Kooloora Soldiers Settlement Community Centres Inc.) Funds to provide a comprehensive development and support program for families including those attending the Centre’s playgroup.  This program aims: to link families to other services they may need such as, vacation care, specialist services; to coordinate the delivery of outreach support service at the centre; and to provide referrals to families to other relevant services. Amount recommended: $ 20,000.00 per annum for three (3) years

 

·      Women’s Domestic Violence Program Suite (The Deli Women and Children’s Centre) Funds to deliver programs aimed at helping women who have experienced domestic violence.  Activities to be provided include Women’s Domestic Violence (DV), Moving Past DV Therapy, Mindful Meditation, and Flourishing DV workshops to provide a range of support options and strategies to help them through their stage of the healing process.  Funds are also to be used for child-minding. Amount recommended: $11,500.00 for one year

 

·      Safe Summer Survival (WAYS Youth Services) Funds to support a youth run peer education program providing promotion and education about risks associated with alcohol and other drugs and safe sex practices.  Amount recommended: $4,490.00 for one year

 

·      Future leaders, peer mentoring, role modelling, literacy, cultural and life skills program (Weave Youth and Community Services) Funds towards the extension of Kool Kids Club, life skills, and literacy programs for children after school and holidays. Amount recommended: $20,000.00 per annum for three (3) years

 

Altogether seven (7) applications have been assessed as being eligible to receive funding under the 2014-15 funding round.  Of these, two (2) projects have been recommended to receive recurrent funding over the three (3) financial years 2014-15 to 2016-17. Thus, the net funds available to fund new projects under the 2014-15 round recommended in this report is $81,847.21.

All applicants will be advised of the outcomes of their application whether they are successful or not. Upon request, feedback will be provided to unsuccessful organisations and they will be encouraged to apply next year, if appropriate.

 

Applications from Service Providers based outside of Randwick City

Under the Program’s funding guidelines, community organisations and service providers based outside of the Randwick Local Government Area (LGA) are eligible to apply for funding if they provide assistance to residents of Randwick City. It is noted that five (5) organisations recommended for funding assistance this year are based outside the LGA.  These are: B Miles Woman's Foundation, Eastern Suburbs Community Youth Association, The Deli Women and Children’s Centre, Ways Youth Services, and Weave Youth and Community Services. These organisations provide important and much needed services to Randwick City’s vulnerable and disadvantaged residents. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome: 2:      Vibrant and diverse community.

Direction: 2b:    Support the provision of services and facilities to meet the needs of our target groups and encourage and seek opportunities to expand appropriate community services.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter. The recommended expenditure is within the allocated budget for this purpose.

 

Conclusion

 

The Community Partnerships Funding Program plays an important role in providing support services to vulnerable and at risk target groups living in our City. It does so by allocating funds to social service providers to help increase their capacity to deliver much needed services to disadvantaged residents in the Randwick area.

 

This report recommends that seven (7) organisations receive funding totalling $81,847.21 under the 2014-15 funding round.

 

Programs and projects prioritised for funding have been assessed in accordance with the program’s funding guidelines and the Council’s social inclusion plan, An Inclusive Randwick City.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council approve funds totalling $81,847.21 to be allocated to the organisations listed in the table attached to the report in Attachment One.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

2014-15 Community Partnerships Grants Program - Attachment One - Applications Recommended and Not Recommended

 

 

 

 


2014-15 Community Partnerships Grants Program - Attachment One - Applications Recommended and Not Recommended

Attachment 1

 

 

2014/2015 COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FUNDING PROGRAM

 

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING

No.

Organisation

Name of Project & Description

Target

Group

Amount Requested

Amount Recommended

Years of

Funding

2

B Miles Woman's Foundation

Break Through Respite

Funds to provide a 3 day off-site respite program for a group of women where they can build on their life skills, break the cycle of isolation and promote community inclusion. There will be structured activities to help them face anxiety, fears, social isolation, and build self-esteem and positive personal outcomes.

Homeless women with mental illness who are socially & economically marginalised

$3,380.00

One year

$3,380.00

 

One year

3

Eastern Suburbs Community Youth Association (Bondi Youth Accommodation)

Greenlight Movement

Funds for a coordinator to develop a website with on-line booking system, marketing and community plan, and operational costs. Whole project is a learn-to-drive mentor program. The Project is designed to help disadvantaged young people to gain driving licenses to improve employment opportunities and secure jobs. Young people are paired with volunteer mentors who supervise their learner driving using the Greenlight Movement’s car.

Young people at risk of homelessness

$13,977.21

$13,977.21

One year

4

First Hand Solutions

First Hand Black Markets and Workshops

Funds for monthly coordination of the markets and workshops, marketing and advertising of their markets and workshops at Bare Island aimed at generating employment opportunities for the local indigenous community

La Perouse local Aboriginal community, local community & residents

$8,580.00

$8,500.00

One year

7

Kooloora Soldiers Settlement Community Centres Inc.

Supporting South Ward children and families living in Housing NSW Funds to provide a comprehensive development and support program for families including those attending the Centre’s playgroup.  This program aims: to link families to other services they may need such as, vacation care, specialist services; to coordinate the delivery of outreach support service at the centre; and to provide referrals to families to other relevant services.

Housing NSW families living in the South Ward

$20,000 Three years

$20,000.00

Three years

10

The Deli Women and Children’s Centre

Women’s Domestic Violence Program Suite Funds to deliver programs aimed at helping women who have experienced domestic violence.  Activities to be provided include Women’s Domestic Violence (DV), Moving Past DV Therapy, Mindful Meditation, and Flourishing DV workshops to provide a range of support options and strategies to help them through their stage of the healing process.  Funds are also to be used for child-minding.

Women  and Children experiencing DV in Randwick, Botany & Sydney LGAs

$11,500.00 One year

$11,500.00

One year

13

Waverley Youth Services

Safe Summer Survival Funds to support the youth run peer education program providing promotion and education about risks associated with alcohol and other drugs and safe sex practices. This is an outreach services that operates from a van that services Randwick and Waverley LGAs.

Young People aged 15 -25

$4,490.00

One year

$4,490.00

 

One year

14

Weave Youth and Community  Services

Future leaders, peer mentoring, role modelling, literacy, cultural and life skills program  Funds towards the extension of Kool Kids Club, life skills,  and literacy programs for children after school and holidays.

 

Aboriginal & other children ‘at risk’ aged 7-14 and their families.

$20,000.00 Three Years

$20,000.00

Three years


APPLICATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING

 

No.

Organisation

Name of Project

Amount Requested

Reason for not recommending funding

1

Australian Kookaburra Kids Foundation

Kookaburra Kids reach out project

Funds for promotion and marketing to engage local school counsellors, health interagencies and community groups in their ‘Reach Out’ project which provides respite for children living in families with mental illness.

$4,300.00

Application received a low priority because it was for promotion and marketing, and does not provide direct services. 

5

Jewish House Limited

Project 2500 – Breaking the cycle of homelessness

Funds for a contribution towards a series of programs including community bridging, crisis accommodation, rapid rehousing, and home base, Total project cost $168,000

$20,000.00 One year

Application did not identify how residents from Randwick will benefit from the program.  Funds requested were for broad budgetary contribution with no specific project outcomes.

6

KidsXpress Life

Expressive therapy program for children impacted by trauma Funds to place 8 children from Randwick who have been impacted by trauma into a 10 week program to help them deal with the trauma. The program would help the children to use creative outlets to explore difficult themes, feelings and ways of communicating. Funds will also be used for Parent/carer workshops.

$20,000.00 Three years

Application’s costing for kids and therapy is very high and doesn’t represent good value for money. Limited demonstrated partnerships with other organisations.

8

Learning Links

Therapy in School - Building increased capacity of teachers while helping kids who struggle to learn  Learning links therapists to work with Maroubra Junction Public School to build capacity to help children with learning difficulties. Therapist to work in the school one day per week (35 weeks), working with children in the classroom setting for those who require more intensive support

$20,000.00 One year

Funds requested don’t represent good value for money.

9

South Sydney Community Aid

The Eastern Sydney Multicultural Access Project – Russian Funds for a Russian Speaking Project Officer, transport for monthly trips, venue hire, and promotional costs to run bimonthly meetings at Alexandria Town Hall and information sessions delivered in Russian. 

$15,000.00 One year

This project did not demonstrate how it will benefit Randwick residents as the activities will be held in Alexandria Town hall. The application did state how they will assist Randwick residents to access the activity. Activity is difficult to access by public transport, particularly for older people who make up the majority of this target group.

11

The Deli Women and Children’s Centre

Everyone Belongs – Celebrating harmony within your local community Funds for staffing and children’s entertainers, food and play equipment for a Harmony day event to celebrate cultural diversity.

$2,705.00

One year

Community Partnerships Funding Program cannot fund more than one grant at a time.

12

The Junction Neighbourhood Centre Inc.

Cultural Revival Funds for wages, materials and venue hire, to hold a series of workshops for the Indigenous community to share learn and demonstrate cultural skills and knowledge between elders and the younger generation. The workshops could include: storytelling, basket weaving, bush tucker, and painting.  Project would cumulate in a display of the skills and knowledge learnt throughout the workshops.

$20,000.00

One year

Application provided limited specific detail to demonstrate the project’s viability.

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP83/14

 

 

Subject:                  Support for the Better Block Project 2014, Clovelly Road

Folder No:                   F2004/06109

Author:                   Gigi Lombardi, Landscape Architect     

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s support for the Clovelly Road Better Block community project proposed for Sunday 19 October 2014 as a one day event. This report also seeks Council’s support and approval for the installation of a semi permanent parklet on Clovelly Road occupying 1-2 car spaces to be trialed until March 2015.

 

Background

 

The Better Block project is a demonstration model developed and first implemented in the United States by local communities with the aim of demonstrating ways the community can make their streets better places to live, work and socialise.  The concept is about short term action for long term change.  The aim of the Better Block movement is to bring the community together to demonstrate options for more liveable cities and communities focusing on:

 

·      Pedestrian and cycling promotion

·      Traffic calming measures

·      Planting and streetscaping

·      Street furniture and signage

·      Art, culture and family friendly activities.

 

The Better Block project was held in Randwick LGA for the first time last year on Sunday 27 October 2013.  The location was a strip of Clovelly Road from Arden to Beach Street on one side of the street. 

 

The organisers of the event, ‘Park to Pacific’ are a community group advocating for longer term improvements to the entire length of Clovelly Road - from Centennial Park to the Pacific Ocean.  On the 6 May 2014 they presented in a briefing to the Councillors the outcomes of last year’s event and outlined their long term vision for Clovelly Road.  Park to Pacific outlined a 10 year proposal plan to work with the community, businesses and Council to make long term improvements inspired from the Better Block projects. 

 

The cost for last year’s Better Block event was $7,700 however at the conclusion of the event $13,386.92 (exc GST) was spent.  The additional costs comprised of additional hours and personnel for traffic controls and additional transportation requirements for plants from the Council Nursery. For this year’s Better Block event the organisers have requested Council’s financial assistance of $34,800 exc GST.   The breakdown of this cost is discussed further in this report.

 


Council’s Capital Works Program

Within the capital works program, Council allocates funding for town centre improvement works to the public domain such as paving, street tree planting, urban elements, etc.  Funding for these works is approved as part of the capital works program for specific locations.  In the past, public domain improvements have been completed for the following centres: Matraville, Kingsford, Kensington, Malabar Junction and Frenchman’s Road, Randwick.   In the current budget for the capital works program, funding is allocated for the completion of a stage of the public domain improvements for Belmore Rd, Randwick and a major upgrade for Coogee Bay Road.

 

Individuals and Community Groups are consulted prior to the finalisation of each year’s budget.

 

Better Block for 2014

Council officers have received a proposal from the organisers to run the Better Block project this year again as a one day event to be held on Sunday 19 October 2014.  See Attachment 1 – Event Proposal.  This event will also showcase as a community event in the International Walk21 Conference hosted by NSW Government and the City of Sydney from 20 to 24 of October 2014.

 

In consultation with Clovelly Road business owners and with their support, Park to Pacific is proposing the location for the event this year to be along the Clovelly Road strip between Bishops Ave and Brook St, (both sides of the road) as shown in the map below. The extent of the scope this year focuses on the inclusion of all businesses owners in this village.  This was an important point brought up by business owners as feedback from last year’s event.

 

The Event

The event organisers have advised that this year’s event will comprise temporary changes for the one day to make a positive change to the streetscape and community environment.  These include:

·      Enhancing the pedestrian domain with the temporary placement of 400L street trees in between the parking spaces on Clovelly Road, garden displays and movable street furniture.

·      Placing flags and painting temporary murals (on building side walls and footpaths on Mount Street) to brand the identity and sense of place of the subject area (also known as 'Hill Top' village).

·      Removing 4 parking bays for the day only for the installation of temporary parklets & information stalls.

·      Removing 1-2 parking bay for the installation of a semi-permanent parklet (discussed further in this report).

·      Providing fundraiser stalls.

 

The event will also focus on:

·      Raising awareness of possibilities for environmental improvements.

·      Promoting local businesses by encouraging locals to shop local.

·      Creating a more walkable environment to reduce car use and reduce parking demand.

·      Helping to create positive changes to driver behavior on Clovelly Road – lower speeds and giving way to pedestrians.

·      Providing community education and participation into streetscape design and safety.

·      Providing opportunities for the community to raise concerns and ideas for solutions to their local environment.

·      Fostering a stronger community spirit

 

For this years event, the organisers have included in their proposal two elements that they consider would make a difference and contribute to the overall community in a longer term, whilst also leaving a legacy of the 2014 Better Block event;

 

1.  The development of a ‘toolkit’ document to be used as a future reference to assist other community groups in the process of making positive micro-changes to their street.  The document will include ideas, process/approvals, costs and overall issues to be aware of when organising street based community events.

2.  The installation of a semi-permanent parklet to be in place and trialed throughout the summer months of 2014-15 with the view of removing it in March 2015. 

 

The Semi-Permanent Parklet

The installation would occupy 1-2 parking spaces (depending on the final dimensions) along Clovelly Road with the intention of relocating it within the subject area in consultation with business owners.  The installation and re-location will require community consultation, traffic control and hire of a truck with a crane, an approximate cost of $3,000 each time.

 

The images below show a concept idea of what the parklet would be made out of.

   

The proposal is for the business owners to maintain the parklet.  Park to Pacific has requested funding assistance of $7,000 from Council and is currently seeking financial assistance from Bendigo Bank for the same amount.  The financial assistance will cover costs associated with the design, purchase, construction and installation of the parklet.  For the requested usage of the semi-permanent parklet installation, there will be less of 1-2 parking spaces until March 2015.

 

The installation would be required to meet pedestrian accessibility, transport and safety standards.  Liaison with Council officers will be required for final approvals from the Traffic Committee and RMS.

 

Further to the semi-permanent parklet proposal, the organisers have requested for Council to provide a storage area and a place where the structure can be worked on and transformed into a parklet.  The design of the parklet is proposed to be run as a design, build and install competition.  Their request also includes for Council to own, maintain and manage the parklet including its relocations in the future.  (Council would need to liaise with Bendigo Bank in regards to the ownership as they will be contributing financially to the parklet).

 

Council currently has no space for the structure to be stored and worked on.  In reference to the proposed ownership, maintenance and management of the structure Council has no current projects for the establishment of parklets or the like. Council always works with the community in an integrated approach for the improvement of the public domains in the town centres.  No funding is available in the current Capital Works Program to cover the costs associated with the requirements of this proposal.  Therefore, it is recommended that the organisers arrange for the storage and work space to build the parklet and manage the ownership and maintenance of the structure.

 

In regards to the one day event on Sunday the 19 October 2014, in keeping with the proposal and discussions with Council’s Technical, Infrastructure Services and Integrated Transport, temporary measures would be installed for the day only and be removed after the event to minimise any disruption to normal business activities the following day. Normal through traffic arrangements would flow in both directions along Clovelly Road although signage and traffic controllers would be in place to slow vehicles and manage traffic issues for the duration of the event. 

 

Council officers will assist the organisers in the process of obtaining clearances and necessary approvals required from the Traffic Committee and RMS to run the event once the event application form and event management plan has been submitted to Council.  The application process takes 8 – 12 weeks.

 

Consultation

On Wednesday 4 June Council’s Economic Development Officer spoke with the business owners on site along the subject area and conducted a brief survey.  The findings were as follows:

 

·      Out of 29 surveys that were distributed 20 were collected and completed.

·      9 surveys were not completed as business owners were not in attendance from the period of 4 – 10 June.

·      About 4 businesses owners were not interviewed due to business being closed or too busy to participate.

·      Out of the 20 surveys, 14 business owners like the idea of the Better Block 2014 event being held at this location and 6 business owners do not like the idea. 

·      In the discussions the one common concern the business owners had was the lack of pedestrian safety at the intersection of Clovelly Rd and Fern Street.

In reference to the semi permanent parklet installation, the organisers are currently in the process of talking to the business owners about the proposal, maintenance and location for the parklet. Further consultation with the business owners and community would be required to understand their views on this proposal.  Consultation and approval from the Traffic Committee and RMS would be required prior installation on site for each location. 

 

Costs associated with the event

Through the discussions with the organisers they have requested financial assistance from Council for the items listed in the schedule below.  The schedule also shows the items and amounts that Council contributed to the better Block event in 2013.

 

It is proposed that Council support covers the total of $34,800 exc GST, $11,600 in Council’s in-kind contribution and $23,200 in cash provision to the organisers.

 

Appropriate recognition of Council’s support will be required and Better Block organisers will be expected to comply with Council’s requirements and directions from staff as part of the event.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:         A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2c:      Strong partnerships between the Council, community groups and

   government agencies.

Outcome 10:       A healthy environment.

Direction 10a:    Council’s programs and partnerships foster sustainable behavioural

changes and outcomes.

 

Financial impact statement

 

It is proposed that Council’s support for the Clovelly Road Better Block project for 2014 will include $11,600 of in-kind contribution and to $23,200 of cash provision to the organisers payable from the Contingency Funds totaling $34,800 exc GST.

 

The monetary contribution would go towards the traffic management, waste & recycling services and provision & transportation of plants from Council’s nursery.  The cash provision would go towards printing, paint, overall materials for the day parklets, supply & transportation of mature trees, flags/banners, PA system hire, table hire, public liability insurance cover and contribution to the semi-permanent parklet installation.

 

Council officers will assist the organisers in the process of obtaining clearances and necessary approvals required from the Traffic Committee and RMS to run the event and for the semi-permanent parklet.

 

Conclusion

 

The Clovelly Road Better Block Project for 2014 is expected to be showcased as a community event in the International Walk21 Conference hosted by NSW Government and the City of Sydney from 20 to 24 of October 2014.  This is a great opportunity for Council to show leadership in supporting and partnering with community groups to improve and promote healthy and vibrant spaces in our city.

 

The project is in keeping with many of Council’s City Plan outcomes and directions relating to creating well designed urban streetscapes and vibrant liveable neighborhoods. 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council agrees to support the Clovelly Road Better Block project proposed to take place on Sunday, 19 October 2014, a one day event;

 

b)     $11,600 in in-kind contribution be provided for traffic management, waste & recycling services and provision & transportation of plants from Council’s nursery.

 

c)     $23,200 cash provision be provided to the organisers to cover printing, paint, overall materials for the day parklets, supply & transportation of mature trees, flags/banners, PA system hire, table hire, public liability insurance cover and contribution to the semi-permanent parklet installation.

 

d)     funds in point 2 and 3 for the total amount of $34,800 exc GST be provided from Contingency Funds.

 

e)     Council agrees to support the installation of a semi permanent parklet (occupying 1-2 car spaces) for Clovelly Road (Better Block 2014 subject area) to be used as a trial until March 2015; subject compliance with all safety approvals from Council, the traffic committee & RMS.

 

f)      the organisers consult and obtain the support of the business owners and the community for the installation and maintenance of the semi permanent parklet.

 

g)     the organisers manage the ownership and management of the parklet structure.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Attachment 1_Better Block 2014_Proposal

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1_Better Block 2014_Proposal

Attachment 1

 

 

 



Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP84/14

 

 

Subject:                  Assessment of the impact and effectiveness of suicide prevention information sessions held in 2013-4

Folder No:                   F2006/00216

Author:                   Frida Kitas, Community Project Officer (Aged & Disability)     

 

Introduction

 

At its meeting on 26 November 2013, Council adopted the following resolution (Andrews/Stavrinos):

 

a)     Randwick City Council note and endorse the status of suicide prevention information sessions to be delivered within the first six months of 2014;

 

b)     A report be brought to Council in July 2014, providing an assessment of the impact and effectiveness of the suicide prevention information sessions held, including as a minimum:

 

1.    the number and type of activities conducted

2.    attendance numbers and attendee feedback

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

4.    suggested improvements or variations to the program

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

 

This report has been prepared in response to the above resolution b).

 

Issues

 

Randwick City Council held a series of suicide prevention information sessions and workshops for local residents during 2013-14 financial year. The information sessions were delivered in partnership with mental health experts and practitioners, such as Schizophrenia Fellowship of NSW, Remind Mental Health Training and Education, Carers NSW, Eastern Sydney Medicare Local, and The Disability Trust. Designed to meet the identified mental health needs of our community, the information sessions were held in several venues across the City and were very well received and attended.

 

It should be noted that not all of the information sessions held were specifically promoted as suicide prevention.  This is because suicide as a subject matter can be confronting and may discourage participants from attending. Also it was considered more accurate to promote them as mental health and depression forums since depression as a mental illness carries a high risk of suicide.

 

Below is a summary of information sessions held:

 

1.  Understanding Depression and Suicide Prevention x 2 sessions (2.5hrs each)

This presentation was facilitated by a clinical psychologist from Remind Mental Health Training and Education, a service of the Schizophrenia Fellowship of NSW.  The aim of this presentation was to increase the general community’s knowledge and awareness of suicide risks, know how to respond, and how to identify symptoms of depression.  In addition, a Remind carer/ educator also shared their “lived experience” with mental illness with participants.  A total of two sessions were held at the Margaret Martin Library, in November 2013, and February 2014.  On both occasions, these sessions were fully booked with a total of 180 people in attendance. Participant feedback was overwhelmingly positive.

 

2.  Youth Mental Health Information Session (3.5hrs)

This interactive information session was facilitated by a clinical psychologist from Remind Mental Health Training and Education, and a highly experienced Carer/Educator. Held on a Saturday in May 2014 at the Randwick Town Hall, this forum was designed to educate parents, high school teachers and counsellors, youth workers and mental health professionals.  The session focused on how to identify mood disorders, self- harm, psychosis, behavioural problems and how to build resilience in younger people. 

 

Feedback provided by participants indicated that the session was highly relevant, informative and provided practical strategies for custodians to recognise and seek timely and appropriate interventions to ensure positive mental health outcomes for young people at risk. A total of 65 people attended the session, which is a good number for a Saturday.

 

3.  Carers Wellbeing Forum (2.5hrs)

Staff from Carers NSW facilitated a wellbeing forum in March 2014 at the Randwick Town Hall. The forum was designed specifically for carers living in Randwick City with caring responsibilities for someone with a mental illness.  Representatives from Carers NSW were also on hand to promote information about their existing and new support services and programs, such as the Older Parent Carer and Mental Health Respite program.  Feedback provided from participating carers has since been used by Carers NSW to plan and deliver future programs and responsive services. A total of 40 carers participated in the forum, many of whom provided positive feedback such as having the opportunity to network with other carers, and learn about invaluable new programs particularly services designed to support and assist ageing parent carers.

 

4.  Suicide TALK (2hrs)

This presentation was delivered in partnership with Carers NSW and facilitated by a provisional psychologist from Mental Health Training Australia.  Suicide TALK was held at the Margaret Martin Library in July 2014 and was aimed specifically to an audience aged 15 years and over.  Suicide TALK was a community-oriented program exploring suicide prevention issues, organised around the question “Should we talk about suicide?”  The presentation was designed to help make communities aware that something can be done to help prevent suicide.  A total of 50 residents participated in the presentation, with many providing positive feedback, noting that Suicide Talk met its identified goal of helping to make it easier for all to talk directly, openly and honestly about suicide.

 

5.  Community Mental Health Services Information Session (2hrs)

Randwick Council in partnership with Eastern Sydney Medicare Local, Carers NSW and The Disability Trust held an information session at the Prince Henry Centre, Little Bay in December 2013.  The purpose of the session was to inform carers and consumers living in Randwick City of new mental health services and support programs introduced in the areas of Randwick and Botany.  These support programs include Partners in Recovery (PIR), a program for people living with complex mental health issues and Access to Allied Psychological Services (ATAPS) program for people who are socially or financially disadvantaged and not currently accessing support services.  A total of 70 residents attended this session. 

 

 

Evaluation

The suite of six suicide prevention and mental health information sessions held in the course of the last financial was consistently well attended.  They were designed to cater to different age and client groups.  A critical success factors were the Council’s effective partnership with community health and welfare service organisations.  The high attendance rate and increased demand for sessions such as Understanding Depression and Suicide Prevention and Youth Mental Health can be attributed to the fact they were delivered by industry experts and peak bodies in the area of mental health.  To enhance value and relevance for participants, representatives from Remind Mental Health Training & Education (a service provided by the Schizophrenia Fellowship) were also in attendance to explain strategies and demonstrate how building knowledge in the community can help eliminate stigma around mental illness.

 

Effectively, for many participants it was hearing about these lived experiences directly from someone who had been impacted by mental illness that made them feel connected and motivated to ask for help and seek professional support for either themselves or a family member.

 

Given the existing demand for mental health awareness information sessions described in this report, it would make sense for Council to conduct five mental health awareness information forums in the 2014-15 financial year.  Randwick City Council appears to be one of only a handful of local councils in Metropolitan Sydney that is providing this service to its community. As such health related peak bodies like the Schizophrenia Fellowship of NSW, Eastern Sydney Medicare Local, and Carers NSW are therefore keen to partner with Council to deliver mental health awareness forums and help encourage sufferers to seek support and early treatment.

 

Discussions with mental health professionals have also highlighted the need to increase community awareness about another less known mental health illness, that of squalor and hoarding. This behaviour can be a result of psychiatric disorders such as Schizophrenia, Depression, Dementia and other age related illnesses.  It is suggested that this topic be included as one of the five mental health forums proposed to be held in 2014-15. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2b:      Enrich our range of community services that meet our community needs/strong partnerships between Council, community groups and government agencies.

Outcome 3:       An informed and engaged community.

Direction 3b:      Council actively promotes the community services offered by other agencies.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of delivering last year’s suite of mental health information forums (6 sessions) was $6,000, which includes publicity and advertising, refreshments and venue hire.  A budget of $6,000 will need to be identified to cover the cost of this year’s suite of mental health information sessions.

 

Conclusion

 

Despite the growing awareness of suicide and resources to assist people, the number of suicides rates has not declined.  The 2012 Australian Bureau of Statistics data, Causes of Death, revealed that almost twice as many people died from suicide in Australia than in road related transport deaths (1,310 vs 2,535 persons).  There is evidence that suicide rates are much higher in the early stages of diagnosis and that stigma discourages people from seeking the help they need at this crucial time.

 

Randwick Council has a vital role to play in making Randwick City suicide–safe by continuing to engage leaders and educators in this field to deliver awareness-raising sessions to the general community.  Such knowledge will help reduce the stigma associated with mental illness, and encourage people to talk about their illness and seek help as early as possible.

 

It is also essential for council staff to work closely with peak bodies such as the Schizophrenia Fellowship of NSW and Carers NSW.  This ensures carers and family members of people with a mental illness receive appropriate support services to help sustain them in their role as carers.

 

To date, community feedback about the Council’s information sessions has been overwhelmingly positive.  The provision of additional sessions will provide continued visibility of Council’s commitment to supporting and serving all members of the community and especially those who are most at risk and are vulnerable.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     note the positive community feedback it has received from the successful delivery of a suite of suicide prevention and mental health forums held in 2013/14,

 

b)     endorse six (6) suicide prevention and mental health information sessions or forums to be held in 2014-15, including a forum dealing with the issue of squalor and hoarding, and

 

c)     allocate $6,000 to the Community Development Budget to fund these suicide and mental health information sessions, to be sourced from the Council’s 2014/15 budget.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP85/14

 

 

Subject:                  Transfer of services provided by The Shack Youth services to The Benevolent Society via a Memorandum of Agreement

Folder No:                   F2006/00216

Author:                   Teresa Mok, Manager Community Planning & Development     

 

Introduction

 

Randwick City Council has a long history of supporting local service delivery to at risk young people across the City.  The Council at its meeting of 23 March 2014 considered a report about the potential merger of The Shack Youth Services with The Benevolent Society (TBS), and resolved as follows:

 

“(Moore/Andrews) that Council:

 

1.     note that The Shack Youth Services will be amalgamating with The Benevolent Society of NSW, effective from 1 July 2014;

 

2.     endorse the final payment of $20,000.00 to The Shack for the delivery of services over the course of the 2013/14 financial year; and

 

3.     articulate to both the Shack and the The Benevolent Society the importance with which the current services provided by The Shack are held by Council and a willingness to continue to support these or alternative services meeting with Council's "Sense of Community".

 

This report addressed resolutions 1 and 3 above, and proposes an alternative course of action that will ensure the on-going delivery of much needed youth services and programs in Randwick City.  Resolution 2 has been actioned.

 

Issues

 

Randwick City Council has a long history of supporting local service delivery to at risk young people across the City.  In March 2014, representatives of The Benevolent Society (TBS) advised council officers at a meeting that TBS (following discussions with the management committee of The Shack Youth Services) has agreed to take over programs and services provided by The Shack Youth Services.  This arrangement was to commence from 1 July 2014.  On completion of the transfer of its programs and assets to TBS, The Shack Youth Services as an organisation will cease to exist. 

 

The Benevolent Society proposes to continue provision of the existing youth services from the same office premises leased by The Shack Youth Services from Randwick Council.  TBS also advised that it will continue to prioritise programs for at risk young residents.

 

The Benevolent Society is well funded, has a good reputation with an established history of working with at-risk families and communities.  This organisation also has considerable expertise in working with vulnerable families, of which young people are a part of.

TBS’s involvement in delivering a combination of targeted youth programs and at-risk family support services from a local office in Maroubra will mean that its programs and services will be more accessible to our residents requiring assistance.

 

Memorandum of Understanding between Randwick Council and TBS

 

In order to ensure that much needed youth services and programs continues to be available for our at-risk young people, it is proposed that Council enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) arrangement with TBS, similar to the arrangement Council had previously ratified with The Shack Youth Services to deliver targeted youth programs.

 

The attached draft document was jointly prepared by both parties.  The key points of the arrangements are as follows:

 

1. TBS to continue with the delivery of services previously provided by The Shack Youth Services from The Shack’s current premises at Suite3/669-677 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (ground level of Bowen Library and Community Services building).  This property is owned by Randwick City Council. 

 

2.  Services provided by TBS are to meet the needs of young people aged 12-24 years old, including services delivered under the umbrella of Shack Wellbeing programs:

·       Tutoring programs

·      A range of Wellbeing programs including Drop-in activities

·      Afterschool and school holiday programs, and

·      Case management and counselling

 

3.  TBS will also make available the spectrum of services it currently delivers to communities in need, aimed at helping vulnerable children, young people and their families in-crisis.

 

4.  Randwick City Council agrees to lease the premises to TBS to facilitate the delivery of youth programs and services described in the MOU.  A separate leasing arrangement with TBS will be negotiated and completed in accordance with the Randwick City Council’s community facilities management policy.

5. The duration of the leasing agreement will be for an initial period of 3 years. Upon expiration of the three (3) year period, Randwick City Council will commence re-negotiation with TBS over the future use of the Premises, which is tied to its on-going role as a youth services provider, detailed in the MOU agreement.

6. Randwick City Council will continue to provide $20 000 per year (the same amount provided to The Shack Youth Services) to TBS for three (3) years. These funds will be used to fund delivery of programs and outcomes described in this MOU under the umbrella of Shack Wellbeing programs.

7.  TBS and Randwick City Council will meet at the end of the initial 12 months from commencement date to review and make any necessary adjustment to the programs and services delivered from its Maroubra premises.  This is to ensure that its services and/or programs meet the identified needs of young people in Randwick LGA.

 


Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community

Direction 2a:      Support the different groups in the community to improve access to

                       services and recreational activities

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no additional financial impact for this matter.  Subject to the Council’s approval to enter into an MOU with TBS to take over the role as youth services provider from The Shack Youth Services, the annual financial assistance that the Council provides to The Shack Youth Services will be paid to TBS.  This amount of $20,000 per year is budgeted under the Community Development Budget, and will be used to fund after school and holiday activities.

 

Conclusion

 

TBS is a well-known and respected organisation with considerable experience and expertise in delivery support services to families and the general community. As the Council is aware, the community services sector is operating under a difficult financial climate.  This situation is not expected to improve in the foreseeable future. A number of community support services have either reduced their service levels or have ceased to exist altogether due to the lack of funds.

 

Entering into a service agreement via an MOU with an established organisation such as TBS will guarantee that despite the absence of The Shack Youth Services, youth programs will continue to be delivered to young people in need.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council endorses the terms of the MOU between Randwick City Council and The Benevolent Society, and that the General Manager be given the authority to ratify the MOU, including any minor adjustments to the terms of the Agreement where necessary and appropriate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Draft Memorandum of Understanding with the Benevolent Society

 

 

 

 


Draft Memorandum of Understanding with the Benevolent Society

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Memorandum of Understanding (Draft)

(company version)

This Memorandum of Understanding dated _________________________________________ is between:

 

1.      The Benevolent Society (ABN 95 084 695 045) of Level 1, 188 Oxford Street, Paddington NSW 2021 (TBS); and

2.       Randwick City Council  (ABN 77 362 844 121) of 30 Frances Street Randwick NSW 2031 (Other Party)

 

(each a Party, collectively the Parties)

 

SCHEDULE

1

Commencement Date (clause 1)

1st  August 2014

This MOU does not become effective unless the Deed of Transfer between TBS and The Shack has been fully executed.

2

Expiry Date (clause 1(a))

30 June 2017 (unless a binding contract is signed within this time).

3

The Benevolent Society Role and Responsibilities (clause 2)

This MOU is for The Benevolent Society (TBS) to continue the delivery of services previously provided by The Shack Youth Services from The Shack’s current premises at Suite3/669-677 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (the Premises).

 

Such  services are to meet the needs of young people aged 12-24 years old, and includes but not limited to the following Youth and Support services delivered under the umbrella of Shack Wellbeing programs:

 

·        Tutoring programs

·      A range of Wellbeing programs including Drop-in activities

·      Afterschool and school holiday programs, and

·      Case management and counselling

 

In addition, TBS will also make available the spectrum of services it currently delivers to communities in need, aimed at helping vulnerable children, young people and their families in crisis. 

TBS will participate in a review with Randwick City Council to refine and/or adjust service delivery from the Shack Program to ensure that its services and/or programs meet the identified needs of young people in Randwick LGA. This review will be conducted at the end of the first year of TBS’s operation as a youth service provider located at the Premises.

 

4

Randwick City Council Role and Responsibilities (clause 3)

Randwick City Council agrees to lease the Premises to TBS to facilitate the delivery of youth programs and services described in this MOU.  It will enter into a separate leasing arrangement with TBS, in accordance with the Randwick City Council’s community facilities management policy.

The duration of the leasing agreement will be for an initial period of 3 years. Upon expiration of the three (3) year period, Randwick City Council will commence re-negotiation with TBS over the future use of the Premises, in connection with its on-going role as a youth services provider, detailed in clause 2 above of this agreement.

Randwick City Council agrees to provide $20 000 per year to TBS for three (3) years, for the purposes of delivering youth services from the Premises. These funds will be used to fund delivery of programs and outcomes described in this MOU under the umbrella of Shack Wellbeing programs.

TBS will also be eligible to apply for the Council’s community grants program, which will be assessed in accordance with the grants assessment criteria by an assessment panel. 

5

Nominated State (clause 5)

New South Wales

6

Relationship Managers (clause 6)

The Benevolent Society Relationship Manager: Henrietta Foulds, Regional Director Eastern and Southern Sydney

Tel: (02) 8262 3400

Henrietta.foulds@benevolent.org.au

PO Box 171 Paddington NSW 2021

Randwick City Council Relationship Manager:  Teresa Mok Manager Community Development

 

Randwick City Council

Administration Building & Customer Service Centre

30 Frances Street Randwick NSW 2031

Tel: (02) 9399 0542

teresa.mok@randwick.nsw.gov.au

 

 

BACKGROUND

A

The Benevolent Society is established as a charity and supports vulnerable, disadvantaged people and communities in Australia.  The Benevolent Society is a company limited by guarantee supporting vulnerable, disadvantaged people and communities in Australia. The Benevolent Society is registered as a charity with the Australian Charities and Not for Profits Commission and is endorsed as a Public Benevolent Institution with the Australian Tax Office.

B

The Shack is an association incorporated in New South Wales supporting the wellbeing of young people and their families, particularly those living with issues of poverty, isolation and social exclusion, in the Randwick Local Government Area.  The Shack is registered as a charity with the Australian Charities and Not for Profits Commission and is endorsed as a Public Benevolent Institution with the Australian Tax Office.

C

In July 2013, The Shack approached The Benevolent Society to explore opportunities to transfer specific services to The Benevolent Society due to the reduction of Government funding for youth services.  TBS and The Shack are in the process of finalising negotiations over the transfer of certain assets as part of a Deed of Transfer between themselves. Recognising their mutual interests in ensuring that youth services continue to be available to young people in need, and in strengthening communities in the Randwick Local Government Area, the parties propose to enter into this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

D

 

 

 

Randwick City Council’s social plan, An Inclusive Randwick City, states the need for structured after school programs for children and young people aged 8 to 17 and diversionary programs for at risk young people. The Plan considers social isolation issues; and local projects aimed at helping disadvantaged young people from becoming disadvantaged adults; Improved access to established youth services and programs is essential and a high priority.

The Shack Wellbeing Programs will improve the physical, mental and social wellbeing of disadvantaged children and young people residing in Randwick City by providing structured after school and diversionary programs aimed at preventing anti-social behaviours, reducing social isolation, encouraging a sense of community and giving young people the best start in life.

E

This MOU sets out the framework for the parties to work together and will, amongst other things, document the broad roles and responsibilities between the parties and set up processes for managing the working relationship between the parties.

F

In this MOU:

Premises means Suite 3, 669-677 Anzac Parade, Maroubra NSW 2035; and

 

 

This Memorandum of Understanding incorporates this Schedule and the Terms and Conditions (MOU).

 

Signed without reliance or intent to create legal relations.

 

SIGNED by an authorised person on behalf of THE BENEVOLENT SOCIETY in the presence of the witness named below:

 

SIGNED by an authorised person on behalf of the RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL in the presence of the witness named below:

 

 

………………………………………………………..

 

Print Name: …………………………………………

 

Position: ……………………………………………..

 

Date: ………………………………………………….

 

……………………………………………………..

 

Print Name: ………………………………………

 

Position: ………………………………………….

 

Date: ………………………………………………

 

………………………………………………..

 

Witness Name: ……………………..………

 

…………………………………………………….

 

Witness Name: ……………………..………

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM21/14

 

 

Subject:                  The Light Rail Project - Proposed Amendments to the Development Agreement with TfNSW

Folder No:                   F2013/00263

Author:                   Sima Truuvert, Director City Planning     

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with proposed options/

recommendations to address issues outlined in Item 3 of Council’s resolution of 24 June 2014 and seek Council’s consideration of the suggested options for amendments to the draft Development Agreement proposed by TfNSW. 

 

Background

 

Randwick Council has continued to work collaboratively with TfNSW in developing the Development Agreement. The progress of the discussion and negotiation between Council and TfNSW as well as outstanding issues remained unresolved have been previously reported to Council (at meetings of 29 April 2014 and 24 June 2014).

 

At its meeting of 24 June 2014, Council resolved (Mayor, Cr Nash) that Council:

 

1.     Council supports the light rail project and the economic and employment benefits it will bring to our local area;

 

2.     Council rejects the currently proposed draft Development Agreement reported under cover of GM Report 20/14;

 

3.     Council continue to advocate publicly its position on the following concerns:

 

-    the High-Cross Park interchange (this issue is not negotiable);

-    the proposed Randwick Stabling Facility (at 66a Doncaster Avenue) and identified future community centre;

-    undergrounding of Power along Anzac Parade in line with the Urban Design objectives of the proposal;

-    loss of parking, particularly arising from the location of the Kingsford light-rail bus interchange. In lieu of compensation for the loss of parking in Kingsford and Kensington, that the Kingsford Markets Site be transferred to council at no cost;

-    the status of Council's Urban Design Guidelines;

-    the Prince of Wales Hospital stop;

-    clawing back 100-120 parking spaces on Anzac Parade (from Alison Road to Darling Street);

-    concern in relation to tree losses and the requirement for an audit of the trees scheduled for removal in the Randwick City Council area due to light rail, with a report back to Councillors on this matter before the matter is next debated

-    traffic modeling be brought forward to demonstration the local traffic impacts at the following areas;

-    Kingsford and Kensington (along and either side of Anzac Parade)

-    Randwick (at Wansey Road, High Street, Botany Street and the interconnecting streets)

-    Randwick (at Avoca Street, Belmore Road, Coogee Bay Road, Cuthill Street and Perouse Road);

-    TfNSW needs to bring forward, and make public, its proposal for the bus changes resulting from the implementation project;

 

4.    the Councillors nominate areas of concern or interest by sending wording for any amendments for inclusion in the proposed draft Development Agreement to the General Manager by next Tuesday (1 July 2014);

 

5.    Council defers its consideration of GM Report 20/14 to allow a Councillors’ Briefing to be held on Tuesday 1 July 2014.

 

Issues

 

In response to the Council resolution noted above, a Councillor briefing was held on 1 July 2014. A number of issues including those outlined in Item 3 of the resolution were discussed at the briefing. The following amendments (including various amendment options) to the draft Development Agreement are proposed for Council’s consideration.  

 

1. The High Cross Park Interchange & Prince of Wales Hospital Stop (non-negotiable)

Current draft Development Agreement:

-    A general Clause 6.2 (c)(i) stating that “where reasonably practicable, the Project will be designed to implement RCC’s Urban Design Guidelines in respect of the Public Domain, to the extent not inconsistent with the Planning Approval or the scope of the Project”;

-    Schedule 7 Item 1.22.1 stating that alternative substation locations to High Cross Park will be investigated when developing the Detailed Design and if located in High Cross Park, RCC will be consulted in relation to undergrounding of the substation.

 

Recommendations:

-    Option 1 – Council considers that the interchange should not be located in High Cross Park, but in front of Prince of Wales Hospital in High Street. However, this position is not negotiable. Therefore, any reference to High Cross Park interchange should be deleted from the Development Agreement.

 

-    Option 2 - TfNSW will ensure that the detailed design and construction of the Randwick Interchange at High Cross Park will be in accordance with RCC’s Urban Design Guidelines. In addition, the substation must be underground, if located in High Cross Park.

 

2. The proposed Randwick Stabling Facility (at 66a Doncaster Avenue) and identified future community centre

 

1) Heavy maintenance

Current draft Development Agreement:

-    Schedule 7 Items 1.2A.1 & 3.5.3 stating that the Randwick Stabling Facility will be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the noise and vibration requirements in the Planning Approval;

-    No specific clause specifying what maintenance activities will be carried out at the Randwick Stabling Facility.

 


Recommendations:

-    TfNSW will ensure that heavy maintenance be precluded at the Randwick Stabling Facility and a definition of heavy maintenance be included in the Development Agreement.

 

2) Flooding

Current draft Development Agreement:

-    A previous Schedule 7 item (Item 1.2A.1) being “The Light Rail Randwick Stabling Facility will be designed to cater for the 1 in 100 year event so that no property will be materially worse off in relation to flood levels” has been removed from the Development Agreement.

 

Comment:

-    The facility should be designed to cater for the 1:100 ARI flood event, rather than “no worsening” of existing flood characteristics. TfNSW has now deleted the above item from Schedule 7. 

 

3) Community centre

Current draft Development Agreement:

-    No relevant clause.

 

Recommendations:

-    TfNSW will ensure that RCC’s interest in the land be acknowledged and appropriate compensation be arranged.

 

3. Undergrounding of power along Anzac Parade

Current draft Development Agreement:

-    Schedule 7 Item 1.14.2 stating that power lines cross over the Light Rail tracks in Anzac Parade will be undergrounded;

-    Schedule 7 Item 1.14.2 stating that “TfNSW will consult with RCC in relation to undergrounding of any other existing overhead power lines within the Works Site”.

 

Recommendations:

-    Consistent with RCC’s Urban Design Guidelines and TfNSW urban design principles which promotes attractive public domains, the power lines along Anzac Parade between Alison Road and Kingsford Interchange are to be located underground.

 

4. Sale/transfer of Rainbow Street site to Council

Current draft Development Agreement:

-    Schedule 7 Item 2.5.2 stating that “When determined to be surplus to the Project's requirements and subject to compliance with Treasury Direction TD92/2 (469) Sale or Lease of Government Assets, TfNSW will give RCC first option to purchase the Rainbow Street site on reasonable commercial terms”.

 

Recommendations:

-    Option 1 - TfNSW will enter into a sale agreement with RCC for the Rainbow Street site, for reasonable commercial terms as at June 2014. RCC will enter into a payment and purchase plan over the next 5 years, when the parcel of land is fully transferred to RCC.

 

-    Option 2 - RCC sells its portion at Rainbow Street site to TfNSW on condition that TfNSW will construct a car park providing 200 parking spaces for the free use of the general public.

 

-    Option 3 - In lieu of compensation for the loss of parking in Kingsford and Kensington, the Rainbow Street site should be transferred to RCC at no cost.

5. Rainbow Street Construction Compound

Current draft Development Agreement:

-    Schedule 7 Item 2.5.2 (Construction compounds) stating that “nothing in this section 2.5.2 precludes RCC from providing another site in lieu of the Rainbow Street site, subject to approval under the EP&A Act”.

 

Recommendations:

-    TfNSW will relocate the construction compound from Rainbow Street site to the carpark in the median of Anzac Parade (south of Sturt Street). RCC will provide the median of Anzac Parade to TfNSW at nil cost for this use during the construction of the light rail project.

 

6. The status of Council's Urban Design Guidelines

Current draft Development Agreement:

-    Clause 6.2 (c)(i) stating that “where reasonably practicable, the Project will be designed to implement RCC’s Urban Design Guidelines in respect of the Public Domain, to the extent not inconsistent with the Planning Approval or the scope of the Project”;

 

Recommendations:

-    Option 1 – The above clause should be amended to: Where reasonably practicable, the Project will be designed to implement the Urban Design Guidelines in respect of the Public Domain, to the extent not inconsistent with the Planning Approval.

 

-    Option 2 - The Project must be designed in accordance with RCC’s Urban Design Guidelines, to the extent not inconsistent with the Planning Approval.

 

7. Retaining 100-120 parking spaces on Anzac Parade (from Alison Road to Darling Street)

Current draft Development Agreement:

-    Clause 17.4 stating that “TfNSW will support RCC's application to NSW Roads and Maritime Services for the implementation of off-peak parking outcomes”.

 

Comment:

-    The above clause is agreed for retention.

 

8. Concern in relation to tree losses

Based on an audit undertaken by Council officers, a list of trees (including significant trees) scheduled for removal for the light rail project was provided at the briefing.  

 

Current draft Development Agreement:

-    Schedule 7 Section 1.19 stating that trees along the Light Rail route are to be retained wherever practicable and protected in accordance with the RCC LEP 2012, DCP 2013 and Tree Management Specifications in RCC’s Urban Design Guidelines (subject to Clause 6.2(c)(i)). It also states that all limbing of trees will be performed in consultation with RCC’s arborists.   

 

Recommendations:

-    TfNSW will ensure that a tree management process be developed and implemented that if RCC and TfNSW’s tree experts do not agree on the extent of removal or limbing of trees, an independent arborist will review and make a determination.

 

9. Traffic modeling

Current draft Development Agreement:

-    Schedule 7 Item 1.18.1 stating that “TfNSW will provide, at its cost, the traffic model and data for the local government area administered by RCC and used for the Project”.

 

Comments:

-    TfNSW has provided Council with the traffic model and data associated with the model. The data is currently being examined.

 

10. Bus changes

Current draft Development Agreement:

-    No relevant clause.

 

Recommendations:

-    As buses will be impacted during both construction and operation of the light rail project, TfNSW must make public the bus operation plan as soon as practicable.

 

11. Kingsford Nine-Ways intersection

Current draft Development Agreement:

-    Schedule 7 Item 1.2.7 stating that for the Kingsford Interchange, TfNSW will undertake a safety audit of the interchange, undertake modelling of pedestrian and vehicular traffic flows around the interchange and the 9 ways intersection, investigate replacement of the proposed slip lane and consult with RCC on these matters.

 

Recommendations:

-    TfNSW will ensure that the detailed design and construction of the Kingsford Nine-Ways intersection be in accordance with RCC’s Urban Design Guidelines.

 

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.

Outcome 6:       A liveable city.

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

Outcome 8:               A strong local economy.

Direction 8a:     Vibrant business, commercial, and industrial sectors that provide ongoing and diverse employment opportunities and serve the community.

Outcome 9:       Integrated and accessible transport.

Direction 9c:      Advocate and/or plan for integrated local and regional transport improvements, including high capacity transport such as light/standard rail.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of drafting, legal advice and review of “Development Agreement” is approximately $100,000.  The cost is bourne 50% by Randwick City Council, and 25% each by ATC and UNSW.

 

Conclusion

 

A number of key areas of concern have now been addressed through Council’s ongoing discussion and negotiation with TfNSW, such as participation of the community, business and Council’s officers through various reference groups and TfNSW’s support for RCC’s application to RMS for retaining 100-120 parking spaces (off-peak) on Anzac Parade.

 

However, some significant issues still require further resolution. A series of amendments to the draft Development Agreement, including various amendment options, are therefore proposed in response to these unresolved issues. It is recommended that Councillors formalise their position with regard to the issues outlined in this report.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council consider and formalise its position in relation to the following issues:

 

1)     The High Cross Park Interchange and Prince of Wales Hospital Stop

2)     The proposed Randwick Stabling Facility (at 66a Doncaster Avenue) and identified future community centre

3)     Undergrounding of power along Anzac Parade

4)     Sale/transfer of Rainbow Street site to Council

5)     Rainbow Street Construction Compound

6)     The status of Council's Urban Design Guidelines

7)     Retaining 100-120 parking spaces on Anzac Parade (from Alison Road to Darling Street)

8)     Concern in relation to tree losses

9)     Traffic modeling

10)    Bus changes

11)    Kingsford Nine-Ways intersection.

 

b)     Council advises TfNSW of the amendments sought for the draft Development Agreement proposed by TfNSW.

 

c)     a report be brought to Council with TfNSW response to these matters and consideration of the proposed Development Agreement.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS10/14

 

 

Subject:                  Kensington Bowling Club - Results of Public Consultation of community centre proposal

Folder No:                   PROJ/10686/2013

Author:                   Jorde Frangoples, Director City Services     

 

Introduction

 

This report addresses the outcomes of community consultation associated with the redevelopment of the Kensington Bowling Club to a community centre.  There was a great deal of interest shown by the community in the proposal, with over 700 individuals participating.

 

The report outlines the background to the project as well as the number and types of submissions received.  It addresses the issues, and makes recommendations, on each of the major components featured in the proposal.

 

Background

 

The Kensington Bowling Club ceased to operate in February 2013 due to financial difficulties.  The Club was located on Crown Land, known as Kensington Park Reserve, which is managed by Council as Reserve Trust Manager. The club has now reverted to Council care and control.

 

An Expression of Interest process was then undertaken for the occupation of the site.  Options for the development of the site as a childcare and / or community facility were also prepared for the consideration of Council.

 

The Expression of Interest process and associated submissions were reported to Council on 26 November 2013 –

 

(GF60/13) Kensington Bowling Club – Future Use and Occupation

The resolutions arising from this report were (Moore/Stavrinos):

 

a)     Council gives its “in principle” support to Option 1 for the upgrade of Kensington Bowling Club which includes a 315sqm community centre, half basketball court, KikOff, seniors outdoor gym and a 34 space car park;

 

b)     Council writes to all participants of the Expression of Interest process and advise of Council’s “in principle” decision and commences the consultation process with the community;

 

c)     To address the concerns regarding the impact of the KikOff facility on the residents, a mediation session be organised between KikOff and the local residents with a view to developing a Plan of Management and that the future of the KikOff facility be assessed at an upcoming Councillor briefing session; and

 

d)     Council consider the naming of the new facility in recognition of an appropriate member of the west ward community.

 

This report responds to the requirements of parts a) and b) of the resolution. Attempts have been made to address part c) of the resolution and a letter dated 8 January 2014 from the Kensington & West Kingsford Precinct is attached (Attachment 11) in relation to this matter. Part d) of the resolution will be actioned closer to the completion of the upgrade works proposed for the facility.

 

Site Context

The Kensington Bowling Club is known as Lot 7112/DP 94001.  It is zoned RE1 Public Recreation, allowing the following uses with consent: community facilities, car parks and recreation facilities (outdoor).  Any proposed changes to the site will be subject to development approval, where required under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

The Kensington Bowling Club site forms part of Kensington Park, a District Park within Randwick City.  The site and Park falls under the District Parks Generic Plan of Management.

 

Recreation Needs Study 2008

In 2008 Council adopted the Recreation Needs Study for the City.

 

The Needs study indicates that ….”District Parks aim to meet the sporting needs of the Randwick community and visitors to the City. The primary function of District Parks is that they are locations for the conduct of organised and formal sporting activities. A secondary consideration is that they offer opportunities for informal recreation through the provision of children’s playgrounds, picnic facilities and landscaped areas. Facilities commonly provided in District Parks include sports fields / courts, floodlighting, car parking, some seating, perimeter trees, playgrounds, half-court basketball courts, picnic areas, public toilets, and cycleways.”

 

Reference: Randwick City Recreation Needs Study Randwick City Council Final Report © Stratcorp Consulting 2008.

 

There are six District Parks located in Randwick City.

 

They are:

1.     Kensington Park

2.     Latham Park

3.     Snape Park

4.     Nagle Park

5.     Coral Sea Park

6.     Pioneers Park

7.     Chifley Reserve

 

Kensington Park Reserve Trust is generally bounded by Edward Ave, Strachan St, Day Lane, Barker St and Cottenham Ave (Attachments 1 & 2) and is approximately 38,062m2 in total. It consists of:

 

·           Kensington Park (exc. Oval + grandstand) - approx. 17,021 m2

·           Kensington Bowling Club greens - approx. 3,300 m2

·           Additional parcel at 23R Strachan Street - 196 m2

 

The passive Open Space areas total approximately 20,517 m2.

 

Active Open Space areas total approximately 17,545 m2, being:

 

·           Kensington Oval (intermittent use) – approx. 16,220 m2

·           5 a side soccer facility – approx. 1,325 m2

 

THE CONSULTATION PLAN

A Consultation plan was developed for the proposal and a public consultation process was commenced on February 10, 2014, spanning until March 14, 2014.  Some submissions were received after this date, and have been included for consideration.

 

The public consultation period included the following activities:

 

-      Flyer with details of proposal and link to website distributed to 6000 properties in West Kingsford and Kensington area in the week following February 11 2014 (Attachment 3)

-      Your Say website with details of proposal published February 11 2014 (Attachment 4)

-      Option to comment through website survey on Your Say website

-      eNews feature story with link to survey on February 12 and March 5 2014

-      eNews link to survey on February 19, February 26 and March 12 2014

-      Facebook posting on March 11 2014

-      Twitter postings

-      Media release

-      On site signage at property perimeter and at the nearby Kensington Oval Grandstand

-      Saturday March 1 2014 - On site information session (10:30am – 2:30pm) with four Council representatives (Buildings for our Community, Property and Community Consultation) and the project architect to discuss the proposal with interested residents

-      Notification to Kensington West Kingsford Precinct by email

-      Flyers for visitors to adjacent Nursery

-      Flyers in Bowen Library, Margaret Martin Library and Malabar Community Library

 

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED

General

Participants contacted Randwick City Council in a variety of ways: through participating in the online survey (Attachments 4 & 5); by submitting a proforma letter with an alternative plan generated by Kensington Bowling Club Local Resident Group (Attachment 6); through resolutions of the Kensington West Kingsford Precinct Committee (Attachment 7); by signing a petition in support of an off-leash dog area on the site (Attachment 8); by direct correspondence with Council (Attachment 9); or by signing a petition with issues related to KikOff activities (Attachment 10).  Note that the report attachments do not include incidental correspondence, for example follow up emails and Council responses. 

 

Previous correspondence pertaining to the former Expression of Interest for the site is also excluded, with the focus of this report on the publically exhibited proposal.

 

As a variety of methods were used to express opinions on the proposal, in a number of instances an individual filled in the online survey as well as submitting a response by proforma or by direct correspondence.  In these cases, their preferences have been noted in the online survey analysis only.  Correspondence and survey comments have, however, both been attached.

 

Using this methodology, the submissions received were as follows:

 

1.     332 responses to the Your Say website survey;

2.     328 responses via the proforma of an alternative plan. The total number of proformas received was 343, with 11 participants already represented in the online survey, 3 individuals submitting the proforma twice, and 1 withdrawn on request;

3.     1 petition with 111 signatures and accompanying report in support of an off-leash dog area.  There were an additional 10 duplicate signatures on the petition;

4.     A further 21 groups or individuals contacted Council via email or letter.  A total of 8 of these participants were already represented in the online survey; and

5.     1 petition with 26 signatures and accompanying letter in relation to Kikoff activities.

 

The submissions received across all media were accompanied by many comments and suggestions for the site.  These comments are too numerous to list or address individually, but are represented in the attachments to this report and may be considered in the design development of the project. 

 

The following analysis deals primarily with the major elements that formed the exhibited proposal, with the addition of the off-leash dog area.

 

Your Say Website Survey

There were 2694 unique visitors to the Your Say website and 332 survey responses were received.

 

Of the 2694 visitors to the site, participants may be classified as follows:

 

·           1949 were aware of the proposal, visiting the site but not undertaking any further activity (such as clicking through to the attachments or participating in the survey)

·           879 were informed about the proposal, viewing additional information available on the site

·           332 engaged with the proposal and undertook the survey.

 

The Alternative Plan By The Kensington Bowling Club Resident Group

An alternative plan was developed for the site by Kensington Bowling Club Resident Group (Attachment 6).  Representatives of this group were in attendance at the Randwick City Council on-site drop in session on March 1 2014 at the Bowling Club building. 

 

A total of 343 submissions of the proforma were received during the consultation period of the site.  This is a comparable number to the 332 participants in the online survey.  This shows a substantial degree of support for the alternative proposal; however, it is worth noting that the wider community has not been given a chance to comment on this alternative plan.

 

Of the 343 submissions received:

 

·           3 were duplicates (i.e. An individual had submitted the proforma twice)

·           1 was discounted (as requested by the participant)

·           11 had also represented their views on the online survey.

 

Active uses were not included in the alternative plan which sought a more passive parkland approach for the site, with the exception of the outdoor gym.

 

Kensington West Kingsford Precinct Group

The proforma plan was supported by the Kensington West Kingsford Precinct group.  Resolutions from their February, March and May meetings relevant to the project are listed following.

 


Kensington West Kingsford Precinct meeting February 10, 2014

Resolution 2: The surrounding local residents seek a solution whereby Council re-locates KikOff to another more appropriate site such as a multi-purpose sports facility.

 

Resolution 3: That Kensington/West Kingsford Precinct opposes the use of the ex-bowling club land for KikOff, a parking lot, and a ½ basketball court, and requests that the entire bowling club site around the community centre be returned to parkland for passive recreational use.

 

Resolution 4: That Kensington/West Kingsford Precinct seeks Council support for a community centre in the former club house and Council provision of a suitably qualified and experienced centre manager, and parkland on all other space east of the football/cricket field.

 

Resolution 5: That Kensington/West Kingsford Precinct supports dedicating Day Lane for short term parking for the community centre and that nearby parts of Edward Ave and Barker  St also be made into short term parking. That the Council also looks into providing more handicapped spaces in Day Lane.

 

Resolution 6: That Kensington/West Kingsford Precinct supports the introduction and the establishment of an outdoor gym and exercise equipment like that at Maroubra Beach in Kensington Park.

 

Resolution 7: That illegal off-leash dogs are a significant problem in Kensington Park and Council takes action to administer laws prohibiting off-leash dogs in Kensington Park.

 

Kensington West Kingsford Precinct meeting March 10, 2014

Resolution 2: The KWKP supports appointment of an onsite centre manager to be actively involved in formulating and marketing community programs and activities for community centre use.

 

Resolution 3: The KWKP supports the “Kensington Bowling Club site plan” devised by local residents group for a community centre surrounded by open space and urban park with shade trees and grass, park furniture - tables and chairs for community use, as presented in the diagram; and to include a small grassed car park dedicated for use of users of the community centre.

 

Resolution 4: The KWKP does not support any long-term commercial contracts, leases or licences of the Kensington Bowling Club site, where such “commercial uses” result in exclusive use and possession of the commercial user for purposes such as intensive and exclusive sporting activities as currently engaged in by the occupant KikOff (or similar sporting groups) and the permanent exclusion of the community from any use of land leased or licensed to KikOff (or similar sporting groups).  The KWKP opposes such commercial use on the ground that the Bowling Club is a Crown reserve, dedicated for open space public recreation, under the Crown Lands Act 1989; the KWKP supports community use of the land and the site being returned to parkland; community use becomes more significant due to scarcity of surrounding green space and increasing promotion of high-rise development and UAPs of the NSW Government.

 

Kensington West Kingsford Precinct meeting May 12, 2014

Resolution 5: KWKP requests RCC to reduce hours of operation of Kikoff activities to minimize impacts of noise emissions on surrounding neighbours. Proposed reductions in hours of operation – Monday and Fridays finish at 6.30pm; Tuesday to Thursday finish at 8pm; Saturdays 9am to 5pm and Sunday Closed, while Kikoff is still on site.

 

Petition – Off-Leash Dog Area

A petition with 111 signatures, and a further 10 duplicate names, was submitted during the consultation period.  The petition was in support of a letter which outlined some alternatives for the site, noted later in the report.  These alternatives are noted in the relevant sections of the report following.  No alternative plan was provided as part of this submission.

 

Like the proforma plan submitted by some residents, the proposal for an off-leash dog park has also not been tested for support by the wider community consultation process. 

 

Correspondence received during the consultation period is found in Attachment 8, with the petition pages containing names and addresses removed for privacy.

 

Petition – Local Residents

A petition consisting of 26 signatures was submitted by local residents as part of the consultation period.  The petition raised issues related to the existing Kikoff site and associated activities.

 

Correspondence is found in Attachment 10, with names and addresses removed for confidentiality.

 

Direct Letters and Emails

Of the 21 individuals or groups that contacted Council directly via email or letter about the project during the consultation period, eight of these had also filled in the online survey.

 

Correspondence received during the consultation period is found in Attachment 9, with names and addresses removed for privacy.

 

Drop-In Information Session

Representatives from Randwick City Council hosted an information session at the former Kensington Bowling Club building on March 1 2014.  The primary themes arising during this session included impacts of the current KikOff operations, issues surrounding on-site parking, requests for an off-leash dog area, as well as anecdotes on the history of the Bowling Club building.

 

Attendees at the session were encouraged to make submissions to Council about their views.

 

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION RESULTS

A.      Meeting room facilities

Your Say website survey

Online survey respondents were asked to nominate their preference for the configuration of the meeting rooms available in the building.  The majority were in favour of two meeting rooms being included in the facility.

 

Configuration

Number of respondents

Percentage

Two meeting rooms

143

43%

An open plan with one large space

86

26%

No opinion

103

31%

 

Kensington Bowling Club Resident Group Proforma

No opinion was stated on the configuration of spaces within the building.

 

Kensington West Kingsford Precinct Group

The following resolution from KWKP relates to this aspect of the project:

 

Resolution 4: That Kensington/West Kingsford Precinct seeks Council support for a community centre in the former club house and Council provision of a suitably qualified and experienced centre manager, and parkland on all other space east of the football/cricket field (KWKP meeting February 10, 2014)

 

Off-Leash Dog Area Petition

No opinion was stated on the configuration of spaces within the building.

 

Local Residents Petition

No opinion was included about the configuration of rooms within the building.

 

Individual Letters and Emails

Of the 21 direct submissions by individuals or groups, there were 4 that stated their specific support of the suggested configuration of spaces within the building.

 

Meeting room facilities – Recommended approach

Where an opinion was stated, the majority of participants were in favour of the new community centre containing two rooms.  This is considered to be appropriate for a centre of this size, and would maximise flexible use of the facility.  The location of the centre within its wider Kensington Park context allows the possibility of these two rooms having different aspects, e.g. the main hall addressing the north and a secondary meeting room addressing Day Lane or Kensington Park.

 

B.      Verandahs

Your Say website survey

Including verandahs to open up the building to the north, and to the Kensington Park side of the building were popular with respondents.  Over 70% of all participants wanted to see at least one verandah included, with most voting for two to be included.

 

Configuration

Number of respondents

Percentage

A verandah on the north side

39

12%

A verandah on the west side

35

11%

Verandahs on both the north and west sides

163

49%

No verandahs

17

5%

No opinion

78

23%

 

Kensington Bowling Club Resident Group Proforma

No opinion was stated on the inclusion of verandahs for the building.

 

Kensington West Kingsford Precinct Group

There were no resolutions pertaining to this aspect of the proposal.

 

Off-Leash Dog Area Petition

No opinion was stated on the inclusion of verandahs for the building.

 

Local Residents Petition

No opinion was stated in relation to the idea of verandahs for the building.

 


Individual Letters and Emails

Of the 21 direct submissions by individuals or groups, there was 1 submission that specifically stated their support of the inclusion of verandahs for the building.

 

Verandahs – Recommended approach

Where an opinion was stated, the overwhelming majority supported the introduction of a verandah to the building, with most participants favouring a verandah to both the north and west.  Introduction of verandahs to the existing building is considered an appropriate and desirable outcome for the building to facilitate connection to the outdoor spaces and enhance the amenity for hall users.

 

On this basis two rooms and a verandah on the north and the west of the building will be provided in the future design development for the building.

 

C.      Use of the building

Your Say website survey

The survey asked which uses of the building would be supported, and which would not be supported.

 

Participants generally suggested community meetings, community groups and community classes (e.g. language, educational) would be appropriate uses of the building.  Fitness classes such as yoga, pilates and dance were suggested.  Children’s birthday parties were also a popular suggestion.

 

A common theme among uses that would not be supported were those that would generate undue levels of noise, particularly evening activities and those with alcohol involved.

 

Generally the participants were keen that the facility be made available to the local community and for individual hire, and that activities be appropriate for the building’s residential setting.

 

Kensington Bowling Club Resident Group Proforma

The proforma did not include information on the proposed usage of the building.

                              

Kensington West Kingsford Precinct Group

The following resolutions from KWKP relate to this aspect of the project:

 

Resolution 4: That Kensington/West Kingsford Precinct seeks Council support for a community centre in the former club house and Council provision of a suitably qualified and experienced centre manager, and parkland on all other space east of the football/cricket field (KWKP meeting February 10, 2014)

 

Resolution 2: The KWKP supports appointment of an onsite centre manager to be actively involved in formulating and marketing community programs and activities for community centre use. (KWKP meeting March 10, 2014)

 

Off-Leash Dog Area Petition

The petition did not include information on the proposed usage of the building.

 

Local Residents Petition

The question was raised as to whether Kikoff participants would have access to the community centre building and the proposed car park on a daily basis, and noted that the Council would need to consider implications around the intensity of use for the facility.

 


Individual Letters and Emails

Of the 21 direct submissions by individuals or groups, 11 were generally supportive of a community centre with the other submissions not expressing an opinion.

 

Use of the building – Recommended approach

The appropriate use of the building is to provide an alcohol-free facility for hire to the community – this approach was supported by most participants.  Randwick City Council has well-established policies for hire of similar facilities across our local government area, many located in residential areas such as this one.  The hours of operation will be determined through the development application process but will be appropriate to its context.

 

D.      Carpark

Your Say website survey

Your Say survey participants were largely divided on the issue of on-site parking.  Due to the location of the nearby University of New South Wales, parking can be very scarce during term times.

 

Some participants felt that on-site parking would reduce the load on the streets for the residents of the area, and was important for users of the centre to be able to park at their destination. 

 

Others felt that providing parking encouraged people to drive and that public transport should be promoted instead.  There were concerns regarding the loss of open green space to parking, as well as the ability to control parking so that it was not monopolised by university students.

 

Alternative parking arrangements were suggested by some participants, mainly centring on the use of Day Lane for angle parking or for providing designated community centre parking.

 

 

Rating

No. of respondents

Percentage

Totals

1

Not Important

124

37%

44%

unsupportive

2

 

25

7%

3

Neither important nor unimportant

52

16%

16%

undecided

4

 

59

18%

40%

supportive

5

Very important

72

22%

 

Kensington Bowling Club Resident Group

The proforma generated by the Kensington Bowling Club Group includes on-site car parking located on the south side of the building, in lieu of the existing 5-a-side soccer facility.  On one version of the proforma, the car park is line-marked with approximately 46 spaces shown, compared with 34 spaces in the Randwick City Council proposal.

 

Kensington West Kingsford Precinct Group

The following resolutions from KWKP relate to this aspect of the project:

 

Resolution 3: That Kensington/West Kingsford Precinct opposes the use of the ex-bowling club land for KikOff, a parking lot, and a ½ basketball court, and requests that the entire bowling club site around the Community Centre be returned to parkland for passive recreational use. (KWKP meeting February 10, 2014)

 

Resolution 5: That Kensington/West Kingsford Precinct supports dedicating Day Lane for short term parking for the community centre and that nearby parts of Edward Ave and Barker St also be made into short term parking. That the Council also looks into providing more handicapped spaces in Day Lane. (KWKP meeting February 10, 2014)

 

Resolution 3: The KWKP supports the “Kensington Bowling Club site plan” devised by local residents group for a community centre surrounded by open space and urban park with shade trees and grass, park furniture - tables and chairs for community use, as presented in the diagram; and to include a small grassed car park dedicated for use of users of the community centre. (KWKP meeting March 10, 2014)

 

Off-Leash Dog Area Petition

The petition called for the car parking to be relocated to the location shown for the seniors gym and reduced in numbers to cater only for aged and wheelchair bound patrons.  Additional car parking was suggested by angle parking off Barker Street and between the 5-a-side soccer facilities and Edward Avenue.  It was also suggested that Day Lane become one way and include further angle parking.  Concerns were raised around the proximity of the site to the University of New South Wales and the loss of parking capacity to students.

 

Local Residents Petition

The petition did not state an opinion on the car park proposal.

 

Individual Letters and Emails

Of the 21 direct submissions by individuals or groups, 1 was supportive of the proposal, 5 were opposed to the proposal and 6 stated that would like to see a modification to the current proposal such angled parking off Day Lane or a smaller parking footprint on site. Other submissions did not express an opinion.

 

Carpark – Recommended approach

In line with relevant development controls, some designated on-site parking will be required for the new community centre.  As well as meeting development guidelines, this is appropriate to its anticipated use by all sectors of our community, including the very young, as well as the elderly and incapacitated.  Night time users of the centre will also benefit from parking located in close proximity to the centre.  Any parking provided on site will need to be protected from casual use by a boom gate or similar.

 

A Transport Assessment is required to be prepared for the development application and will include a survey of existing surrounding parking conditions to assist in determining minimum numbers. The minimum number of car parking spaces allowable under the Transport Assessment will be provided in order to maximise use of the site for other purposes.  Bike racks will also be provided.

 

E.      Outdoor gym

Your Say website survey

There was general support for the provision of a seniors outdoor gym, with over half of the participants feeling it was important or very important to include at the site.  Some questioned the label “seniors gym”, believing it would be used by all age groups.

 

There were also suggestions that the gym may be better located within the adjacent Kensington Park.

 

 

Rating

No. of respondents

Percentage

Totals

1

Not Important

66

20%

28%

unsupportive

2

 

 

26

8%

3

Neither important nor unimportant

68

20%

20%

undecided

4

 

 

78

23%

51%

supportive

5

Very important

94

28%

 

Kensington Bowling Club Resident Group

An outdoor gym was included in the proforma proposal, but relocated into adjacent Kensington Park.

 

Kensington West Kingsford Precinct Group

The following resolution from KWKP relates to this aspect of the project:

 

Resolution 6: That Kensington/West Kingsford supports the introduction and the establishment of an outdoor gym and exercise equipment like that at Maroubra Beach in Kensington Park.  (KWKP meeting February 10, 2014)

 

Off-Leash Dog Area Petition

The petition called for the outdoor gym to be relocated to Kensington Oval, spaced out to allow exercising between the stations, and be suitable for all ages.

 

Local Residents Petition

The petition did not state an opinion of the idea of an outdoor gym.

 

Individual Letters and Emails

Of the 21 direct submissions by individuals or groups, 4 were supportive of the seniors outdoor gym, with 2 of these stating the equipment should be used by all age groups. The other submissions did not express an opinion.

 

Outdoor gym – Recommended approach

The inclusion of an outdoor gym was generally supported by participants in the consultation process and will therefore remain part of the proposal. 

 

This is also in keeping with Item b) of Council resolution Future Installation of Outdoor Gym Equipment - W24/13 (Belleli/Andrews):

 

b)     the installation of outdoor exercise equipment for Latham Park and Kensington Oval will be considered for funding in future capital budgets.

 

As the Kensington Bowling Club site is part of the wider park, options will be considered for alternative locations of this equipment.  Options will also be considered for equipment to cater for a wide range of park users, not just seniors. It is considered that the best location for this facility is close to the Community Centre.

 

It may be possible to run seniors fitness activities in the future, such as health and wellbeing classes. It is noted that both the Kensington Bowling Club Site Local Resident Group and the KWKP Precinct agree that an outdoor gym should be provided as part of the works. The residents group would like to have the outdoor gym within the Park rather than alongside the centre.  This proposed location still provides easy access from the building as well as shade by surrounding trees.

 

On this basis it is considered appropriate to include outdoor gym equipment in the proposal, either in Kensington Park or on the Community Centre site.  The alternative location will be considered in the design development and incorporated into the development application submission.

 

F.      Basketball

Your Say website survey

There were more participants in favour of including a half basketball court at the site than participants against the proposal.  Around a quarter of all those in favour of a basketball court requested a full sized court be considered as an alternative.

 

Those that were not supportive of the proposal most commonly cited noise concerns as the reason for their opposition. 

 

 

Rating

No. of

respondents

Percentage

Totals

1

Not Important

72

22%

30%

unsupportive

2

 

26

8%

3

Neither important nor unimportant

84

25%

25%

undecided

4

 

69

21%

45%

supportive

5

Very important

81

24%

 

Kensington Bowling Club Resident Group

Basketball facilities do not form part of the proforma proposal.  The site area north of the building is shown as parkland green space, including picnic area, shaded areas, tables, seats and planting.

 

Kensington West Kingsford Precinct Group

The following resolution from KWKP relates to this aspect of the project:

 

Resolution 3: That Kensington/West Kingsford Precinct opposes the use of the ex-bowling club land for KikOff, a parking lot, and a ½ basketball court, and requests that the entire bowling club site around the community centre be returned to parkland for passive recreational use. (KWKP meeting February 10, 2014)

 

Off-Leash Dog Area Petition

No opinion is stated in the petition regarding the basketball facilities.

 

Local Residents Petition

The petition did not provide an opinion on the basketball facilities.

 

Individual Letters and Emails

Of the 21 direct submissions by individuals or groups, 4 were supportive, 1 stated a neutral opinion, and 1 was opposed to basketball facilities. The other submissions did not express an opinion.

 

Basketball – Recommended approach

There was considerable support demonstrated on the Your Say website for a basketball court to be included.  This feature was not included in the alternative plan proforma so the assumption is that the Kensington Bowling Club Site Local Resident Group does not support a basketball court. The precinct also resolved to reject the basketball court, although it is unclear on what basis.

 

The provision of a half basketball court on the site is in line with Item a) of the Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson – Basketball hoops and courts in appropriate locations in the city of Randwick -  NM7/13 (Neilson/Andrews) that:

 

a)     Council investigate establishing at least a half basketball court and hoop/s in various wards across the city, as well as full basketball courts.

 

A half basketball court would allow informal practice and play opportunities for the local community.  The proposed location is approximately 90 metres from the nearest residences to the south with the added advantage that the building will further shield it from any noise. The proposed court is approximately 40 metres from the nearest building to the north in Barker Street. It should be noted that night-time lighting is not proposed for the court hence the courts will be available for daylight hours.  This is a local walk-up facility that will be utilised by local residents.

 

Accordingly, it is considered a half basketball court should remain part of the proposal, best located to the north of the building to provide an adequate distance from neighbouring residences.

 

G.      5-a-side soccer

Your Say website survey

The inclusion of the 5-a-side soccer fields generated a great deal of comments from participants in the online survey, both for and against the proposal.

 

Two thirds of survey participants were supportive of 5-a-side soccer activities being maintained at the site.  Reasons for support included the health and community benefits, with comments noting its popularity and the large number of participants using the facility. There was also strong concern that there are no alternative facilities for this activity in the Eastern Suburbs.  On this point it should be noted that although no other Kikoff-run facilities exist in the area, there are many 5-a-side or small sided alternatives available.  

 

For the 22% of participants that did not support the facility, noise was the main reason cited.  The impact of this activity on the neighbouring residents was considered to be unreasonable.  There was also concern that this commercial activity precluded the use of the area by the general public. 

 

 

Rating

No. of respondents

Percentage

Totals

1

Not Important

61

18%

22%

unsupportive

2

 

12

4%

3

Neither important nor unimportant

36

11%

11%

undecided

4

 

44

13%

67%

supportive

5

Very important

179

54%

 

Kensington Bowling Club Resident Group

There are no 5-a-side soccer facilities included in the proposal, with the existing location being proposed as landscaping and dedicated parking for the Community Centre.

 

Kensington West Kingsford Precinct Group

Kikoff activities have been the subject of several resolutions from Kensington West Kingsford Precinct Group since the commencement of the consultation period on February 10 2014:

 

Resolution 2: The surrounding local residents seek a solution whereby Council re-locates KikOff to another more appropriate site such as a multi-purpose sports facility. (KWKP meeting February 10, 2014)

 

Resolution 3: That Kensington/West Kingsford Precinct opposes the use of the ex-bowling club land for KikOff, a parking lot, and a ½ basketball court, and requests that the entire bowling club site around the community centre be returned to parkland for passive recreational use. (KWKP meeting February 10, 2014)

 

Resolution 4: The KWKP does not support any long-term commercial contracts, leases or licences of the Kensington Bowling Club site, where such “commercial uses” result in exclusive use and possession of the commercial user for purposes such as intensive and exclusive sporting activities as currently engaged in by the occupant KikOff (or similar sporting groups) and the permanent exclusion of the community from any use of land leased or licensed to KikOff (or similar sporting groups).  The KWKP opposes such commercial use on the ground that the Bowling Club is a Crown reserve, dedicated for open space public recreation, under the Crown Lands Act 1989; the KWKP supports community use of the land and the site being returned to parkland; community use becomes more significant due to scarcity of surrounding green space and increasing promotion of high-rise development and UAPs of the NSW Government. (KWKP meeting March 10, 2014)

 

Resolution 5: KWKP requests RCC to reduce hours of operation of Kikoff activities to minimize impacts of noise emissions on surrounding neighbours. Proposed reductions in hours of operation – Monday and Fridays finish at 6.30pm; Tuesday to Thursday finish at 8pm; Saturdays 9am to 5pm and Sunday Closed, while Kikoff is still on site. (KWKP meeting May 12, 2014)

 

Off-Leash Dog Area Petition

No opinion is stated in the petition regarding the existing 5-a-side soccer facilities.

 

KikOff Related Issues Petition

The petition specifically refers to issues related to KikOff activities currently on site. This mainly pertains to the location and distance of KikOff to the surrounding residents, noise levels generated by this activity and concerns over potential conflict with the Community Centre once in use.  

 

Individual Letters and Emails

There has been extensive correspondence from residents located close to KikOff regarding the impacts of this sporting facility.  Submissions received on this matter since the consultation period began on February 10 2014 are attached to this report (Attachment 9). 

 

Of the 21 direct submissions by individuals or groups, 4 were supportive and 8 were opposed to KikOff remaining as part of the proposal. The other submissions did not express an opinion.

 

Five-a-side soccer – recommended approach

The existing two five-a-side soccer fields on the site, located south of the bowling club building, were established following planning permission granted by the Land and Environment Court in 2010 (Appeal No 10963).  These are used by “Kikoff” to host training, competitions and as a hire venue.  A six month licence agreement was entered into with Kikoff Pty Ltd commencing 5 February 2013.  Currently Kikoff Pty Ltd operates on a month-by-month basis.

 

The inclusion of five-a-side soccer in the exhibited proposal received a high number of supporters via the Your Say website, with 69% in favour of the facilities.

 

The existing Kikoff operations are not supported by the Kensington West Kingsford Precinct group, the Kensington Bowling Club Local Resident Group proposal and local residents who submitted the petition.  The main complaint about the Kikoff activities is regarding the noise impact on neighbouring residences.

 

Noise impacts

In relation to noise the Council’s Environmental Health officers advise the following relevant noise conditions of consent imposed by the Land & Environment Court for the subject development which restricts hours of operation include the following:

·           Mondays to Fridays - last game to finish at 9.30pm with lights off and premises locked at 9.45pm;

·           Saturdays - last game to finish at 9.30pm with lights off and premises locked at 9.45pm;

·           Sundays - last game to finish at 7.30pm with lights off and premises locked at 7.45pm.

In addition, the following condition of consent was applied to ensure that noise emissions from the development satisfy legislative requirements and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

"The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance and there are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997."

The Conditions of Consent do not include any specific noise limits or noise criteria for the operation or the activity.  In the absence of any specific noise criteria and noise limits, the appropriate regulatory provisions used to assess any noise concerns is the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO).

 

In addition, although, the guideline was not specifically referenced in the development consent, noise levels and impacts from the activities are considered in accordance with the NSW EPA Industrial Noise Policy. This policy relates to industrial and commercial activities and it is used to assess noise impacts and to develop mitigation methods.

 

As a result of resident concerns about noise from the operation of the facility by Kikoff, Council’s Environmental Health Officer and Compliance Officer carried out a number of inspections to assess the noise levels and impacts from the activities on the site.

The officers also conducted general sound level measurements of the activities on the site between the period of 28 May 2014 to 5 June 2014.

 

Specific background noise levels were difficult to attain during the operating time of Kikoff, therefore, the background noise level measurements were taken before and after the night-time operations and estimated at various times of the evening. However based on the results attained, it is estimated that the background noise level for the site would be approximately 45dBA-48dBA during the operation of the activities at Kikoff.

 

The background levels can be compared against the average sound level measurements taken during the operation of the activity which ranged between 55.6 dBA and 57.1 dBA. Therefore being approximately between 7.6 to 12.1 dBA above the estimated background noise measurements.

 

The LAmax peak noise events for the source measurements during the operation of Kickoff ranged between 79.2 dBA-81.5 dBA although, these measurements may have been influenced by other noise sources e.g. traffic.

 

The source noise measurements were undertaken randomly and would probably vary depending on the individual players, teams and the number of supporters. Therefore it is difficult to obtain a complete indication of the noise levels and extent of any disturbance caused when the soccer "competition" is in full operation.

 

However, based on the results obtained, it is considered that activities on the site would not satisfy the recommended criteria in the Industrial Noise Policy, which recommends that the average sound level measurements, taken during the operation of the activity or business, should not exceed 5 dBA above the background noise level. Although a detailed acoustic assessment using logged sound level measurements over a 7 day period or more would provide more definitive results and data.

 

When investigating a noise complaint of this nature, Council officers would normally carry out a number of assessments as the noise levels and impacts can significantly vary with intensity. The frequency of use would also be taken into consideration when determining whether or not the activities are causing an offensive noise. An audibility test is also undertaken in conjunction with noise measurements, as outlined in the Noise Guide for Local Government, which identified the following;

 

·           The noise levels during the operation of the activity is loud when compared with other noise in the area.

·           The character of noise varies greatly with intensity of activity and spectator involvement.

·           The noise is considered to be frequent as it occurs 7 days a week.

·           The noise is not typical for the area of the park/oval i.e. playing fields are approximately 50 metres to the west of the current location.

·           The noise emanating from the activity is clearly audible within habitable rooms and yard areas of surrounding residents.

·           The nature and character of intermittent noise including whistles, shouting and spectator noise, has the potential to be annoying to nearby residents. 

 

The noise levels taken during the operation of the activity indicate that the average noise levels would exceed the recommended 5 dBA criteria in the Industrial Noise Policy and the peak noise levels (LAmax) resulting from the activity, has the potential to disturb nearby residents and interfere with normal enjoyment and use of their properties. As such, it is considered that the noise may be considered "offensive" as defined under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

 

On this basis, Council’s Environmental Health Officer would normally serve a Notice under the POEO Act, to ensure that the use of the site reasonably satisfies the relevant noise criteria outlined in the NSW EPA Industrial Noise Policy. However, any possible regulatory action is being held in abeyance pending determination of the future use of the site.

 

Based on Council investigations it is considered that the current use by Kickoff may at times create an offensive noise/nuisance to surrounding residents.  On this basis it is considered appropriate that the Kikoff facility is discontinued when the site is developed for the Community Centre.  It is recommended that the design development of the project proceed on this basis.

 


H.      Off-leash dog area

Off-leash dog parks provide a safe place for dogs to exercise, play and socialise.  Dog parks can also be beneficial in building communities, providing an informal gathering opportunity for residents to interact while their dogs play.

 

Since the closure of the Kensington Bowling Club in early 2013, an informal community of dog owners has grown up around the site.  Anecdotal evidence - from conversations at the drop in day, off-leash dog petition and comments from the website – suggest that this has been highly valued by local dog owners. 

 

Off-leash dog parks are, however, not without issues: there is a greater potential for injury to persons or animals from attack; greater potential for damage to turf, plants and wildlife; issues with dog faeces at the site; and potential for noise-related issues from barking dogs.  Off-leash dog parks are also required to be located at a minimum legislated distance from a playground.

 

The Kensington West Kingsford Precinct meeting of February 10, 2014 included this resolution in relation to off-leash dogs:

 

Resolution 7: That illegal off-leash dogs are a significant problem in Kensington Park and Council take action to administer laws prohibiting off-leash dogs in Kensington Park.  (KWKP meeting February 10, 2014)

 

Randwick City currently has fourteen off-leash dog areas.  This is well above the one park per local government area required under the NSW Companion Animals Act 1998.  Establishment of an additional off-leash dog area should be done with due consideration of the most appropriate location for the facility and be subject to associated community consultation.  Currently, the proposal for Kensington Park remains untested by the wider community.

 

Off-leash dog area – recommended approach

The nearest dog off Leash Park in the City of Randwick is Paine Reserve, which is 1.4 km or an 18 minute walk via Meeks Street. Additionally, although not in the City of Randwick, it is noted that a dog off-leash park is also available in Tweedmouth Ave, Rosebery. The walking distance is 1.5 km or an 18 minute walk.

 

On this basis it is not considered appropriate or necessary to include a dog off-leash area in Kensington Park.

 

I.         Footpath on southern boundary

It should be noted that the original development consent for the KikOff facility included the requirement for the construction of a footpath from Day Lane through to Edward Avenue.  This was not built by the applicant (Kensington Bowling Club).  It is proposed that Council build this path as part of the works associated with the establishment of a Community Centre on the site.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 3:       An Informed and Engaged Community.

Direction 3c:      The community has increased opportunities to participate in decision making process.

Outcome 4:       Excellence in Urban Design and Development.

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

Outcome 5:       Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities.

Direction 5a:      Maximise opportunities for residents and visitors to enjoy both active and passive open space uses.

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost to carry out the public exhibition stage is budgeted as part of the overall project.

 

Conclusion

 

Kensington Park is a valuable open space asset in the West Ward area, and will only be enhanced by the development of the former Kensington Bowling Club site into an active community facility. 

 

The community consultation process achieved engagement with a broad range of views, with over 700 individuals represented in the results.  The opinions and comments submitted on the proposal were reflective of the differing needs and priorities of our community.

 

There is no doubt that the five-a side soccer facility is very close to the residents in Edward Ave and Strachan Street. In recognition of the impact of the existing activities on the neighbouring residences, it is recommended that this facility be ultimately removed from the site when it is developed as a Community Centre.

 

The site offers opportunities for both active and passive recreation facilities, to cater for the wide range of ages and interests in our community.  The building will be a great asset for community groups and local residents, and the supporting external facilities will complement their wider Kensington Park context.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the design development of the Kensington Community Centre at the site of the former Kensington Bowling Club proceed to Development Application include the following elements:

 

1.     two rooms for hire in accordance with existing Randwick City Council hiring policies.

2.     a verandah on the north and the west of the building.

3.     a reduced number of parking spaces, providing only the minimum number of spaces required on site to meet development codes.

4.     an all ages outdoor gym on the site or in adjacent Kensington Park.

5.     an unfenced and unlit half basketball court.

6.     the lease for the existing five-a-side soccer fields not be renewed when construction of the Kensington Community Centre project commences, and that the Development Application plans relocate the carparking to this area.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Kensington Park Site - aerial photograph

 

2.View

Kensington Park and Bowling Club site photos

 

3.View

Flyer delivered to residents with details of community consultation

 

4.View

Your Say online survey questions

 

5.

Your Say online survey comments received

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

6.

Kensington Bowling Club Site Local Resident Group proforma and letters

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

7.

Kensington West Kingsford Precinct Group minutes February and March 2014

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

8.View

Off-leash Dog Area petition

 

9.

Submissions by letter or email

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

10.View

Petition re KikOff activities

 

11.View

Letter from Kensington West Kingsford Precinct Group regarding resolution c) of GF60/13 - Mediation between residents and KikOff

 

 

 

 


Kensington Park Site - aerial photograph

Attachment 1

 

 


Kensington Park and Bowling Club site photos

Attachment 2

 

 



Flyer delivered to residents with details of community consultation

Attachment 3

 

 


Your Say online survey questions

Attachment 4

 

 



Off-leash Dog Area petition

Attachment 8

 

 



Petition re KikOff activities

Attachment 10

 

 


Letter from Kensington West Kingsford Precinct Group regarding resolution c) of GF60/13 - Mediation between residents and KikOff

Attachment 11

 

 



 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF47/14

 

 

Subject:                  2013-14 Draft Financial Statements

Folder No:                   F2012/00509

Author:                   Mitchel Woods, Manager Corporate and Financial Planning     

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to refer the 2013-14 Draft Financial Statements to Council’s Auditors. The Audited 2013-14 Financial Statements will be brought back to Council for adoption at a later Council Meeting.

 

As per Section 416 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993, a Council’s financial statements for the year must be prepared and audited within four months after the end of the year concerned.

 

 The statutory process that must be followed is:

 

1.     The financial statements must include statements made by resolution of the Council and signed by the Mayor and at least one other Councillor as well as the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer.

 

2.     The financial statements must then be referred to the Council’s Auditors and, once audited, they must be included in the Council’s Annual Report.

 

3.     Copies of the audited financial statements must be forwarded to the Division of Local Government by 7 November 2014.

 

4.     As soon as practicable after Council receives a copy of the Auditor’s report, the statements must be placed on public exhibition and notice given of a meeting at which Council proposes to present its audited financial statements together with the Auditor’s report. (Sec. 418 LGA).

 

Carry Over of Programmed Funds

 

It is proposed to carry over funds to the new financial year 2014-15, due to the following reasons:

 

·           Projects had already commenced and expenditure was committed;

·           Projects were incomplete as at 30 June 2014;

·           Grant funding has been received for projects spanning a timeframe beyond 30  June 2014;

·           The funds were voted towards the latter part of the 2013-14 financial year, and  the project had not yet commenced;

·           Funding for the project is to be raised over more than one financial year.

 

Council continues to be programmed and disciplined in regards to its financial planning and management. The majority of the funds being carried over form part of a financial plan, plan of management, or some other form of strategy where Council is purposefully accumulating funds.

 

 

 

Issues

 

The 2013-14 Annual Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Regulations, the Australian Accounting Standards, and the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting. The unaudited Annual Financial Statements will be tabled by the Acting Director of Governance and Financial Services.

 

Section 413(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 requires the Council to form an opinion as to whether the Council’s Annual Financial Statements reflect a true and fair position and that they have been drawn up in accordance with the Local Government Act and associated codes and standards. Statements to this effect have been prepared (refer Attachments 2 and 3) and will be presented for signature.

 

Subsequent to these Statements being signed, the Annual Financial Statements will be referred to the Council’s Auditor, Hill Rogers Spencer Steer, for audit. On completion of the audit, further copies of the statements including the audit report will be circulated to Councillors.

 

It is proposed that the audited financial statements be presented at a Council meeting as soon as practicable after receipt of the final audit report.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

Council is in a strong and stable financial position.

 

Conclusion

 

The Manager Corporate and Financial Planning, as the Responsible Accounting Officer, advises that the financial position is satisfactory.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the Schedule of 2013-14 funds to be carried forward into 2014-15 be adopted as per Attachment 1

 

b)     in relation to the financial statements required in accordance with Section 413(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993:

 

i)        Council resolve that in its opinion the General Purpose Financial Statements, Special Purpose Financial Statements and Special Schedules for the year ended 30 June 2014:

 

a.  have been properly drawn up in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Regulations there under, the Australian Accounting Standards and professional pronouncements, and the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting;

 

b.  to the best of the Council’s knowledge and belief the statements present fairly the Council’s operating result and financial position for the year and accords with the Council’s accounting and other records; and

 

c.  the Council is unaware of any matter that would render the financial statements false or misleading in anyway.

 

ii)       The Statement by Councillors and Management for both the General Purpose Financial Statements and Special Purpose Financial Statements be signed by the Mayor, another Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer.

 

c)     the financial statements be referred to the Council’s Auditors for audit.

 

d)     arrangements be made to place copies of the audited financial statements on public exhibition and the necessary advertisements be published.

 

e)     a copy of the audited financial statements be forwarded to the Division of Local Government.

 

f)     the audited financial statements be presented at a meeting of Council to be held in accordance with Section 418 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Schedule of 2013-14 Funds to be Carried Forward

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

2.View

Statement by Councillors and Management: 2013-14 General Purpose Financial Report

 

3.View

Statement by Councillors and Management: 2013-14 Special Purpose Financial Report

 

4.

Draft 2013-14 Financial Statements to be tabled at the meeting by the Acting Director Governance and Financial Services

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Statement by Councillors and Management: 2013-14 General Purpose Financial Report

Attachment 2

 

 


Statement by Councillors and Management: 2013-14 Special Purpose Financial Report

Attachment 3

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF48/14

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - June 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 – June 2014” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of June 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 $1.690 million during June 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 June 2011 to June 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 June 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 June 2011 to June 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   3.87% compared with the benchmark index of 2.71%.

 

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

 

Credit Quality of Portfolio

The credit quality of the portfolio is of very high quality with approximately 99% 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

Policy Maximum

Current Holdings

Available Capacity

AAA

100%

10%

90%

AA

100%

32%

68%

A

75%

57%

18%

BBB+

0%

1%

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 June 2014.

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 $14.489 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 $9,417.48 bringing the book value to $1,989,130.49.

 

The balance of the FRN’s is held by Suncorp-Metway for $5,000,000.00, Bendigo Adelaide Bank for $4,500,000.00, AMP Bank $2,000,000.00 and Bank of Queensland for $1,000,000.00.

 


Covered Bonds

 

The investment portfolio includes a NAB covered bond purchased at a discounted price of $2,983,680.00. The discount of $16,320.00 is being amortised on a quarterly basis. The amortised amount to date is $304.87 bringing the book value to $2,983,984.87.

 

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 June 2014 amounted to $2,592,341.59.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Following is the detailed Investment Report – June 2014.

Conclusion

 

All investments as at 30 June 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 June 2014 be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF49/14

 

 

Subject:                  Coogee Bowling Club - Approach for Installation of a Group Fitness Centre on Premises

Folder No:                   F2011/06336

Author:                   Sharon Plunkett, Property Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

Coogee Bowling Club Ltd has held tenure over the bowling club located in J V Dick Crown Reserve at 51-69R Dolphin Street, COOGEE for more than forty years.  The premise is currently held under a five (5) year licence agreement expiring on 31 March 2018.  Council is the appointed Reserve Trust Manager of the JV Dick Reserve (D500159) dedicated on 28 April 1944 for the purpose of public recreation.

 

There are a number of options available to Council to proceed with this matter, however it is most important that before proceeding with any of these options, Council go out to the local community to gauge their views on this proposal.

 

Issues

 

The Coogee Bowling Club and a consortium of three local gentlemen, Stephen Hoiles, Adam Ashley-Cooper and Mitch Chapman have written to Council seeking permission to implement a F45 Group Training Facility within the Bowling Club premises in the lower level of the club (currently housing pool tables and lockers) and the most eastern bowling green (currently disused).

 

The Club has advised that the proposal has been unanimously approved by the Club Board to take on the proposed training facility in the space.  The club also advises the consortium will pay for the upgrade of the existing facilities, relocation of the pool tables and lockers and upkeep of the areas for the duration of the contract.  No information has been provided on the proposed income, capital expenditure or length and terms of the proposed contract with the consortium.

 

CROWN LANDS

Contact has been made with NSW Trade & Investment (Crown Lands Division) to discuss the proposal put forward by the Club.  It was confirmed that the training facility is not consistent with the purpose of the licence so if supported by the Crown and Council, a variation to the licence must be prepared and executed.  The training facility is however consistent with the purpose of the reserve being public recreation.

 

If the use is supported by Council, The NSW Trade & Investment (Crown Lands Division) will be required to provide owners consent to the lodgement of the Development Application for the works proposed for the F45 Group Training Facility.  The application should be made directly to the Crown by the Club or consortium.

 

LICENCE TERMS

Review of the licence agreement highlights that the training facility by the consortium is not currently permissible.  Reference is made to the clauses detailed below.  A variation of licence will be required if Council is supportive of the use.

 

6.1  Permitted Use only

The Licensee shall not:

 

(a)      use the Premises;

(b)      or allow them to be used (except pursuant to a Licence lawfully granted by the Licensor),

 

for any purpose other than the Permitted Use specified or referred to in Column 2 of Item 15 of Schedule 1.

 

PERMITTED USE

The permitted use as detailed in the licence agreement is “use of the Licensed Area for conducting lawn bowling and bocce. Any ancillary use of the Licensed Area is allowed.

 

The Licensee can use the Licensed area for public recreation and community and sporting club activities.  Food and beverage outlet, and outlets for goods and services supportive of bowling club operations are also permissible with consent of the property officer of Randwick City Council as an authorised representative of the Licensor. The Licensee can prepare a policy and an operating plan of functions it proposes to conduct from the Licensed Area, which aims to minimise the impact caused thereby on users and nearby residents, to be submitted to the Licensor for consideration. The licensor acting reasonably can give its consent to the Licensee’s and policy and operating plan with or without amendments with which the Licence undertakes to comply.

 

8.  No Right to Purchase or Transfer of Licence Rights

 

8.1     In respect of this Licence, and without limitation, the grant of this Licence does not confer upon the Licensee:

 

(a)     a right to purchase or License any part of the Premises; or

(b)     any tenancy or other estate or interest in any part of the Premises other than contractual rights as Licensee under this Licence.

8.2     Subject to any other provisions of this Licence the Licensee shall not during the Term of this Licence, sub-licence, part with possession of the Premises, transfer or create any interest in the Licence or authorise or permit any person to occupy the Premises without the prior written consent of the Licensor and the Minister.

 

OPTIONS

Council has a number of options available:

 

1.  Support the F45 Group Training Facility within the premises and vary the licence agreement to permit the activity as part of the Bowling Club agreement.  Council would need to seek the agreement of the NSW Trade & Investment to the variation of licence.  The licence rental would need to be revalued to match a rental payable for Bowling Club and Group Training Facility.  Advise the Club that any agreement with F45 Group Training Facility should run in line with the term of the head licence between the Reserve Trust and the Bowling Club and expire on 31 March 2018.

 

2.  Support the F45 Group Training Facility, however vary the licence agreement to the Bowling Club to reduce the licensed area and negotiate a licence agreement with market rental to match a commercial use with the F45 Group Training Facility direct from Council.

 

3.  Refuse the F45 Group Training Facility and advise the Club this activity is not supported based on the permissible use under the terms of the licence agreement.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Before proceeding with any of the abovementioned options it is considered, in the best interest of the local community, that Council goes out to public consultation with the local Precinct Committee and residents to obtain their views on what the Bowling Club is proposing.

 

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 currently no information provided by the Club or F45 Group Training Facility to identify any financial impact on Council’s income. Such information would be obtained once community feedback is obtained and an option identified.

 

Conclusion

 

As this proposal will have an effect on the local Coogee community it is proposed that Council’s Manager Communications undertake a process of community consultation to provide Council with relevant feedback on community expectations.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council;

 

a)     udertakes an appropriate public consultation process to obtain community feedback on the preferred option moving forward with respect to the proposed installation of an F45 Group Training Facility within the Bowling Club premises in the lower level of the club.

 

b)     reports back to Council on the outcome of the public consultation process.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

David Yole - 51-69R Dolphin Street Randwick - Coogee Bowling Club Limited - Advising RCC of proposal of use lower level of club as an F45 Group Training Facility AND Stephen Hoiles - 51-69R Dolphin Street Coogee - Request for approval of group training facility and junior sports coaching at Coogee Bowling Club

 

 

 

 


David Yole - 51-69R Dolphin Street Randwick - Coogee Bowling Club Limited - Advising RCC of proposal of use lower level of club as an F45 Group Training Facility AND Stephen Hoiles - 51-69R Dolphin Street Coogee - Request for approval of group training facility and junior sports coaching at Coogee Bowling Club

Attachment 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


          


 


General Manager

Randwick City Council

Frances St

Randwick NSW 2031

 

6 June 2014

 

To whom it may concern,

 

Group Training Facility and Junior Sports Coaching at Coogee Bowling Club

 

My name is Stephen Hoiles and I am writing on behalf of Adam Ashley Cooper, Mitchell Chapman and myself for a proposal to open a group fitness training facility which will also include a sports training academy for aspiring junior athletes in the local community such as Surf life saving, Rugby League, Rugby Union and Athletics.

 

We have been in discussions with the Coogee Bowls club for a few months and we understand that we must first gain approval from local council.

 

We understand that the Bowls club have a lease with the council until March 2018 so no agreement beyond this time will be entered into if we are successful in this request.

 

Currently the downstairs of the Coogee Bowling Club is being used as a snooker room. As part of our discussions with the Bowls club we have agreed at our expense to relocate the snooker room to upstairs and include 30 lockers for the current bowlers of the club. We believe this upgrade will benefit both the bowlers and the snooker players.

 

The eastern green is no longer used by the bowlers due to the cost of upkeep.

The club management has approved access to this green for our specific coaching of junior athletes. In return we will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of this green.

 

Our business model is a boutique style of fitness training.

Small groups of members attend 45min sessions. Our hours of operation are from 6am-9pm with the busy times outside the hours of 9am-5pm.

This is a functional training business with our focus on movement and fitness and does not include the use of heavy weights commonly used in most commercial gymnasiums. 

 

We do not allow members to train on their own.  All of our sessions will be supervised by qualified staff members who have a passion for health and fitness and our sole focus of this operation will be to improve the wellbeing of members and help coach and mentor aspiring young athletes.

 

.

 

 

This venue will be available for schools and local sporting teams who can benefit from our qualified coaches.

We also plan to make this space available for all travelling sports teams stying at the Crown Plaza including NRL, AFL, Super 15 and international Rugby teams.

 

 

We are aware that a number of bowling clubs including Maroubra Bowls have diverse activities both inside the clubhouse and on the greens and we believe that this is a positive outcome for the local area. Hopefully with your approval we too can create a healthy and active environment at the Coogee Bowls Club.

 

We are also committed to a full fit out of the current facility including:

·    Soundproof flooring,

·    Bathroom upgrade

·    Electrical work

·    Offices

·    Improvement of natural lighting and airflow

 

 About Us

 

Stephen Hoiles, Adam Ashley Cooper and Mitchell Chapman are current members of the NSW Waratahs team and have all represented the Wallabies during their Career over the last 10 years. All three have a strong passion for Health and Fitness and together they are pursuing a career in health and fitness, specialising in Coaching and mentoring of local young athletes.

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF50/14

 

 

Subject:                  Submission of Motion at Local Government NSW Conference

Folder No:                   F2004/06645

Author:                   David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services     

 

Introduction

 

At the ordinary Council meeting held 24 June 2014 it was resolved:

 

“(Andrews/Garcia) that:

 

a)     Councillors interested in attending the 2014 Conference of Local Government NSW advise the General Manager as soon as possible;

b)     Council identify, and advise the General Manager by 4 July 2014, the most important issues which they believe are causing concern to the Council and/or the local community (and a motion or proposed solution for each issue) for inclusion in the business paper for the July Council Meeting.”

 

Issues

 

In accordance with clause (b) of the above resolution I can report that one such motion was resolved at the ordinary Council meeting held 24 June 2014:

 

“(Matson/Garcia) that Council:

 

1.     Notes with concern:

 

a)     The Federal Government’s decision in the 2014/15 Budget to freeze indexation for Commonwealth funded Financial Assistance Grants.

b)     That the indexation freeze is projected to cut $288 million from funding to local councils in NSW which will directly impact on council’s ability to provide essential services and maintain and build infrastructure; and

c)     That 152 local councils in NSW currently have a combined infrastructure backlog of $7.2 billion.

 

2.     Calls on the Federal Government to immediately abandon its decision to freeze the indexation of Financial Assistance Grants and reinstate the $1 billion of previously promised funding to Local Governments across Australia.

 

3.     forward this as a motion to LGNSW for the 2014 Conference.”

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability.

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

 


Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The abovementioned motion will be forwarded to the conference organiser’s as soon as possible.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the motion on the Federal Government’s decision in the 2014/15 Budget to freeze indexation for Commonwealth funded Financial Assistance Grants be forwarded as a matter of urgency to LGNSW for the 2014 Conference.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM70/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Crs Stavrinos & Andrews - Proposed Shopfront Improvement Grants Program

Folder No:                   F2014/00156

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

 

 

That Council bring back a report on the feasibility of adopting a shopfront improvement grants program aimed at improving the appearance of shopfronts and enhancing the visual landscape of town centres.

 

a)     the grant program cover costs including;

 

·       removal of roller shutters

·       laminating or double glazing

·       removal of unused signs

·       security lighting

·       shopfront painting & application of anti-graffiti treatments

·       fixed display shelves within window frames

·       under awning repairs

·       replacement of approved security devices or alarm systems

 

b)     the program exclude;

 

·       Purchase of buildings

·       Extensions or additions to properties

·       Routine Maintenance

·       Relocation of business

·       Internal shop fittings

·       Staffing and operational costs

·     Properties owned by council staff or other government agencies

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM71/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Andrews - Wylies Baths Trust management model

Folder No:                   F2012/00407

Submitted by:          Councillor Andrews, Central Ward     

 

 

That the General Manager report to Council on the current management model of the Wylies Baths Trust with a recommendation for a best practice model in light of the Trusts’ lease expiring in three years.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM72/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - High Cross Park Light Rail Interchange

Folder No:                   F2004/08175

Submitted by:          Councillor  Shurey, North Ward     

 

 

That Council establishes the High Cross Park Working Group comprising the Mayor, the General Manager and Ward Councillors to pursue the objectives of;

 

1)    Working with the State Government to acknowledge the benefits of the CBD to South East Light Rail project and to better publicise the responsible and reasonable light rail mitigation initiatives Council is already pursuing under the Light Rail Support Plan; 

 

2)    Presenting the State Government with alternative sites to that of High Cross Park for the bus/light rail interchange by producing a package of options known as the “Feasible Interchange Alternatives” that shall include but not be limited to:

 

a)     Joint venture partnerships to acquire and develop property on the north side of High Street between Avoca and Clara Streets and on the east side of Belmore Road opposite High Cross Park between Avoca Street and Coogee Bay Road; and

b)     Facilities based wholly within the High Street or Coogee Bay Road alignments.

 

3)    Using a Council approved budget to commission independent technical experts to research, develop and assess the Feasible Interchange Alternatives package; and

 

4)    To coordinate with a Council media and advertising campaign to be run under the slogan “Fair Go For Kingsford, Fair Go For Randwick” to support the attainment of these objectives.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM73/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Communication Strategy for Community Safety

Folder No:                   F2004/07501

Submitted by:          Councillor Garcia, South Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

1.     NOTE with concern the NSW Police Force post of 12 July 2014 which read:

 

Police are appealing for information after two girls were approached by an unknown man at Coogee yesterday.

Just after 2pm (Friday 11 July 2014), two girls aged 10 were outside public toilets on Arden Street when a man approached and spoke to them, telling them to get into his car.


The girls ran from the man and told two passers-by, who contacted police.
As officers attached to Eastern Beaches Local Area Command investigate the incident, they would like to speak to a man who may be able to assist them with their inquiries.


He is described as being of Caucasian appearance, about 180cm tall, of heavy build and with short brown hair.


He was seen wearing a dark blue t-shirt, dark track suit pants, a dark blue cap with mesh at the back and was carrying a black back pack.

 

2.     REQUEST Council officers to consider ways in which messages such as this might be distributed more widely within the Randwick community including through facebook.

 

3.     THANK Council officers for the work they currently do to assist the Eastern     Beaches Local Area Command on child safety issues.

 

4.     NOTE that, in light of this recent incident, the NSW Police encourages local       parents to discuss the ‘Safe People, Safe Places’ message with their children    including:

 

-   Make sure your parents or another adult you know knows where you are at all times.

-   Always walk straight home or to the place you are walking to. Walk near busier roads and streets, or use paths where there are lots of other people.

-   Know where safe places are – a shop, service station, police station, library or school. If you are ever frightened, you should go to one of these places and ask them to call the police.

-   Learn about safe adults you can look for and talk to if you need help – police officers, teachers at school, adults you know and trust.

-   Don’t talk to people you don’t know and never get into a car with someone you don’t know. If a car stops on the side of the road and you don’t know the person inside, do not stop.

-   If you are scared and can use a phone, call 000 and tell them you are scared.

-   If someone tries to grab you, yell out, ‘Go away, I don’t know you’. This lets other people know you have been approached by someone you don’t know.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 July 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM78/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Fair Go for Kingsford, Fair Go for Randwick

Folder No:                   F2004/08175

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

 

That South Juniors (i.e. The Juniors) and the Kingsford Chamber of Commerce be invited to sign a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with the Council for the mutual objectives of:

 

1)  Working with the State Government to acknowledge the benefits of the CBD to South East Light Rail project and to facilitate its progression in Kingsford;

 

2)  Better publicizing the responsible and reasonable light rail mitigation initiatives that the three co-signers are pursuing in Kingsford via the Council’s Light Rail Support Plan Committee; 

 

3)  Acquiring the Government owned land at the old Kingsford Market site on fair and reasonable terms for the benefit of the businesses and residents of Kingsford;

 

4)  To plan and promote the building of a parking facility on the Kingsford Market site to mitigate parking losses from the CBD to South East light Rail project; and

 

5)  To run a media and advertising campaign under the slogan “Fair Go For Kingsford, Fair Go For Randwick” to support the attainment of these objectives.