Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 26 August 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                                                                                                  26 August 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, 26 August 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 - 22 July 2014

Extraordinary Council Meeting - 29 July 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.

CP86/14    4 Hannan Street, Maroubra
(DA/804/2011/A)................................................................................
1

CP87/14    143-145 Mount Street, COOGEE (DA/488/2012/A)..................................... 9

CP88/14    3/16 Beach Street, CLOVELLY (DA/441/2014).......................................... 23

CP89/14    58-60 Carr Street, COOGEE (DA/116/2014)............................................ 29

CP90/14    JRPP Report - 215 Anzac Parade, KENSINGTON (DA/267/2014).................. 45

 

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP91/14    Report variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 July to 31 July 2014........................... 87

CP92/14    Future Music Festival - Establishment of Key Stakeholder Group................. 93

General Manager's Report

GM26/14   Review of the 2013-14 Annual Operational Plan - June Quarterly Report....... 97

Director City Services Reports

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF53/14    Investment Report - July 2014............................................................. 99

GF54/14    Carbon Tax Repeal........................................................................... 107

GF55/14    Affixing of the Council Seal - Clovelly Bowling Club................................. 109  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM75/14   Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Banksmeadow Waste Transfer Station. 111

NM76/14   Notice of Motion from Crs Matson, Nash & Smith under Section 372(5) of Local Government Act - "Fair Go for Kingsford, Fair Go for Randwick"............... 113

NM77/14   Notice of Motion from Crs Andrews and Stavrinos - Car parking in West Ward 115

NM78/14   Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Racial Discrimination Act.................... 117

NM79/14   Notice of Motion from Crs D'Souza & Neilson - Centenary of St Jude's Church, Randwick.................................................................................................... 119

NM80/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposed Savings on Domestic Waste Disposal  121

NM81/14   Notice of Motion from Crs D' Souza & Garcia - Proposed Noise Abatement Strategy for Port Botany.................................................................................... 123

NM82/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Proposed Kensington Park - Plan of Management   125

NM83/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Concerns related to the 'secretive' Bill on compulsory business voting in Local Government Elections....................................... 127

NM84/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Kensington Community Centre - Environmental Sustainable Design........................................................................... 129

NM85/14   Notice of Motion from Crs Smith & D'Souza - Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders...................................................................... 131

NM86/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Possible unmonitored contamination work on area 10 at Bundock Street site...................................................................... 133

NM87/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Youth Education on Local Government.... 135

NM88/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Response to Bill on expanding business voting provisions at a local government level.................................................. 137

NM89/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Protection of Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub on Malabar Headland............................................................................. 139

NM90/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Light Rail & Impact on Randwick LGA Bus Services 141

NM91/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Preservation of Bees ......................... 143

NM92/14   Notice of Motion from D'Souza - Election Funding .................................. 145

NM93/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - Policy position on sewer infrastructure.. 147

NM94/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Art Competitions ............................. 149  

Closed Session (record of voting required)

CS15/14    Tender for Randwick Town Hall Upgrade and Council Chambers Upgrade - No. T2014-10

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.

 

CS16/14    Tender for Coral Sea Park Maroubra Amenities Upgrade - No. T2014-21

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.

 

GF56/14    SSROC Tender for the Supply and Delivery of Road Brooms and Brushes - No. S06/2014

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.

 

GF57/14    SSROC Tender for the Supply, Supply & Install, and Maintenance of Road and Traffic Control Equipment - No S9/2014

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

NR8/14     Notice of Rescission Motion from Crs Moore, Belleli & Bowen - The Light Rail Project - Proposed amendments to the development agreement with TfNSW........... 151

NR9/14     Notice of Rescission Motion from Crs Neilson, Stevenson & Moore - High Cross Park Light Rail Interchange............................................................................... 155  

 

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Sima Truuvert

ACTING General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP86/14

 

 

Subject:                  4 Hannan Street, Maroubra
(DA/804/2011/A)

Folder No:                   DA/804/2011/A

Author:                   Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the length of the rear addition by 1 metre, reinstate the front porch/verandah, delete the rear in ground pool and clerestory windows on the northern elevation and modifications to the roof.  Original Consent: Substantial alterations to the existing dwelling including a new first floor addition.

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Mr J A Nettle

Owner:                        Mr J A Nettle

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview51480.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application seeks to modify the original consent determined at the Ordinary Council meeting of 13th December 2011.

 

The subject section 96 (2) application seeks approval to modify the approved development consent by increasing the length of the rear addition by 1 metre, reinstate the front porch/verandah, delete the rear in ground pool and clerestory windows on the northern elevation and modifications to the roof. 

 

1.      Proposal

 

The proposed development seeks to amend the approved plans as follows:

 

Ground Floor

§  Delete approved pool and pool fence, reinstate landscaping;

§  Various window changes on the northern elevation;

§  Extend rear building alignment by 1m; and

§  Reinstate existing porch/verandah to the front of existing semi-detached dwelling.

 

First Floor

§  Delete approved planter box;

§  Various window changes on the northern elevation;

§  Extend rear building alignment by 1m; and

§  Delete approved first floor highlight window on north elevation.

 

Roof Plan

§  Modify roof design at first floor level to the front of the addition.

 

2.      Site

 

The site is on the western side of Hannan Street south of Storey Street, Maroubra and is presently occupied by an existing single storey semi-detached dwelling. The subject site has a regular rectangular shape and with no significant slope.

 

The subject site is rectangular in shape and has the following dimensions and land area:

 

 Boundary

Length

Land area

East, front boundary to Hannan Street

6.147m

306.8m2

 

 

 

North, side boundary

49.585m

South, side boundary

49.585m

West, rear boundary

6.189m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure1. Subject Site

 

Figure2. Subject Site

 

Neighbouring the property to the north and south are part single and part two storey dwellings and to the rear are single and two storey dwellings. The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by low density residential development and consists predominantly of detached single dwellings and semi-detached dwellings.

 

The land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential as detailed below:

Figure 3: Land zoning

 

 

 

 

3.      Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, there were no submissions received.

 

4.         Referral

 

The proposal was referred to councils Landscape Technician, the following comments were made:

 

4.1      Landscape Technician

 

An application has been received to modify the approved development at the above site, including deleting the approved in-ground pool from the rear yard, internal alterations, and extending the rear alignment of both the ground and first floors by 1 metre.

 

Landscape Comments

The inspection of 29 July 2014 confirmed that, with the exception of some shrubs across the rear (western) boundary, all other vegetation referred to in the previous Engineering report of 21 November 2011 had already been removed from site, with footings for the new house already poured.

 

Condition 30.b gave consent to remove a Jacaranda, Giant Bird of Paradise and a NSW Xmas Tree in order to accommodate the pool, and while this application now states that the pool will not even be constructed, the rear extension will finish in roughly this same area, which would necessitate their removal anyway.

 

As such, no changes to issued conditions are required.

 

5.      Key Issues

 

S96 Assessment

Under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria have been complied with:

 

Substantially the Same Development:

The proposal will not result in a change to the nature of the original application and the changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which the consent was granted. The scope of modifications includes increasing the length of the rear addition by 1 metre, reinstatement of the front porch/verandah, deletion of the rear in ground pool and clerestory windows on the northern elevation and modification to the roof. The proposed section 96 modification does not involve any substantial changes to the built form and envelope of the approved consent and it will remain consistent with the original consent.

 

5.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

§  Clauses 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio

The allowable FSR applicable to the site is 0.75:1 under the current LEP 2012. The approved development has an FSR of 0.56:1, when calculated in accordance with the definition for “gross floor area” as defined by the current Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

The retention of the porch/verandah to the front of the semi-detached dwelling will result in a reduction of G.F.A of 6.5m²; notwithstanding this the increase in floor area at the rear of the semi-detached dwelling at ground and first floor level of 8.3m² will result in a net increase of 1.8m² and a new F.S.R of 0.57:1. It is considered that the additional G.F.A will not create any additional impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties or character of the streetscape as it will not result in a significant increase in size, scale or bulk of the development. 

 

The proposed works will be consistent with the objectives of the RLEP 2012 in that the scale and mass of the modified development will achieve a suitable urban design outcome that will complement the desirable streetscape character of the locality.

 

5.2    Comprehensive Development Control Plan

 

§  Setbacks

 

The proposal seeks to extend the ground and first floor a further 1m towards the rear of the site. The addition will maintain the existing nil setback on the southern boundary (via the party wall to the adjoining semi-detached dwelling) and will maintain the existing 900mm ground floor and 1500mm first floor setbacks on the northern side boundary. Development to a semi-detached dwelling may be constructed to the common boundary with the adjoining dwelling. The addition has been designed so it will not extend past the existing rear setback of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling, this will minimise the creation of any exposed party walls on the common boundary. It is considered that the proposal meets the relevant objectives and controls in the RDCP 2013 and will not result in any adverse impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

§  Building Design

 

The extension of the semi-detached dwelling results in a 14m unrelieved wall, this does not meet the relevant control in the RDCP 2013, which states that Side elevations shall be divided into sections, bays or modules of not more than 12m in length, separated by measures such as recesses or side courtyards, in order to avoid massive or unrelieved walls. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal does not meet the relevant control in the RDCP 2013, it is considered that it meets the relevant objectives and will not result in any additional significant bulk, scale or massing to the development when viewed from the neighbouring properties or the streetscape.

 

The development sits on a narrow 6.147m block, the northern elevation contains a 2.17m recessed courtyard and the ground and first floor setbacks are offset to create additional articulation in the building design. The proposal is considered to meet the objectives of the RDCP 2013 and is consistent with developments in the surrounding area.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

Overall, the essence of the application is not changing and it complies with the majority of the RDCP 2013 controls. Where the proposed modifications are identified as not meeting the relevant numerical controls or objectives of the RDCP2013 or have the potential to cause adverse impacts on neighbouring properties, suitable conditions are included to ameliorate these issues. Consequently, the proposal modifications, as conditioned, are suitable for the site, they satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

The application is, therefore, recommended for approval subject to the attached

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. DA/804/2011/A by increasing the length of the rear addition by 1 metre, reinstating the front porch/verandah, deleting the rear in ground pool and clerestory windows on the northern elevation and modifications to the roof at 4 Hannan Street, Maroubra, subject to the following conditions:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

A-02 (Issue A)

Antonius and Associates

December 2010

26 October 2011

A-03 (Issue A)

Antonius and Associates

December 2010

26 October 2011

A-04 (Issue PR)

Antonius and Associates

November 2010

26 October 2011

A-05 (Issue A)

Antonius and Associates

December 2010

26 October 2011

A-06 (Issue PR)

Antonius and Associates

December 2010

26 October 2011

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

 

A101973_02

25 October 2011

 

As amended by the Section 96 “A” plans and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

ARK826-1-1 (Sheet 1 of 6)

Ark design studio pty ltd

04/07/2014

07/07/2014

ARK826-1-1 (Sheet 2 of 6)

Ark design studio pty ltd

04/07/2014

07/07/2014

ARK826-1-1 (Sheet 3 of 6)

Ark design studio pty ltd

04/07/2014

07/07/2014

ARK826-1-1 (Sheet 4 of 6)

Ark design studio pty ltd

04/07/2014

07/07/2014

ARK826-1-1 (Sheet 5 of 6)

Ark design studio pty ltd

04/07/2014

07/07/2014

ARK826-1-1 (Sheet 6 of 6)

Ark design studio pty ltd

04/07/2014

07/07/2014

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received

A193225

03/07/2014

07/07/2014

 

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

 

·      Add Condition 62 to read:

 

62.     The total area of any openings within the privacy screen on the northern elevation at first floor level must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen. Alternatively the screens may be constructed from solid obscured glazing or from louvres which are fixed at an angle to prevent direct overlooking.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA - Compliance Report - 4 Hannan Street, MAROUBRA

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP87/14

 

 

Subject:                  143-145 Mount Street, COOGEE (DA/488/2012/A)

Folder No:                   DA/488/2012/A

Author:                   Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96(AA) modification of approved development by making internal alterations to create a media/study room to units 3 & 4.

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Martin & Spork Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mr M Toras & Mrs H Toras

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview11640.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 


Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application seeks to modify the original consent, which was determined by the Land and Environmental Court on 3 September 2013. The development application has been assessed by an external consultant and referred to Council as a Council employee objected to the original proposal. The application was also referred to Council at the request of Councillors Nash, Andrews and Stavinos.

 

1.       Background

 

The original proposal involved the conversion of the existing two x 2- bedroom semi-detached dwelling into four 2-bedroom units and the provision of two off-street parking spaces, being one adjacent to each of the north and south boundaries. This DA was lodged and notified in August 2012. Twenty individual objections were received which detailed concerns relating to parking availability, solar access, visual privacy, floor space ratio, landscaping, stormwater and neighbourhood character. In response to other deficiencies in the proposal identified by the DRP and concerns raised by the objectors, the applicants lodged amended plans in November 2012.

 

The revised scheme incorporated a number of amendments including reduced bulk and scale, and reduced intensity (2 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 1 bedroom apartments). The proposal also included a bicycle locker for each apartment. The amended application was re-notified and nine submissions received. The principal concerns were mostly in relation to the lack of parking and overdevelopment of the site.

 

The original application was assessed by an independent consultant town planner. The assessment report presented to Council’s Planning Committee recommended approval of the application. The Committee subsequently refused the application on the grounds that the proposal did not comply with the numerical requirements of the DCP for car parking, and that it would adversely impact on car parking capacity of the locality.

 

On 2 September 2013, an appeal was upheld in the Land and Environment Court. The development consent issued by the Court was subject to a number of conditions, and included relevantly, a condition requiring that a car share pod be provided adjacent to the property prior to the issuance of a Construction Certificate and that six occupants may use the car share vehicle for a minimum of five years. Consistent with the primary issue raised by objectors in relation to the original development application, central to the decision of the Court was the assessment of the car parking provision under the application.

 

2.       Site

 

The property is situated at No. 143-145 Mount Street, Coogee. The land is legally described as Lot 1, DP 5597. Full site and surrounding locality descriptions are provided within the previous Development Assessment report for DA/488/2012.

 

3.       Proposal

 

The proposed Section 96(AA) modification to the original development consent involves internal alterations to the approved layout of Units 3 and 4 to convert a dining room to a media/study room.

 

The modifications will result in an open plan kitchen, living and dining room oriented towards the east. The space previously marked as a dining room is to become an enclosed media/study room with dimensions of 3.1m x 3.625m. This room is proposed to be enclosed with 900mm nib walls and double sliding doors. Internally, this space is provided with a cupboard along the eastern wall, aligning with the back of the kitchen.

 

The resultant open plan living area for each affected apartment will be 5.1m in depth measured to the kitchen bench and 4.765m wide. The living/kitchen/dining area under the original approval provided a total space with dimensions of 9m x 4.675m. 

 

It is noted that a Statement of Environmental Effects, nor Traffic and Parking Assessment, was not submitted in conjunction with this Section 96 application. Both of these documents formed part of the original development application package submitted under DA/488/2012.

 

4.       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:

 

-    126 Mount Street, Coogee

-    146 Mount Street, Coogee

-    147A Mount Street, Coogee

-    183 Oberon Street, Coogee (Residents representative)

-    1/137 Mount Street, Coogee

-    48 Dudley Street, Coogee

-    133 Mount Street, Coogee

-    147B Mount Street, Coogee

-    3/141 Mount Street, Coogee

 

The primary concerns that are considered to be relevant to the current modification application, and not the original development application, relate to car parking provision and the potential for further pressure on on-street car parking supply as a result of the development. This matter is addressed in detail throughout this report.

 

5.       Key Issues

 

Land and Environment Court Judgment and Parking Implications

 

As indicated, central to the Land & Environment Court’s decision in relation to the original development application, was the assessment of likely car parking demand and supply. The original development application submitted to Council proposed the two subject apartments as two bedroom units which were later modified to one bedroom apartments. Amongst other reasons, this was to assist with meeting car parking compliance. The submissions made by neighbouring property owners in relation to the original development application were heavily skewed towards raising concern in relation to the amount of car parking proposed and the impact of the development on the on-street car parking situation.

 

Submitted with the original development application was a Traffic and Parking Assessment which provided data on the on-street car parking capacity. Assumptions were also made in relation to the likely occupancy of the proposed apartments and therefore car ownership for each dwelling. Notwithstanding, the original application was refused by Council on car parking grounds.

 

On appeal to the Land & Environment Court, the only Contention raised by Council was deficiency in the number of parking spaces. The Court heard evidence in relation to car parking that again referred to survey data, likely occupancy of the dwellings and the resultant likely demand for on-street car parking. Considering the evidence, the Court granted development consent subject to a condition that required provision of a car share pod adjacent to the site that would include membership entitlement for six occupants of the subject development for a minimum of 5 years.

 

Given the importance of the number of bedrooms and likely occupancy of each dwelling in the determination of the original development application, it is considered critical that the current application not seek to increase the number of bedrooms or potential occupancy of the dwellings. This is particularly the case given the absence of any further traffic/parking analysis and in fact the absence of even a Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the development application.

 

As indicated, the proposal provides for a media/study space within the subject apartments that has dimensions of 3.1m x 3.625m (excluding cupboard space). These rooms have a window opening and are therefore provided with light and ventilation. The rooms are provided with doors and as such could be closed off from the remainder of the dwelling. Therefore, it is considered that other than the room label on these spaces, they could be easily and comfortably used as bedrooms. It is also considered that the dimensions exceed that which is necessary for use as a media/study space.

 

Whilst it would be possible to impose a condition of development consent that states the media/study spaces may not be used as bedrooms, this would almost be impossible for Council to enforce in the long term. Given that the applicant in any case does not seek approval for use of these spaces as bedrooms and that a media/study space can be used effectively at much smaller dimensions, it is considered appropriate to attempt to provide certainty as to the long term use of these spaces through imposition of physical limitations. Further, as discussed below, it is considered that the reduction in the media/study space dimension, would also improve the dimension and usability of the open plan living area.

 

Accordingly, it is recommended that a condition be imposed that provides for the following:

 

-      Reduction in the width of the media/study space to a maximum of 2m (including cupboard space through shifting of the western kitchen wall to the west by approximately 1.1m; and,

 

-      Removal of the sliding doors and nib walls to the proposed media/study spaces so that the spaces are open to the circulation corridor.

 

This approach will offer some degree of certainty for neighbouring residents in alleviating their concerns regarding increased car parking demand associated with additional bedrooms. That is, it is considered that the inclusion of a media/study space within the proposed apartments will not result in additional occupancy of the dwellings and therefore will not affect car parking demand. At the same time, it will provide no significant reduction in the amenity of the proposed apartments and will in fact improve the amenity of the living spaces.

 

Internal Layout

 

The proposal involves the reversal of the general kitchen orientation/layout, and the shifting of the kitchen 550mm to west. This revised layout provides for an open plan kitchen, living and dining room oriented towards the east. The space previously marked as a dining room is to become a media/study room with dimensions of 3.1 x 3.625m. This room is proposed to be enclosed with 900mm nib walls and double sliding doors. Internally, this space is provided with a cupboard along the eastern wall, aligning with the back of the kitchen.

 

As stated previously, the open plan living arrangement is considered to promote usability and flexibility as encouraged by the apartment layout provisions within the RFDC and DCP. Similarly, the addition of a separate study/media room satisfies demand for flexible spaces to accommodate contemporary live/work arrangements. However, the dimensions of the open plan living area are considered inadequate, particularly for the dwelling sizes proposed. In contrast, the dimensions and area of the proposed media/study space is considered to be excessive to meet the intended purpose of this space. The dimensions are essentially that of a second bedroom.

 

Accordingly, a condition of consent is recommended to shift the western wall of the kitchen further to the west to facilitate an increased living room dimension and reduced media/study space dimension and area. It is recommended that the western wall of the kitchen be shifted so as to leave a maximum 2m width (including any cupboard space) within the media/study space. This will provide a 6.2m width between the glass line on the eastern elevation and the back of the kitchen to each apartment. This will leave each space fit for its intended purpose. 

 

As discussed above, the recommended condition is also considered appropriate to, as far as practicable, preclude the use of the media/study space as a second bedroom. To this end, it is also recommended that the sliding doors and nib walls to the proposed media/study room be deleted, by condition of approval.

 

6.       Referral Comments

 

The application does not require any internal or external referrals.

 

Relevant Environment Planning Instruments:

 

7.       State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

The relevant provisions of SEPP No. 65 and the Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) were considered in relation to the original development application. Of relevance were objectives and “rules of thumb” related to residential amenity and dimensioning of internal spaces. Given the proposed internal alterations, provisions with respect to apartment layout and flexibility are reconsidered.

 

The provision of an open plan kitchen/living/dinning room is considered to suit the needs of modern apartment living as does the addition of a separate study/media room to accommodate live/work arrangements.

 

However, the dimensions of the combined open plan living area have been considerably reduced in comparison to the original development application and are considered to be such that will limit flexibility in furniture layout and general amenity for apartments of this size. In contrast, the proposed media/study room is considered to be oversized to suit this purpose, particularly for an apartment of the size. The media/study occupies over 15% of the overall apartment floor area even when including circulation space. As detailed below, a condition of consent is recommended to be imposed (Section 6) to shift the location of the western kitchen wall further west to facilitate an increase in the size of the living area whilst maintaining adequate dimensions for the media/study space.

 

The subject apartments continue to comply with the minimum standards for cross-through apartment width and the distance to the back of a kitchen. Cross ventilation and solar access performance continue to remain unaffected by the proposed modification. Importantly, the proposal continues to comply with the minimum unit size provision for 1 bedroom apartments (min 50m2) that are considered to contribute to housing affordability.

 

It is noted that if the apartments were to be used as two bedroom apartments, they would not meet the minimum recommended size for two bedroom cross-through apartments outlined in the RFDC.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index - BASIX) 2004

 

Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX have been included in the recommendation section of this report.

 

8.       Randwick LEP 2012

 

The subject site is zoned R3 under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal development is classified as a residential flat building and is permissible in the zone. The zoning objectives are addressed as follows:

 

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

 

Assessment Comment:  The proposed modifications will not change the medium density characteristics of the development and will continue to be in character with the surrounding locality.

 

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

 

Assessment Comment:  The modification involves the internal reconfiguration of units 3 and 4 to create an open plan kitchen/living/dining room and addition of a flexible study and/or media room. Subject to recommended conditions of consent, it is considered that the proposal will meet the needs of modern apartment living.

 

Objective: To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

 

Assessment Comment:  This objective does not apply to the proposal.

 

Objective: 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.

 

Assessment Comment:  These attributes were considered under the original approval and are not applicable to the proposed modification.

 

Objective: To protect the amenity of residents.

 

Assessment Comment:  The proposal does not alter the bulk and scale of the proposal, nor will the external appearance of the proposal change. As discussed in detail below, it is considered to be imperative to the acceptability of the proposal that the apartments not be used as two bedroom apartments. The potential occupancy of the apartments was central to the Court’s determination of the original development application and the current application is not accompanied by any evidence to support an increase in the number of bedrooms on traffic/parking grounds. Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, which will provide greater control over use of the proposed media/study, it is considered that the amenity of surrounding residents will not be affected significantly beyond that expected by the original development consent. The amenity for potential occupants of the development will also be acceptable.   

 

Objective: To encourage housing affordability.

 

Assessment Comment:  The proposed modification is considered acceptable in terms of promoting housing affordability.

 

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

 

Assessment Comment:  This objective does not apply to the proposal.

It is therefore considered that the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives for development in Zone R3. Given the proposed modification relates to internal configurations, the proposal will not result in any environmental impacts nor will it result in any changes to numerical compliance with landscaped area, height, floor space and the like, which was established within the original approval of DA/488/2012. As such, no further consideration of the Randwick LEP 2012 is considered necessary.

 

9.       Randwick Comprehensive DCP

 

9.1      C2 Table: Medium Density Residential

 

Randwick Development Control Plan

 

The DCP provisions are structured into two components, Objectives and Controls. The Objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions. Any proposed variations from the controls may be considered only where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome.

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed in the table below. (Note: a number of control provisions that are not related to the proposal have been deliberately omitted.)

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

B7

Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

3.

Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

Car parking requirements:

1 space per 2 studios

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

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

No change to the approved provision of parking, including the provision of access for residents to a car share scheme for the property.

 

The number of bedrooms does not increase with the proposal, and as such no additional parking is required nor is it warranted (see comments below).

No change, relies on approved car share scheme.

 

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement

No change

No change

4.

Bicycles

 

Residents:

1 bike space per 2 units

Visitors:

1 per 10 units

Bicycle parking is to remain as approved, which is suitable in light of the proposed modifications.

Yes

C2

Medium Density Residential

2.3

Private and communal open space

2.3.1

Private open space

 

Private open space is to be:

(i)   Directly accessible from the living area of the dwelling.

(ii)  Open to a northerly aspect where possible so as to maximise solar access.

(iii)  Be designed to provide adequate privacy for residents and where possible can also contribute to passive surveillance of common areas.

 

Balconies remain as approved, accessible from the living space.

 

Yes

 

For residential flat buildings:

(vi) Each dwelling has access to an area of private open space in the form of a courtyard, balcony, deck or roof garden, accessible from with the dwelling.

(vii) Private open space for apartments has a minimum area of 8m2 and a minimum dimension of 2m.

 

As above.

 

 

 

 

Private open space exceeds minimum requirements.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

4

Building Design

4.7

Apartment layout

 

(i)   Maximise opportunities for natural lighting and ventilation through the following measures:

-   Providing corner, cross-over, cross-through and double-height maisonette / loft apartments.

-   Limiting the depth of single aspect apartments to a maximum of 6m.

-   Providing windows or skylights to kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas where possible.

Providing at least 1 openable window (excluding skylight) opening to outdoor areas for all habitable rooms and limiting the use of borrowed light and ventilation.

All window/door openings, apartment orientation and solar accessibility remain consistent with the approved development.

Yes

 

(ii)  Design apartment layouts to accommodate flexible use of rooms and a variety of furniture arrangements.

The proposed open plan kitchen/living/dining room and separate media/study room is considered to be acceptable to meet the needs of modern apartment living. However, the dimensions of the combined living area are considered to limit the flexible use potential of this space and the opportunity for it to be appropriately furnished. In contrast the media/study space is considered to be or dimension and area well beyond that necessary for such a space. As such, for these reasons as well to assist with precluding use of the media/study space as a bedroom, it is recommended that a condition of consent be imposed to shift the location of the western wall of the kitchen further towards the west.

Yes, subject to condition

 

(iii)  Provide private open space in the form of a balcony, terrace or courtyard for each and every apartment unit in a development.

Private open space is to remain as approved, which is suitable for the proposed modifications.

Yes

 

(iv) Avoid locating the kitchen within the main circulation space of an apartment, such as hallway or entry.

Modified kitchen location and layout is not located within a hallway.

Yes

4.8

Balconies

 

(i)   Provide a primary balcony and/or private courtyard for all apartments with a minimum area of 8m2 and a minimum dimension of 2m and consider secondary balconies or terraces in larger apartments.

All balcony areas are consistent with the approved development.

Yes

5

Amenity

5.2

Natural ventilation and energy efficiency

 

(i)   Provide daylight to internalised areas within each dwelling and any poorly lit habitable rooms via measures such as ventilated skylights, clerestory windows, fanlights above doorways and highlight windows in internal partition walls.

The proposal's performance with regards to daylight access and ventilation remain consistent with the original approval.

Yes

 

(ii)  Sun shading devices appropriate to the orientation should be provided for the windows and glazed doors of the building.

As above.

Yes

 

(iii)  All habitable rooms must incorporate windows opening to outdoor areas. The sole reliance on skylight or clerestory windows for natural lighting and ventilation is not acceptable.

As above.

Yes

 

(iv) All new residential units must be designed to provide natural ventilation to all habitable rooms. Mechanical ventilation must not be the sole means of ventilation to habitable rooms.

As above.

Yes

 

(v)  A minimum of 90% of residential units should be naturally cross ventilated. In cases where residential units are not naturally cross ventilated, such as single aspect apartments, the installation of ceiling fans may be required.

As above.

Yes

 

(vi) A minimum of 25% of kitchens within a development should have access to natural ventilation and be adjacent to openable windows.

As above.

Yes

 

(vii) Developments, which seek to vary from the minimum standards, must demonstrate how natural ventilation can be satisfactorily achieved, particularly in relation to habitable rooms.

As above.

Yes

 

10.     79C Matters for consideration

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development;

SEPP – BASIX

Randwick LEP 2012

-    All EPIs discussed above.

Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument

Not applicable.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan

Randwick DCP

-    Discussed above.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement

Not applicable.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

Section 79C(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality

The environmental impacts of the proposed development generally were assessed in relation to the original development application. The proposed modification will not result in any additional environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment, subject to the imposition of recommended conditions of development consent. As indicated below, the central issue for consideration in relation to this modification application is the potential for additional parking demand. This is discussed in detail below.

Section 79C(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development

The suitability of the site for the proposed development was considered in assessment of the original development application. The proposed modification application does not alter the site’s suitability for the development proposed, subject to imposition of recommended conditions of development consent.

Section 79C(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation

 

A number of submissions were made in relation to this proposal. The majority of submissions received were from residents within the surrounding area and object to the proposal. The primary cause for objection was in relation to the potential for increase in traffic and parking congestion within the locality as a result of the proposed internal reconfiguration. It is considered that the issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report, within particular attention made to Section 10 Discussion.

Section 79C(1)(e) – The public interest

The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality subject to imposition of the recommended conditions of development consent. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

11.     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.

 

12.     Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

13.     Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications comply with the majority of controls and objectives of Randwick LEP 2013 and Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013, or do not alter compliance when compared with the original development consent.

 

The key issue related to the assessment is the potential for the proposal to increase car parking demand. This matter was central to the original determination of the application by the Land & Environment Court and is the primary objection from surrounding residents.

 

It is considered appropriate to impose conditions of development consent that provide, as far as practicable, certainty that the proposal will not increase the number of bedrooms within each apartment of the likely occupancy of each dwelling. The recommended conditions of consent will also enhance the internal amenity of the subject apartments.

 

Therefore the application is considered to be sufficient and development consent is recommended subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council as the consent authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/488/2012/A by making internal alterations to create a media/study room to units 3 & 4 at 143 – 145 Mount Street, COOGEE  in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition Nos. 1 & 2 to read:

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans approved by Land and Environment Court on 25 September 2013, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red by the following:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

DA01

Martin & Spork

30/10/12 Rev G

DA02

Martin & Spork

30/10/12 Rev G

DA03

Martin & Spork

30/10/12 Rev G

DA04

Martin & Spork

30/10/12 Rev G

DA00

Martin & Spork

30/10/12 Rev G

DA07

Martin & Spork

30/10/12 Rev G

DA08

Martin & Spork

30/10/12 Rev G

DA09

Martin & Spork

30/10/12 Rev G

DA010

Martin & Spork

30/10/12 Rev G

BASIX Cetificate

No.441065M

Dated 4/12/12

 

as amended by the Section 96’A’ plans numbered 1217-DA-04 Revision J, dated 29.4.14 and received by Council on 22 May 2014

 

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 1.8m above floor level must be provided to rear facing ground floor balconies. The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen. Alternatively, the privacy screen may be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

b.     Plan Number: 1217-DA-04, by Martin & Spork Pty Ltd, dated 29/4/14, revision J must be amended to delete of the sliding doors to the media/study spaces of Units 3 and 4 and the deletion of the nib walls along the hallway. The internal width dimension of the media/study spaces shall be reduced to a maximum of 2m including any cupboards. This must be achieved by shifting the western wall of the kitchen to each apartment to the west by the distance required to provide for a 2m internal width dimension to the media/study space. These changes are shown in red on the approved set of plans. Details are to be submitted to the Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Reason: This is to ensure that the living and media/study spaces are of adequate dimension to be used for their purpose and to ensure that the media/study spaces are not capable of use as bedrooms.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP88/14

 

 

Subject:                  3/16 Beach Street, CLOVELLY (DA/441/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/441/2014

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Unit 3 - New pergola and new decking to terrace

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Mr P J Cummins

Owner:                        The Owners - Strata Plan No. 55980

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview64014.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been referred to Council Meeting and assessed by an external planning Consultant is a Council employee resides in the subject property.

 

Proposal

 

The proposed development involves the following works:

§ Demolish the existing lean-to awning and posts off the top floor balcony.

§ Build a new pergola structure with infill louvre blades, equivalent to a ‘Vergola’ structure.

§ Build a new timber deck over the existing tiled balcony that is level with the internal floor i.e. raised by 160mm from RL 50.89 to RL 51.05.

§ Build new joinery unit on new deck, including a built-in BBQ.

 

NB: the new timber deck structure will align with the internal finished floor level.

 

The new ‘vergola’ structure will align with the existing awning further west and be setback 450mm from the southern side of the building, together with the new timber flooring. The existing louvres and wall to the northern side of the existing terrace will be retained.

 

Site

 

The subject site, Unit 3/16 Beach Street Clovelly, is located on the western side of Beach Street and is the top level apartment of a two to three storey walk up residential flat building (RFB). The RFB contains a total of four (4) units.

 

The site is rectangular with a street frontage of approximately 15m.

 

The neighbouring property, to the north, is a four storey, residential flat building. The property to the south is a two storey, shop top housing development located on the corner of Beach Street and Clovelly Road. The immediate locality is predominately medium density residential in nature and consists of two to three storey residential flat buildings that respond to the fall of the land.

 

Photos of the site and surrounding area are provided below.

 

Photo 1: The existing terrace, looking south east

Photo 2: The existing terrace area facing the west elevation of the unit; it is proposed the existing lean-to awning will be demolished and a new pergola erected.

 

 

Photo 3: Looking north towards the adjoining residential flat building. The existing privacy screen and wall are to be maintained.

Photo 4: Relationship between subject site and adjoining property to the north.

Photo 5: Relationship between the subject site and adjoining property to the south.

Photo 6: Adjoining property to the south that consists of shop top housing.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

Following a review of the submitted documentation and architectural plans the resultant key issues have been discussed in the paragraphs below.

 

Amenity

 

Visual Privacy:

 

Part 5.3 of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 (RDCP) provides the following objectives relating to visual privacy.

 

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

 

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

 

The DCP requires that habitable room windows must be located to minimise any direct viewing of existing habitable room windows in adjacent dwellings and that where a balcony is likely to overlook the private open space of the adjacent dwellings that privacy screens be included.

 

The proposed development includes a new privacy screen to the southern side and maintenance of an existing screen and wall to the northern side. These measures will minimise the privacy implications of the development to the neighbouring properties and ensure that an appropriate level of on-site amenity is provided for residents of the site.

 

It will result in an improved outcome particularly for the neighbouring property to the south and on-site amenity. Views into the private open space of Unit 3 will be shielded to not only the sides but from overlooking from the unit above.

 

The acoustic implications will be negligible as the proposal will retain the use of the outdoor space for recreational purposes. It will formalise and privatise the current outdoor dining area and provide weather protection.

 

Solar Access and Overshadowing:

 

The RDCP requires that north-facing living area windows of proposals must receive at least 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. It also requires a portion of the north-facing living area windows of neighbouring dwellings to receive at least 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June; and the private open spaces of neighbouring dwellings to receive at least 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

Submitted shadow diagrams indicated that, during the winter solstice, there will be some increase in overshadowing, to the neighbouring property to the south.  The increase is minor in comparison to the existing impact and is inevitable given the orientation of the site and neighbouring properties. During the equinoxes, submitted shadow diagrams indicate that additional overshadowing will not impact on the north elevation of the neighbouring housing, plus maintain ample terrace area for enjoyment and use.  In this regard, the proposal is appropriate given the orientation constraints of the site.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed alterations and additions will comply with the relevant development assessment criteria of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and with the objectives of Part C2: Medium Density Residential of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2012. The proposed development is not expected to result in any unreasonable or adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the character of the locality. Whilst it may add some overshadowing during the winter solstice, during the equinox, the impact will be appropriate. In addition, it will improve the privacy implications to the neighbouring property to the south and that of the subject site. In this regard the proposal, on balance, is appropriate in this case.

 

The proposed development will be satisfactory with respect to the relevant matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions outlined in this report.

 

Recommendation

 

A.       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. 441/2014 for the demolition of an existing structure and the erection of a new vergola and new decking to the existing terrace, at Unit 3/16 Beach Street Clovelly, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 3/16 Beach Street, Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP89/14

 

 

Subject:                  58-60 Carr Street, COOGEE (DA/116/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/116/2014

Author:                   Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to existing residential flat building including tenancy for cafe/restaurant use above existing car park fronting Carr Street with service area at street level, entry from Kurrawa Avenue, new car park gate on Carr Street frontage, alterations to car park configuration including extension of car port to rear, addition of ground floor store room, extension of first floor terraces to front of building and extension of balconies on eastern and western sides

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                McGregor Westlake Architecture

Owner:                        The Owners - Strata Plan No. 2004

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview48626.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the proposed development exceeds the maximum height of buildings development standard contained in clause 4.3(2) and floor space ratio standard under Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 by more than 10%.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves alterations and additions to existing residential flat building including a new cafe/restaurant use above existing car park fronting Carr Street with service area at street level, entry from Kurrawa Avenue, new car park gate on Carr Street frontage, alterations to car park configuration including extension of car port to rear, addition of ground floor store room, extension of first floor terraces to front of building and extension of balconies on eastern and western sides.

 

Site

The subject site, SP 2004, known as 58-60 Carr Street, Coogee, is irregular in shape. Its frontage to Carr Street is 18.04m, with a splayed corner. The site has a 32.64m boundary to Kurrawa Avenue. The southern boundary is 32.41m. The eastern boundary is irregular. The total site area is 836m².

 

The site is currently used for residential purposes. It contains a seven (7) storey residential flat building, with a total of 28 units. The building has parking split across a ground floor, rear podium and sub-basement level, both of which are predominantly not enclosed. There are driveways from both Carr Street and Kurrawa Avenue. Pedestrian access is from Kurrawa Avenue. The frontage to Carr Street is currently delineated by a palisade fence.

 

The site is located at the southern end of Coogee Beach, opposite Goldstein Reserve. Coogee has a variety of land uses, being predominantly residential and commercial. There are cafés, hotels, restaurants and retail outlets within the vicinity of the site. It is generally a medium density area with a number of larger mixed use buildings in the area.

 

Figure 1: Subject Site

 

Directly opposite the Site, is a parkland area, known as Goldstein Reserve, which provides access to Coogee Beach.

 

Adjoining the site to the east, at the front of the Site is a two storey commercial building containing a large restaurant on the ground floor and a health studio, which runs Yoga classes on the first floor. Adjoining the site at the rear, to the east, is the heritage item at 64 Carr Street, Coogee

 

To the rear, the site adjoins a two storey residential flat building which fronts Beach Street to the east and has rear access to Kurrawa Avenue. Further to the south, running up Kurrawa Avenue are a number of residential flat buildings.

 

The western boundary of the site adjoins Kurrawa Avenue. On the opposite side is a six storey building with retail, commercial and restaurant uses on the ground floor fronting Kurrawa Avenue, Carr Street and Arden Street at the rear.

 

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:

 

In objection 32 submissions were received from residents in the immediate locality.

 

·      6 Kurrawa Avenue, Coogee x 4

·      APP Corporation Pty Ltd on behalf of Unit 3 & 4/138 Beach Street, Coogee

·      3 Kurrawa Avenue, Coogee

·      20 Kurrawa Avenue, Coogee x2

·      9/154 Beach Street, Coogee x2

·      24 Cuzco Street, South Coogee x 2

·      BCS on behalf of Owner Corporation of 138 Beach Street, Coogee x 2

·      83 Beach Street, Coogee x 2

·      1587 Anzac Parade, La Perouse

·      11/77 Dudley Street, Coogee

·      Unit 4/280 Carrington Road, Randwick

·      56 Carr Street, Coogee x 4

·      A resident on behalf of 62 and 64 Carr Street, Coogee

·      10 residents (no address given)

 

Issue

Comment

Loss of views to beach and ocean.

See Key Issues Section

Excessive size of balconies and unreasonable privacy impacts.

The balconies are considered moderate in size and consistent with those on developments in the immediate locality with the exception of those on the first floor eastern facades. If the application were approved these balconies could be conditioned to be reduced in size.

Excessive bulk and scale of restaurant component.

See Key Issues Section

Development will attract undesirable element.

There is no evidence to suggest that a restaurant in this location would attract an undesirable element or increase the likelihood of antisocial behavior in this location.

Commercial space and waste disposal inadequate.

The waste arrangements are satisfactory in that there is adequate space for the residential and commercial waste and the areas are separated.

Excessive noise impacts from larger balconies and restaurant area.

The balconies in general are not considered excessive in size and unlikely to produce unacceptable acoustic impacts. A restaurant use on the site subject to appropriate hours of operation and noise conditions would be acceptable.

Excessive overshadowing impact.

Impacts are considered minimal given the bulk of the overshadowing will fall onto the car parking areas of the subject site and Kurrawa Avenue.

Undesirable development of the foreshore and Coogee Bay area.

The provision of a small scale development of the type proposed would be acceptable on the site and in accordance with the permissibility under the RLEP.

2 level commercial use at odds with the controls to provide for 1 level

See Key Issues Section.

 

In addition 24 submissions were received in support of the proposal mainly in pro forma letters including a petition with 158 signatures. The reasons for support centered on the improved appearance of the development on the site as a result of the proposal and the general improvement of development on the foreshore.

 

·      3/58 Carr Street, Coogee

·      11/58 Carr Street and a head of email petition of 27 emails

·      Unit 28/58 Carr Street, Coogee

·      107 Atkinson Street, Liverpool

·      12 High Street, Randwick

·      4/11 Dudley Street, Coogee

·      15 Oliver Street, Bexley

·      172A Banksia Street, Pagewood

·      58 Carr Street, Coogee

·      26/23 Baden Street, Coogee

·      267 Arden Street, Coogee x 2

·      8/182 Arden Street, Coogee

·      74 Carrington Road, Randwick

·      56A Clovelly Road, Randwick

·      1A Leeton Avenue, Coogee

·      1/58 Carr Street, Coogee

·      10/146 Oberon Street, Coogee

·      A resident Bream Street, Coogee

·      25/58 Carr Street, Coogee

·      242 Arden Street, Coogee

·      2 Woodlark Place, Castle Hill

·      15 Waratah Avenue, Ranwick

·      23 Waratah Avenue, Randwick

·      56A Clovelly Road, Randwick – Head of petition of 158 Signatures

 

Key Issues

 

1.1      Request to vary development standard

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio of buildings development standard contained in clause 4.4 (2) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

Floor Space Ratio

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Development Standard

0.9:1

Proposal

2.21

Excess above RLEP Standard

245%

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the FSR standard are set out in clause 4.4 (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 reasons provided by the applicant for the exception details below:

 

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

 

·           The non-compliance relates to the existing building and the proposed additional floor area is only 138m2 or 7.3% of the overall floor space within the development.

·           The proposal will not add significantly to the bulk of the development as the additional floor area is at ground and subfloor levels.

 

Notwithstanding the applicant’s arguments, it is considered that the grounds upon which strict compliance with the maximum FSR is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case are not well founded for the following reasons:

 

·         The RLEP and DCP controls contemplate a ground floor addition of lesser bulk and scale compared with that proposed and the associated additional adverse impacts on the streetscape, the amenity of surrounding developments and the public domain are considered unacceptable.

 

·         The DCP requires that any neighbourhood shop, restaurant or café to be limited to the ground floor of the building and to present an active frontage to Carr Street. The substantive part of the restaurant is at first floor level when viewed from the Carr Street frontage and therefore does not comply with the control. As such, the proposal does not suitably activate the frontage and the provision of a small coffee bar at ground level and footpath dining alone does not adequately address this issue.

 

·         The proposed restaurant would have a maximum height of approximately 6m due to its elevated form above the existing car parking area fronting Carr St. The proposed height is excessive when having regard to the DCP controls that are seeking a single storey scale to Carr St and results in an adverse impact on views of Coogee Beach from the building located at the rear.

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has not successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

The proposal has not been carefully 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 not successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

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

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is not consistent with the objectives of the FSR standard which are:

 

(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 objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R3 – medium Density Residential) are:

 

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

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

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

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

•      To protect the amenity of residents.

•      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

It is considered that the proposed development is not consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is not sympathetic to the existing developed environment and built form and will have unacceptable impacts on the amenity of residents.

 

The proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest because it is not consistent with the objectives of the standard or the relevant objectives for development within Zone R3 - Medium Density Residential.

 

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 the maximum allowable FSR of buildings in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical FSR standard in this case will be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is 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. However, strict adherence to the numerical standard is necessary in this case for maintaining the development forms envisaged under the LEP for the locality.

 

Maximum Height of Buildings

The proposal contravenes the maximum height of buildings development standard contained in clause 4.3 (2) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Maximum Height of Buildings

Development Standard

12m

Proposal

23.8m

Excess above RLEP Standard

198%

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the maximum Height of Buildings standard are set out in clause 4.3 (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 development is compatible with the scale and character of contributory buildings in a conservation area or near a heritage item,

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

 

The applicant’s reasons for seeking the exception are detailed below:

 

 

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

 

·         The non-compliant height of the proposed development relates to the proposed balconies, which will result in a significant improvement to the existing building.

 

·         All proposed balconies are within the maximum height of the existing building

 

It is considered that the grounds upon which strict compliance with the maximum height standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case are well founded for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed balconies (with the exception of the first floor eastern balcony) are considered to be suitably sized and will provide for an enhanced visual interest to the building. This aspect has been fully supported by the DRP and is considered an appropriate urban design outcome.

 

·      The proposed balcony additions (other than the first floor eastern balcony) will provide for adequate physical separation from surrounding developments and would not give rise to any adverse privacy, view loss or overshadowing impacts.

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

The proposed balconies that breach the height limit (with the exception of the first floor eastern balcony) been carefully 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 for the extension of the upper balconies.

 

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 Height of Buildings standard which are:

 

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

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

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

 

The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R3 – medium Density Residential) are:

 

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

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

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

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

•      To protect the amenity of residents.

•      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

It is considered that the proposed extension of the upper level balconies is consistent with the objectives.

 

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 Environment 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 the maximum allowable height of buildings in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical height standard in this case 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.

 

1.2      Non Compliance with objectives and Controls Section 8.2 of Section C2 of DCP 2013

 

The DCP provides specific controls in relation to development on the subject site and those adjoining between Kurrawa Avenue and Beach Street. The principal restaurant area is at an elevated level due to the existing car parking spaces below this area which are proposed to be retained. The proposal is considered inconsistent with the objectives of the controls as it adopts a 2 storey scale that is excessive when compared the built form envisaged under the controls. It is noted that Council’s Design Review Panel commented that

 

“the proposal as it now is will greatly improve the building’s visually appalling and functionally inappropriate frontages to Carr Street and Kurrawa Avenue and the amenity and appearance of the whole building.  It is also the Panel’s view that the proposal is essentially consistent with the objectives and requirements of the DCP. In the Panel’s opinion it in fact presents a superior outcome.

 

Whilst the proposal does exhibit considerable architectural merit in its articulation, massing and presentation, its does deviate from the built form outcome envisaged under the DCP controls. In particular, the proposed horizontal emphasis of the façade to Carr Street does not display the proportions and detailing which respects the character of the building facades of the sites at 62 and 64 Carr Street.

 

The existing driveway access to Carr St is not removed as required by the DCP. The applicant’s argument is that the removal of the driveway access and provision of a restaurant café entirely at ground floor level will result in removal of existing car spaces which form part of the existing strata plan creating an untenable situation. This is considered a fundamental flaw in the application as the controls seek essentially to allow an additional land use on the site in return for the public benefit of improving the streetscape and pedestrian amenity. The retention of the car parking area at the front results in very little active frontage and a relatively unattractive metal screen at the pedestrian interface with the carpark

 

1.3      View sharing – Section 5.6 – Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

The DCP outlines the following objectives and controls in relation to view sharing.

 

Objectives

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

 

·        To protect and enhance views from the public domain, including streets, parks and reserves.

 

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

 

Controls

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

 

ii)    In assessing potential view loss impacts on the neighbouring dwellings, retaining existing views from the living areas (such as living room, dining room, lounge and kitchen) should be given a priority over those obtained from the bedrooms and non-habitable rooms. 

 

iii)   Where a design causes conflicts between retaining views for the public domain and private properties, priority must be given to view retention for the public domain.

 

iv)   The design of fences and selection of plant species must minimise obstruction of views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. 

 

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

 

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

 

The RLEP contemplates a lower scale for any restaurant or café development on the site which would have minimal impacts on view loss, the non-compliance with design elements in the DCP evident in the current proposal creates additional and unreasonable impacts on view loss.

 

The most affected property is No. 138 Beach Street, Coogee. The views attained of waves on the shoreline of Coogee Beach are from are secondary views across a side boundary from a combined kitchen and dining room area. The objector’s property also enjoys extensive ocean views over Pacific Ocean to the east. The DCP controls support a single storey design concept for the restaurant component and balconies which minimise changes to the size and location. Having regard to the DCP objectives and  the Land and Environment Court planning principle in relation to view loss, the application in its current form is not considered to constitute a skillful design given the impacts and is not supportable in its current form.

 

The following photomontage shows the extent of the impact:

Figure 2: Sitting views attained from the combined kitchen and living room areas of No. 138 Beach Street, Coogee

 

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 in its submitted form does not staisfy the zoning objectives and or the DCP planning controls for development envisaged on the site.

 

For the reasons outlined in the report, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council not support the exception to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.4 (2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to the Floor Space Ratio on the grounds that the proposed development does not satisfy the objectives of the above clauses, and will adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Sections 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 116/2014 for alterations and additions to existing residential flat building including tenancy for cafe/restaurant use above existing car park fronting Carr Street with service area at street level, entry from Kurrawa Avenue, new car park gate on Carr Street frontage, alterations to car park configuration including extension of car port to rear, addition of ground floor store room, extension of first floor terraces to front of building and extension of balconies on eastern and western sides, at No. 58-60 Carr Street, Coogee, for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposed does not comply with the Floor Space Ratio standard under RLEP 2012 and  the Clause 4.6 exception is not  well founded.

 

2.       The proposal development does not comply with the objectives and relevant controls under Section 8.2 of the RDCP 2013.

 

3.       The proposal will adversely impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties and the public domain.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 58 - 60 Carr Street, Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP90/14

 

 

Subject:                  JRPP Report 215 Anzac Parade, KENSINGTON (DA/267/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/267/2014

Author:                   Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Introduction

 

The subject application is reported to the Ordinary Council Meeting as it is classified as a “regional development” (having a capital investment value in excess of $10 million) and is required to be determined by the Joint Regional Planning Panel pursuant to Clause 13B(1)(a) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005.

 

Issues

 

The proposal involves development for the purposes of an educational establishment for 50 or more students.  The application has therefore been referred to the NSW Roads and Maritime Services in accordance Schedule 3 Traffic Generating Development) of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. The application has also been referred to Sydney Airport Corporation. No fundamental concerns have been raised by any of the authorities.

 

The proposal was the subject of a prelodgement meeting held between the applicants and Council Officers on 18 March 2014. A number of issues were discussed regarding the future development of the site including potential amenity impacts to residential properties adjoining to the west, potential traffic impacts and the visual impact of the proposal given the prominence of the addition to Anzac Parade.

 

On the 5 May 2014 the subject application was formally lodged for the development described above and including substantial additional information to address those issues outlined in the prelodgement meeting. The scheme was notified in accordance with Council’s requirements from 21 May until 4 June 2014.  No submissions were received during this period.

 

The land is zoned SP2 Infrastructure – Educational Establishment under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and proposed development is permissible. The land is affected by 24m and 12m maximum height limits each to a width of 30m as indicated in the body of the report.

 

The proposed development does not comply with the 12m height limit to the west of the site by virtue of the proposed metal screen wrap which extends to a height of 21.6m although the encroachment into the 30m (12m Maximum building height) zone of only 750mm is considered minor and no adverse impacts are associated with the minor deviation. A request for departure under clause 4.6 of the RLEP accompanies the application which justifies the considered minor departure on this occasion.

The site is within the Kensington Town Centre, as such, Part E2 – Randwick Education and Specialised Health Centre of the Randwick DCP 2013 applies. The proposal satisfies the relevant controls of the DCP and is consistent with the overall objectives for the Education and Health Specialised Centre.

 

Notwithstanding the departure from the height controls under the RLEP the proposal is generally consistent with the planning controls for this precinct and will have a sustainable impact on the locality.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:      A vibrant and diverse community, leadership in sustainability, excellence in urban design and development, integrated transport and land use.

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

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the objectives and performance requirements of relevant State and Local planning controls with the exception of a minor departure from the height controls which is justified in the circumstances given the negligible additional impacts associated with the non-compliance.

 

The built form and setbacks for the proposed extension will maintain a satisfactory outcome for the Anzac Parade streetscape and will ensure that the proposal embodies sustainable impacts on the existing NIDA building with regard to perceived visual bulk and scale. The development will also not result in unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the surrounding residential areas in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access, noise generation, privacy and traffic.

 

The proposal represents an economic and orderly use of the site and will deliver positive planning benefits. Therefore, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council receive and note the report and the attached assessment report be referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

JRPP Report for 215 Anzac Parade, Kingsford

 

 

 

 


JRPP Report for 215 Anzac Parade, Kingsford

Attachment 1

 

 

Joint Regional Planning Panel

(Sydney East Region)

 

JRPP No.

2014SYE061

DA No:

DA/267/2014 – 215 Anzac Parade, Kingsford. NSW.  – Alterations and additions to the existing National Institute of Dramatic Art including a 2 storey addition to provide for new tutorial rooms, meeting rooms lift and stair access and associated facilities.

Applicant:

National Institute of Dramatic Arts

Report By:

Mark Swain

 

Executive Summary

 

Council is in receipt of a development application (DA) for alterations and additions to the existing National Institute of Dramatic Art including a 2 storey addition to provide for new tutorial rooms, meeting rooms lift and stair access and associated facilities at the abovementioned address.

       

The application is referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for determination, pursuant to Schedule 4A, of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011. The development represents a Crown application which has a capital investment value in excess of $5 million.

 

The proposal involves development for the purposes of an educational establishment for 50 or more students.  The application has therefore been referred to the NSW Roads and Maritime Services in accordance Schedule 3 Traffic Generating Development) of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. The application has also been referred to Sydney Airport Corporation. No fundamental concerns have been raised by any of the authorities.

 

The proposal was the subject of a prelodgement meeting held between the applicants and Council Officers on 18 March 2014. A number of issues were discussed regarding the future development of the site including potential amenity impacts to residential properties adjoining to the west, potential traffic impacts and the visual impact of the proposal given the prominence of the addition to Anzac Parade.

 

On the 5 May 2014 the subject application was formally lodged for the development described above and including substantial additional information to address those issues outlined in the prelodgement meeting. The scheme was notified in accordance with Council’s requirements from 21 May until 4 June 2014.  No submissions were received during this period.

 

The land is zoned SP2 Infrastructure – Educational Establishment under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and proposed development is permissible. The land is affected by 24m and 12m maximum height limits each to a width of 30m as indicated in the body of the report.

 

The proposed development does not comply with the 12m height limit to the west of the site by virtue of the proposed metal screen wrap which extends to a height of 21.6m although the encroachment into the 30m (12m Maximum building height) zone of only 750mm is considered minor and no adverse impacts are associated with the minor deviation. A request for departure under clause 4.6 of the RLEP accompanies the application which justifies the considered minor departure on this occasion.

 

The site is within the Kensington Town Centre, as such, Part E2 – Randwick Education and Specialised Health Centre of the Randwick DCP 2013 applies. The proposal satisfies the relevant controls of the DCP and is consistent with the overall objectives for the Education and Health Specialised Centre.

 

Notwithstanding the departure from the height controls under the RLEP the proposal is generally consistent with the planning controls for this precinct and will have a sustainable impact on the locality.

 

1.0      Site Description and Locality

 

The site is located on the western side of Anzac Parade in the Randwick Local Government Area (LGA) approximately 5.5km south of the Sydney Central Business District (CBD). The site is located within the Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre on the western side of Anzac Parade as shown in the aerial photo below in Figure 2. The main UNSW Kensington Campus is located opposite NIDA on the eastern side of Anzac Parade.

 

The site, as part of the UNSW Kensington Campus, is located to the south of the Royal Randwick Racecourse, to the west of the Prince of Wales Hospital Campus / Randwick Health Hub, and between the Kensington and Kingsford town centres on Anzac Parade.

 

The NIDA site has an area of 10,610m2, is legally described as Lot 11 in DP 1062204 and is owned by UNSW and leased to NIDA.

 

Development to the west consists of low scale residential development comprising predominantly single storey detached dwellings. To the south the site is adjoined by the existing car open car park with Kingsford shopping centre further to the south. To the east the land is opposite the main campus. To the north is small scale commercial development including a service station and Randwick Racecourse in close proximity to the north west.

Figure 1: Site Plan (Source JBA)

 

Figure 2: Site Plan Showing Proposed Addition (Source JBA)

 

2.0      Relevant History

 

The following consents are relevant to the application:

 

·     

Application

Detail

Decision

DA/633/2012

Alterations and additions to the existing James Fairfax Foyer within the NIDA premises including a new upper level addition, a new lift, a new mezzanine level and 4 new tutorial/rehearsal rooms

Approved by JRPP 5 December 2012

DA/908/2011

Alterations to the National Institute of Dramatic Arts (NIDA) including provision of new office space, upgrade of existing offices, construction of 4 tutorial rooms, a rehearsal space, widen existing egress path, extend existing roof walkway system, install skylights, and install light suspension system

Approved by Council’s Planning Committee 10 April 2012.

DA/909/2011

Installation of a shade structure over the existing Amphitheatre courtyard at the National Institute of Dramatic Arts (NIDA).

Approved under delegation, 11 January 2012.

DA/114/2011

Building works within NIDA precinct at UNSW including mezzanine floor in lighting studio on level 1, mezzanine floor in design studio 3 on level 2, mezzanine floor in workshop area on ground floor, internal work to parade theatre, air conditioning unit for rehearsal room 8 and access bridge and walkways connecting existing roofs.

Approved under delegation, 9 May 2011.

DA/317/2010

Increase in number of patrons for the NIDA Parade Playhouse from 185 patrons to 285 patrons. No construction was proposed.

Withdrawn on 20 October 2010, following concerns over parking and traffic.

DA/207/2010

Temporary canvas sign to northern face of existing NIDA building.

Approved under delegation, 14 April 2010.

DA/569/2009

Construction of additional signage on the northern wall of the NIDA Theatre and above the stage door.

Approved under delegation, 4 November 2009

DA/545/2007

Upgrade of National Institute of Dramatic Art (NIDA) including internal work to the scenery workshop, parade space, parade studio, property workshop and storage area with windows and stairs.

Approved under delegation, 4 September 2007

DA/410/2007

Provision of new external illuminated signage to existing NIDA building.

Approved under delegation, 26 July 2007

DA/1634/1999

Construction of new Theatre Complex - 750 seat Auditorium, 100 seat Director's Theatre, Television & Sound Stage, a Performing Arts Library, work- shop areas & car parking.

Approved by Health Building and Planning Committee 4 April, 2000.

 

The proposal was the subject of a prelodgement meeting on 18 March, 2014. Based on the preliminary information submitted, the following issues were raised:

 

·    The general compliance of the scheme with the relevant built form controls is noted. Appropriate calculations and breakdowns should be presented within any formal DA scheme. Shadow diagrams have not been provided and will be necessary on lodgement;

 

·    Council’s primary concern with the scheme exists in potential amenity related impacts that may eventuate to low-density residential development to the west of the site. A primary objective of the scheme should seek to minimise any impact of bulk and scale, shadow, privacy and operational impacts upon these sites;

 

·    An assessment of urban design and visual impact will be necessary given the scheme stands to make a prominent addition to Anzac Parade. The assessment should identify rationale and design response to the Parade Theatre building and surrounding development. Clear delineation should be made between the proposed artwork element achieving articulation and visual interest, as opposed to performing a billboard or signage function. Finishes schedules and artwork detail to the façade should be made clear;

 

·    The design of the addition reads as a clear increase in capacity. The matter of intensification has not been addressed in Pre DA documentation and requires close consideration prior to lodgement, given this will introduce additional planning considerations;

 

·      The uses of proposed internal spaces should be made clear on lodgement. Acoustic issues may become an issue should the development be inclusive of music rooms or the like, or in the instance additional plant and equipment are to be provided externally. An acoustic report will be necessary on lodgement.

 

All matters have been attended to in the submitted application and are addressed in the body of this report.

 

3.0      The Proposed Development

 

The application seeks approval for construction and use of a two storey roof addition located on the southern part of the site, to house the NIDA Graduate School, as well as other minor modification to facilitate the delivery of the alterations and additions. Specifically, the application seeks approval for:

 

•        The construction and use of two new levels above the existing library at the southern end of the NIDA site including:

– Level 3 – construction of a new level including four tutorial rooms (with flexible spacing arrangement,) balcony to the western elevation, plant/services, amenities, fire stairs, circulation space, and extension of the existing lift and foyer; and

– Level 4 - construction of a new level including four tutorial rooms (with flexible spacing arrangement), space for plant/services, fire stairs and amenities, circulation, and the extension of the existing lift and foyer.

•        Modifications to the existing building to facilitate the addition of two levels including:

– Ground and First Floor – Upgrade of existing lift accesses from the main foyer and enclosure of existing fire stairs along the southern boundary of the site; and

– Level 2 – modifications to the library level providing upgrades to the existing lift and construction of new stairs to access level 3. Other modifications including the creation of three meetings rooms, librarian office, work room and storage, reception and student common.

•      Upgrade and extension of services and structure; and

•        Construction of patterned perforated anodised aluminium screening to wrap the additional levels.

 

 

 

 

 

The following table details the proposed use by level:

 

Table 1: Proposed Uses by Level (Source JBA)

3.1    Numerical Summary

 

The following table sets out a numerical Summary of the proposed alterations and additions:

 

Table 2: Numerical Summary of Proposed Development (Source JBA)

 

4.0      Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard

 

The proposal includes a metal sheet wrap around the proposed addition which in part extends into the 12m height limit section towards the rear (west) of the site shown on the zoning map below:

 

Figure 3: Height Controls Map RLEP (Source JBA)

 

The height controls from Anzac Parade consist of a maximum height of 24m to Anzac Parade (for a 30m width) under the RLEP, a maximum of 24m under the DCP for the internal portion and a 12m maximum height (for a 30m width) under the LEP. The proposed development is of a maximum height of 21.6m. Whilst the proposed building is entirely within the respective 24m height zones, the proposed metal sheet wrap extends into the 12m height zone by 750mm resulting in a rear setback to the western boundary of 29.25m in lieu of 30m to any development to a maximum height of 24m. The extent of the departure is shown in the following diagrams:

Figure 4: Southern Elevation Showing Proposed Addition (Source JBA)

 

Figure 5: Floor Plan Showing 750mm encroachment into 12m Height Zone (Source JBA)

 

4.1    Request to vary development standard

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum height of buildings development standard contained in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

 

Height

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Development Standard

12m

Proposal

21.6

Excess above RLEP Standard

180%

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the height standard are set out in clause 4.3 (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 development is compatible with the scale and character of contributory buildings in a conservation area or near a heritage item,

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

 

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

 

Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

As stated above, under the provisions of LEP 2012 development on the site is afforded a maximum height of 12 and 24 metres within a 30 metres setback off both the western and eastern site boundaries, respectively. The balance of the site centrally is not subject to any height controls.

 

The proposed development is compliant with the 24m height control, but exceeds the 12m height control for only the portion of the building that comprises the metal screen building wrap at its western elevation. That is, the wrap’s design provides for a blade-like finish extending some 700mm into the 12m height zone at the southern and northern elevations and in plan between these elevations.

 

When considering whether a development standard is appropriate and/or necessary, one must take into account the nature of the proposed variation, the site specific context, and the design of the proposed development. Each of these matters is discussed below.

 

3.1 Nature of Variation

As discussed above, the variation is only 700mm into the 12m height zone and results in a height exceedence within this 700mm depth of about 9.6m. That is the top of the roof and building wrap is approximately at RL49.1, some 9.6m above the 12m height zone RL of 39.5m.

 

No additional building footprint or floorspace arises from the variation. Only the building wrap and blade-like forms exceed the 12m height limit.

 

3.2 Site Specific Context and Design of the Proposed Development

Site context is a key consideration when determining the appropriateness and necessity of a development standard. As stated in the SEE and HASSELL’s Architectural Design Statement:

 

The concept for the new addition to the building in the composition of the architecture is to express it as a distinct form, articulated separately above the strong horizontal datum of the existing roof form. Its materiality and detail echo the elements on the existing roof and fly tower, and are deliberately distinguished from the veil surrounding the auditorium of the theatre. A metal screen wraps around the northern and southern facades reinforcing its reading as part of the roof-scape, providing sun shading while maximising internal views and daylight as required. In a similar manner to the existing roof a shadow gap will separate it from the masonry base. This screen has a perforated surface with subtle patterning making reference to the creative activities and culture within.

 

The building wrap’s intent is to unify the addition and provide a distinct form. The finish of the wrap seeks to provide an aesthetic visual interest and refinement, whilst functionally providing for sun-shading within the upper floor and screening at the sides of both floors.

 

In light of the above, the requirement to strictly adhere to a numerical development standard for building height is considered both unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance.

 

There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

The proposed development will not result in any significant adverse impacts as:

·      the deviation above the maximum height limit is only over a significantly small fraction of the site’s area and provides no additional sense of bulk or scale of development due to its wrapped form extending a mere 700mm into the adjacent 12m height zone from a portion of the site not subject to height controls;

·      the use is permitted on the site;

·      the development is suitable for the size and dimensions of the site;

·      the proposal incorporates generous and compliant height-based setbacks;

·      the design solution, including the building wrap, exhibits design excellence and allows for a high amenity teaching and learning space for NIDA; and

·      no overshadowing impacts result from the proposal and the deviation from the standard.

 

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.

 

Table 1 below demonstrates that the proposed development is in the public interest as it is consistent with both the zone and development standard objectives of the LEP.

 

It is considered that the proposal is satisfactory and strict compliance with the maximum height is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

·      The size and scale of the proposed addition relates well to the main NIDA building in a manner which is generally consistent with the DCP controls and the identified desired future character of the area.

·      The subject site is not a heritage item or within a heritage conservation area.

·      The extent of the departure on this occasion is such that the end development will be indiscernible from a compliant form of development. Furthermore, it will not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining or neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing or views.

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

 

The proposal has been carefully 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.

 

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?

 

The objectives of the height standard are as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

The proposed alterations and additions result in an end development of a size and scale compatible with the existing NIDA complex and the desired future character of the locality as envisaged under Council’s controls. The analysis contained within the plans of proposal and the Statement of Environmental Effects indicates the development will not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the height standard.

 

The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (SP2 Special Infrastructure Educational Establishment) are:

 

•      To provide for infrastructure and related uses.

•      To prevent development that is not compatible with or that may detract from the provision of infrastructure.

•      To facilitate development that will not adversely affect the amenity of nearby and adjoining development.

•      To protect and provide for land used for community purposes.

 

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it provides important additional educational infrastructure and is sympathetic to the existing residential environment and built form to the west and will not have any unacceptable impacts on the amenity of residents.

 

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 SP2 Special Infrastructure Educational Establishment.

 

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 the maximum allowable FSR of buildings in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical height 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. However, strict adherence to the numerical standard will be unnecessary in this case for maintaining the special educational infrastructure forms envisaged under the LEP for the site and locality.

 

5.0      Notification/ Advertising

 

The subject development was advertised/notified to surrounding landowners for a period of 14 days between 21 May 2014 and 4 June 2014 in accordance with Council’s DCP. As a result of no submissions were received.

 

6.0      Technical Advice: Internal and External

 

Development Engineering Comments

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineering Unit primarily in relation to traffic and parking and stormwater and drainage. No objections have been raised subject to the attachment of standard conditions.

 

 

 

 

Building Services Comments

The development application was referred to Council’s Building Services Unit primarily in relation to BCA matters. Subject to the attachment of standard conditions, no objections was raised to the proposal.

 

7.0      Comments from External Authorities

 

The application was referred to the following external referral agencies:

·           Sydney Airport Corporation

·           Roads and Maritime Services

 

7.1      Sydney Airport Corporation

 

The application was referred to the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited as the proposed height of the building would potentially result in permanent obstruction of controlled airspace. Any obstruction of this airspace requires approval under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996. No objections have been raised by SACL to the erection of the development to a height of 49.4 metres above Australian Height Datum (AHD).

 

7.2      Roads and Maritime Services

 

The application was referred to RMS for comment, given its proximity to a classified road. The RMS referred the application to the Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee.

 

The RMS provided advisory comments to Council dated July 2013, as detailed below:

 

 

The above conditions have been included in the recommendation.

 

8.0      Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979

·      Section 79C- Evaluation

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

·      Section 89 (Determination of Crown development applications)

 

The proposal is development under Section 89 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (Crown development). The following applies under this Section of the Act:

 

A consent authority, (other than the minister), must not:

 

(a) refuse its consent to a Crown development application, except with the approval of the Minister, or

(b) impose a condition of its consent to a Crown development application, except with the approval of the applicant or the Minister.

 

The proposed consent for this application will impose a number of conditions to ensure that the development complies with all relevant controls and standards. These conditions have been referred to the applicant for concurrence of the University. The University has responded to the draft conditions of consent and given its concurrence.

 

9.0      Relevant Environmental Instruments and Policy Controls

 

9.1      Environmental instruments

 

The following statutory Environmental Planning Instruments apply in the assessment of the proposed development, and are addressed in detail in Section 8 of this report:

 

·           State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011

·           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

An assessment of the proposed development in relation to the above statutory instruments is provided in Section 8 of this report:

 

9.1.1   State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011

 

The application is referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for determination, pursuant to Schedule 4A, of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 4 State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011. The development has a capital investment value in excess of $20 million.

 

9.1.2   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

The subject site is zoned SP2 Special Infrastructure Educational Establishment under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

The objectives of the zone are:

 

•    To provide for infrastructure and related uses.

•    To prevent development that is not compatible with or that may detract from the provision of infrastructure.

•    To facilitate development that will not adversely affect the amenity of nearby and adjoining development.

•    To protect and provide for land used for community purposes.

 

The proposal is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent and consistent with the zone objectives.

 

Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

4.3 Height of buildings

Maximum 24m and 12m respectively. (See Figure 3 Height Controls Map)

21.6m

Yes for that part of the building within the 24m height zone and No for that part of the building within the 12m height zone.

Clause 4.6 variation request submitted and supported.  See section 4 above.

 

Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio

There is no maximum floor space ratio for the site under the RLEP.

 

Clause 6.4 Stormwater Management

Refer to Council’s Engineers assessment at Section 6.

 

Clause 6.8  Airspace operations

 

Clause 6.8 of Randwick LEP aims to provide for the effective and ongoing operation of the Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport by ensuring that such operation is not compromised by proposed development that penetrates the Limitation or Operations Surface for that airport.

 

The proposed modifications to the previously approved alterations and additions will not penetrate the Limitation or Operations Surface of the Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. Refer to Airspace Referral assessment at Section 7.

 

Clause 6.11 Design Excellence

 

Clause 6.11 states:

 

Design excellence

(1)    The objective of this clause is to deliver the highest standard of architectural and urban design.

(2)    This clause applies to development involving the construction of a new building or external alterations to an existing building:

(a)  on a site that has an area of 10,000 square metres or greater, or

(b)  on land for which a development control plan is required to be prepared under clause 6.12, or

(c)  that is, or will be, at least 15 metres in height.

 

(3)    Development consent must not be granted to development to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development exhibits design excellence.

(4)    In considering whether the development exhibits design excellence, the consent authority must have regard to the following matters:

(a)  whether a high standard of architectural design, materials and detailing appropriate to the building type and location will be achieved,

(b)  whether the form and external appearance of the development will improve the quality and amenity of the public domain,

(c)  how the proposed development responds to the environmental and built characteristics of the site and whether it achieves an acceptable relationship with other buildings on the same site and on neighbouring sites,

(d)  whether the building meets sustainable design principles in terms of sunlight, natural ventilation, wind, reflectivity, visual and acoustic privacy, safety and security and resource, energy and water efficiency,

(e)  whether the proposed development detrimentally impacts on view corridors and landmarks.

 

The applicant has provided an architectural design statement as part of the application. Specifically, the provisions of clause 6.11 are addressed as follows in the SOEE:

 

Comments:

Concerns were raised in the prelodgement meeting regarding the rationale and design response to the Parade Theatre building and surrounding development. Clear delineation was requested between the proposed artwork element achieving articulation and visual interest, as opposed to performing a billboard or signage function.

 

The proposal includes substantial additional information and plan documentation which clarifies the rationale and design response to the theatre building and that the southern façade of the metal screen wrap will not be utilized for any form of advertising or billboard purposes. The design also receives comment in the DCP section of this report.

 

The proposed development with elaborated detail adequately addresses the concerns previously raised.

 

Clause 6.12 Requirement for preparation of a site specific Development Control Plan

 

The above clause requires the preparation of a site specific DCP for sites over 10,000m2 or identified on Council’s Key Sites maps as “DCP Required” unless:

 

(a)    a development control plan that provides for the matters specified in subclause (4) has been prepared for the land, or

(b)    guidelines and controls similar to those mentioned in subclause (4) already apply to the land, or

(c)    the development is of a minor nature and is consistent with the objectives of the zone in which the land is situated.

 

Section E2 Randwick Specialised Health and Education Centre of the comprehensive DCP 2013 suffices for the purposes of clause (a) above.

 

9.2      Policy Controls

 

The following policy controls apply in the assessment of the proposed development and are elaborated upon in the section below:

 

·           Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013

·           Randwick City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan.

 

9.2.1   Part E2 – Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre

 

This DCP is applicable to the subject site by virtue of its location within the UNSW Campus. The DCP contains a range of and campus design principles, performance criteria and provisions designed to shape the campus experience. Specifically, the 10 design principles are as follows:

 

·      Sustainability

·      Sense of place

·      Ledgibility

·      Knowledge clusters and hubs

·      Landscape

·      Buildings

·      Housing

·      Retail and services

·      Recreation and cultural facilities

·      Transport.

 

The following information is provided in relation to the relevant components of the DCP.

 

Section 4.2.1 – Sustainability

A section J report accompanies the application which confirms that the building has been adequately designed in accordance with the National Construction Code (NCC) including glazing of external walls in conformity with the deemed to satisfy criteria of the NCC. The proposal is consistent with the intent and objectives of section B3 – 3 of the DCP in ensuring that the construction and the operation of the development minimises the adverse impacts to the built and natural environment.

 

The proposed development is also consistent with the Environmental Management Plan for the UNSW campus and satisfies the objectives and controls within the DCP.

 

Section 4.2.1 – Sense of Place

 

The proposed development involves the retention of the principal access point to the NIDA building, functional public areas on the ground floor and involves an additional 2 floors of tutorial and ancillary rooms including internal alteration to the lift from the ground floor level and provision of fire stairs.

 

The building is setback at least 10.298m from Anzac Parade to allow for a stepped presentation of the addition to the Streetscape. No existing landscaping is impacted by the proposal.

 

Section 4.2.3 Legibility

The proposal will provide principally for anticipated Masters Programs as part of the NIDA graduate School. The development will provide for additional supportive gathering places in the form of tutorial and ancillary rooms that will allow for informal and formal gathering and instruction without compromising existing spatial connections and thoroughfares.

 

The proposed elevation to Anzac Parade as a combination of glazing and the metal screen wrap will provide a positive interface with the public domain. To the south and existing car park area the development will present as an acceptable albeit bold structure with heightened visual interest by way of the metal screen wrap.

 

Section 4.2.6 - Buildings

 

Section 4.2.6 of the DCP acknowledges that Anzac Parade can visually support taller buildings along the main street to a height of 24m, with a visual transition between heights of buildings on Anzac Parade and the heights of buildings ‘behind’ the main street to a maximum of 12m within 30m of the rear boundary to the west adjoining low density residential properties. The proposed addition rises to 21.6m in height in accordance with this limitation with the exception of 700mm of the proposed metal screen wrap which extends into the 12m height zone. The impact in this regard is considered sustainable and the request for departure dealt with in Section 4 of this report is supported on this occasion.

 

The proposal is accompanied by an Architectural Design Statement which verifies that the proposed additions are consistent with the Master Plan Study carried out by Hassell in 2013 and the design has been led by Ken Maher who designed the stage 2 NIDA additions. The resultant integration of the proposed addition both with the existing NIDA buildings and as an architectural expression in its own right is considered acceptable.

 

An Access Report accompanies the application which documents compliance with the relevant statutory guidelines.

 

Section 4.2.10 Transport and Parking

The DCP acknowledges the intention to reduce private vehicle usage and dependence and improving public transport infrastructure over time and in accordance with the Transportation Strategy prepared for the UNSW Campus.

 

The site is currently serviced by excellent bus services and the imminent construction of the Eastern Suburbs Light Rail connection will contribute to this end.

 

Concern was raised at prelodgement stage as the increase in student and staff numbers presented was vague at best. The proposal clarifies an intended increase of potentially 200 students and some 6 additional staff over a 7 year period however with numbers more in the order of an additional maximum of 50 students at any one time at completion of capacity.

 

The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment Report which advocates no additional parking based on additional onsite parking provision elsewhere available within the Campus and the intended improvements to public transport infrastructure.

 

This aspect receives further comment in section 6 of this report. For the reasons outlined in that section the proposal is supported.

 

9.2.2   Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

 

Under the provisions of the Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effective from 2 July 2007, the following monetary levy is required:

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost more than $200,000

$13,618,997.00

1.0%

$136,189.97

 

The applicant has requested that Council waive the section 94 contribution in this instance.

 

The Section 94A levy enables Council to provide quality public facilities to meet the expectations of the existing and future population. The Plan recognises that the expected growth in population and jobs in Randwick City will be focused on the University precinct. The draft Sub-Regional Strategy confirms this and suggests at least 2900 extra jobs in the precinct over 20 years. This precinct contains almost 40% of the City’s jobs and the University is the highest employer in the City. While employment change may be variable, estimates are that jobs at the University could increase by 25 to 30% over the next 20 years. The University is thus expected to continue to place substantial pressures on Council’s local infrastructure.

 

The applicant has cited 2 previous consents as precedents for the waiving the section 94 contribution. Notwithstanding, the provisions of Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan have been applied with reasonable consistency to applications relevant to the University and more specifically, the NIDA campus. These include, but are not limited to the following NIDA applications:

 

§ DA/908/2011 - Approved by Council’s Planning Committee 10 April 2012.

§ DA/909/2011 - Determined under delegated authority on 11 January 2012;

§ DA/114/2011 - Determined under delegated authority on 9 May 2011;

§ DA/545/2007 - Determined under delegated authority on 4 September 2007.

§ DA/633/2012 – Determined by JRPP 5 December, 2012.

 

Therefore, the imposition of Section 94A Development Contributions on the subject application is consistent with previous decisions of Council and is considered appropriate and reasonable. A condition has been recommended to this effect that has been agreed to by the applicant and provides for the provision of public domain works with the University and Hospital Precinct.

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

9.      Environmental Assessment

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Refer to the “Environmental Planning Instruments” section of this report for details. 

Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument

N/A.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan

Refer to the “Policy Control” section of this report above for details.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement

Not applicable. 

Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations

The relevant clauses of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 have been addressed by the recommended conditions.

Section 79C(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment, which are otherwise not assessed within the body of this report, are addressed below.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the educational function of the wider UNSW Campus, and is not considered to result in detrimental social or economic impacts.

Section 79C(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development

The subject site is located within an established university campus and has convenient access to the local and regional road network. The site has appropriate size and dimensions and is considered to be suitable for the proposed development. 

Section 79C(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation

See Part 5 of this report. No submissions received.

Section 79C(1)(e) – The public interest

The proposed amendments to the approved plans will not result in any unreasonable environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Therefore, the development is considered to be in the public interest.

 

9.1      Site planning, height and setbacks:

 

The proposal will increase the height of the southern section of the existing NIDA building to a total of 2.16m with a slight increase for the low rise pitch of the upper level and the lift overrun. The building is setback 10.298m form Anzac Parade and 29.25m form the western boundary. The steel metal wrap is set to the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the existing open car park area. The additions are positioned to interact acceptably with the public domain and the residential properties to the west.

 

9.2.   Solar Access

Concern was raised at prelodgement stage regarding potential for adverse impact on adjoining properties to the west particularly by way of overshadowing, proximity and dominance of the proposed addition as well as potential privacy impacts.

 

In terms of overshadowing, shadow diagrams indicate that the addition will cease to cast a shadow over the properties to the west at approximately 9.30am allowing well in excess of the DCP minimum sunlight access during the winter solstice.

 

Similarly shadows over Anzac Parade will not occur until afternoon hours resulting in a reasonable provision of sunlight access to the public domain proximate to the site.

 

9.3.   Privacy

The Statement of Environmental Effects (SOEE) includes a privacy impact analysis which documents that the overlooking from the first of the proposed additional levels will be impeded to living areas of dwellings to the west by an existing parapet wall behind the proposed addition. Furthermore, the capacity for overlooking from the uppermost level will be at a distance of approximately 50m to the rear living areas of dwellings to the west which is also currently screened by substantial vegetation at the rear of these properties which will not be impacted by the proposed development. Given the physical distance any additional privacy impact is considered sustainable. It is finally noted that no submissions were received in relation to the proposed development.

 

The following photo and diagram demonstrates the acceptable conditions:

Figure 6: Sight Lines and Separation (Source JBA)

 

Figure 7: Photomontage showing existing vegetation at rear of properties fronting Doncaster Avenue (Source JBA)

 

9.4.   Visual Impact

The SOEE contains an analysis of the visual impact of the proposed building given the iconic status of the existing NIDA development.

Concern was expressed at the lack of detail at prelodgement stage having regard to the prominence of the addition when viewed form the public domain most evidently from Anzac Parade travelling north and the potential for use of the façade for advertising purposes.

 

The application is accompanied by an Architectural Design Statement which clarifies the design intent and rationale of the addition in relation to the existing NIDA building. The following is a summary statement from the SOEE in relation to the design.

 

 

Details of finishes and materials provided with the application which clarifies that the proposed metal screen wrap will not be utilised for any form of advertising and that the development will present as a bold addition to the existing building with unavoidable but sustainable visual impacts to the public domain and surrounding properties. It is further noted that the proposed addition should be viewed in the context of development of a similar height permitted immediately opposite the site under the DCP which will evolve as part of the UNSW Master Plan.  The photomontage below shows the visual impact.

 

Figure 8: View of Existing Development from Eastern Side of Anzac Parade (Source JBA)

Figure 9: View of Proposed Development from same vantage point (Source JBA)

 

9.5 Noise Impact

Potential concern regarding noise impacts from the proposed development was identified at prelodgement stage.

 

The application is accompanied by an acoustic report addressing impacts including, which documents acceptable acoustic conditions with respect to the internal amenity of the proposed development from construction noise including the impact on the nearest residential receivers in Doncaster Avenue.

 

Subject to the adherence to the recommendations included in the report, this aspect poses no constraints to the proposed development.

 

9.6    Eastern Suburbs Light Rail Construction

The SOEE identifies that the proposed construction of this project anticipated late this year is likely to coincide with the early stages of construction of the proposed development.

 

Coordination in relation to the disruption associated construction activities will be the responsibility of the NIDA Project Management Team.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:      A vibrant and diverse community, leadership in sustainability, excellence in urban design and development, integrated transport and land use.

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

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the objectives and performance requirements of relevant State and Local planning controls with the exception of a minor departure from the height controls which is justified in the circumstances given the negligible additional impacts associated with the non-compliance.

 

The built form and setbacks for the proposed extension will maintain a satisfactory outcome for the Anzac Parade streetscape and will ensure that the proposal embodies sustainable impacts on the existing NIDA building with regard to perceived visual bulk and scale. The development will also not result in unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the surrounding residential areas in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access, noise generation, privacy and traffic.

 

The proposal represents an economic and orderly use of the site and will deliver positive planning benefits. Therefore, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Joint Regional Planning Panel, 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/2672014 for alterations and additions to the existing National Institute of Dramatic Art including a 2 storey addition to provide for new tutorial rooms, meeting rooms, lift and stair access and associated facilities at No. 215 Anzac Parade, Kensington, subject to the following conditions:

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

 

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following conditions of consent.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

DA -100 Rev Issue for DA

Hassell

31.3.2014

DA -101 Rev Issue for DA

Hassell

31.3.2014

DA -102 Rev Issue for DA

Hassell

31.3.2014

DA -103 Rev Issue for DA

Hassell

31.3.2014

DA -104 Rev Issue for DA

Hassell

31.3.2014

DA -105 Rev Issue for DA

Hassell

31.3.2014

DA -150 Rev Issue for DA

Hassell

31.3.2014

DA -151 Rev Issue for DA

Hassell

31.3.2014

DA -200 Rev Issue for DA

Hassell

31.3.2014

DA -201 Rev Issue for DA

Hassell

31.3.2014

DA -202 Rev Issue for DA

Hassell

31.3.2014

DA -203 Rev Issue for DA

Hassell

31.3.2014

DA-970 Digital Sample Board

Hassell

30.4.2014

 

 

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE CROWN BUILDING CERTIFICATION

 

The following conditions of consent must be complied with before a Crown building approval/certification is given under section 109R of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.  All necessary information to demonstrate compliance with the following conditions of consent must be included in the documentation for the Crown building approval/certification.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent conditions and to achieve reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

The following conditions are applied to address the requirements of the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS):

2.        Roads and Maritime Services has not approved proposal that requires any part of the subject property for road purposes.

 

Roads and Maritime Services has no objections to the proposed development on property grounds provided all new buildings or structures are erected clear of Anzac Parade road reserve (unlimited in height or depth)

 

3.         The proposed development should be designed such that road traffic noise from Anzac Parade is mitigated by durable materials in order to satisfy the requirements for habitable rooms under clasue 102 (3) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

4.         All demolition and construction vehicles are to be contained wholly within the site and vehicles must enter the site before stopping. A construction zone will not be permitted on Anzac Parade.

 

5.         Detailed design plans and hydraulic calculations of any changes to the stormwater drainage system are to be submitted to Roads and Maritime Services for approval, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

Details should be forward to:

 

The Sydney Asset Management

Roads and Maritime Services

PO Box 973 Parramatta CBD 2124

 

A plan checking fee will be payable and a performance bond may be required before Roads and Maritime Services approval is issued. With regard to Civil Works requirement please contact the Roads and Maritime Project Engineer, External Works Ph: 8849 2766 or Fax: 8849 2766   

      

6.         A Construction Traffic Management Plan detailing construction vehicle routes, number of trucks, hours of operation, access arrangements and traffic control should be submitted to Council prior to issue of a construction certificate.

 

7.         All costs associated with the development are to be at no cost to Roads and Maritime.

 

Any enquires in relation to this matter should be directed to the nominated Transport Planner Ravi Ravendra on telephone (02) 8849 2540.

 

8.         Approval from the Sydney Airport Corporation in regard to the height of the proposed development and crane operations during construction is to be obtained prior to the erection of the any temporary or permanent construction cranes.

 

Long Service Levy Payments

9.         The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, must be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, as applicable.

 

At the time of this development consent, Long Service Levy payment is applicable on building work having a value of $25,000 or more, at the rate of 0.35% of the cost of the works.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

10.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $ 13,618,997, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $ 136,189.97 for public domain works within the University of New South Wales and Hospitals Precinct.

       

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a Crown Completion Certificate being issued for the proposed development.  The development is subject to an index to reflect quarterly variations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the date of Council’s determination to the date of payment.

 

Council’s Section 94A Development Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick or at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au.

 

Security Deposit

11.       The following damage / civil works security deposit requirement must be complied with as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; and as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

·           $5000.00    -      Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

       The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of a cash, cheque or credit card payment and is refundable upon a satisfactory inspection by Council upon the completion of the civil works which confirms that there has been no damage to Council's infrastructure.

 

       The owner/builder is also requested to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

To obtain a refund of relevant deposits, a Security Deposit Refund Form is to be forwarded to Council’s Director of City Services upon completion of the civil works.

 

Stormwater Drainage

12.       Stormwater runoff from the redeveloped portion of the site must be discharged through the existing site stormwater drainage system. The crown certificate plans must document the existing site stormwater drainage system and demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

Electricity Substation

13.       The applicant must liaise with Ausgrid prior to obtaining a crown certificate (for any above ground works), to determine whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development. Any electricity substation required for the site as a consequence of this development shall be located within the site and shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on relevant construction certificate and landscape plans.

 

Sydney Water

14.       All building, plumbing and drainage work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s waste water and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if any further requirements need to be met. 

 

If suitable, the plans will be appropriately stamped.  For details please refer to the Sydney Water web site at www.sydneywater.com.au for:

 

·           Quick Check agents details -  see Building and Developing then Quick Check and

·           Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney Water Assets – see Building and Development then Building and Renovating, or telephone 13 20 92.

 

The relevant certifying body must ensure that a Sydney Water Quick Check Agent has appropriately stamped the plans.

 

15.       Approval form the Sydney Airport Corporation in regard to the height of the proposed development and crane operation during construction is to be obtained prior to the issue of the Crown Building Certification.

 

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CROWN BUILDING APPROVAL

 

The requirements contained in the following conditions of consent must be complied with and details of compliance must be included in the Crown building approval plans and associated documents for the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Councils development consent conditions and to achieve reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

 

Compliance with the State’s Building Laws

16.       In accordance with clause 227 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, all building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

Access & Facilities

17.       Access and facilities for people with disabilities must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia, Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010, relevant Australian Standards and conditions of consent.

 

 

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

 

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the commencement of any works on the site.  The necessary documentation and information must be provided to the Council or the appointed building Certifier, as applicable.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity.

 

Certification and Building Inspection Requirements

18.       Prior to the commencement of any building works, the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)     Crown building work must not be commenced unless the building work is certified by or on behalf of the Crown, in accordance with the provisions of section 109R of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

A copy of the approval or certification and the approved development consent plans and consent conditions, must be kept on the site at all times and be made available to the Council officers and all building contractors for assessment.

 

b)     a suitably qualified person (e.g. Accredited Building Certifier) must be appointed to carry out the necessary building inspections and to issue any relevant approvals or certificates prior to occupation of the building.

 

Construction Site Management Plan

19.       A Construction Site Management Plan must be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The construction site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

·          location and construction of protective site fencing / hoardings;

·          location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·          location of building materials for construction;

·          provisions for public safety;

·          dust control measures;

·          details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·          site access location and construction;

·          details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·          protective measures for tree preservation;

·          location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·          provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·          construction noise and vibration management;

·          construction traffic management details;

·          provisions for temporary sanitary facilities.

 

The site management measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

A copy of the Construction Site Management Plan must be provided to the Council prior to commencing site works.  A copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

 

Demolition Work Plan

20.       A Demolition Work Plan must be prepared for the development in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures and relevant environmental/occupational health and safety requirements.

 

The Demolition Work Plan must include the following information (as applicable):

 

·          The name, address, contact details and licence number of the Demolisher /Asbestos Removal Contractor

·          Details of hazardous materials (including asbestos)

·          Method/s of demolition (including removal of any asbestos)

·          Measures and processes to be implemented to ensure the health & safety of workers and community

·          Measures to be implemented to minimise any airborne dust and asbestos

·          Methods and location of disposal of any hazardous materials (including asbestos)

·          Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

·          Details of re-use, recycling and disposal of waste materials

·          Date the demolition works will commence

 

The Demolition Work Plan must be submitted to the, not less than two (2) working days before commencing any demolition work.  A copy of the Demolition Work Plan must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

If the work involves asbestos products or materials, a copy of the Demolition Work Plan must also be provided to Council not less than 2 days before commencing those works.

 

Notes

 

§  It is the responsibility of the persons undertaking demolition work to obtain the relevant WorkCover licences and permits.

§  Refer to the conditions within the “Requirements During Construction & Site Work”, for further details and requirements relating to demolition work, removal of any asbestos and public safety.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

21.       A Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the Office of Environment & Heritage/Environment Protection Authority Guidelines for Construction Noise and Assessing Vibration, by a suitably qualified person, is to be developed and implemented prior to commencing site work and throughout the course of construction.

 

a)     Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents. 

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery, pile drivers and all plant and equipment must be minimised, by using appropriate plant and equipment, silencers and the implementation of noise management strategies.

 

b)     The Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan must include details of measurements, analysis and relevant criteria and demonstrate that the noise and vibration emissions from the work satisfy the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, current Office of Environment & Heritage/Environment Protection Authority Guidelines for Construction Noise and Assessing Vibration and Councils conditions of consent.

 

c)     A further report/correspondence must be obtained from the consultant as soon as practicable upon the commencement of works, which reviews and confirms the implementation and suitability of the noise and vibration strategies in the Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan and which demonstrates compliance with relevant criteria.

 

d)     Any recommendations and requirements contained in the Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan and associated reports are to be implemented accordingly and should noise and vibration emissions not comply with the terms and conditions of consent, work must cease forthwith and is not to recommence until details of compliance are submitted to Council.

 

A copy of the Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan and associated acoustic/vibration report/s must be maintained on-site and a copy must be provided to Council.

 

Public Liability

22.       The owner/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $10 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to the Council.

 

 

Public Utilities

23.       A Public Utility Impact Assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

24.       The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Ausgrid, and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

Construction Traffic Management

25.       A detailed Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by Council, prior to commencement of any site work.

 

The Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must include the following details, to the satisfaction of Council:

·       A description of the construction works

·       A site plan/s showing the site, roads, footpaths, site access points and vehicular movements

·       Any proposed road and/or footpath closures

·          Any proposed Works Zone

·       Proposed site access locations for personnel, deliveries and materials

·       Size, type and estimated number of vehicular movements (including removal of excavated materials, delivery of materials and concrete to the site)

·       Provision for loading and unloading of goods and materials

·       Impacts of the work and vehicular movements on the road network, traffic and pedestrians

·       Proposed hours of construction related activities and vehicular movements to and from the site

·       Current/proposed approvals from other Agencies and Authorities (including NSW Roads & Maritime Services, Police and State Transit Authority)

·       Any activities proposed to be located or impact upon Council’s road, footways or any public place

·       Measures to maintain public safety and convenience

 

26.       Any necessary approvals must be obtained from NSW Police, Roads & Maritime Services, Transport, and relevant Service Authorities, prior to commencing work upon or within the road, footway or nature strip.

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

 

The following conditions of consent must be complied with during the demolition, excavation and construction of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity during construction.

 

Inspections during Construction

27.       The building works must be inspected by a suitably qualified person (e.g. accredited building certifier), to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction, Council’s development consent and the Crown building approval/certification.

 

Building & Demolition Work Requirements

28.       All work and activities must be carried out in accordance with the relevant regulatory requirements and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·           Work Health and Safety Act 2011 & Regulations

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001

·           WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·           The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

·           Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

·           Relevant Office of Environment & Heritage / Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and WorkCover NSW Guidelines.

·           Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy (adopted 13 September 2005)

 

A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

29.       Any work involving the demolition, storage or disposal of asbestos products and materials must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

·          Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

 

·          Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

 

·          A WorkCover licensed demolition or asbestos removal contractor must undertake removal of more than 10m2 of bonded asbestos (or as otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation).  Removal of friable asbestos material must only be undertaken by contractor that holds a current friable asbestos removal licence.  A copy of the relevant licence must be provided to the Council.

 

·          On sites involving the removal of asbestos, a sign must be clearly displayed in a prominent visible position at the front of the site, containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS’ and include details of the licensed contractor.

 

·          Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.  Details of the landfill site (which must be lawfully able to receive asbestos materials) must be provided to the Council.

 

·          A Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council upon completion of the asbestos related works which confirms that the asbestos material have been removed appropriately and the relevant conditions of consent have been satisfied.

 

A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development Section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

Dust Control

30.       During demolition excavation and construction works, dust emissions must be minimised, so as not to result in a nuisance to nearby residents or result in a potential pollution incident.

 

Adequate dust control measures must be provided to the site prior to the works commencing and the measures and practices must be maintained throughout the demolition, excavation and construction process, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Dust control measures and practices may include:-

·      Provision of geotextile fabric to all perimeter site fencing (attached on the prevailing wind side of the site fencing).

·      Covering of stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material with adequately secured tarpaulins or plastic sheeting.

·      Installation of a water sprinkling system or provision hoses or the like.

·      Regular watering-down of all loose materials and stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material.

·      Minimisation/relocation of stockpiles of materials, to minimise potential for disturbance by prevailing winds.

·      Landscaping and revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

Temporary Site Fencing

31.       Temporary site safety fencing or site hoarding must be provided to the perimeter of the site throughout demolition, excavation and construction works, to the satisfaction of Council, in accordance with the following requirements:

 

a)     Temporary site fences or hoardings must have a height of 1.8 metres and be a cyclone wire fence (with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control), or heavy-duty plywood sheeting (painted white), or other material approved by Council.

 

b)     Hoardings and site fencing must be designed to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work from falling into the public place or adjoining premises and if necessary, be provided with artificial lighting.

 

c)     All site fencing and hoardings must be structurally adequate, safe and be constructed in a professional manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

d)     An overhead (‘B’ Class) type hoarding is required is be provided to protect the public (unless otherwise approved by Council) if:

 

·    materials are to be hoisted (i.e. via a crane or hoist) over a public footway;

·    building or demolition works are to be carried out on buildings which are over 7.5m in height and located within 3.6m of the street alignment;

·    it is necessary to prevent articles or materials from falling and causing a potential danger or hazard to the public or occupants upon adjoining land;

·    as may otherwise be required by WorkCover, Council or the Crown.

 

Notes:

 

·       Temporary site fencing may not be necessary if there is an existing adequate fence in place having a minimum height of 1.5m.

 

·       If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings, amenities or articles upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or public place at any time, a separate Local Approval application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Health, Building & Regulatory Services before placing any fencing, hoarding or other article on the road, footpath or nature strip.

 

Public Safety & Site Management

32.       Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works and the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)     Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials, construction equipment or other articles must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time.

 

b)     The road, footpath, vehicular crossing and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe, clean condition and free from any excavations, obstructions, trip hazards, goods, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway, vehicular crossing, nature strip or any public place must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

c)     Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, nature strips, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

d)     Access gates and doorways within site fencing, hoardings and temporary site buildings or amenities must not open outwards into the road or footway.

 

e)     Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Health, Building and Regulatory Services department.

 

f)      Adequate provisions must be made to ensure pedestrian safety and traffic flow during the site works and traffic control measures are to be implemented in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Roads and Traffic Manual “Traffic Control at Work Sites” (Version 4), to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Site Signage

33.       A sign must be erected and maintained in a prominent position on the site for the duration of the works, which contains the following details:

 

·          name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours

·          name, address and telephone number of the project manager or other person responsible for the management of all site activities,

·          a statement stating that “unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited”.

 

Restriction on Working Hours

34.       Building, demolition and associated site works must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

All building, demolition and site work, including site deliveries (except as detailed below)

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Excavating of rock, use of jack-hammers, pile-drivers, vibratory rollers/compactors or the like

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 1.00pm only

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Additional requirements for all development

·   Saturdays and Sundays where the preceding Friday and/or the following Monday is a public holiday - No work permitted

 

An application to vary the abovementioned hours may be submitted to Council’s Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services for consideration and approval to vary the specified hours may be granted in exceptional circumstances and for limited occasions (e.g. for public safety, traffic management or road safety reasons).  Any applications are to be made on the standard application form and include payment of the relevant fees and supporting information.  Applications must be made at least 10 days prior to the date of the proposed work and the prior written approval of Council must be obtained to vary the standard permitted working hours.

 

Survey Requirements

35.       A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or other suitable documentation must be obtained at the following stage/s of construction to demonstrate compliance with the approved setbacks, levels, layout and height of the building:

 

·          upon completion of the building, prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate,

·          as otherwise may be required by the building certifier.

 

The survey documentation must be forwarded to the Council.  

 

Building Encroachments

36.       There must be no encroachment of any structures or building work onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place.

 

Road / Asset Opening Permit

37.       A Road / Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon a road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and all of the conditions and requirements contained in the Road / Asset Opening Permit must be complied with.

 

The owner/builder must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate for the development.

 

For further information, please contact Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CROWN COMPLETION CERTIFICATE

 

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing an ‘Occupation Certificate’.

 

Note:        For the purpose of this consent, any reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall also be taken to mean ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and amenity.

 

 

Certification Requirements

38.       A Certificate or Statement must be obtained from the appointed building certifier (or other suitably qualified person) prior to any occupation of the building, which confirms that the development is suitable for occupation having regard to the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Fire Safety Certification

39.       A single and complete Fire Safety Certificate, encompassing all of the essential fire safety measures contained in the fire safety schedule must be obtained and be submitted to Council.  The Fire Safety Certificate must be consistent with any relevant Fire Safety Schedules which forms part of the building approval/certification.

 

A copy of the Fire Safety Certificate is to be displayed in the building entrance/foyer at all times and a copy of the Fire Safety Certificate and Fire Safety Schedule is to be forwarded to Fire and Rescue NSW.

 

Structural Certification

40.       A Certificate must be obtained from a professional engineer, which certifies that the building works satisfy the relevant structural requirements of the Building Code of Australia and approved design documentation. A copy of which is to be provided to Council.

 

Sydney Water Certification

41.       A section 73 Compliance Certificate, under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.  An Application for a Section 73 Certificate must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator.  For details, please refer to the Sydney Water web site www.sydneywater.com.au > Building and developing > Developing your Land > Water Servicing Coordinator or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions may take some time and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

A copy of the Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Council.

 

Noise Control Requirements & Certification

42.       The operation of plant and equipment must not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the operation of the plant and equipment shall not give rise to an LAeq, 15 min sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background LA90, 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A) in accordance with relevant NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (EPA) Noise Control Guidelines.

 

43.       A written report/statement must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, which demonstrates and confirms that noise and vibration from all plant and equipment (e.g. mechanical ventilation systems and air-conditioners) satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (EPA) Noise Control Manual, Industrial Noise Policy and Council’s development consent.

 

A copy of the report must be provided to the Council prior to occupation of the development.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings, street verge

44.       The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, nature strip etc which are due to building works being carried out at the above site. This includes the removal of cement slurry from Council's footpath and roadway.

 

45.       All external civil work to be carried out on Council property (including the installation and repair of roads, footpaths, vehicular crossings, kerb and guttering and drainage works), must be carried out in accordance with Council’s Policy for “Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works” and the following requirements: 

 

a)     All work on Council land must be carried out by Council, unless specific written approval has been obtained from Council to use non-Council contractors.

 

b)     Details of the proposed civil works to be carried out on Council land must be submitted to Council in a Civil Works Application Form, prior to a Crown Completion Certificate being issued for the development, together with payment of the relevant fees.

 

c)     If it is proposed to use non-Council contractors to carry out the civil works on Council land, the work must not commence until the written approval has been obtained from Council and the work must be carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent, Council’s design details and payment of a Council design and supervision fee.

 

d)     The civil works must be completed in accordance with Council’s conditions of consent and approved design and construction documentation, prior to occupation of the development, or as otherwise approved by Council in writing.

 

Stormwater Drainage

46.       The applicant shall submit to the relevant certifying body and Council, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer confirming that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with Australian Standard 3500.3:2003 (Plumbing & Drainage- Stormwater Drainage) and the conditions of this development approval. The certification must be provided following inspection/s of the site stormwater drainage system by the certifying engineers and shall be provided to the satisfaction of the relevant certifying body.

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

 

The following operational conditions must be complied with at all times, throughout the use and operation of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health and environmental amenity.

 

Fire Safety Statements

47.       A single and complete Fire Safety Statement (encompassing all of the fire safety measures upon the premises) is required to be provided to the Council. 

 

The Fire Safety Statement is required to be provided on an annual basis each year following the issue of the Fire Safety Certificate, and other period if any of the fire safety measures are identified as a critical fire safety measure in the Fire Safety Schedule which forms part of the Crown building approval/certification.

 

The Fire Safety Statement is required to confirm that all the fire safety measures have been assessed by a properly qualified person and are operating in accordance with the standards of performance specified in the Fire Safety Schedule.

 

A copy of the Fire Safety Statement is required to be displayed in the building entrance/foyer at all times and a copy is to be forwarded to Fire & Rescue NSW.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

 

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, or other relevant legislation and Council’s policies.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

A1      The relevant requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times.

 

Failure to comply with these requirements is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million.  Alternatively, Council may issue a penalty infringement notice (for up to $3,000) for each offence.  Council may also issue notices and orders to demolish unauthorised or non-complying building work, or to comply with the requirements of Council’s development consent.

 

A2      This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA), Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards.  You are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your application for Crown building approval or a construction certificate.

 

A3      Any proposed amendments to the design and construction of the building may require a new development application or a section 96 amendment to the existing consent to be obtained from Council, before carrying out such works

 

A4      This consent does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the land owner or principal contractor must obtain:

 

§  the consent of the owners of such adjoining or supported land to trespass or encroach, or

§  an access order under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000, or

§  an easement under section 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919, or

§  an easement under section 40 of the Land & Environment Court Act 1979, as appropriate.

 

Section 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 creates a statutory duty of care in relation to support of land.  Accordingly, a person has a duty of care not to do anything on or in relation to land being developed (the supporting land) that removes the support provided by the supporting land to any other adjoining land (the supported land).

 

A5      Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

A6      The necessary development consent and certification must be obtained for any proposed cooling towers and external plant and equipment, if not included in this consent.

 

A7      A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Approvals & Certification team prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:-

 

§  Install or erect any site fencing, hoardings or site structures

§  Operate a crane or hoist goods or materials over a footpath or road

§  Placement of a waste skip or any other container or article.

 

For further information please contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

A8      There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to an environmental or public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

A9      Air conditioning plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

§  before 8.00am or after 10.00pm on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday; or

§  before 7.00am or after 10.00pm on any other day.

 

 

A10     Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

A11     The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

A12     Further information and details on Council's requirements for trees on development sites can be obtained from the recently adopted Tree Technical Manual, which can be downloaded from Council’s website at the following link, http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au - Looking after our environment – Trees – Tree Management Technical Manual; which aims to achieve consistency of approach and compliance with appropriate standards and best practice guidelines.


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP91/14

 

 

Subject:                  Report variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 July to 31 July 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 31 July, 2014 – six (6) were approved during this period, four (4) by Planning Committee meeting or Ordinary Council Meeting, and two (2) by 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

Clause 4.6 variation - July, 2014

 

 

 

 


Clause 4.6 variation - July, 2014

Attachment 1

 

 

 

SEPP 1 AND CLAUSE 4.6 REGISTER BETWEEN 1 TO 31 JULY 2014

Council DA reference No.

Lot No.

DP No.

Apartment/Unit No.

Street No.

Street name

Suburb/Town

Post-code

Category of development

Environmental planning instru-ment

Zoning of land

Development standard to be varied

Justifica-tion of variation

Extent of variation

Concurring authority

Date DA determined
dd/mm/yyyy

Approved by

DA/750/2013

1

303979 SUBJ TO CROSS EA

 

 9-11

Baden Street,

 COOGEE

2034

 4: Residential - New multi unit < 20 dwellings

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.9:1

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

Existing building 1.07:1. Proposal 0.97:1 i.e. a reduction in floor space or variation by or 7.3%.

NSW Dept of Planning

08-Jul-14

PCM

DA/283/2014

4091

752015

 

78-80

Wild Street,

MAROUBRA

2035

 7: Residential - Other

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clauses 4.1(3) - minimum allotment sizes =  400m2

Consistent with the urban character of the locality and predomi-nant subdivision pattern.

Lot 1= 302.6m 97.4m2 or 24% shortfall  and Lot 2 = 299.5m -100.5m2 or 25% shortfall

NSW Dept of Planning

08-Jul-14

PCM

DA/259/2014

1

303281

 

4-8

Storey Street

MAROUBRA

2035

 7: Residential - Other

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clauses 4.1(3) - minimum allotment sizes = 400m2

Consistent with the urban character of the locality and predomi-nant subdivision pattern.

Lot 4 (No. 6 Storey Street) Lot size 248m2  or 38% with frontage = 6.65m, and Lot 5 (No. 8 Storey Street) 326m2 or 18.5% with frontage = 10.4m

NSW Dept of Planning

08-Jul-14

PCM

DA/307/2014

 4021

752015

 

37

Garden Street,

MAROUBRA

2035

 3: Residential - New second occupancy

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

clause 22 (3) (b) Maximum floor Area = 60m2

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

FSR increased by 9.10% or 65.47m2

NSW Dept of Planning

21-Jul-14

Delega-ted autho-rity

DA/822/2013

3 SEC 3

9452  SUBJ TO SW PIPE LINE

 

7

Seaside Parade,

SOUTH COOGEE

2034

 2: Residential - Single new dwelling

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.6:1

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

FSR increased by 3.4%  or 13.6m2

NSW Dept of Planning

22-Jul-14

OCM

DA/144/2014

145

7698

 

16

Cottenham Avenue

KENSINGTON

2033

 3: Residential - New second occupancy

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.5:1

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

FSR increased by 2.6% or 22.77m2

NSW Dept of Planning

24-Jul-14

Delega-ted autho-rity

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP92/14

 

 

Subject:                  Future Music Festival - Establishment of Key Stakeholder Group

Folder No:                   F2012/00357

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

On 5 March 2014, NSW Planning approved the carrying out of a two day music festival to be held on Royal Randwick Racecourse every year for a total of ten years.

 

Condition A10 of the consent for the music festival requires the Applicant to establish a Key Stakeholder Group (KSG) to oversee the performance of events from the duration of the consent. The KSG is required to comprise 2 representatives from the local community that are nominated by Council.

 

As such, the Australian Turf Club (ATC) has written to Council requesting the nomination of the community representatives.

 

Issues

 

The requirement for the Applicant to establish the KSG arose out of concerns raised by Council and the Police, that if there was to be a ten (10) year consent, there needed to be a mechanism that evaluated each year’s event and provided the opportunity for the community to be consulted

 

The Applicant responded by committing to an ongoing consultation process that seeks endorsement of key agencies prior to holding the every event each year. The key agencies would include the Transport Management Centre (TMC) (on behalf of TfNSW and RMS); STA; police; council; and the Moore Park Events Operations Group (MEOG).

 

NSW Planning subsequently imposed a number of conditions of consent that outline the process to be followed in relation to gaining in-principle agreement of key agencies as well as proposed Event Management Plans (EMP) for each year's event.

 

As part of the process for seeking in-principle endorsement the Applicant is required to:

 

·      confirm the event date with MEOG at least six (6) months (180 days) prior to the event being held;

·      submit an EMP tailored to each yearly event to the key agencies six (6) months for approval prior to each yearly event;

·      facilitate Key Stakeholder Group (KSG) meetings as necessary in order to gain documented endorsement of the EMP by key agencies;

·      facilitate debrief sessions with the KSG within thirty (30) days of holding the event and providing the minutes of the debrief to the Director-General; and

·      provide evidence to the Director-General of the KSG's endorsement of proposed dates and EMPs 14 days prior to the event.

 

The Applicant was also supportive of the inclusion of conditions requiring:

 

·      separate approval for future events should base parameters upon which the consent was assessed change significantly e.g. alterations to the site's capacity or transport system/routes; and

 

·      obligation to inform the Director-General of any changes to base parameters at least six months prior to every event.

The terms of Condition A10 reads as follows:

 

a)   Within 60 days following the March 2014 event, the Applicant must establish a Key Stakeholder  Group (KSG) to oversee the environmental performance of events for the. duration of the consent. Evidence 9f the group's establishment and details of membership must be provided to the Director-General. The KSG must:

 

b)   include the chief executive officers (or their designated representative) of the following: Randwick City Council, State Transit Authority, Transport Management Centre (on behalf of Transport for New South Wales), NSW Police Force and Moore Park Events Operations Group (or their relevant successor);

 

c)   comprise at least two (2) representatives of the local community nominated by Council. Community representatives are appointed on a rotational basis with a representative not exceeding two (2} years; and

 

d)  be chaired by a chairperson, whose appointment has been approved by the Director-General.

In considering who the community representatives should be, it is noted that the impacts associated with the proposed event, whilst occurring over a large part of the locality, it is the residents in Wansey Avenue and in the vicinity of King Street and Alison Road, that are acutely impacted given their close proximity to the stages, entry areas and location of the bump in/bump out. As such, it would be appropriate in the circumstances to seek the participation of residents from these areas.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A liveable city.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Condition A10 of the consent requires the establishment of a KSG and for Council to the nominate community representatives to participate in this group. As discussed above it would be appropriate in the circumstances to seek representatives from Wansey Road, King Street and Alison Road given their close proximity to the stages, entry areas and the location of the bump in/bump out.

 

Recommendation

That:

 

a)     Council writes to the residents of Wansey Road, King Street and Alison Road seeking nominees to participate in the KSG.

 

b)     the General Manager reviews any applications from residents interested in       participating in the KSG and nominates two representatives.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM26/14

 

 

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

Folder No:                   F2014/03001

Author:                   Luke Fitzgerald, Acting Coordinator Integrated Planning      

 

Introduction

 

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

 

Issues

 

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of the June Quarterly Report is to inform and update Council and the community on the progress of all actions as set out in the adopted 2013-14 Annual Operational Plan. In addition, given that the Operational Plan is based on the 20 year Randwick City Plan and that Council’s reporting format is based on outcomes rather than organisational structure, the June quarterly report also provides a level of accountability against our long term vision for the City of Randwick.

 

Recommendation

 

That the information contained in the June 2014 Review of the 2013-14 Annual Operational Plan be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Review of the 2013-14 Annual Operational Plan - June Quarterly Report

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

   


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF53/14

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - July 2014

Folder No:                   F2014/06527

Author:                   Cherie Muir, Coordinator Revenue      

 

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 – July 2014” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of July 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 $7.074 million during July 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 July 2011 to July 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 July 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 sought on new investment opportunities.

 

The following graph shows the investment returns achieved against the UBS Bank Bill Index and the official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate for the period July 2011 to July 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   3.91% compared with the benchmark index of 2.71%.

 

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

 

Credit Quality of Portfolio

The credit quality of the portfolio is of very high quality with approximately 99% of assets rated “A” or better. The 1% allocation to “BBB” reflects the short-dated term deposits with regional banks. 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%

11%

89%

AA

100%

29%

71%

A

75%

59%

16%

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 31 July 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 and includes changes that:

 

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

·   Remove the ability to make a deposit with  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 to invest 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 $14.490 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 $10,692.47 bringing the book value to $1,990,405.48.

 

The balance of the FRN’s are 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 $613.66 bringing the book value to $2,984,293.66.

 

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 2014-15 financial year and outperforming the UBS Australian Bank Bill Index over a 12 month period. The current budget provision for investment income from this source is $1,932,150.00. Investment income to 31 July 2014 amounted to $175,761.17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Following is the detailed Investment Register – July 2014.

Conclusion

 

All investments as at 31 July 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 July 2014 be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF54/14

 

 

Subject:                  Carbon Tax Repeal

Folder No:                   F2013/00403

Author:                   Mitchel Woods, Manager Corporate and Financial Planning      

 

Introduction

 

This report is to provide Council with an update on the implications of the Carbon Tax

repeal.

 

On 17 July 2014, the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Act 2014 and 7 associated Acts were passed through Federal Parliament.

 

29 councils were liable entities under the Carbon Pricing Mechanism (CPM), (i.e. they paid the Carbon Tax directly). They all were liable entities because they owned or operated a landfill. Randwick City Council was not one of those Councils.

 

As mentioned above Randwick City Council did not directly pay the "carbon tax", however, there was an increase in the expenses incurred by Council on goods and services that were impacted by the carbon price. These included electricity, gas and domestic waste disposal fees.

 

Issues

 

Electricity and Gas

The reduction in electricity and gas prices will eventually generate savings for the Council. SSROC and its advisors made a strategic decision in the 2013 tender to secure carbon inclusive and exclusive bids from electricity suppliers and modeled a number of scenarios for councils.  As a result, the SSROC contracts were split into a carbon-inclusive electricity agreement for 2013-14 and a carbon exclusive agreement for 2014-15. 

SSROC now advises that this strategic decision should result in additional savings of up to $1.6m collectively for participating councils in 2014-15 as compared to having signed a carbon inclusive contract.

 

Domestic Waste Disposal Costs

 

Council’s waste disposal contractors were obliged to cease charging for the Carbon Tax on 1 July 2014. However, Council has already factored these costs into the 2014-15 Domestic Waste Management Charge. These savings should be realised once the regular invoice payments are made.

 

As the Domestic Waste funds are restricted (s504 Local Government Act 1993) any surplus funds can only be used for Domestic Waste Management purposes.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  1. Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction:  1b.5 Effectively and efficiently manage financial operations, systems and information.

              

Financial impact statement

 

The reduction in electricity and gas prices will generate savings to the 2014-15 Budget. A monetary value cannot yet be ascertained however, once these amounts have been realised they should be brought to Council through a Quarterly Budget Review for reallocation.

 

There will also be a saving from decreased waste disposal costs, however due to the restrictions associated with domestic waste funds Council’s options are limited to utilising those funds of domestic waste activities.

 

Council’s current waste collection services, receival and processing contract will expire at the end of the 2015 financial year. Council is currently tendering for a new contract, and as the current contract is very favorable, any new contract will potentially result in increased prices.

 

Conclusion

 

As a result of the Carbon Tax repeal savings will be made to the 2014-15 Budget. Where possible Council should reallocate these funds to other Council projects or services and where necessary comply with the relevant pieces of legislation.   

 

Recommendation

 

That as soon as savings made through the Carbon Tax Repeal have been realised, a report be brought back to Council recommending available options.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF55/14

 

 

Subject:                  Affixing of the Council Seal - Clovelly Bowling Club

Folder No:                   F2011/07367

Author:                   Sally Fernandez, Property Officer      

 

Introduction

Clovelly Bowling & Recreation Club Ltd has held tenure over the bowling club located in Burrows Park Reserve for more than thirty years.  The current 5 year licence agreement expired on 30 June 2014. To formalise the occupation, a new licence agreement has been prepared in accordance with the Council adopted Community Facilities Management and Rental Subsidies Policies.

 

Clause 400 (Part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

Issues

The licence was prepared and submitted to the NSW Trade & Investment (Crown Lands).  Approval in principle has been granted and it is now necessary for the Council’s Seal to be affixed to the signing of agreements between Council and the Clovelly Bowling & Recreation Club Ltd to formalise the documentation.

 

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

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

 

Financial impact statement

Upon signing the licence agreement the annual rental payable to Council will be $14,748.75 + GST indexed annually.

 

Conclusion

As Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorising the Affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities. Copies of the licence agreement will be available for Councillors (from Council’s Manager Administrative Services) at the Council meeting.

 

Recommendation

That Council grants consent to entering into a licence agreement with the Clovelly Bowling & Recreation Club Ltd for a period of five (5) years for the property at Burrows Park Reserve, 1-11 Ocean Street, Clovelly and Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the agreements.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM75/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Banksmeadow Waste Transfer Station

Folder No:                   F2004/07289

Submitted by:          Councillor D'Souza, South Ward      

 

 

That:

 

a)     Randwick Council act on behalf of its residents of the South Ward and express its displeasure to both the Sate Government and Botany Council at the location of the Banksmeadow Waster Transfer Station.

 

b)     Request the EPA to investigate and take preemptive measures and controls to protect the residents of the South Ward  from the increased noise and odours that will emanate from the Banksmeadow Waste Tranfer Station.

 

c)     Council liaise with  RMS to monitor and control truck moments to and from the Banksmeadow Waste Transfer Facility.

 

d)     Council write a letter to the relevant Minister expressing the displeasure of the residents of Matraville at the lack of consultation with the locals with regards the location of this facility and requesting a review of the location.

 

e)     Council request that if the project goes ahead the entrance to the facility not be in Beauchamp Rd Matraville rather on Foreshore Rd Banksmeadow.Thereby decreasing truck movements on an already crowded narrow thoroughfare.

 

f)      Council request a curfew be imposed so truck movements and noise will be limited to the daylight hours and no night work or truck movements be allowed at the facility after sunset.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM76/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Crs Matson, Nash & Smith under Section 372(5) of Local Government Act - "Fair Go for Kingsford, Fair Go for Randwick"

Folder No:                   F2004/08175

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward; Councillor Nash, Mayor; Councillor Smith, North 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)  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; 

 

2)  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;

 

3)  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;

 

4)  To assess potential other parking lots and parking facilities in the Kingsford Business Centre; 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM77/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Crs Andrews and Stavrinos - Car parking in West Ward

Folder No:                   F2004/08175

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

 

 

That Council investigate the feasibility of acquiring land in west ward for the purposes of building a carpark/carparks to alleviate the loss of parking caused by the light-rail.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM78/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Racial Discrimination Act

Folder No:                   F2004/06281

Submitted by:          Councillor D'Souza, South Ward     

 

 

That Council write to the Attorney General and the Federal Liberal Government supporting the decision not to repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, as the proposed law would have removed protections against offending, insulting or humiliating individuals on the basis of their race or ethnicity.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM79/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Crs D'Souza & Neilson - Centenary of St Jude's Church, Randwick

Folder No:                   F2013/00014

Submitted by:          Councillor D'Souza, South Ward      

 

 

That Council:

a)     notes St Jude's Church, Randwick, will be celebrating its centenary in 2015 and that the first Mayor of Randwick, Simeon Pearce, was instrumental in the decision to have St Jude's Church built in Randwick rather than Coogee;

b)     acknowledges the important role that this Church has played in the lives of the residents of Randwick City over the past century; and

c)     marks the occasion by organising a function, in conjunction with the Church and similar to the WW1 commemoration held on 4 August 2014, celebrating St Jude's centenary at its present site, with the cost of the function to be funded from the 2014-15 Contingency Fund.       

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM80/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposed Savings on Domestic Waste Disposal

Folder No:                   F2009/00275

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward      

 

 

That:

 

 a)    council write to waste contractor Sita Environmental Solutions requesting to      know what savings council will receive on its domestic waste disposal as a result   of the abolition of the Carbon Tax; and

 

b)     residents be compensated or reimbursed for any savings that are identified      on domestic waste disposal in the 2015-16 Domestic Waste Charge.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM81/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Crs D' Souza & Garcia - Proposed Noise Abatement Strategy for Port Botany

Folder No:                   F2005/00793

Submitted by:          Councillor D'Souza, South Ward; Councillor Garcia, South Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

(a)    ACKNOWLEDGE the concerns of Randwick residents about noise emanating       from         port-related activities in Port Botany;

(b)    NOTE the article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 17 August 2014 entitled "EPA admits it was wrong about noise level";

(c)    NOTE the second paragraph of the article reads "The EPA said last week it had made a mistake in its analysis of data taken in July last year, and the noise     from port-related activities had exceeded the sleep disturbance criteria - twice"

(d)    SUPPORT calls by Randwick residents for the development of a noise abatement       strategy at Port Botany;

(e)    WRITE to NSW Ports and CALL upon them to work with the community to         reduce noise levels emanating from port-related activities in Port Botany;

(f)    SEEK  advice on the legal options available to Council and to residents to reduce        the noise emanating from port-related activities in Port Botany.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM82/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Proposed Kensington Park - Plan of Management

Folder No:                   F2007/00043

Submitted by:          Councillor Moore, West Ward     

 

 

That Council, in recognising Kensington Park is one of six District Parks in the City, and

 

a.)    has previously adopted generic and site specific Plan of Management (PoM) to assist and guide the maintenance, development, operation and management for the City’s range of parks, reserves and community facilities as an integral component of the City Open Space and Recreational Plan of Management (COSRPM) and

 

b.)    has recently committed to converting and refurbishing the former Kensington Bowling Club to a Community Centre

 

c.)    prepare a Plan of Management for Kensington Park that

 

i.)     is consistent with the goals outlined in the current District Park Generic Management Plan including the objective to establish a site specific Plan of Management for Kensington Park

 

ii.)    gives consideration to the historical and established use of the park, recognises the changes that have occurred since previously adopted and outlines a vision for the future of the park

 

iii.)    explores opportunities to create linkages with the Randwick City Council Nursery as integral to the Park and Community Centre

 

iv.)   comprises land owned or in the care or control of Council within and the immediately surrounding Kensington Park

 

v.)    includes consideration for the following aspects PoM

 

1.     Kensington Oval

2.     proposed Kensington Community Centre

3.     John Calopedos Memorial Reserve

4.     the broader Kensington Park open space

5.     Randwick City Council Nursery

6.     park amenities and facilities

7.     car parking and access.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM83/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Concerns related to the 'secretive' Bill on compulsory business voting in Local Government Elections

Folder No:                   F2004/06586

Submitted by:          Councillor Moore, West Ward     

 

 

That Council finds the lack of consultation and transparency in relation to the ‘secretive’ Bill on compulsory business voting in Local Government elections quite extraordinary and in so doing

 

a.)    notes that not a single NSW council has been consulted on the ‘secretive’ Shooters and Fishers Party Bill being rushed through Parliament

 

b.)    notes whilst the current Bill is solely aimed at the City of Sydney there is the very real potential for these new voting rules to be rolled out to any or all NSW councils

 

c.)    notes the proposed new rules have the potential to affect processes, procedures and results and yet the only detail provided is what was announced in the media

 

d.)    calls upon the Mayor to write to the Premier, Minister and Shadow Minister for Local Government and copied to the President of the LGNSW and the Lord Mayor of Sydney expressing Randwick City Council’s concern at both the non-existent consultation with NSW Local Government and the lack of community consultation.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM84/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Kensington Community Centre - Environmental Sustainable Design

Folder No:                   PROJ/10686/2013

Submitted by:          Councillor Moore, West Ward     

 

 

That Council, consistent with Council’s Sustaining Our City Initiative, adopt sustainable design principles in its approach to converting the former Kensington Bowling Club to Community Centre and in so doing

 

a.)    draw on the successes and experiences gained from environmental design features utilised in other Council projects, including although not limited to, Barrett House and the Randwick Community Centre

 

b.)    aim to minimise the environmental impact due to the operation of the facility

 

c.)    include features to protect the local environment, by seeking to utilise renewable energy sources, water recycling and waste minimisation initiatives

 

d.)    explore any potential and applicable grant funding to support the implementation of ideas or initiatives proposed as part of the sustainable design.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM85/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Crs Smith & D'Souza - Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders

Folder No:                   F2004/06243

Submitted by:          Councillor Smith, North Ward; Councillor D'Souza, South Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

a)     note the intention of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to propose legislation providing for a constitutional referendum to allow Australian’s to vote to fix the historical exclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from Australia’s Constitution and to remove discrimination – like the section of our Constitution that says people can be banned from voting based on race.

b)     note RECOGNISE, a part of Reconciliation Australia, has been organised as a peoples movement to advocate for change and for broader Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recognition.

c)     note that whilst Australian citizens of Randwick will have their say through the ballot box there is an important role for community leaders and community organisation to play in promoting understanding and support for change, particularly given the low success rate of referenda.

d)     seek to partner with RECOGNISE and support constitutional change.

e)     publicise the visual manifestation of our support of RECOGNISE via, but not limited to, the  following (subject to operational capacity as determined by the General Manager):

 

a)     RECOGNISE logo added on Council envelopes

b)     DL insert included with rate notices highlighting Councils position

c)     Relevant content on social media, website and e-news

d)     Sourcing of magnetic decals of RECOGNISE logo, with ‘Join the journey to        recognition’ tagline and website details for use on appropriate heavy fleet    vehicles; as they act as roving billboards throughout our City

e)     Inclusion of a RECOGNISE themed banner in the Council’s banner pole      program

f)     Consult with Council’s Aboriginal Advisory Committee members on further        ways to promote support for constitutional change. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM86/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Possible unmonitored contamination work on area 10 at Bundock Street site

Folder No:                   F2006/00653

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council asks the Department of Defence whether an appropriate regulatory body monitored the execution of recent contamination works involving the chipping of trees on area 10 at its Bundock Street property in accordance with recommendation 2 made by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in February 2003.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM87/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Youth Education on Local Government

Folder No:                   F2004/06290

Submitted by:          Councillor Garcia, South Ward      

 

 

That Council:

 

(a)    ACKNOWLEDGES the importance of education for the development of young     people into active participatory citizens;

 

(b)    REVIEW the Junior Mayor Competition run by Penrith City Council and provide a         recommendation to Council on whether it should conduct a similar program in    order to provide local primary school students with an opportunity to learn         about the role of Councillors and how Council works.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM88/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Response to Bill on expanding business voting provisions at a local government level

Folder No:                   F2004/06586

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

 

That Council declares its public opposition to the City of Sydney Amendment (Elections) Bill 2014 and urgently advises accordingly LGNSW, the Minister for Local Government, the Premier and the local Government spokespersons for all political parties represented in NSW Parliament. Council will also submit a motion of opposition to the upcoming LGNSW conference.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM89/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Protection of Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub on Malabar Headland

Folder No:                   F2004/06759

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council informs the Federal Government that it agrees with FOMH that if an agreement is reached to return the horses to Malabar Headland that they should be operated under a license with conditions to physically restrict them from entering Endangered Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub such as the erection of adequate fencing.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM90/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Light Rail & Impact on Randwick LGA Bus Services

Folder No:                   F2004/08175

Submitted by:          Councillor Bowen, East Ward      

 

 

That, in noting community concern about the change and cancellation of existing bus services under the South East Light Rail proposal, Randwick Council call on the State Government to immediately advise all residents of Randwick LGA  of the proposed changes by an information campaign with such information to be available on buses, bus stops, places where tickets or Opal cards are sold, TfNSW website and by direct distribution of information to Randwick Residents.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM91/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Preservation of Bees

Folder No:                   F2009/00522

Submitted by:          Councillor Bowen, East Ward      

 

 

That Randwick Council notes with concern the threat to Australian Bee Colonies in recent years from introduced disease and climate change. Studies in WA have indicated 30% of Australia’s’ food crop plants are dependent on Bees for pollination. In recognition of the vital role Bees play in protecting our ecosystem and food sources, prepares a report to investigate:

 

1.     Providing Guidelines and assistance to local resident who may be interested in setting up a beehive,

2.     Such guidelines to ensure hives be operated safely and without disturbance to neighboring properties,

3.     Council also consider whether further action can be taken to protect the Australian bee population on a community wide basis

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM92/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from D'Souza - Election Funding

Folder No:                   F2004/06586

Submitted by:          Councillor D'Souza, South Ward      

 

 

That Council:

 

1)     in light of Premier Baird’s unprecedented apology to the citizens of NSW   for the      “reprehensible” conduct of members of the NSW Liberal party following recent       evidence given to ICAC, Randwick City Council write to the Premier         expressing abhorrence at these recent revelations at the ICAC;

 

(2)    request an immediate guarantee from the NSW State Government, that no      unlawful donations have been received by the Liberal party from parties with an interest in State Government proposals affecting Randwick LGA;

 

(3)    request the State Government look at public funding models to fund, State and        Local elections to discourage such reprehensible behavior by politicians in the     future.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM93/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - Policy position on sewer infrastructure

Folder No:                   F2004/07190

Submitted by:          Councillor  Shurey, North Ward      

 

 

That Council notes the inadequacies of the Coogee sewerage pit situation, the need for a broader local sewer infrastructure improvement, and the ecological importance of secondary treatment of ocean sewage discharges. That Council responds to these issues by adopting a policy position of urging the State Government to consider the following options:

 

a)  The commencement of a feasibility study into constructing an earlier diversion away from Coogee of the main sewage flows from other suburbs thus achieving a more direct path to their ultimate destination at the Malabar treatment plant;

 

b)  Sydney Water to investigate opportunities to work collaboratively with the Council to model and project changes to pressures placed on the sewage infrastructure system under various projected population growth scenarios;

 

c)  The implementation of secondary treatment techniques at the Malabar treatment plant; and

 

d)  A State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) imposing a sewage infrastructure improvement levy on all new developments causing residential increase in the LGA.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM94/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Art Competitions

Folder No:                   F2011/00520

Submitted by:          Councillor Roberts, East Ward      

 

 

That Council consider design competitions, where appropriate, in the future as part of the capital works and building construction design process.

 

 

 

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Notice of Rescission Motion No. NR8/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Rescission Motion from Crs Moore, Belleli & Bowen - The Light Rail Project - Proposed amendments to the development agreement with TfNSW

Folder No:                   F2013/00263

Submitted by:          Councillor Moore, West Ward; Councillor Bowen, East Ward; Councillor Belleli, South Ward      

 

That the resolution passed at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on Tuesday 29 July 2014 reading as follows:

 

“RESOLUTION: (Smith/Matson) that:

 

a)     Council’s adopts the following positions in relation to the following issues:

 

1.   The High Cross Park Interchange and Prince of Wales Hospital Stop - insert into the Development Agreement: “Randwick City Council will be scoping out a proposal known as “Feasible Interchange Alternatives” relating to the Randwick interchange/terminus, including acquisition and development of 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. TfNSW will consider this proposal once developed by Randwick City Council.

 

2.   The proposed Randwick Stabling Facility (at 66a Doncaster Avenue) and identified future community centre – insert into the Development Agreement:

 

•     TfNSW will ensure that heavy maintenance be precluded at the Randwick Stabling Facility (and insert definition of “heavy maintenance”);

 

•           Delete Item 1.2A.1 of Schedule 7; and

 

•     TfNSW notes Randwick City Council’s interest in the land for the purposes        of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.

 

3.   Undergrounding of power along Anzac Parade – No amendments necessary as planning approval addresses this issue and the issue is also addressed by issue “6” below.

 

4.   Sale/transfer of Rainbow Street site to Council – Insert into the Development Agreement:

 

•     TfNSW will transfer ownership of the site to Randwick City Council at market value assessed at the date of the Development Agreement. (It is noted that the ownership was transferred in January 2014 for $9.5 million);

 

•     TfNSW will allow Council to make instalment payments for the purchase price over a period of 5 years from the date of the Development Agreement;

 

 

•     There will be a delayed settlement, or alternatively a leaseback from Randwick City Council to TfNSW, so that the site can be used for its intended purpose as a construction compound for the project, with the effect that unencumbered ownership of the site will vest in Council upon practical completion of the project.

 

5.   Rainbow Street Construction Compound – insert a note that Randwick City Council will provide any alternative site at Nil cost for use during the construction period of the project.

 

6.   The status of Council's Urban Design Guidelines – insert “option 1” into clause 6.2.c.i on page 12 of the agreement which states “Where reasonably practicable, the project will be designed to implement Randwick City Council’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). The deletion of schedule 8 of the agreement.

 

7.   Retaining 100-120 parking spaces on Anzac Parade (from Alison Road to Darling Street) - no amendments necessary as TfNSW has already agreed to Council’s request.

 

8.   Concern in relation to tree losses – insert into the Development Agreement a clause which reads “TfNSW will ensure that a tree management process be developed and implemented that if Council 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 modelling - no amendments necessary.

 

10.  Bus changes – no amendments necessary.

 

11.  Kingsford Nine-Ways intersection – no amendments necessary as issue dealt with in issue “6” above.

 

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.”

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

If the Rescission Motion is carried, it is intended to move the following motion:

 

“Noting negotiations with the TfNSW regarding the Draft Development Agreement have reached an advanced stage and that Council is awaiting heritage studies and legal advice regarding High Cross Park which the council has resolved is not negotiable, that Council make use of the time available until the studies are completed and the advice received and thereby defer consideration of the Draft Development Agreement until the completion of the following:

a)  Council put the proposed Draft Development Agreement together with suggested changes out to community consultation and seek input from all residents, ratepayers, businesses, chambers of commerce, precinct committees community organisations and stakeholders in regard to both the development agreement as proposed and suggested changes;

b)  Councillors to provide any further suggested changes to the General Manager within 7 days;

c)  The consultation referred to above to conclude within 2 months.”

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  26 August 2014

 

 

Notice of Rescission Motion No. NR9/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Rescission Motion from Crs Neilson, Stevenson & Moore - High Cross Park Light Rail Interchange

Folder No:                   F2004/08175

Submitted by:          Councillor Neilson, North Ward; Councillor Stevenson, Central Ward; Councillor Moore, West Ward      

 

That the resolution passed at the Ordinary Council meeting held on Tuesday, 22 July, 2014 reading as follows:

 

“RESOLUTION: (Shurey/Matson) 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)     acquisition and development of 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;

 

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; and

 

5)     To explore the possibility of a Memorandum of Understanding with adjacent stakeholders and property owners.”

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

If the Rescission Motion is carried, it is intended to move the following motion:

 

“That High Cross Park is non negotiable and that TfNSW be requested to find an alternate solution for the bus/Light Rail interchange at Randwick.”