Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 23 September 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                                                                                            23 September 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, 23 September 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 - 26 August 2014

Extraordinary Council Meeting - 2 September 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 (Deferred)

MM65/14   Councillors Ted Seng & Murray Matson - Acknowledgement of Twenty Years' Service to Randwick City Council........................................................................... 1

MM66/14   324 (City of Randwick) Squadron Australian Airforce Cadets - celebrating 60 years    3

MM67/14   Maroubra Diggers Swimming Club - Waiving of Fees.................................. 5

Mayoral Minutes

MM68/14   Waiving of Fees - St Marks Anglican Church............................................. 7

MM69/14   Waiving of Fees - St Pauls Anglican Church.............................................. 9  

(Note: further Mayoral Minutes may 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.

CP93/14    147 Avoca Street, Randwick (DA/400/2014)........................................... 11

CP94/14    8 Simeon Street, Clovelly (DA/794/2011/C)............................................ 15

CP95/14    3 Severn Street, Maroubra (DA/552/2013/A).......................................... 21

CP96/14    32-34 Carr Street, Coogee (DA/725/2012/A).......................................... 33

CP97/14    40 Marcel Avenue, Randwick (DA/326/2014)........................................... 45

CP98/14    68- 70 Market Street, Randwick (DA/425/2014)...................................... 65

 

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP99/14    Report variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 August to 31 August, 2014.................. 75

CP100/14   Randwick City Council Enforcement Policy (Review).................................. 79

CP101/14   Cultural and Community Grant Program September 2014 Round assessment report   81

General Manager's Reports

Nil

Director City Services Reports

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF58/14    2013-14 Financial Statements.............................................................. 91

GF59/14    Investment Report - August 2014......................................................... 93  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice (Deferred)

NM83/14   Notice of Motion from Crs Matson, Nash & Smith under Section 372(5) of Local Government Act - "Fair Go for Kingsford, Fair Go for Randwick"............... 101

NM84/14   Notice of Motion from Crs Andrews and Stavrinos - Car parking in West Ward 103

NM85/14   Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Racial Discrimination Act.................... 105

NM86/14   Notice of Motion from Crs D'Souza & Neilson - 150th Anniversary of St Jude's Church, Randwick........................................................................................ 107

NM87/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposed Savings on Domestic Waste Disposal  109

NM88/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Proposed Kensington Park - Plan of Management   111

NM89/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Concerns related to the 'secretive' Bill on compulsory business voting in Local Government Elections....................................... 113

NM90/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Kensington Community Centre - Environmental Sustainable Design........................................................................... 115

NM91/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Possible unmonitored contamination work on area 10 at Bundock Street site...................................................................... 117

NM92/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Youth Education on Local Government.... 119

NM93/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Response to Bill on expanding business voting provisions at a local government level.................................................. 121

NM94/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Protection of Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub on Malabar Headland............................................................................. 123

NM95/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Light Rail & Impact on Randwick LGA Bus Services 125

NM96/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Preservation of Bees ......................... 127

NM97/14   Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Election Funding .............................. 129

NM98/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - Policy position on sewer infrastructure.. 131

NM99/14   Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Building Design Competitions .............. 133

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM100/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Andrews - Request for Clarification on Amalgamations        135

NM101/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Recognition of Indigenous Australian Soliders         137

NM102/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Educating our residents on the dangers of illicit drugs............................................................................................. 139

NM103/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Council's position on amalgamations...... 141

NM104/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Resident Parking Schemes .................. 143

NM105/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Recognition for The Stolen Generation ... 145  

Closed Session (record of voting required)

CS17/14    Tender for Heffron Park Redevelopment Stage A, Maroubra – Tender T2015-01

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.

 

CS18/14    Tender for Heffron Park South West Sports Amenities Upgrade – Tender T2015-02

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

  

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

…………………………………………………….

Sima Truuvert

acting General Manager


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM65/14

 

 

Subject:                  Councillors Ted Seng & Murray Matson - Acknowledgement of Twenty Years' Service to Randwick City Council (DEFERRED)

Folder No:                   F2004/06577

Author:                   Councillor Nash, Mayor      

 

Introduction

 

It gives me great pleasure to advise that 2015 will mark twenty years’ outstanding service to the Randwick City community provided by Councillors Ted Seng and Murray Matson. The purpose of this mayoral minute is to seek Council approval to recognise this tremendous and quite rare achievement by undertaking some form of recognition ceremony at the 2015 Australia Day Ceremony to be held at the Prince Henry Centre.

 

Issues

 

Councillors Ted Seng and Murray Matson began their careers with Randwick City Council on 9th September, 1995. Outstanding service to their respective political parties and, more importantly, to their local communities resulted in both being elected as Mayor of Randwick City Council in 2005/06 (Cr Seng) and in 2004/05 & 2010/11 (Cr Matson).

 

Both Councillors’ efforts have been instrumental in transforming Randwick City Council into a leader in Local Government, a leader in the community and an employer of choice. They have also been heavily involved in ensuring Randwick City Council is one of the few NSW Councils that are in a strong financial position with a positive outlook going forward.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Given their outstanding contributions to Council and the community over such an extended period of time and that such an achievement is extremely rare in the local government industry, I seek Council’s support in recognising the efforts of Councillors Ted Seng & Murray Matson at the 2015 Australia Day Ceremony.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council recognise twenty years’ outstanding service by Councillors Ted Seng and Murray Matson by undertaking some form of recognition ceremony at the 2015 Australia Day Ceremony to be held at the Prince Henry Centre.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM66/14

 

 

Subject:                  324 (City of Randwick) Squadron Australian Airforce Cadets - celebrating 60 years (DEFERRED)

Folder No:                   F2013/00014

Author:                   Councillor Nash, Mayor      

 

Introduction

 

The 324 (City of Randwick) Squadron Australian Air Force Cadets, a youth development organisation sponsored by the Department of Defense operating within the City of Randwick, is celebrating their 60th anniversary later this year. Given the significant and long standing contribution of the unit throughout Randwick during the past 60 years, the unit has requested permission for a Freedom of Entry Parade to be held in Alison Park.

 

I have also received a letter from Bruce Notley-Smith (State Member for Coogee) informing Council of this marvelous achievement as well as requesting that Council send a letter of congratulations to the Squadron, honoring the milestone and recognising their continual service to the Eastern Sydney community.

 

Issues

 

The proposed parade is a dignified means for Council to honour a defence unit and assist in effecting a desirable liaison between Council and the armed services. The Parade is historically and culturally significant. Historically an armed body of men seeking admittance to a city was challenged at the city’s gate by the city’s official to ensure their peaceful intentions.

 

The order of the ceremony for a Freedom of Entry parade would be as follows:

 

-     the unit moves on parade from Council Car Park Avoca Street to Alison Park, with its Colours and bayonets fixed;

-     the unit commences its entry to the city and is challenged by a senior police officer (acting in the capacity of the City Marshal);

-     the unit forms up an inspection line in Alison Park;

-     the unit receives the official guests;

-     the Mayor inspects the parade as the Reviewing Officer;

-     the Mayor addresses the parade;

-     the Mayor presents a scroll proclaiming the ‘Freedom of Entry to the City of Randwick’

-     the unit gives a general salute to the citizens of the City;

-     the official guests depart; and

-     the unit continues its march and then disperses.

 

At the completion of the parade and inspection, the Department of Defense will provide a number of small coaches to transport invited guests to the Officer’s Mess located at Randwick Barracks where refreshments will be served.

 

It is customary for Council to write an official letter of invitation to the Regiment requesting the Freedom of Entry Parade to take place. In addition to other activities, the unit will be looking to replace its 6 current ceremonial swords which are over 20 years old. The unit is actively seeking community sponsorship for these swords with a goal of having each engraved with the name of the organisation that donated the sword as a lasting reminder of their 60th anniversary. As such, the 324 Squadron has requested the Council to sponsor a ‘Sword of Excellence’ (valued at approximately $400).  This would include an engraved inscription proclaiming the sword’s purpose on the blade.  It is suggested that this sword be presented by a Council representative on an annual basis during the annual parade to the Senior Cadet who has best represented the core goals of the Australian Air Force Cadets, namely by displaying ‘Leadership, Initiative, Self-Discipline and Self Reliance’.

 

In addition to the sponsorship of the Sword of Excellence, a further amount of $600.00 is requested by the Squadron to cover the cost of providing trophies over the next five years.

 

Financial impact statement

 

If the report recommendation is adopted, the cost to Council will be as follows:

 

Freedom of Entry Parade Site Infrastructure Hire                          $6,000

Audio Visual, Power, Lectern, Dias for Reviewing Officer                $1,500

One off sponsorship of ceremonial sword and Mayor’s Trophies       $1,000

Design and printing of Scroll                                                  $300

Preparation and implementation of Traffic Management Plan           $2,300

Total:                                                                                  $11,100

 

This amount, if adopted, will be funded from the 2014-15 Contingency Fund.

 

Conclusion

 

In recognition of the the 324 (City of Randwick) Squadron Australian Air Force Cadets’ 60th Anniversary achievement and contribution to the community, it is appropriate for Council to host a Freedom of Entry Parade on Sunday 14 December 2014 at Alison Park, as well as sponsoring a Sword of Excellence and Mayor’s trophies over 5 years. 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council agree to host the Freedom of Entry Parade at Alison Park on 14 December 2014, and provide all necessary infrastructure and equipment for the event as detailed in the report.

 

b)     The Mayor to send an official invitation to the 324 (City of Randwick) Squadron Australian Air Force Cadets inviting them to perform the Freedom of Entry Parade, as well as a letter of congratulations on reaching this significant milestone, and for its continual service to the Eastern Sydney community.

 

c)     Council sponsor the purchase of a ceremonial sword and the Sword of Excellence Trophies for the next five years

 

d)     That the Council’s financial contribution totalling $11,100 be funded from the 2014-15 Contingency Fund.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM67/14

 

 

Subject:                  Maroubra Diggers Swimming Club - Waiving of Fees (DEFERRED)

Folder No:                   F2010/00214

Author:                   Councillor Nash, Mayor      

 

Introduction

 

Correspondence has been received from Mr Rod Royston, President of Maroubra Diggers Junior Swimming Club, requesting the waiver of hire fees for the use of the Des Renford Aquatic Centre to hold two zone carnivals in November and December 2014.  

 

Issues

 

The Maroubra Diggers Junior Swimming Club is a not for profit organisation that has been utilising the Des Renford Aquatic Centre for over thirty years on a weekly basis between October and March each year. This year they wish to invite a number of clubs to Des Renford Aquatic Centre to hold two zone swimming carnivals which will attract approximately 250 people to each event.

 

These events are both scheduled for outside normal operating hours of the facility.  They will commence at 6.00pm in the evening and conclude at 9.30pm. The hire fees for the use of the facility for both dates is $1,020.00.

 

The facility will incur increased staff and operating costs due to the after hours nature of these events. There will be no impact on the normal daily facility events.

 

Financial impact statement

 

In the event that Council accepts the report recommendation, the direct financial implication to Council will be $1,020.00 which will be funded from the 2014-15 Contingency Fund.

 

Conclusion

 

It is considered that Council should support this request from Maroubra Diggers Junior Swimming Club to waive the fees to hire the Des Renford Aquatic Centre for two zone swimming carnivals in November and December 2014 to the value of $1,020.00.  The normal facility spectator fees still apply to all non competitors to assist the facility in recovering the increased costs of operating outside of normal hours.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council vote $1,020.00 from the 2014-15 Contingency Fund to cover the swimming carnival hire fees at the Des Renford Aquatic Centre by the Maroubra Diggers Swimming Club.

 

b)     The organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and   promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event.

 

 

c)     That normal facility spectator fees apply for all non competitors.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM68/14

 

 

Subject:                  Waiving of Fees - St Marks Anglican Church

Folder No:                   F2014/00096

Author:                   Councillor Nash, Mayor      

 

Introduction

 

An application has been received from Rev. Simon Roberts, Senior Minister, St Mark’s Anglican Church, Malabar seeking the waiving of associated fees for its annual community event of “Carols by Candlelight”. The event is planned for Saturday 6 December, 2014 in Pioneers Park, Malabar.

 

Issues

 

The St Mark’s Anglican Church has been running a carols event since 2005 and has been well run and well received by the local community.  Rev. Roberts has advised that this is a non profit activity.  Various businesses from the local area partner with St Mark’s Anglican Church to sponsor aspects of the event so that much of the evening is provided free of charge to local residents.  Attendance at the Malabar Carols by Candelight has been growing over the years with approximately 1,000 people attending last year. 

 

Rev. Roberts has asked that given this is a non-profit community event, Council provide in-kind financial assistance with the following costs: 

 

Application Fee:                                                               $  514.00

Extended Opening Hours of toilets                               $  177.00

Supply and Removal of ten bins   @ $82.00 per bin               $  820.00

Usage Fee:                                                                            $  361.00

Food Registration Fees:                                                    $  300.00

TOTAL:                                                                                          $2,172.00

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $2,172.00 and this will be funded from the 2014-15 Contingency Fund.

 

Conclusion

 

Whilst Council holds a carols by candlelight event at Coogee Beach, financial assistance for this event in Malabar will enable residents residing in the southern part of the city to attend a carols by candlelight event in their area. 

 

Recommendation

 

That: 

 

a)    Council vote $2,172.00 to cover the fees associated with the Malabar “Carols By Candlelight” to be held on Saturday 6 December, 2014, and that these funds be allocated from the 2014-15 Contingency Fund.

 

b)    The event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event.

 

c)    The Mayor or his representative be given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

 

d)    The organisers provide Council with information following the event on the number of attendees.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM69/14

 

 

Subject:                  Waiving of Fees - St Pauls Anglican Church

Folder No:                   F2014/00096

Author:                   Councillor Nash, Mayor      

 

Introduction

 

A letter has been received from Pastor Steve Bainbridge, St Paul’s Anglican Church advising that the church is currently planning its annual major community event “Carols by Candelight” to be held in Grant Reserve on Saturday 13 December 2014.  Pastor Bainbridge is requesting that all associated fees be waived for this event.

 

Issues

 

Pastor Bainbridge expresses the church’s appreciation for the support previously given by Council towards this major community event and again seeks the waving of associated fees to financially meet the high costs of staging such an event.  The event fee includes:

 

Hire of Reserve:                                                      $  361.00

Supply & Removal 5 sulo bins @ $82.00 per bin:            $  410.00

Connection to Power:                                                $  121.00

Extended opening and cleaning of toilets                       $  177.00

Food Stall                                                               $  100.00

Total:                                                                                  $1169.00

 

St Paul’s Anglican Church, St Nicolas’ Anglican Church and GracePoint Christian Church each contribute to the costs of this event which is about $6,000 per year, including a fireworks display.  Pastor Bainbridge has advised that this event has been going for 21 years and always draws a good crowd at Grant Reserve.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implications to Council is $1,169.00.  This amount will be funded from the 2014-15 Contingency Fund.

 

Conclusion:

 

It is considered that this event provides benefit to the community and it is recommended that Council waive all associated fees for this activity.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     The fees for the “Carols by Candelight” event in Grant Reserve on Saturday 13 December 2014 be waived and $1,169.00 be allocated from the 2014-15 Contingency Fund;

 

b)     The organisers undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event.

 

c)     The Mayor or his representative is given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

 

d)     The event organisers provide Council with information following the event on the number of attendees.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP93/14

 

 

Subject:                  147 Avoca Street, Randwick (DA/400/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/400/2014

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen      

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the Coach and Horses Hotel including new awning above fronting Alison Road and Avoca Street, extension of existing awning along Alison Road and changes to openings on elevations to provide access to new balcony (Heritage Item)

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Mr C Thomas

Owner:                        Argos Investments Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview21314.png

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application involves alterations and additions to the Coach & Horses Hotel.

 

The originally lodged application sought approval for alterations and additions to the Coach and Horses Hotel including a new first floor balcony with awning above fronting Alison Road and Avoca Street, extension of existing awning along Alison Road and changes to openings on elevations to provide access to new balcony and ground floor tiling.

 

Amended Proposal

 

The application requires approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 for works undertaken over a public road.

 

The application was subsequently referred to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) as the proposed balcony addition extended over the footpath which is part of the road reserve.

 

RMS raised no objection subject to all buildings and structures being clear of the road reserve and wholly within the freehold property. As the proposed balcony is located above the footpath the RMS have not granted approval except for the extension of the existing awning along Alison Road.

 

Council is therefore unable to approve the proposed balcony without the concurrence of the RMS. The applicant subsequently submitted amended plans which remove the proposed balcony from the proposal.

 

The existing awning shelters the footpath to the Avoca Street frontage and part of the footpath to the Alison Road frontage.  A glazed canopy provides a covered entry to the rear bistro. The amended proposal retains the proposed extension to the existing awning for the remainder of the Alison Road frontage between the existing awning and the glazed canopy.  The amended proposal also retains the proposed tiling at the ground floor of the Avoca Street and Alison Road frontages of the building. 

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the south eastern corner of Avoca Street and Alison Road and accommodates the Coach and Horses Hotel.  The hotel building is listed as a heritage item in the Randwick LEP 1998 and is within the Randwick Junction Conservation Area.

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview21331.png

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. There were five objections received from occupants of the residential development at No. 206b Alison Road as a result of the notification process. The concerns raised relate to the proposed balcony and are summarized as follows:

 

·         noise impacts associated with the use of the proposed balcony;

·         intensification of the existing use;

·         anti-social behavior;

·         excessive trading hours; and

·         sleep disturbance.

 

An objection was also lodged by the Randwick Precinct raising concern with the balcony addition and the impacts on the heritage significance of the hotel, and the intensification of the use and associated noise and anti-social behavior impacts to the surrounding area.

 

Key Issues

 

Impacts to the surrounding area

The objections received by council during the notification process primarily raised concerns with noise and anti-social behaviour associated with the intensification of the existing hotel due to the proposed balcony addition. However, the application was subsequently amended and the proposed balcony addition (and associated openings) has now been removed from the proposal. The intensification of the use of the existing hotel and the potential noise impacts are therefore no longer relevant to the application. The concerns raised by the objectors have therefore been satisfactorily addressed in the amended proposal.

 

 

 

Heritage

The subject hotel building is listed as a heritage item in the Randwick LEP 1998 and is within the Randwick Junction Conservation Area. The amended proposal involves an extension to the existing awning along Alison Road and tiling to the ground floor street frontages. The application was therefore referred to council’s Heritage Planner.

 

In summary, Council’s Heritage Planner provided the following comment:

 

The proposed changes including the extension of the existing awning and wall tiling below awning level will not impact on the heritage value of the existing building, neighbouring heritage items or the Randwick Junction heritage conservation area. 

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has recommended details of the proposed wall tiles be submitted to council for approval prior to issue of a construction certificate. A condition to that effect is imposed on the recommended approval.

 

The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of heritage impacts.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development, as amended, satisfactorily addresses the concerns raised by residents to the proposed balcony addition and the associated noise and environmental amenity impacts to the surrounding area.

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has advised that the amended proposal including the extension of the existing awning and wall tiling below awning level would not impact on the heritage value of the existing hotel building or the conservation area.

 

It is recommended that the amended proposal be approved.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 400/2014 for the extension of existing awning along Alison Road and ground floor tiling along the street frontages at No. 147 Avoca Street Randwick, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 147 Avoca Street, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP94/14

 

 

Subject:                  8 Simeon Street, Clovelly (DA/794/2011/C)

Folder No:                   DA/794/2011/C

Author:                   Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by adding a new lift, increase the garage door width, internal reconfiguration, changes to various window openings on all elevations and a new rear first floor balcony

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                In & Out Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mr N Skagias

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application seeks to modify the original consent determined at a Planning Committee meeting of 12 June 2012.

 

The subject section 96 (2) application seeks approval to modify the approved development by adding a new lift, increase the garage door width, internal reconfiguration, changes to various window openings on all elevations and a new rear first floor balcony.

 

1.      Proposal

 

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

 

Basement/Garage

§  Revised storage space;

§  Internal lift installed;

§  Increased setback of garage opening from the front boundary; and

§  Increased width of garage opening.

 

Ground Floor

§  Revised entry layout;

§  Reconfigured stairwell and pantry layout; and

§  Internal lift installed.

 

First Floor

§  New bathroom;

§  Revised stairwell and ensuite layout;

§  Various window changes on Southern and Northern elevations;

§  Internal lift installed; and

§  New rear balcony

 

Upper sitting area

§  Internal lift installed

§  Revised stairwell and storage layout.

 

2.      Site

 

The subject site is located at 8 Simeon, Clovelly and is identified as Lot 4 in DP303981. The site is located on the western side of Simeon Street, south of its intersection with Douglas Street. The site is rectangular in shape and orientated on a northeast-southwest axis.

 

The topography of the site falls in a north easterly direction away from Seaview Street to Simeon Street, with a level change of approximately 5.99m over the length of the site from RL73.26m at Seaview Street to RL67.64m at the Simeon Street frontage. There is also a cross fall from the northeast boundary to the south west boundary ranging from RL67.84 to RL66.64 respectively.

 

The topography of the locality slopes in a south easterly direction down Simeon Street away from its intersection with Douglas Street. Due to the landform variation, retaining walls have become a characteristic element of residential design along the western side of the street.

 

 Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern eastern, front boundary to Simeon Street

10.375m

321.9m² 

 

 

North western, side boundary

30.505m

South eastern, side boundary

31.43

South western, rear boundary

10.365m

 

Figure1. Subject Site

 

The immediate streetscape is characterised by a mixture of two (2) storey residential dwellings with high brick front boundary fencing and modified California Bungalows to the lower eastern side of the street.

 

The land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and is subject to Clause 2.3 of the LEP 2012.

 

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.      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 has 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 a new lift, increase the garage door width, internal reconfiguration, changes to various window openings on all elevations and a new rear first floor balcony. 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.

 

 

4.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The proposal is consistent with the general aims of the Randwick LEP 2012 and the specific zoning objectives, in that the development is compatible with the residential environment of the locality and will not detract from the desirable elements of the streetscape. The application will not result in any undue adverse impacts to the amenity of surrounding residential development. The proposal will not result in the height of the dwelling being increased, reducing the available landscaped area or will it result in an increase in the existing floor space ratio.

 

4.2    Comprehensive Development Control Plan (DCP)

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 DCP controls may be considered where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome. Hence, the consent authority must be flexible in its application and consider reasonable alternative solutions to achieve the objectives of the DCP Controls.

 

§  Roof Design and Features

As a result of the gable roof design the proposed lift overrun will protrude from the roof 1.8m, will have a maximum height of 1.2m and have a rendered paint finish with a zinc roof panel system. Whilst the proposal is not contained within the roof form or screened behind a parapet wall as outlined in the RDCP 2013 controls, It is considered to meet the relevant objectives in that the proposed lift overrun will not dominate the dwelling design or the streetscape.

 

The lift overrun is setback 10.5m from the site front boundary and sits 900mm below the ridge height of the subject dwelling. The maximum height of the lift overrun sits 800mm above the eave height of the adjoining property at No. 6 Simeon Street.

 

It is considered that whilst it may be visible from the streetscape, its impact will be negligible as a result of its minimal size and its setting within the roof form. It should be noted that the rendered finish on the lift overrun removes the need for screening by way of a parapet wall (which would result in an increase in the visible bulk).

 

The proposal is considered to not have any adverse impacts on the character of the streetscape, nor does it detract from the approved dwelling house and is considered to meet the relevant objectives in the RDCP 2013.

 

§  Privacy

The proposal includes a 1m deep rear balcony at first floor level. It is considered that this balcony will have the potential to overlook the adjoining properties resulting in adverse impacts on their privacy. In an attempt to mitigate any potential privacy impacts the proposal has included two 1.5m high privacy screens to both the northern and southern elevations. It is considered that these privacy screens will not be effective in removing the potential for overlooking to occur and as a result an appropriate condition has been included in the development consent requiring the privacy screens be constructed to 1.6m above the finished deck level.

 

5.      Referrals

 

The proposal was referred to council’s development engineer, the following comments were made:

 

 

 

5.1      Development Engineer

An application has been received to modify development consent for alterations and additions at the above site.

 

The modifications to the development consent include having the garage door setback from its original proposed front boundary alignment proposal to approximately 1.35m back from the front boundary alignment.

 

The proposed increased setback will require the garage door width to be suitably increased to match the size of the opening.

 

The Planning Officer is advised that the proposed relocation of the garage door further back from the front boundary does not require any additional Development Engineering conditions

 

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 conditions of consent.

 

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/794/2011/C by adding a new lift, increasing the garage door width, internal reconfiguration, changes to various window openings on all elevations and a new rear first floor balcony at 8 Simeon Street, Clovelly, subject to the following conditions:

 

·      Amend Condition 1 to read:

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the following plans:

 

Plan

Draw

 by

Dated

Received by Council

DA01C- Site Plan

In + Out Pty Ltd

14 January 2013

15 January 2013

DA03C- Ground Floor Plan

DA04B- First floor Plan

DA05B – Upper sitting area

DA06C- Roof Plan

DA07C- Section S1

DA08B- Section S2

DA09D- East and West Elevations

DA10C-North Elevation

DA11C-South Elevation

 

as amended by the Section 96 (B) plans listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

Proposed Section 1

Not stated

Undated

1 November 2013

1011/179 (Sheet 1 of 1)

Harrison & Morris Consultancy Pty. Ltd.

18 October 2013

1 November 2013

 

except as amended by the Section 96 (C) plans listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA02d

In + Out Pty Ltd

29/1/13

29/07/2014

DA03F

In + Out Pty Ltd

29/1/13

29/07/2014

DA04E

In + Out Pty Ltd

24/6/14

29/07/2014

DA05D

In + Out Pty Ltd

29/1/12

29/07/2014

DA06F

In + Out Pty Ltd

6/5/14

29/07/2014

DA07D

In + Out Pty Ltd

4/4/14

29/07/2014

DA08D

In + Out Pty Ltd

29/1/13

29/07/2014

DA09E

In + Out Pty Ltd

17/7/14

29/07/2014

DA10E

In + Out Pty Ltd

8/4/14

29/07/2014

DA11E

In + Out Pty Ltd

8/4/14

29/07/2014

 

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

 

·      Add Condition 61 to read:

61.     The privacy screens located to the northern and southern edges of the rear first floor balcony shall be constructed to a height of 1.6m above the finished deck level.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - DA/794/2011/C - 8 Simeon Street, Clovelly 

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP95/14

 

 

Subject:                  3 Severn Street, Maroubra (DA/552/2013/A)

Folder No:                   DA/552/2013/A

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by altering the internal layout of the building, increase in the size of the dining/living rooms for units 1 to 6 and 8, increase the wall height of the rear portion of the front building by 900mm, changes to window openings on elevations, convert front and rear courtyards to private courtyards for units 1 and 7, changes to external materials and finishes

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Alec Pappas Architects Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Dr N N Tanudisastro

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview18188.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Ordinary Council Meeting as Council approved the original application. Original consent was granted for the demolition of existing dwelling, removal of Norfolk Island Pine tree, construction of part 3/part 4 storey residential flat building in two building forms containing 10 units, basement parking for 14 vehicles, strata subdivision and associated works.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is a Section 96(2) application seeking consents to modify the approved development consent DA/552/2013 in the following key manner (a list of key amendments is contained within the key issues section of this report):

 

Amended location

Proposed amendments

Basement

·        Driveway levels adjusted resulting in a minor increase floor level of basement 1 floor level

·        Change to internal main stair layout

·        Bin store and mezzanine storage reconfigured

·        Caretaker WC relocated to mezzanine area

·        Plant room added to mezzanine level

·        Level of mezzanine store raised by 180mm

Front building

·        Glazing replaced with metal screening to stair enclosure on north-west side from basement 1

·        Minor dimensional changes to common stair

·        Car park ventilation exhaust shaft added to roof (RL28.16) towards the higher north-west elevation and well below 12m maximum permitted under the RLEP

·        Units 1, 3 & 5 (Front half of front building):

o   Dining and living room enlarged towards the front accommodated by a reduction in depth of the front balconies

o   Kitchen island added

o   Kitchen window reconfigured

o   Windows to bath and en-suite adjusted

o   Bathroom reduced in size and small en-suites added to units 3 and 5

·        Units 2, 4 & 6 (Rear half of front building):

o   Rear half of front building (comprising units 2, 4 & 6) is proposed to be raised by 900mm allowing for the deletion internal stairs increasing the wall height at the south-eastern elevation from 10.54m to 11.44m*

o   Skillion roof deleted reducing the overall height from 11.95m to 11.87m

o   Dining and living room enlarged accommodated by a reduction in depth of the balconies facing the internal courtyard between the front and rear building

o   Laundry relocated within unit

o   Kitchen island added

Rear building:

 

·        Minor changes to common stair layout

·        Units 8. 9 & 10:

o   Dining and living room enlarged accommodated by a reduction in depth of the balconies facing internal courtyard between the rear and front building.

o   Linen cupboard relocated

 

External changes:

 

·      Delete two external drying areas*

·      Reallocate communal open space in the rear yard to unit 7*

·      Common landscaped area at front converted to a private court for unit 1 and the patio expanded

·      Minor changes in levels and steps to north-west side path New access stair added at rear of basement 1

·      Raised level of the planter adjacent to the entry of the rear building on the north west side

·      Minor glazing adjustments

·      Changes to materials:

o   External wall tiling replaced by face brickwork

o   Metal wall cladding replaced by acrylic render in places

o   Feature sandstone facing added in places

 

 

*Amended plans

In response to issues raised by Council and Design Review Panel – DRP, the applicant submitted amended plans and additional, details received by Council on 26 August 2014 inclusive of the following key changes to their Section 96 application:

 

·      A 400mm reduction in wall height along a portion of the south-eastern elevation setback 1.9m from the side boundary inclusive of amended shadow diagrams showing solar access and overshadowing to openings along the north-western elevation of No. 5 Severn Street

·      Opening up lobby areas at upper levels of both buildings by installation of metal louvres

·      Reinstatement of a communal open space area in the rear

·      Replacement of originally approved clothes drying area and proposed planter adjacent to unit 7 and the north-western side passageway with an open area capable of being used as a clothes drying area

·      Proposed by-law prohibiting unit 1 modifications to planter at the front except with body corporate consent

·      Access Compliance Report submitted addressing Councils controls under Part C3 Adaptable Housing of the Randwick Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013, Disability (Access to Premises-Buildings) Standard 2010, AS 4299 1995 Adaptable housing, Part D3 of the BCA National Construction Code 2014, and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

Site

 

The site is located on the south-western side of Severn Street, is rectangular in shape and has an area of 828.4 sqm. The site slopes down towards the rear from the street with the difference in level from the front to the rear being 7.58m. A single storey (with rear basement level) dwelling is currently located on the site along with a workers hut at the front - in anticpation of the consent being acted upon.

 

As indicated in the original assessment, the surrounding development is residential with a mixture of single dwellings and two to four storey residential flat buildings. The adjoining site to the south east is a two storey residential flat building at No. 5 Severn Street and to the north-west is a single storey dwelling at No. 1 Severn Street. A three storey residential flat building facing McKeon Street is located at the the rear (subject of submission).

Photo 1: View of subject site and adjoining sites.

 

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:

 

40 McKeon Street, Maroubra

Increased overshadowing

The proposed deletion of the skillion roof atop the front building will reduce the overshadowing impact on the objector’s property. There will be increased overshadowing to the south eastern neighbour No. 5 Severn Street, however the level of solar access retained is in compliance with the Council controls for solar access to neighbouring dwellings and rear yard areas.

 

Limited sunlight due to height and rear extent of the building

The proposed modifications will not result in any significant impact on the level of sunlight obtained by neighbouring properties to the rear namely those at the south eastern side at No. 5 Severn Street or the rear site at No. 40 McKeon Street.

 

The rear will be too close to the rear apartments and privacy impact from rear balconies

No modifications are sought to the rear building in terms of its rear setback or location of balconies. These matters were satisfactorily addressed in the assessment of the original application having regard to the DCP controls for rear setbacks and visual privacy.

 

There is not enough visitor parking

No modifications are sought to parking under this application.

 

No formal letter was received

A notification letter was addressed and sent to the objector’s property. Notwithstanding, the objector is aware of the proposed modifications by virtue of the submission.

 

Key Issues

 

The key issues relating to the modifications sought under this Section 96 application include:

 

·      Additional floor area resulting in a floor space ratio of 0.94:1,

·      Lifting of the rear half of the front building by 900mm resulting in an increase in the external wall height in particular along the south-eastern elevation where a portion of the development is only set 1.9m from the south eastern side boundary,

·      Solar access and overshadowing impacts on neighbouring properties,

·      Privacy, and

·      Compliance with accessibility and adaptable housing requirements

 

Radnwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

The development is subject to a maximum FSR control/standard of 0.9:1 under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP). The proposal seeks a FSR of 0.94:1 resulting in a net FSR increase of 0.04:1 exceeding the RLEP standard by 4.44%. For Section 96 applications, an ‘Exception to the development standard’ under Clause 4.6 of the RLEP is not required. Notwithstanding, an assessment of the proposal against the FSR objectives is required. These FSR objectives seek to ensure compatible size and scale with the future character of the locality, articulation and 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 FSR achieves compliance with these objectives on the basis of the following:

 

·      The additional floor areas to living and dining rooms are accommodated by reducing the depth of balconies facing the street and the internal courtyard located between both buildings. The balconies are already stepped back behind the main building lines facing the street and the additional floor area will continue to be stepped back achieving a reasonable level of articulation of bulk and scale when viewed from both street level and neighbouring properties.

 

·      The additional length along the south eastern elevation of the development is only 940mm for the rear building and 1270mm for the front building and the shadow diagrams show appropriate levels of solar access to northeast facing windows and rear yard areas neighbouring properties.

 

·      The additional floor area is contained within a part of the development that will not have any appreciable impact on significant views from the public domain or neighbouring properties

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

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 DCP controls may be considered where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome. Hence, the consent authority must be flexible in its application and consider reasonable alternative solutions, to achieve the objectives of the DCP Controls.

 

§ Side setbacks

The DCP requires side setbacks of a minimum 2.5m. The proposal does not alter the originally approved side setbacks, which included a small southeastern side section of the front building that was setback only 1.9 metres from this side boundary. However, by virtue of this section 96 application seeking to lift the rear half of the front building by 900mm resulting in an increased wall height along this part, it thereby requires re-consideration as to whether the 1.9m side setback will continue to achieve the side setback objectives of the DCP.

 

The Objectives in the DCP for this control include ensuring adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views. The proposed side setback will not result in any appreciable adverse impacts on the visual and acoustic privacy, air circulation and views. However, Council raised concerns that the additional height inclusive of the abovementioned non-complying side setback would result in additional overshadowing to a northwest facing first floor window of the adjoining development at No. 5 Severn Street. In response, the applicant submitted amended plans and accompanying shadow diagrams, received by Council on 26th August 2014, which reduce the wall height along this portion of the development by 400mm and show compliance with the DCP controls for solar access to this window. All other side setbacks affected by the increased wall heights are considered to comply with the abovementioned objectives.

 

§ External wall height

The site is subject to a maximum external wall height of 10.5m. The rear half of the front building (comprising units 2, 4 & 6) is to be raised by 900mm increasing the wall height at the southeastern elevation from 10.54m to 11.44m (see plan excerpt below)

 

Image: Plan excerpt of the front building’s south eastern elevation. The boxed area centres on the wall height extension (shaded yellow), the approved wall and roof profile (in dotted line) and reduction of wall height along the elevation that is setback only 1.9m from the side boundary (red line).

 

The objectives for this control seek to ensure the provision of interesting roof forms that are compatible with the street and the minimisation of bulk in order to limit overshadowing, privacy and amenity impacts. The proposed increase in wall height is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      This part of the building is set well back from the front boundary and will not be immediately noticeable from street level and there will be no appreciable impact on the streetscape;

 

·      The building continues to be well articulated incorporating varied setbacks and materials reducing the perception of bulk from neighbouring sites and street level;

 

·      The development complies with the maximum height development standard and the additional wall height is largely offset by the deletion of the skillion roof over;

 

·      The proposal, as amended, will continue to achieve reasonable levels of solar access to neighbouring dwellings habitable windows and open space areas as well as reasonable levels of amenity and privacy to neighbouring properties.

Solar access

The development is subject to the DCP solar access objectives and controls that seek to ensure the design, orientation and siting of development maximizes solar access to the living areas of dwellings and open spaces and retention of reasonable levels of solar access to the neighbouring properties and the public domain.

 

The level of solar access to living areas and open spaces of the development are acceptable and will not be appreciably altered by the deletion of the skillion roof over unit 6 in so far as skylights are sought to be located over the key living areas of the unit.

 

The level of solar access to neighbouring properties will both be increased and reduced as a result of the proposed development. This variation in solar access and therefore overshadowing is largely a consequence of the difference in height and profile between the proposed deletion of the skillion roof and the proposed lifting of the rear half of the front building in order to improve access and amenity to the development.

 

The lower overall height results in less overshadowing to the rear and southeastern side neighbours sites at No. 40 McKeon and No. 5 Severn Street.

 

The higher wall heights, as amended, result in additional overshadowing to a ground and first floor living room window located at the rear northwestern side elevation at No. 5 Severn Street as well as a small portion of their rear yard. The additional overshadowing to these windows is considered acceptable having regard to the DCP controls in so far as the reduced height of the wall located 1.9m from the side boundary ensures at least three hours of solar access to the first floor window. In relation to the ground level living room window, there will be no appreciable difference in solar access to this window in so far as the angle of the sun and the location of this window, that is at ground level in the middle of the site configured on this axis, means that any reasonable development will have similar levels of overshadowing impact to that occurring as part of both the original and this section 96 application.

 

Privacy

The DCP controls state that windows of habitable rooms should be located to minimise overlooking of windows in adjoining dwellings. The proposed modification of the kitchen windows to units 1, 3 & 5 from kitchen bench windows to larger awning windows will mean that there may be an outlook into windows opposite at No. 5 Severn Street. In accordance with the DCP controls, a condition is included requiring these windows to be treated with translucent or obscured glazing to a height of 1.6m above floor level.

 

Communal Open Space

The DCP controls that apply to the proposed modification are that communal open space for residential flat buildings are of sufficient size and not divided up for allocation to individual units. The originally proposed modification sought to delete and reallocate communal common court areas at the front and rear of the site opposite unit 1 and opposite unit 7 respectively.

 

-    Area in front of unit 1

The applicant was advised that the area in front of unit 1 was unsuitable for use as communal open space on the basis of privacy impact and its location at the front however, they were advised that the planter which sits along the front of the site should be retained as common area in the interests of maintaining common control of planting in this area rather than be subject to the interests of unit 1. In response the applicant has proposed a by-law to be imposed that restricts unit 1 owners from making any changes to this area without the consent of the body corporate. This outcome however falls within the scope of an engineered outcome which is inconsistent with Councils decision making relating to these matters. This planter is therefore required to be reallocated as common property.

 

-    Area in rear yard

As part of the amended application, the applicant has sought to reinstate a portion of the rear yard as communal open space. The proposed area is considered acceptable having regard to the DCP objectives in so far as it is considered of sufficient size and aspect to provide reasonable amenity to the common.

 

Ancillary development - Laundry facilities

The DCP controls state that internal and external drying facilities should be provided. The original approval contained two external communal clothes drying areas within the site located in the open middle courtyard of unit 8 and adjacent to south western corner of unit 7 and common north-western side passageway. The section 96 application originally sought to remove these two areas however after discussion with Council they have since amended their application continuing to seek removal of the clothes line opposite the bedroom window of unit 8 and replacement of originally approved clothes drying area and proposed planter adjacent to unit 7 with an communal open space area capable of being used as a clothes drying area. There are no objections to the removal of clothes drying area opposite unit 8 on the basis of privacy concerns, however it is considered that a retractable clothesline could easily be provided to the area adjacent to unit 7 and therefore a condition is recommended to be included to that effect.

 

Colours, Materials and Finishes

The DCP objectives and Controls as related to this application seek to ensure colour and material schemes contribute to the articulation of the building, they enhance the streetscape character and are durable and fit for their purpose. This application seeks to make the following modifications to the material and finishes: (Note: colour selection is

 

·      External wall tiling replaced by face brickwork (see DRP comments no objection)

·      Metal wall cladding replaced by acrylic render in places (see DRP comments no objection)

·      Feature sandstone facing added in places (no objection)

 

The DRP raised no in principle objections to the proposed material changes sought as part of this application. It is noted that the original consent contains a condition requiring details of colour, material and finishes to be submitted to Council for approval prior to obtaining a construction certificate.

 

Accessibility and Adaptable housing

Part C3 of the DCP sets out objectives and controls for Adaptable housing. The applicant has responded to Council and DRP concerns that the proposal as modified would continue to achieve compliance with Part C3 of the DCP and relevant standards and legislative requirements. As part of additional material received by Council, the applicant submitted an access compliance report indicating the proposed modifications comply with the relevant Disability (Access to Premises-Buildings) Standard, Building Code of Australia (BCA) provisions, Councils DCP Adaptability housing requirements and the Disability Discrimination Act.

 

Part C3 Adaptable and Universal Housing under Councils Development Control Plan 2013 which requires not less than 20% of the apartments be adaptable or capable of being adapted without major modifications to the apartments. The report concludes that apartments 3 and 5 (total of two) are adaptable to the level of requirements/specifications required under the Australian Standard for Adaptable housing (AS4299 1995) as well as the DCP control. It also found that all of the remaining units are “adaptable” to a level that would require mostly minimal alterations, but not fully that is not without more substantial alterations, in order to comply with the relevant standard. As most of the apartments would only require minimal alterations, it is considered that the proposal meets the objectives of the control

 

Strata Plans

Strata plan conditions were not included as part of the original determination. The relevant conditons have been included in this recommendation.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal does not significantly alter the form and nature of the approved development. Having regard to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

The proposed modifications have been assessed against relevant RLEP 2012 standards and Randwick DCP 2013 controls and the variation to the FSR standard under the RLEP and the external wall height control are considered to be acceptable.  Approval of the modifications are considered acceptable as they will not result in any significant environmental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, views, site planning and privacy (as conditioned); and will not detract from the integrity of the development nor its relationship with adjoining development.

 

It is therefore considered that the modifications to the original development consent are reasonable, subject to the recommended conditions below.

 

Recommendation

 

       That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify DA/552/2013 by altering the internal layout of the building, increase in the size of the dining/living rooms for units 1 to 6 and 8, increase the wall height of the rear portion of the front building by 900mm, changes to window openings on elevations, reallocate portions of front and rear courtyards to private courtyards for units 1 and 7, changes to external materials and finishes for 3 Severn Street, Maroubra, in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

A-01 Rev. A

Alec Pappas Architects

Nov 2013

27/11/13

A-02 Rev. A

Nov 2013

27/11/13

A-03 Rev. A

Nov 2013

27/11/13

A-04 Rev. A

Nov 2013

27/11/13

A-05 Rev. A

Nov 2013

27/11/13

A-06 Rev. A

Nov 2013

27/11/13

A-07 Rev. A

Nov 2013

27/11/13

A-08 Rev. A

Nov 2013

27/11/13

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

497445M

28/8/13

28/8/13

 

as amended by the following Section 96 plans and documentation:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

A-01 Rev C

Alec Pappas Architects

August 2014

26 August 2014

A-02 Rev C

August 2014

26 August 2014

A-03 Rev C

August 2014

26 August 2014

A-04 Rev C

August 2014

26 August 2014

A-05 Rev C

August 2014

26 August 2014

A-06 Rev C

August 2014

26 August 2014

A-07 Rev C

August 2014

26 August 2014

A-08 Rev C

August 2014

26 August 2014

SP-01 Rev C

August 2014

26 August 2014

SP-02 Rev C

August 2014

26 August 2014

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

497445M_02

12 June 2014

23 June 2014

 

except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

Add the following Conditions:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

e.  The following windows must be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below a minimum height of 1.6m above floor level:

 

·          South east facing kitchen awning windows within the front building

 

f.   The planter along the property frontage shall be reallocated as common property and the strata plans shall be amended prior to endorsement of the strata plans.

 

g.  The open area between the north western side pathway and the south western corner of unit seven (7) shall be reinstated as a clothes drying area.

 

Amend Condition No. 36 to read:

 

Landscaping & Environmental amenity:

36.     Landscaping at this site must be installed substantially in accordance with the  Landscape Plan by Michael Siu Landscape Architects, dwg L01/1-K18306, dated 30th May 2014 and stamped 23rd June 2014, subject to the following additional details being included on an amended plan, which must be submitted to, and be approved by, the Certifier/PCA:

a.  All planter boxes and garden beds constructed on slab must have a minimum soil depth of 600mm and all lawn areas must have a minimum soil depth of 300mm, with construction details confirming compliance to be provided.

b.  The Banksia intergrifolia located in the front yard is to be deleted from the landscape plan L01/1- K18306 and replaced with a native species capable of attaining no more than 2m in height when mature.

 

Add the following Conditions:

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION/STRATA CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing a ‘Subdivision certificate’ or ‘Strata Certificate’.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works.

 

64.     A formal strata subdivision application is required to be submitted to and approved by the Council or an accredited certifier and all relevant conditions of this development consent are required to be satisfied.

 

65.     All floors, external walls and ceilings depicted in the proposed strata plan must be constructed.

 

66.     All floors, external walls and ceilings depicted in the proposed strata plan must correspond to those depicted in this development consent and construction certificate for the building.

 

67.     With the exception of the two visitor car spaces which shall be dedicated as common property, all car spaces shall form part of a strata lot associated with a dwelling and allocated in accordance with the conditions of this consent.

 

68.     Details of critical stage inspections carried out by the principal certifying authority, together with any other certification relied upon, must be provided to Council or the accredited certifier.

 

69.     if on-site detention has been provided, a "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property (in conjunction with registration of the plan of subdivision) to ensure that the onsite detention system is maintained and that no works which could affect the design function of the infiltration/detention system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council. The restriction and positive covenant shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

The “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” are to be prepared and specified to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s City Services Department.

 

70.     The applicant shall create suitable right of carriageway, easements for services and internal stormwater lines, as required. The applicant shall be advised that the minimum easement width for any internal stormwater line is 0.9 metres.

 

71.     The conditions of development consent must be satisfied and all public roads and reserves must be satisfactorily restored prior to endorsement of the strata subdivision plans.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 3 Severn Street, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP96/14

 

 

Subject:                  32-34 Carr Street, Coogee (DA/725/2012/A)

Folder No:                   DA/725/2012/A

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development including amended basement levels and configuration, reconfiguration of residential floors, roof changes, revised landscaping and fence design. Original consent: Demolition of existing dwellings, construction of a part 3/part 4 storey multi unit development with 11 units, basement car parking for 20 cars, landscaping and associated works

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Marchese & Partners Architects Pty Ltd

Owner:                        RPG South Sydney Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview18237.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

No submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to a Council meeting as the original application was refused contrary to the officer’s recommedation and was the subject of conciliation agreement pursuant to Section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act. The section 34 agreement resulted in the application being approved subject to the imposition of conditions requiring deletion of floor area at the third floor including balcony and planter box, restrictions on the height of fencing and structures along the western side boundary, requirements for ceiling fans and conversion of surplus parking to motorcycle parking.

 

Proposal

 

This section 96 (AA) application seeks the following modifications:

 

Amended location

Proposed amendments

Basement

·      Increase in basement level by 310mm, additional structural columns, increased excavation southward, increased size of storage area, install a roller shutter, and convert one car space into two motorcycle spaces.

Ground level

·      Reconfigure internal layout of kitchens and bathrooms within three units;

·      Relocate stair entries from Carr Street

·      Additional floor added to all three units as follows:

·      Unit 1: facing Waltham Street: Convert approved deck into en-suite (note this deck is also enclosed by western and south facing walls with a roof over);

·      Unit 2: north-western side of the development: Add floor area to living room by reducing depth of deck facing Carr Street, Add floor area to bedroom 3 accommodated over approved slab area (continues to be setback behind the main building lines facing western side boundary);.

·      Unit 3: north-eastern side of the development: Add floor area to living room accommodated in similar fashion to unit 2. Add floor area bedroom 2 and 3 (eastern elevation) accommodated in similar fashion to unit 2 (west elevation)

Level 1 and Level 2:

The proposed modifications to level 1 and level 2 units are largely mirror images of each other

·      All units: Reconfigure internal layout of kitchens and bathrooms within three units;

·      Unit 2 & Unit 3: Additional floor area to unit 2 and 3 bedrooms and living areas over both levels (see also eastern and western elevation)

·      Unit 1 over both levels: Convert approved bedroom deck into en-suite.

·      Unit 1 over both levels: Reduce size of deck at south eastern corner over both levels resulting in deck aligning with the eastern elevation along this part of the development and extend louvre section along eastern side of reduce deck (see also southern and eastern elevation)

·      Unit 2 & 3 over both levels: Remove redundant slabs areas adjacent to added floor area (see east and west elevation plans)

·     

Level 3 (penthouse unit):

 

·      L3.01: 150mm increase in width of walls (southern elevation) for structural stability*

·      L3.02: Extend wall from levels below alongside southern wall of living room (and internal lobby area);

·      Remove section of planter located at the eastern side of living room (eastern elevation)

·      New planter proposed at eastern side of north facing deck (extends slightly further to the north than the existing approved planter referenced above)

·      Proposed new chimney (located in the centre of unit 3

·      Frameless glass panel to enclose corridor area

Plan A2.06 C, dated March 2013 (roof over penthouse unit)

Two proposed changes are sought to the roof:

·      Proposed roof extension inside the approved building envelope (see L3.02) and

·      Proposed projection of 150mm of roof for weather protection in southern façade (see L3.01)*

External changes

 

North and East elevation

·      E.01: Northern front boundary fence fronting Carr Street

 

The applicant incorrectly references this fence as being the subject of condition 2.2. This fence was not referenced by the non-standard condition 2.2 which only referred to side boundary fencing and walls/structures between the subject site and No. 4 Waltham Street and under condition 5 which limited the maximum fence height along Waltham Street to 1.8m.

 

·      Eastern elevation side boundary front fence between subject site and rear of 36 Carr Street.

·      G.02: relocate entry (stairs and gates) of units G.02 and G.03 off Carr Street

·      L1.02 & L2.02: Removed section of balconies and relocate louvres further along eastern elevation

·      L1.04 L2.04: Extend floor area of bedrooms 2 & 3 reducing setback of bedroom 2 wall from 5.5m to 4.5m

·      L3.02: Extend wall from level below to top level

·      L3.03: remove planter to align with reduced slab area on levels below

·      L3.11: Delete balcony and planter as required by Court approval non-standard condition 2.1* (see note above)

South and west elevation

South elevation:

 

·      E.02: front fence facing Waltham Street in line with Court approved non-standard condition 5.

Waltham Street front fencing varies in height between 1530mm (RL32.6 – RL31.06) at the southwestern corner, up to a height of 1800mm at the middle and 1530mm in height at the south-eastern corner. This fence generally complies with condition 5 of the consent. A condition is included require details of colours, finishes and materials to be submitted to Council for approval.

·      Other modifications, identified on eastern and southern elevation plans are referenced in the relevant modifications sought to floor levels.

Section plan

·      The nominated changes to the section have been identified within the relevant sections.

Landscaping species

·      S.02: additional planter to penthouse located along the rear deck facing north

·      S.03: revised courtyard design: front raised planter facing Waltham Street

Eastern elevation plan

·      Note: the eastern elevation plan shows a parapet that extends approximately 400mm above the existing roof height (up to RL35.10). A condition is included restricting the top of the southern roof (inclusive of parapets) opposite unit 3.01 shall not exceed a maximum overall height of RL34.70. This condition requires the deletion of all parapets that extend above the roof height at this part of the development and will therefore ensure consistent with the court-imposed condition 2.1.

·      Additional floor area to kitchen accommodated by reducing size of rear north facing deck

 

*Amended plans: The applicant has amended their application, by plans received by Council on 10 September 2014, deleting the 150mm wall extension to the southern elevation and roof to ensure the section 96 application does not contravene condition 2.1 of the original consent which required this level to be setback a minimum of 9.09m from the Waltham Street frontage.

 

Site

The site has a northern frontage of 21.335m to Carr Street, site depth of 44.195m, southern (rear) side width of 21.335m to Waltham Street and an overall site area of 945.03sqm. The subject site has a complex topography with a difference of up to 4m in levels from the existing rear yard to the Waltham Street frontage with variations in between inclusive of cross falls from west to east.

 

The site is currently occupied by 2 existing single storey detached dwelling houses of brick construction. The fencing along Carr Street is largley low lying and there is an existing 1.8m high fence to the rear of No. 32 and concrete garage to the rear of No. 34 fronting Waltham Street.

 

Photo 1: Subject site as viewed from Carr Street frontage (ref: earthmine viewer).

 

Photo 2: Subject site as viewed from the rear along Waltham Street.

 

The adjoining sites to the east and west are presently occupied by single storey detached dwelling houses. It is noted that No. 30 Carr Street to the west of the site has obtained development approval under DA/236/2013 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new two storey dwelling house (currently being constructed).

 

The surrounding area is residential in character and comprises of a variety of development ranging from single storey detached dwellings, double storey dwellings and dual occupancies, non-residential uses, two, three and five storey residential flat buildings, mixed use development and townhouses.

 

The surrounding area is also inconsistent in terms of allotment size and general subdivision pattern resulting in varied setbacks and building orientation. Of particular relevance to the subject application are the immediate adjoining sites to the west at No. 30 Carr Street and No. 4A Waltham Street, which each lie on their own Torrens title lots addressing Carr Street and Waltham Street, respectively. The length of the two properties lies along the western side boundary of the subject site.  The existing dwelling at 4A Waltham Street (approved in 2000) has the majority of its private open space, decks and major window openings facing its side boundary, shared with the subject site and obtains side views over the rear yard to the ocean further.

 

Photo 3: 4A Waltham Street faces the subject site and ocean further afield.

 

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. However the owner of No. 4A Waltham Street raised questions as to whether the proposed modifications would alter conditions 2.1 and 2.2 of the original determination. In response, the neighbour was advised that compliance with these conditions would be addressed under separate cover as indicated in the application and that they would not alter the requirements of condition 2.1 and 2.2. Amended plans were recevied by Council on 10 Spetember 2014.

 

Key Issues

 

Section 96 Assessment

Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, identifies that a consent authority may, on application being made, modify the consent if:

 

(a)   it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and

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

(c)   it has notified the application

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

 

Substantially the Same Development:

In accordance with Section 96 (AA) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the proposed modifications are not considered to result in a development that will fundamentally alter that originally approved. As such, the development will remain substantially the same as the originally approved development and is eligible for assessment under Section 96 of the Act.

 

As discussed in the relevant sections of this report, the proposed modifications will not introduce any significant additional environmental impacts upon surrounding residential amenity (namely view loss, overshadowing or privacy impacts) or the streetscape.

 

Subject to the application of recommended conditions, the modified development will not result in detrimental environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality, and is considered to be within the public interest.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP)

 

Floor area

The development is subject to a maximum FSR control/standard of 0.9:1 under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP). The proposed modifications seek additional floor area resulting in a FSR of 1.05:1 a net increase of 0.06:1 from the approved FSR (0.99:1) exceeding the RLEP standard by 16.6%. An ‘Exception to the development standard’ under Clause 4.6 of the RLEP is not required for Section 96 applidcations. Notwithstanding, an assessment of the proposal against the FSR objectives is required. These FSR objectives seek to ensure a development of compatible size and scale with the future character of the locality, articulation and 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 FSR achieves compliance with these objectives on the basis of the following:

 

·      The additional floor areas along the side elevations are accommodated behind existing walls or behind the main approved floor slabs of the building. The proposal in fact removes parts of floor slab increasing their setback from the side boundaries.

 

·      The additional floor area at the northern side of the development, fronting Carr Street (between 950mm and 1350mm) is contained within approved blade walls at either side of these balconies and the floor area will continue to be setback behind the front balcony deck areas ensuring no aparent bulk or scale when viewed from neighbouring sites and retaining reasonable levels of articulation of bulk and scale when viewed from street level.

                                                                   

·      The additional floor area will not result in any appreciable increase in overshadowing to the habitable windows of neighbouring properties or their rear yard areas.

 

·      The additional floor area is contained within parts of the development that will not have any appreciable impact on significant views from the public domain or from neighbouring properties

 

Overall, the additional floor area and propsed FSR is considered to achieve compliance with the relevant objectives for the standard and the R3 Medium Density residential zone.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

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 DCP controls may be considered where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome. Hence, the consent authority must be flexible in its application and consider reasonable alternative solutions to achieve the objectives of the DCP Controls.

 

Side setbacks and external wall heights

The DCP requires side setbacks of 4m for the proposal. As previously mentioned, portions of the proposed additional floor area are located behind existing approved walls and the additional floor area in these sections to not alter the approved setbacks from side boundaries. Other portions of the proposal seek additional floor area that is sited closer to both the eastern and western side boundaries. These sections of the proposal are sited 4.5m from the western side boundary and 5.6m from the eastern side boundary and comply with the minimum 4 metre side setback control under the DCP. However, by virtue of the existing wall height exceeding the maximum DCP control, it is considered that a merit assessment of the reduced side setbacks is required against the associated side setback and external wall height objectives.

 

The Objectives in the DCP for these controls includes ensuring adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views and ensuring compatibility with the street and the minimization of bulk in order to limit overshadowing, privacy and amenity impacts.mass and scale on neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed reduction in side setbacks in conjunction with the external wall heights are considered reasonable for the following reasons:

 

·      These parts of the building are set well back from the front boundary and will not be immediately noticeable from street level and there will be no appreciable impact on the streetscape,

·      The building continues to be well articulated, incorporating varied setbacks and materials reducing the perception of bulk from neighbouring properties and street level

·      The proposal will continue to achieve compliant levels of solar access to neighbouring dwellings habitable windows and open space areas as well as reasonable levels of amenity and privacy to neighbouring properties.

 

View sharing

The DCP’s view sharing objectives and controls apply to the subject application. The original development was the subject of non-standard condition 2.1 requiring deletion of a balcony and planter in front of the penthouse apartment facing Waltham Street and Condition 2.2 limiting the height of fencing and structures along the western side boundary to a maximum of 1.6m. This Section 96 application contains certain aspects that may affect compliance with these conditions and the principles of view sharing including:

 

1.  Front fencing along Waltham Street namely the height of fencing at the south western corner;

2.  Proposed planter to the eastern side of the balcony located on the northern side of the top level unit.

3.  Three proposed palm trees at the south western corner of the site which grow to a height of 15m at maturity

 

1.  The proposed front fence at the south western corner facing Waltham Street, has the potential to impact on achieving compliance with condition 2.2 of the original consent which limits the height of fencing along the western side boundary to a maximum of 1.6m. The proposed fence height at this corner is a maximum of 1.54 metres and therefore does not alter future compliance with condtion 2.2.

 

2.  The proposed planter at the top level has the potential to impact on views from the properties west of the subject site and therefore a condition is included limiting the height of plants within this planter and the adjoining planter along the eastern elevation to a maximum height of 400mm above the planter level.

 

3.  The proposed landscape plan shows three palm trees located at the south western corner of the site that grow to 15m at maturity. These palm trees have the potential to result in view loss from the property at No. 4A Waltham Street. As such a condition is included requiring these trees to be replaced with suitable species of trees that grow to a height of 8m at maturity – see condition 37 as amended.

 

In addition to the above, the eastern elevation plans show a parapet that extends above the roof level (RL34.70) that was not shown on the original plans. This may be a typographical error, however a condition is included requiring the eastern elevation south of unit 3.01 shall not exceed a maximum overall height of RL34.70 and that this condition requires the deletion of all parapets that extend above the roof along this part of the development.

 

Overall, the proposed modifications as conditioned will not result in any unanticipated view loss impacts on the neighbouring properties and will satisfy the relevant objectives under the DCP.

 

Fencing

The development is subject to DCP fence controls for height and design at both main street frontages (Carr Street) and secondary street frontages (Waltham Street).

 

Carr Street front fence:

The DCP controls for front fences to main street frontages are that they be either limited to a height of 1.2m if solid or 1.8m if the upper two thirds are open. In some circumstances variations to front fence design may be permitted subject to compliance with the objectives ensuring integration with the established fence form along the street or the proposed fencing is representative of the desired future fence form along the street. The main fence forms in the vicinity of the subject site are low lying solid fences with some exceptions. The proposed fence along Carr Street is mostly solid and varies in height between 1.56m and 2.25m. The higher section of fence contains a 627mm high slatted section on top of the solid portion adjoining the relocated entry gate at the north western end of the development.

 

The overall height and solid nature of the fencing along Carr Street is considered excessive and a condition is included requiring the following modifications:

 

·       The fence shall be limited to a maximum height of 1.6m above footpath level with an allowance of 150mm for step downs,

·       The upper third portion shall be open design (30% open).

·       A colour, materials and finishes must be submitted to Council for approval.

                                

Waltham Street fence:

The DCP controls for secondary street frontages allows for fences with heights of 1.8m. It is also noted that condition 5 of the original consent restricted the maximum height of the Waltham Street fence to 1.8m. The proposed fence along Waltham Street is a maximum of 1.8m and has a height of only 1.54m at the south eastern corner ensuring consistency with condition 2.2. The proposed fencing along Waltham Street generally involve retention of the bulk of the existing fence of varying height across the street to compensate for the sloping land from west to east.

 

Western and eastern side front fencing to Waltham Street:

The western side fencing (behind the front fence at the south western corner) does not form part of this application and a condition is included to that effect.

 

The eastern side fence is sought alongside the rear of the property at No. 36 Carr Street. This fence varies in height between 1.53m and 2.25m adjacent to the footpath and the lower land level of no. 36 Carr Street. There are no objections to the height of this fence in so far as it largely eventuates, where the landform falls away on the adjoining site. The higher fence form is also located adajcent to stair access from Waltham Street and not likely to result in any adverse impacts on the neighbours amenity.

 

Overall, the proposed fencing is considered satisfactory in facilitating privacy to both occupants and neighbours in the circumstances of the site and improves the presentation of fencing along both Street frontages subject to relevant conditions included in the recommendation.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal does not significantly alter the form and nature of the approved development. Having regard to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

The proposed modifications have been assessed against relevant RLEP 2012 standards and Randwick DCP 2013 controls and the variation to the FSR standard under the RLEP and the external wall height control are considered to be acceptable.  Approval of the modifications are considered acceptable as they will not result in any significant environmental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, views, site planning and privacy; and will not detract from the integrity of the development nor its relationship with adjoining development.

 

It is therefore considered that the modifications to the original development consent are reasonable, subject to the recommended conditions below.

 

Recommendation

 

       That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. DA/725/2012 by amending basement levels and configurations, reconfiguration of residential floors, roof changes, revised landscaping and fence design, at No. 32-34 Carr Street, Coogee, in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Received by Council

A1.01b Rev C

Marchese & Partners Architects

21 Feb 2014

A1.01c Rev C

21 Feb 2014

A1.01d Rev B

21 Feb 2014

A1.01e

21 Feb 2014

A2.01 Rev B

28 June 2013

A2.02 Rev A

15 March 2013

A2.03 Rev B

19 Feb 2014

A2.04 Rev B

19 Feb 2014

A2.05 Rev C

20 Feb 2014

A2.05b Rev B

19 Feb 2014

A2.06 Rev B

19 Feb 2014

A3.01 Rev B

21 Feb 2014

A3.02 Rev C

21 Feb 2014

A4.04 Rev B

20 Feb 2014

A8.01 Rev B

15 March 2013

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

540923M

8 April 2014

8 April 2014

 

as amended by the following Section 96 plans and documentation:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

A2.01 Rev C

Marchese & Partners Architects

27 June 2014

18 July 2014

A2.02 Rev C

27 June 2014

18 July 2014

A2.03 Rev C

27 June 2014

18 July 2014

A2.04 Rev C

27 June 2014

18 July 2014

A2.05 Rev C

10 Sept. 2014

10 September 2014

A2.06 Rev C

10 Sept. 2014

10 September 2014

A3.01 Rev D

24 June 2014

18 July 2014

A3.02 Rev E

24 June 2014

18 July 2014

A4.04 Rev D

10 Sept. 2014

10 September 2014

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

540923M_02

27 June 2014

18 July 2014

 

except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

Add the following Conditions:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

2.5     The eastern elevation south of unit 3.01 shall not exceed a maximum overall height of RL34.70. This condition requires the deletion of the parapet that extends above the roof along this part of the development.

 

Carr Street front fence

2.6     The front fence along the Carr street frontage shall be limited to a maximum height of 1.6m above footpath level with an allowance of 150mm for step-downs. The fence shall be designed so that the upper third portion is a minimum 30% open across its surface. Details of colours, materials and finishes shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

2.7     The additional planter (S.02) and existing planter that project beyond the northern elevation of the apartment at level 3 shall only contain plant species that attain a maximum height of 400mm at maturity.

 

2.9     Details of the proposed new chimney (L3.05) shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

2.10    The frameless glass panel (L3.10) located at Level 3 shall be clear glass.

 

Amend Condition No. 5 to read:

 

 

Waltham Street front fence

5.       The fence along the Waltham Street frontage is to be constructed in accordance with the plan number A3.02, dated 24 June 2014 and received by Council on 18 July 2014.

 

Details of colours, materials and finishes shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Amend Condition No. 19 to read:

19.     The gradient of the internal access driveway must be designed and constructed in accordance with the approved Section 96 plans stamped by Council 18th July 2014 and AS 2890.1 (2004) – Off Street Car Parking and the levels of the driveway must match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council). Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

Amend Condition No. 37 to read:

37.     Prior to the commencement of any site works, the Ground Level & Level 03 Landscape Plans by Black Beetle, dwg LA LP 01, revision E, dated 30.06.14; and LA LP 02, revision F, dated 30.06.14, must be amended further to include the following requirements, with these plans to be submitted to, and be approved by, the Certifying Authority/PCA;

 

a.       The three palm trees located at the south-western corner of the site shall be replaced with one of the following species that do not exceed a maximum height of 8m:

 

-    Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm) - native, single trunk

-    Dypsis lutescens (Golden Cane Palm) - exotic, multiple stems from base

-    Strelitzia nicholii (Giant Bird of Paradise) - exotic, multiple stems, large 'banana' plant like leaves

 

This condition has been included in order to ensure view corridors are maintained.

 

b.       Construction details must be provided confirming that a soil depth of 1100mm (600mm for the one planter shown on Section BB) will be provided for those gardens at Ground Level, and may be mounded to increase soil volume. 

 

Amend Condition No. 67 to read:

67.     Prior to issuing a Final (or any type of interim) Occupation Certificate/s, certification from a qualified professional in the landscape/horticultural industry must be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, confirming the date that the completed landscaping was inspected, and that it has been installed substantially in accordance with the Ground Level & Level 03 Landscape Plans by Black Beetle, dwg LA LP 01, revision E, dated 30.06.14; and LA LP 02, revision F, dated 30.06.14, and relevant conditions of consent.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

S96  Compliance Report - 32 - 34 Carr Street, Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP97/14

 

 

Subject:                  40 Marcel Avenue, Randwick (DA/326/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/326/2014

Author:                   Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    To carry out alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building to include a new upper floor to the existing building comprising an additional bedroom with en-suite and WIR to each of the units 3 and 4, construct new balconies, provide 2 new car spaces and landscaping works (Heritage Conservation Area) Variation to FSR and Height Controls)

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Con Hairis Architects

Owner:                        Owners of SP 17037

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview5933.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This matter is referred to Council as it involves a departure of greater than 10% from the development standard relating to maximum Floor Space Ratio.

 


Proposal

 

It is proposed to carry out alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building to include a new upper floor to the existing building comprising an additional bedroom with en-suite and WIR to each of the units 3 and 4, construct new balconies, provide 2 new car spaces and landscaping works.

 

Site

 

The subject site is a regular shaped allotment with a 13.715m frontage to Marcel Avenue and Division Lane, eastern and western side boundary depths of 30.48m and a total site area of 418m2. The site is situated on the northern side of Marcel Avenue between Carrington Road and Mount Street.

 

The site slopes gently from Division lane to Moira Crescent at a gradient of about 3%. 

 

On the site exists a two storey residential flat building (RFB) containing 2 bedroom units. No parking currently exists on site.

 

The east and west the site is adjoined by similar residential flat buildings and the locality is predominantly occupied by 2 and 3 storey RFBs including “Ramona Hall” a part 2 and part 3 storey RFB identified as an item of local significance.

 

The building is located within the Moira Crescent heritage conservation area characterised by inter-war residential flat buildings. The Statement of Significance notes that the area includes the best preserved and most consistent grouping of Inter-War flat buildings in the City of Randwick, which were so characteristic of the City’s development in that period.

 

Figure 1: Subject Site

Figure 2: View of the Rear of the Site from Division Lane

Figure 3: 2 Storey RFB to the West

Figure 4: 2 Storey RFB to the East

 

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:

 

214 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (2 Submissions)

Issues

Comments

Extended balconies and large glass balustrades will invade the privacy of our bedrooms without any attempt to minimize this impact.

See Key Issues Visual and Acoustic Privacy.

Balconies will add significantly to noise to the peace and quiet currently experienced in this location.

See Key Issues Visual and Acoustic Privacy.

The proposal is inconsistent with the spirit of the HCA and DCP guidelines.

See Key Issues Visual and Acoustic Privacy.

The proposal exceeds the allowable FSR and is an overdevelopment of the site.

See Key Issues Clause 4.6 Assessment.

 

Previous Development History

 

DA/210/2013 Development consent was refused by the L & E Court to an application make alterations and additions to the existing RFB to create 2 additional units, a fire upgrade of the existing building, construction of 2 hard stand spaces and associated car parking facilities.

 

The proposal on this occasion was for a complete additional floor to the existing building.

 

The application was dismissed by the Court for the essentially for following reasons:

 

·         The proposed development does not preserve the authenticity of the existing building and would diminish the collective significance of Inter-War buildings of the Moira Crescent heritage conservation area.

·         The proposed development would not complement the scale, form of detailing of the existing building and would dominate and detract from the contribution of the existing contributory item makes to the heritage significance of the Moira Crescent heritage conservation area of itself, warranted refusal of the application.

·         The departures from the development standards in relation to height and FSR were not well founded.

·         Approval of the proposal would set an undesirable precedent.

 

Key Issues

 

Request to vary development standard

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.

 

Height

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Development Standard

9.5m

Proposal

9.8m

Excess above RLEP Standard

3%

 

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 4.3 (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:

 

 

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 non-compliance is for a small section of the loft level and the departure is minor such that the end development will be indiscernible from a development of compliant height.

·         The proposed loft addition is setback behind and is no higher than the existing main ridgeline to Marcel Avenue and setback additionally from side boundaries ensuring that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

·         The proposed development, as opposed to that refused by the L & E Court, is substantially reduced to a size and scale and height that will ensure that development is compatible with the scale and character of the existing contributory building, other contributory buildings in the conservation area and  the heritage item opposite the site.

·         The acceptable bulk scale and height of the addition, including the physical separation to adjoining developments will ensure that the 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 following image shows the proposed addition:

 

0

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?

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the height standard detailed above. 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 provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

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

•      To protect the amenity of residents.

•      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is sympathetic to the existing residential environment and built form, complementary to the HCA 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 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 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 medium density housing forms envisaged under the LEP for the locality.

 

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

0.75:1

Existing

0.81:1

Excess above RLEP Standard (Existing)

 

8%

Proposal

0.95:1

Excess above RLEP Standard

27%

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

·       The bulk and scale of the loft addition is predominantly sited behind the front section of the roofline, much of the bulk is obscured and as such is reasonably consistent with the desired future character of the area having regard to the heritage conservation area controls which apply to the building on the site.

·       The application is accompanied by a BASIX Certificate the proposed development is sufficiently articulated and responds to environmental and energy needs.

·       The compatibility of the proposed development, which is a contributory building within the Moira Crescent HCA and opposite a local heritage item, has been supported by Council’s heritage officer.

·       The proposed development adequately takes account of impacts on adjoining properties in respect of visual bulk, loss of privacy and views.

·       The additional floor area will contribute to viability of the proposal and facilitate conservation works to an important contributory building within the Moira Crescent Heritage Conservation area.

 

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?

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the FSR standard detailed above. 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 provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

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

•      To protect the amenity of residents.

•      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is sympathetic to the existing residential environment and built form, complementary to the HCA 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 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 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 medium density housing forms envisaged under the LEP for the locality.

 

Heritage Impacts

Council’s Heritage Planner has provided the following comments on the proposal:

 

The Site

The site has a primary frontage to Marcel Avenue and a secondary rear frontage to Division Lane, and is within the Moira Crescent heritage conservation area.  The site is occupied by a two storey Interwar flat building which retains its original character including face brick walls and front façade detailing.  The paired building to the east has had its face brickwork painted.  It is considered that the building makes a positive contribution to the heritage value of the conservation area through its individualised Interwar detailing including deep recessed front balconies and semi enclosed stairway.  The Statement of Significance for the Moira Crescent heritage conservation area notes that the area includes the best preserved and most consistent grouping of Inter-War flat buildings in the City of Randwick, which were so characteristic of the City’s development in that period.  On the opposite side of Marcel Avenue are nos. 23 and 31 Marcel Avenue, listed as heritage items under Randwick LEP 2012.  The upper level addition to the single storey dwelling immediately opposite, at no.29 Marcel Avenue has been set well to the rear to reduce the prominence of the upper level in the streetscape and minimise the impact of the addition on the original roof form. 

 

Background

DA/210/2013 for an additional floor to the existing building containing two residential units (which reproduced the floor plan of the two lower levels, and replicated existing materials and detailing) was refused in December 2013.  Heritage concerns were raised that the proposed third level addition would destroy the scale and form of the original building, significantly detract from its contributory value, and distort the understanding of the heritage conservation area as a mixed streetscape which includes single storey dwelling houses and residential flat buildings of two and three storeys. 

 

A formal pre-lodgement meeting (PL/6/2014) was held in relation to the proposal.  The proposal was generally similar but was without the rear balcony now proposed and therefore did not extend into the existing roof as far to the rear. 

 

Proposal

The current application proposes alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including a third level attic addition.  At ground and first floor level it proposed to make a number of changes, to the front and the rear of the building.  At the front of the building, the original internal and external entry stairs are to be replaced with new stairs of different configuration, and the currently open entry foyer is to be enclosed.  At the rear of the building, an extension into the original rear balcony area is proposed, together with new balconies and removal of the original back stair.  Internally, a number of existing walls are to be removed to create enlarged open planned kitchen, dining and living areas.  Two single car spaces are proposed at the rear of the site accessed from Division Lane.  At attic level it is proposed to provide an additional bedroom to each of the first floor units, each with a robe, bathroom and rear balcony, accessed by a new stair from the units below. 

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by Rappoport Heritage Consultants which provides a 1927 construction date for the neighbouring buildings Gowan Court and Logan Court.  The SHI refers to a Mott Macdonald report on the condition and integrity of the building which identifies a number of problems including bowing and unstable brickwork to walls around the entry, weathered mortar joints to the eastern and northern facades, and rusting steelwork causing cracking of concrete lintels.  In terms of Significance the SHI considers that the building is historically significant as representative of the rapid Interwar expansion following the opening of the Clovelly tramline and aesthetically significant due to the streetscape contribution of a number of original Interwar façade elements including multi-paned windows and entrance portico. 

 

The SHI addresses the heritage impacts of the proposal including changes to the entry foyer and entry stair, changes to rear, the new loft level, new roof tiles, gutters and fascias, and making good to brickwork.  In relation to heritage impacts, the SHI considers that the most culturally significant fabric is concentrated in the southern façade and would, with the exception of the stair, would be retained and conserved.  The stair is to be reconfigured to achieve BCA compliance.  While the SHI suggests that the enclosure to the balcony to Unit 3 (upstairs) will be removed, returning the open balcony to its original state, the only enclosed verandah/balcony is to Unit 1 (downstairs).  The SHI argues that the proposed changes to the rear and internally will affect elements which do not contribute to the streetscape presentation of the building.  In relation to the upper level addition, the SHI argues that the new bulk is set back behind the southern ridgeline and not prominent from Marcel Avenue, and clad in zinc so as to be clearly discernable as a new structure.  In relation to the changes to the existing entry, the SHI notes that the proposed multi-paned entry doors will reflect the character of those above the existing entrance vestibule, and that existing terrazzo treads will be salvaged for reuse and new matching terrazzo used.  The SHI recommends that a photographic archival recording be carried out prior to commencement of construction works: that a schedule of conservation works be prepared and included in the tender specification for the works; and that a supervising heritage architect be present during demolition and salvage works to the entry stair. 

 

Controls

The Heritage section of Randwick Development Control Plan provides Objectives and Controls applying to contributory buildings in a heritage conservation area.  In relation to Design and Character, the Draft DCP requires that street elevations and visible side elevations must not be significantly changed, and that it should be possible to distinguish the new works from the old, on close inspection, so that old and new are not confused or the boundaries blurred.  In relation to Scale and Form, the Draft DCP requires that additions must not visually dominate, compete with or conceal the original form and massing of the original buildings. 

 

Comments

Previous heritage investigations have noted that the heritage conservation area was formerly part of the grounds of “Bishopscourt” residence, which was constructed in 1859 and occupied the sites of nos.25 and 27 Moira Crescent.  Following the destruction by fire of “Bishopscourt” in 1924, the area was subdivided.  Heritage investigations have noted that the area is significant for its fine Inter-War buildings, including groupings of single storey Californian Bungalows, and two and three storey flat buildings in a variety of styles.  In terms of existing character values for the Moira Crescent heritage conservation area, in relation to Scale and Form, the Draft DCP notes that the consistency of scale, generally two and three storeys. 

 

It is noted that the existing building is in poor condition including external deterioration of brickwork and roofing, and internal damage resulting from vandalism, and is currently not in habitable condition.  The development will allow the building to once again be used for residential purposes.  It is considered that the proposal, including attic addition, will facilitate the carrying out of required conservation and reinstatement works. 

 

          Ground and first floor level changes

Existing internal walls to the living, dining and kitchen are to be removed, as well as the existing external wall to the rear balcony, in order to create an enlarged open planned kitchen, dining and living area.  The existing bathroom is also to be enlarged.  Existing balcony openings are to be enlarged to provide full height doors to the new rear patios and balconies.  Existing small openings in the rear elevation are to be blocked.  The existing rear external stair is to be removed.  Other existing windows are to be repaired where necessary.  The proposed changes are generally sensitive to the spaces and fabric of the existing building.  It is unclear whether any existing detailing, such as plasterwork or timberwork remains, which could be retained as part of the proposed works.  Consent conditions should be included in relation to removal of existing walls, changes to existing external openings, repairs to existing windows, and retention of existing internal detailing, making reference to the required Schedule of Conservation Works where necessary.  A detailed survey of building fabric required for the preparation of this Schedule will facilitate decisions on the feasibility of retention of remaining original fabric including windows and doors.  The cross section apparently indicates that the existing ceiling is to be lowered in order to minimise the height of the addition.  Given the extent of loss and damage to existing internal fabric, there are no heritage objections to the installation of new ceilings. 

 

          Changes to internal and external entry stairs and entry foyer

The original main internal stair is in a single straight flight, continuous from the upper level to the top of the external stairs.  The existing stair retains its original materials and detailing including solid masonry balustrade and terrazzo tiled surfaces.  The proposed internal stair has a more complex triple flight configuration but will apparently achieve required landing widths and head height clearances.  The proposed external stair is required in order to provide a lower level landing between the stair and the new doors.  While the changes to the stairs and enclosure of the entry foyer will considerably alter the front elevation of the building and the lofty spatial character of the existing entry, the changes are apparently required to ensure BCA compliance.  It may be possible to reuse existing undamaged terrazzo stair treads in the new stairs, and an appropriate consent condition should be included.  A consent condition should also be included requiring further detail of the proposed double entry doors and sidelights. 

 

          Attic addition

The proposed attic level is set back from the front and side elevations, reducing its impact on the original roof form and minimising its prominence in the streetscape.  The addition is of fairly modest extent and will not dominate or compete with the original form and massing and the building.  The modern form of the addition will allow a differentiation between new and existing fabric.  The building property will retain its identity as a two storey building within a mixed streetscape which includes single storey dwelling houses and residential flat buildings of two and three storeys. 

 

          Proposed car spaces

Two single car spaces are proposed at the rear of the site accessed from Division Lane.  The proposed open car spaces will not impact on the main front garden setting, nor significantly impact on the rear garden setting of the building, subject to the provision of supplementary landscaping and achieving required manoeuvring standards. 

 

The heritage officer supports the proposal subject to standard conditions which are included in the recommendation.

 

Car Parking

The car parking has been assessed by Council’s engineering services unit and the following is an extract of the report:

 

An application has been received for alterations and additions at the existing residential flat building which currently contains 4 x 2 bedroom units. The proposal includes the construction of two hardstand car park spaces which are accessed via the rear laneway.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans by CM Architects and dated 30/5/14;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by CM Architects dated May 2014;

·      Detail & Level Survey by Geometra Consulting;

·      Landscape Plan by Zenith Landscape Designs, dwg no 13-2677 L01, sheet 1 of 1, revision A, dated 28.5.14.

 

General Comments

It is noted with this application that the existing 2 x 2 bedroom units on the ground floor will remain as 2 x 2 bedroom units and the existing 2 x 2 bedroom units on the 1st floor will been converted into 2 x 3 bedroom units with the additional bedroom being constructed within the loft of the existing building.

 

Parking Provision Comments

The site, as is, has no off-street parking and proposes 2 off street parking spaces with a net increase of 2 bedrooms for the development site.

 

The increase of 2 off-street car spaces for the development is considered acceptable.

 

Conditions as recommended are included in the recommendation.

 

Landscaped Area and Deep Soil Planting

The objectives of the DCP in the above regard are as follows:

 

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

·         To reduce impermeable surface cover including hard paving.

·         To improve stormwater quality and reduce quantity.

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

 

The DCP requires a minimum of 50% of the site as landscaped area and 25% for deep soil planting. The compliance report documents an existing provision of landscaped area of 45% which will be reduced to 34% by the provision of the proposed 2 car spaces. Similarly, the deep soil provision will be reduced from 25% to 16%.

 

Notwithstanding the departure, the proposed arrangement satisfies the stated objectives in this instance in that:

 

·         The proposal involves a substantial upgrading of the landscaped area at the rear of the site by an allocation of the revised ground floor area to the ground floor unit and provision of modest but functional POS areas in the form of balconies to the upper level units. This will result in a more effective distribution of landscaped open space areas for the occupants of the site whilst maintaining the front yard area and side passages in common ownership, conducive to the heritage conservation area intentions and presentation of the development to the streetscape.

·         The proposed car spaces will include permeable paving surfaces to allow for the preservation of filtration areas on site.

·         The proposal improves the amenity of open space with landscaped design by the provision of formalized landscaped areas at the rear of the site to be developed in accordance with a qualified landscape design supported by Councils Landscape officer.

 

The departure is therefore supported.

 

External Wall Height

 

The proposal includes a proposed external wall height of 9.41m vs the 8m limitation for external wall height where the maximum height of buildings is 9.5m.

 

The objectives of the DCP in this regard are:

 

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

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

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

 

Despite the departure, the proposal satisfies the objectives in the following manner:

 

·         The roof provides for a recessed skillion form set behind the principle front ridge, providing and interesting contrast which preserves the heritage significance of this contributory item, the HCA and ensures a compatible integration with the existing heritage streetscape.

·         The ceiling height for the upper level and the changes to the interior layout of lower levels addressing the northern façade will optimize the inflow of light and promote quality internal spaces.

·         The additional bulk and scale of the development caused by the non-compliance in terms of impacts on the neighbouring properties in relation to overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity will not be significant and conform to the DCP requirements.

 

Despite the numerical departure, the proposal satisfies the stated objectives and is supported.

 

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

 

The objectives of the DCP in relation to visual and Acoustic privacy are as follows:

 

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.

 

Acoustic Privacy

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

·         To ensure dwellings are designed so that its occupants enjoy acoustic privacy, whilst maintaining the existing level of privacy of adjoining and nearby properties.

·         To ensure dwellings are designed to minimise impacts from significant exterior noise sources such as arterial roads, flight paths, industries and ports.

·         To design buildings with adequate separation within the development and from adjoining properties.

 

Concerns have been raised from the owner of residents of the property to the north across Division lane. This property contains rear terraces area off bedroom areas.

 

In respect of privacy the proposed development incorporates the following measures:

 

·         Privacy screens to a height of at least 1.8m the eastern and western edges of the rear balconies overlooking of adjoining properties to the east and west.

·         A physical separation at first floor level from balcony to terrace (on the objectors’ property) of approximately 10m and 13m to bedroom windows. This separation includes an intersecting laneway of 6m in width.

·         A physical separation from the upper levels of approximately 13m from balcony to terrace and 16m from balcony to bedroom window. These terraces are off bedrooms.

 

Given the modest density of development on the site including the proposed alterations and additions, the proposed arrangement is not anticipated to give rise to visual or acoustic unreasonable impacts. Nonetheless, the applicant has agreed to provide a solid balustrading to the first floor balconies to units 3 and 4 to 900mm in height and increase the overall height of these balconies to 1.2m. This will have the effect of at least reducing the openness of these areas to adjoining properties to the north and provide some sense of screening. A condition to this effect is included in the recommendation.

 

Given the privacy screens to side boundaries, the imposition of further additional screening on the northern façade is not warranted and the compromise reasonably satisfies the stated objectives.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal has been assessed as acceptable under the relevant controls and is recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4. 3 (2) and 4.4 (2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to the maximum height of buildings and the maximum FSR respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Environment be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 326/2014 for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building to include a new upper floor to the existing building comprising an additional bedroom with en-suite and WIR to each of the units 3 and 4, construct new balconies, provide 2 new car spaces and landscaping works (Heritage Conservation Area) Variation to FSR and Height Controls) at No. 40 Marcel Avenue, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

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

 

a.     The rear first floor balconies to units 3 and 4 are to be provided with a solid balustrade of timber or other appropriate material to a minimum height of 900mm. The total height of these balustrades shall be a minimum of 1.2m. Details are to be submitted to be approved by Councils Manager of Development Assessment prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

b.     The privacy screens to the eastern and western edges of the first floor balconies to units 3 and 4, having a height of 1.8m above floor level, 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.  Details are to be shown on the construction certificate.

 

4.     A Schedule of Conservation Works for the existing building shall be prepared in accordance with the principles embodied in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter and the methodology outlined in J.S. Kerr’s The Conservation Plan.  The Schedule is to cover all internal and external components, materials and finishes including brickwork, decorative render, leadlight glazing, windows, doors, tiling, timberwork, plasterwork and removal of balcony enclosures,.  This Schedule shall be prepared by an architect suitably qualified and experienced in heritage conservation, and shall be to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

5.     Existing undamaged terrazzo stair treads are to be salvaged for reuse in construction of the new internal and external entry stairs.  An architect or tradesperson suitably qualified and experienced in heritage conservation shall be engaged to oversee the demolition and salvage works relating to the stair. 

 

6.     Changes to existing external openings at the rear of the building are to be carefully carried out to minimise impact on existing brickwork.  For example, the infill to existing openings on the rear elevation may be able to be slightly recessed from the line of the external wall, rather than toothing in to existing brickwork. 

 

7.     Existing timber windows to the front and side elevations are to be retained and repaired as far as possible, rather than replaced.  Any replacement windows are to match the detail of existing windows, including pattern and dimensions and of glazing bars.

 

9.     Detailed drawings are to be prepared of the proposed double entry doors and sidelights.  Detailed drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

10.   The layout of the ground and first floors of the existing building are to incorporate 50mm minimum nib walls and beams projecting below ceiling level, if required to facilitate retention of plasterwork and timberwork. 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 40 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP98/14

 

 

Subject:                  68- 70 Market Street, Randwick (DA/425/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/425/2014

Author:                   Scott Williamson, Senior Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the existing Mt St Joseph's Home Aged Care facility including new two storey addition to the eastern side of the building to accommodate 11 new bedrooms and 3 communal lounge areas, extension to the northern and southern sides of the existing bedrooms at first and second floor levels, new landscaped courtyards and associated retaining walls, and BCA upgrade works

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                The Little Sisters of the Poor

Owner:                        The Little Sisters of the Poor

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval, subject to conditions

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

No submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

1.        Proposal

 

The application seeks consent for upgrade and additions to the existing Mt St Joseph's Home Aged Care facility including:

 

·      Provision of 11 new aged care units and three (3) common areas over two (2) floors in a new wing along the east elevation;

·      Additional floor space to existing aged care units, allowing for sitting room spaces;

·      External works including landscaping works surrounding the new wing, including elevated terrace areas along the eastern and northern elevations;

·      BCA upgrading works.

 

A site inspection was carried out on 8 September 2014.

 

 

 

Figure 1: Montage of the proposed development, as viewed from the north- east.

 

 Figure 2: Existing development and location of proposed additions, as viewed from the east on Market Street .

 

Figure 3: The site as viewed from Clovelly Road to the north.

 

Figure 4: Existing development on the eastern side of Market Street.

Figure 5: The intersection of Market Street and Clovelly Road.

 

 

2.        Site history

 

2.1      DA/709/2012 – 68-70 Market Street, Randwick.

DA/709/2012 was approved under delegation on 13 March 2013, for demolition of the existing aged care wing known as Mount St Joseph's Home at Little Sisters of the Poor convent.

 

The building has since been demolished.

 

3.        Site context

 

The subject site is made up of a single Torrens Title allotment described as Lot 2 of DP 108129 and known as 68- 70 Market Street, Randwick. The site is roughly triangular in shape and occupies the majority of the block, being bound by roads on the each side. A small pocket of the block at the intersection of Arden Street and Clovelly Road is not inclusive of this lot, comprising an educational facility.

 

Topographically, the site has a cross fall of roughly 14 metres along the length of the eastern, Market Street boundary, falling to the north.

 

Boundary

Approx length

Site area

Western, Avoca Street boundary

230 m

24,227m2

Eastern, Market Street boundary

240 m

Northern, Clovelly Road boundary

120 m

 

The site presently contains a series of building complexes associated with the Little Sisters of the Poor, comprising a nursing home, independent living units and convent. Works proposed within the subject application relate predominantly to the Mt St Joseph’s Nursing Home in the northern section of the site.

 

Surrounding development is mixed in character. A predominance of multi- unit development is located across Market Street to the east, with single dwellings across Clovelly Road to the north. The Emmanuel School is located to the west across Arden Street.

 

The subject site does not have individual heritage significance within the provisions of RLEP 2012.

 

4.        Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the application between 16 July and 30 July 2014 in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, no submissions were received.

 

5.        State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

 

The proposal seeks to make alterations and additions to a development defined as ‘Seniors Housing’ under RLEP 2012. The SEPP is applicable to development of this definition and is addressed as follows.

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Chapter 1 Preliminary

2

Aims of Policy

 

 

 

(a) increase the supply and diversity of residences that meet the needs of seniors or people with a disability,

The proposal will increase the supply and diversity of residential accommodation for seniors or people with a disability.

 

Satisfactory.

 

(b) make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, and

The site already contains a seniors living facility and is in close proximity to existing infrastructure and services.

 

Satisfactory.

 

(c) be of good design. 

The proposed development is considered to present satisfactory design merit.

 

Satisfactory.

Chapter 3 Development for seniors housing

Part 1 General

24

Site compatibility certificates

 

 

 

(1) This clause applies to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter in respect of development for the purposes of seniors housing if:

(a) the development is proposed to be carried out on any of the following land to which this Policy applies:

(ii) land that is within a zone that is identified as “special uses” under another environmental planning instrument (other than land on which development for the purposes of hospitals is permitted)

The site is zoned Infrastructure SP2 RLEP 2012. Development for the purpose of Seniors Housing is permissible with consent. Furthermore, the site is within “land zoned primarily for urban purposes”.

 

Therefore, a Site Compatibility Certificate from the Director-General of the Department of Planning is not required in this instance.

 

Satisfactory.

Part 2 Site-related requirements

26

Location and access to facilities

 

 

 

(1) Residents of the proposed development will have access that complies with subclause (2) to:

 

(a) shops, bank service providers and other retail and commercial services that residents may reasonably require, and

 

(b) community services and recreation facilities, and

 

(c) the practice of a general medical practitioner

The subject site is located within 400m from the Randwick commercial precinct on Frenchman’s Road, which contains a range of commercial and retail services.

 

The proposed development also provides communal gardens, activity rooms and dining facilities for the residents.

 

A general medical practitioner is presently employed at the facility and is accessible to occupants.

 

Satisfactory.

27

Bush fire prone land

The site is not located within bush fire prone land.

N/A

Part 3 Design requirements

30

Site analysis

 

 

Division 1 general

 

(1) The consent authority is to be satisfied that the applicant has taken into account a site analysis prepared by the applicant in accordance with this clause.

 

A detailed site analysis has been provided in the Statement of Environmental Effects. The analysis is considered sufficient in the context of the additions proposed and the scale of the existing aged care facility on the site.

 

The design scheme provides appropriate response to the natural and physical built form constraints occurring to this site and surrounds.

 

 

Satisfactory.

 

(2) A site analysis must:

(a) contain information about the site and its surrounds as described in subclauses (3) and (4).

(b) be accompanied by a written statement:

(i) explaining how the design of the proposed development has regard to the site analysis, and

(ii) explaining how the design of the proposed development has regard to the design principles set out in Division 2.

 

Division 2 Design principles

33

Neighbourhood amenity and streetscape

The proposed development should:

 

 

 

(a) recognise the desirable elements of the location’s current character so that new buildings contribute to the quality and identity of the area, and

The existing buildings on this site feature substantial setback and sit within a landscaped setting. The scheme continues this theme, providing contemporary upgrade of the existing facility. It is considered the scale, finish and aesthetic of the proposal is compatible with surrounding character and will not feature abruptly within the streetscape. It is not considered the development will have significant additional environmental impacts upon surrounding development from that existing on the site. 

 

Satisfactory

 

(c) maintain reasonable neighbourhood amenity and appropriate residential character by:

 

(i) providing building setbacks to reduce bulk and overshadowing, and

(ii) using building form and siting that relates to the site’s land form, and

(iii) adopting building heights at the street frontage that are compatible in scale with adjacent development, and

(iv) considering, where buildings are located on the boundary, the impact of the boundary walls on neighbours, and

The proposal comprises additions to the existing building that maintain generous setbacks and a substantial amount of landscaping.  The additions step down the site in response to the landform and are modest in scale.

 

Satisfactory

 

(d) be designed so that the front building of the development is setback in sympathy with, but not necessarily the same as, the existing building line, and

The scheme maintains generous setbacks of over 20 metres to each frontage in order to complement the existing streetscape character and enhance amenity for internal occupants and adjoining properties.

 

Satisfactory

 

(e) embody planting that is in sympathy with, but not necessarily the same as, other planting in the streetscape, and

The landscape plan has provided a suitable combination of trees and shrubs to provide an aesthetically pleasing presentation to the streets.

 

Satisfactory

34

Visual and acoustic privacy

 

 

 

The proposed development should consider the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbours in the vicinity and residents by:

 

(a) appropriate site planning, the location and design of windows and balconies, the use of screening devices and landscaping, and

 

(b) ensuring acceptable noise levels in bedrooms of new dwellings by locating them away from driveways, parking areas and paths.

The scheme orients proposed windows and balconies towards landscaped courtyards that envelope the development on north, east and south elevations and away from that of adjoining units within the development for internal privacy.

 

The substantial setback to each boundary together with existing and proposed landscaping is sufficient for the purpose of privacy to neighbouring properties.

 

Satisfactory

35

Solar access and design for climate

 

 

 

The proposed development should:

 

(b) involve site planning, dwelling design and landscaping that reduces energy use and makes the best practicable use of natural ventilation, solar heating and lighting by locating the windows of living and dining areas in a northerly direction.

 

The scheme locates new units along the eastern and northern elevations for access to sufficient solar access during midwinter.  Additions to existing units will serve to improve the existing internal amenity of these units, maintaining sufficient openings and aspect for light and ventilation.  

 

Satisfactory

37

Crime prevention

 

 

 

The proposed development should provide personal property security for residents and visitors and encourage crime prevention by:

 

 

 

(a) site planning that allows observation of the approaches to a dwelling entry from inside each dwelling and general observation of public areas, driveways and streets from a dwelling that adjoins any such area, driveway or street, and

The orientation and configuration of the proposed additions provide adequate casual surveillance of the surrounding public domain, including Market Street and Clovelly Road , as well as the internal courtyard and driveway areas of the development.

 

Satisfactory

38

Accessibility

 

 

 

The proposed development should:

 

(a) have obvious and safe pedestrian links from the site that provide access to public transport services or local facilities, and

(b) provide attractive, yet safe, environments for pedestrians and motorists with convenient access and parking for residents and visitors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·    The principal entries to the development are clearly identifiable.

 

·    The footpaths on surrounding streets connect the development to services close by, including Clovelly, Randwick and Bondi Junction centres. Public transport services are regular along Arden Street and Clovelly Road.

 

·    Separate access has been provided for pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

 

 

 

Satisfactory

39

Waste management

 

 

 

The proposed development should be provided with waste facilities that maximise recycling by the provision of appropriate facilities.

The proposal will make use of waste storage provisions that serve the facility at present. The moderate increase in capacity proposed is not considered to pose significant additional capacity requirement and as such is satisfactory. 

 

Satisfactory.

Part 4 Development standards to be complied with

Division 1 General

40

Development standards – minimum sizes and building heights

 

 

 

(2) The size of the site must be at least 1,000 square metres.

The land area of the site is 24.227sqm. 

 

Complies

 

(3) The site frontage must be at least 20m wide measured at the building line.

Market Street frontage:

240m

Clovelly Road frontage:

120m

Arden Street frontage:

250m

 

 

Complies

 

(4) Height in residential zone where residential flat buildings are not permitted

The site is zoned SP2- Infrastructure. This clause is therefore not applicable to the proposal.

 

 

N/A

Division 2 Residential care facilities – standards concerning accessibility and useability

 

Refer to the Commonwealth aged care accreditation standards and the Building Code of Australia.

A standard condition is recommended to require compliance with the Building Code of Australia.

Complies, subject to condition

Part 7 Development standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse consent

Division 2 Residential care facilities

48

Standards that cannot be used to refuse development consent for residential care facilities

A consent authority must not refuse consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter for the carrying out of development for the purpose of a residential care facility on any of the following grounds:

 

(a) building height: if all proposed buildings are 8m or less in height, or

The existing building exceeds eight (8) metres in height. The additions will also exceed eight metres, however will remain below the maximum established by the existing building. The proposed height is sympathetic to the existing building and is appropriate in the context of the site and it’s surrounds. No significant environmental impact is expected due to the proposed height.

 

Satisfactory.

 

(b) density and scale: if the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio is 1:1 or less,

Both existing and proposed components of the development are located on a site of substantial size, the accumulation of which does not exceed 1:1 in floor space ratio. The additions maintain a modest scale and are provided substantial setback and landscape treatment. Scale and density is considered generous. 

 

Satisfactory.

 

(c) landscaped area: if a minimum of 25m2 of landscaped area per residential care facility bed is provided,

The proposal retains substantial landscaped setback to each street frontage. The size of the site allows for generous provision of gardens and open spaces for the use of occupants, considered to be in excess of the 25 square metres minimum.

 

Satisfactory.

 

(d) parking for residents and visitors: if at least the following is provided:

 

(i) 1 parking space for each 10 beds in the residential care facility (or 1 parking space for each 15 beds if the facility provides care only for persons with dementia), and

 

(ii) 1 parking space for each 2 persons to be employed in connection with the development and on duty at any one time, and

 

(iii) 1 parking space suitable for an ambulance.

The scheme makes use of the existing parking provisions on site, which serve the aged care facility at present.

The increase in capacity is modest and given the nature of the use, is not considered to necessitate further parking provision, beyond the 35 spaces presently provided for.

 

The proposed additions are accessible to an ambulance via a driveway that surrounds the existing building. 

 

Satisfactory.

 

5.1      Built form distribution

The scheme is of generous setback to all boundaries, providing in excess of 20 metres. The separation distance provided is such that no significant impact of bulk and scale, shadow or privacy is anticipated to surrounding development or the streetscape.

 

The development has been appropriately designed to upgrade the external aesthetic of the existing building to integrate the existing development in to the streetscape and provide a contemporary upgrade of facilities. The height of the existing building is not exceeded. A detailed landscape plan accompanies the scheme that will ensure the additional bulk proposed is well offset to enhance the landscaped character of the site and positively contribute to the streetscape.

 

The proposed setbacks are considered sufficient in the context of this 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 proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and does not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The proposal remains within the bounds of the applicable State and Local planning framework.

 

The application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Compliance Report. 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/425/2014 for alterations and additions to the existing Mt St Joseph's Home Aged Care facility including new two storey addition to the eastern side of the building to accommodate 11 new bedrooms and 3 communal lounge areas, extension to the northern and southern sides of the existing bedrooms at first and second floor levels, new landscaped courtyards and associated retaining walls, and BCA upgrade works, at No. 68- 70 Market Street, Randwick, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 68 - 70 Market Street, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP99/14

 

 

Subject:                  Report variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 August to 31 August, 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 August, 2014 – two (2) were approved during this period, one (1) by Planning Committee meeting and one (1) 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 variations - August 2014

 

 

 

 


Clause 4.6 variations - August 2014

Attachment 1

 

 

 

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

Council DA reference No.

Lot No.

DP No.

Apartment/Unit No.

Street No.

Street name

Suburb/Town

Postcode

Category of develop-ment

Environmental planning instru-ment

Zoning of land

Develop-ment standard to be varied

Justification of variation

Extent of variation

Concur-ring authority

Date DA determined
dd/mm/yyyy

Approved by

DA/341/2014

7

30095

 

7

 Ron Filbee Place

MAROUBRA

2035

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residen-tial

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 9.5m

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

Building height is 9.8m or 3%

NSW Dept of Planning

05-Aug-14

Delegated authority

DA/597/2013

CNR LOT A2

403175 SUBJ TO ROW

 

10A

 Kynaston Avenue

RANDWICK

2031

 4: Residential - New multi unit < 20 dwellings

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density Residen-tial

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 12m

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

Building height is 13.2mm or 10.2%

NSW Dept of Planning

12-Aug-14

PCM

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP100/14

 

 

Subject:                  Randwick City Council Enforcement Policy (Review)

Folder No:                   F2004/06770

Author:                   Allan Graham, Coordinator Regulatory Projects      

 

Introduction

 

The Council would be aware that its duly authorised officers exercise the Council’s regulatory functions conferred by various Acts of Parliament that are administered by local government.

 

Importantly, in discharging its regulatory functions, a Council must have regard to the council’s charter contained at s. 8 of the Local Government Act 1993, which relevantly states:

 

8   The council’s charter

(1) A council has the following charter:

• to ensure that, in the exercise of its regulatory functions, it acts consistently and without bias, particularly where an activity of the council is affected…”

 

To give effect to the Charter, the Randwick City Council, at its Ordinary Meeting held on the 24 April 2007, formally adopted the Randwick City Council Enforcement Policy (“the Enforcement Policy”).

 

It is the purpose of this Report to inform the Council that the Enforcement Policy has recently been reviewed by Council officers and amended, to provided detail of the amendments, and to recommend to the Council that the Enforcement Policy ‘as amended’ be adopted. Importantly, the Enforcement Policy, including the proposed amendments, continues to be principally based upon the Enforcement guidelines for councils - June 2002 published by the NSW Ombudsman.

 

Issues

 

The overarching objects of the Enforcement Policy are to ensure that regulatory matters are managed in a consistent and transparent manner and that the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice are observed. In addition, the Enforcement Policy acts as a ‘guideline’, that is publicly available, as to how Council conducts its regulatory functions.

 

The overarching objects and purpose of the Enforcement Policy remain unchanged by this review.  There are a number of minor but important amendments which if adopted by the Council will give greater consistency, guidance and bring greater efficacy to Council’s regulatory functions.

 

The Enforcement Policy also references a number of new or updated pieces of legislation and referenced guidelines

 

The Proposed Amendments

 

Essentially the proposed amendments are to provide for the following:

·      Incorporate the use and reference to the NSW State Debt Recovery ‘Review Guidelines’

·      Incorporate the use of the Caution Guidelines approved by the NSW Attorney General

·      To reference new or amended Legislative provisions and processes

·      To encourage, where appropriate, the use of alternative dispute resolution methods as an alternative to regulatory action

·      Give greater clarity to Council’s regulatory options and considerations and in the use of regulatory discretion

·      To provide guidance when dealing with neighbour and private disputes

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  6:      A Liveable City.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The implementation of Council’s Enforcement Policy can be accommodated within Council’s existing regulatory budget.

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Enforcement Policy is an important document that outlines and provides guidance to how Council conducts its regulatory activities. In the past seven years or so, Council’s Enforcement Policy has been an invaluable document which has significantly helped to ensure Council’s regulatory activities are implemented in a professional, consistent, appropriate and accountable manner.

 

To ensure that Council’s Enforcement Policy remains relevant with the current regulatory ‘landscape’ the policy has recently been reviewed by Council officers. This review has resulted in minor but important amendments. Whilst the overarching objects of the Enforcement Policy remain unchanged the proposed amendments will give greater guidance and bring greater efficacy to Council’s regulatory functions.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

       

a)     Randwick City Council adopt the Randwick City Council Enforcement Policy –Revised August 2014, and

 

b)     the Randwick City Council Enforcement Policy – Revised August 2014, is published on Council’s website.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

RCC Enforcement Policy - DRAFT Amendment - September 2014

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP101/14

 

 

Subject:                  Cultural and Community Grant Program September 2014 Round assessment report

Folder No:                   F2009/00182

Author:                   Warren Ambrose, Senior Social Planner      

 

Introduction

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program was endorsed by Council on 28 April 2009 and commenced in June 2009.  The Cultural and Community Grants Program provides financial support to creative arts and cultural projects that encourage community participation and vibrancy within the City of Randwick. The Grants Program assessed twice a year in March and September is linked to actions and strategies identified within the Council’s Cultural Plan, A Cultural Randwick City.

 

In this September 2014 funding round, Council has received a total of 19 applications seeking a total of $129,359.20 (in-kind and cash). The applications were assessed by an assessment panel comprising of Council staff, including Council’s Internal Auditor. Applications were assessed against the Cultural and Community Grants Guidelines.

 

On further review of the guidelines an anomaly was identified preventing for–profit organisations from seeking a grant to hold free and accessible community wide events. This report proposes to amend the Grant Guidelines to allow the funding of such events on the condition that the project/activity is not related to the for-profit organisation’s core business.

 

Three other applications have not provided a full End of Project Report which is a requirement of funding condition upon receipt of a previous grant. These applications have merit but currently breach the funding conditions and guidelines.  This report recommends funds only be provided to these three organisations, on the strict condition that Council receive a completed End of Project report for their previously funded projects by no later than 8 October 2014.

 

Details of the applications recommended for funding and conditional funding are listed in Attachment One. Applications not recommended for funding are also listed in Attachment One.

 

This report ultimately recommends ten (10) applications, totalling $49,316.30, to receive funding under the current September 2014 Round. 

 

All applicants will be advised about the outcomes of their grant application.

 

Issues

 

Cultural and Community Grants Program Background

The Cultural and Community Grants Program has an annual budget of $110,000.  This amount covers both in-kind and cash contribution requests from grant applications.

 

There are two funding rounds per financial year, in March and September.  These are promoted in the local newspaper, on the Council’s website, and email through local community networks in July 2014.

                                 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program Funding is currently awarded to locally based not-for-profit organisations or community groups. The applicants must demonstrate that their project benefits a cross section of our diverse community. The resulting activities or events must be held in the City of Randwick. Applicants may seek grants from Council as an in-kind contribution only (waiver of Council fees and charges), cash contribution only, or a combination of in-kind and cash contribution. 

 

The Program requires and expects a high level of accountability from funding recipients. As part of the funding acquittal process, all recipients who have received cash grants are required to provide evidence that the activity or event was held, and completion of an End of Project report.

 

September Round 2014/15 Assessment

The assessment process was undertaken by a panel of Council officers, and the Council Internal Auditor. The panel met to assess the applications and to recommend which of these should receive full, partial or no funding. All applications were assessed for compliance with the program’s funding priorities and guidelines, and the organisation’s capacity to deliver the program outcomes. Each application was assigned a numerical score reflecting a priority ranking of A, B or C. Priority levels are detailed below:

 

·           Priority A: High priority for funding. The project is consistent with program funding priorities and has special weighting and compares well with other applicants.

·           Priority B: Possibly fund if sufficient funds are available. Application meets eligibility criteria but with lower scores than the Priority A applications.  Priority B applications may lack adequate detail or be poorly targeted.

·           Priority C: Does not meet the eligibility criteria.

 

Through this assessment process, a total of six (6) applications fully met the funding criteria and have been recommended to receive funding totalling $28,281.00 comprising of $18,914.50 in cash and $7,366.50 in-kind (fee waiver). The grant applicants and a brief description of their proposed projects recommended for funding are summarised below:

 

·           Cape Banks Family History Society Education Program (Cape Banks Family History Society Inc.)  In-kind funds to use Maroubra Seniors Centre, and cash funds for printing, participant notes and promotion to help cover the costs of holding a series of meetings to hear guest speakers, information sessions and beginners workshops to information  and promote interest in hobby of genealogy.

·           Celebrating Asian Culture and Promoting Social Inclusion as an Integral Part of Multicultural Randwick (Ethnic Child Care, Family and Community Services Cooperative Ltd) In-kind funds for the use of Randwick Town Hall; cash funds for food and community transport, for an event to celebrate more than 150 years of Asian migration to Randwick City. Approximately 250 elderly people, people with disabilities and their carers, and young people from socio-economic backgrounds are anticipated to attend.

·           Lemnos Photographic Exhibition (Greek Orthodox Community of NSW Ltd) In-kind funds for the use the Prince Henry Centre to display a photographic exhibition of the island of Lemnos in celebration of the 10th Anniversary of the Anzac – Lemnos campaign.  Cash funds towards printing and easel hire. (Exhibition launch not funded by this grant because they propose to charge an entry fee, which is outside the Grant guidelines).

·           Telling it Our Way (La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council) – Cash funds pay for a DVD launch and trained artists. Young people to work with Elders to record their stories.  Local Aboriginal people will be working with trained artists to illustrate these stories resulting in 3 animated stories on DVD.  These will be provided to local libraries, schools and childcare centres to promote local Aboriginal culture.

·           Pere Receveur Commeration Mass (St Andrews Catholic Church) – Cash funds hire of sound, marque, and chairs for their mass at La Perouse to celebrate the French priest buried at La Perouse.    

·           Multicultural Seniors Carnivale (Sydney Multicultural Community Services) In-kind funds to use the Prince Henry Centre; cash funds for catering, transport, venue decoration and entertainment for a Senior’s Week Carnivale to meet, dance, and eat with others to celebrate the cultural diversity of Randwick.

 

Applicants that have not partially met funding acquittal requirements

The Cultural and Community Grants Program requires recipients of its previous funding to account for its grant expenditure before it is eligible to apply for new funding under the same grants program. This is done by submitting an End of Project Report containing details of the outcomes of the project, and full financial acquittal.

 

The Council has received 3 applications in this funding round from three organisations that had not provided a fully completed End of Project report of grants received in 2013/14 financial year.

 

These applicants have submitted the following applications under the current funding round:

·      Coogee Family Fun Day (Coogee Chamber of Commerce) Cash funds towards the public event to raise money for the Sydney Children’s Hospital which will include market stalls, rides for kids, entertainment.

·      Annual Proficiency Tests   (South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club) In-kind funds to cover the cost of using 3 lanes of the DRLC to conduct swim proficiency tests for approximately 400 children aged 8-14 years.

·      South Maroubra Surf Carnival (South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club) In-kind funds for the use of South Maroubra Beach to conduct a surf carnival for under 8. 

It is recommended that funding allocated to these applications will only be supplied on receipt of fully completed End of Project reports by close of business Wednesday 8 October 2014, and under 14 surf life savers.

The grants assessment panel’s recommendation is to not fund the applications, as required by grants program guidelines.  However, had it not been for the missing or incomplete funding acquittal information, these projects would have complied with the grants program’s funding priorities and guidelines.

 

Should the Council wish to take a conciliatory stance, it is suggested that these 3 organisations be given another opportunity to complete and supply to Council its end of project and acquittal documentation.  In other words, funding under the current round will only be allocated for these 3 projects if the required information is submitted to Council by 5pm Wednesday 8 October 2014.

 

In future, applicants will be reminded that funding applications will not be accepted by Council unless all end of project reporting and acquittal documentation for projects previously funded under the same grants program (Cultural and Community Grants Program) are satisfactorily completed and submitted.   Information required from grant recipients for their end of project reporting and acquittal are: all income sources and expenses for the project, copies of invoices and receipts. This condition only applies to allocated grants exceeding $1,000.

 

South Maroubra Village Green Art Show

In assessing this year’s applications, an anomaly was noted.  The assessment panel noted that an application for the South Maroubra Village Green Art Show did not meet the assessment guidelines because the application was lodged by Walsh’s Village Pharmacy, a private business entity. This event however meets the intent and aims of the Cultural and Community Grants Program.  It is a popular event that is free for the general community to attend. The community art show has become a highly anticipated community event where budding artists, mainly local residents both young and old are given the opportunity and space to exhibit their art works.  However, under the current terms of the assessment guidelines, the grants assessment panel had no option but to recommend that this application be disqualified.

 

Given that the Council has been sponsoring this event for a significant number of years, mainly under the Contingency Funds, council staff took the opportunity to review the grant guidelines with respect to applications proposing to hold community events that is free and benefits the broader community and visitors.

 

As a result of this review, this report proposes an amendment be made to the Cultural and Community Grant Guidelines to enable Council to also accept and assess applications from for-profit organisations proposing to hold large community events in a council park or reserve. The prerequisite would be that the event must not be for  profit purposes or be related to its core business, do not charge exhibitors and stall holders any fees, and is free for all to attend.  This is aimed at preventing for-profit organisations from using funds for events to generate a profit or used as a promotional platform for their business.

 

Walsh’s Pharmacy has submitted an application for the in-kind funds of $575.00 for the use of South Maroubra Village Green (a park outside the shopping centre) and cash funds of $29,900.00, totaling $30,475.00 to stage the annual South Maroubra Village Green Art Show.

 

It is suggested that the Council endorse the new amendments to the Cultural and Community grant guidelines to immediately apply to the current funding round.

 

Subject to Council endorsement of suggested new amendments to the Grant program guidelines it is recommended that Walsh’s Pharmacy receives cash only funds of $9,000.00 towards the South Maroubra Village Green Art Show, part of which can be used to pay for Council fees for the event (eg. bins and application fee). The applicant has indicated that they would accept $9,000.00 towards the event.  Council has previously allocated these funds for the event.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  5:     Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The Cultural and Community Grant Program has an annual budget allocation of $110,000. The current allocation round falls within the budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program plays an important role in providing artistic and cultural events and activities that contribute towards the vibrancy and social cohesion within the City of Randwick.

 

Consequently the assessment panel was in a position to recommend only five applications to receive funding totalling $49,316.30 in cash and in-kind contribution under the current funding round.  This leaves an unspent balance of $60,683.70

the budget to be available for the March 2015 Grant round.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     Endorses the amendment to the Cultural and Community Grant Program Guidelines to enable for-profit organisations to be eligible for large, free, accessible community events involving activities that are not to be for profit purposes or the organisation’s core business.

 

b)     Accepts the inclusion of three applications on receipt of outstanding end of project acquittal documentation by the close of business Wednesday 8 October.

 

c)     Approves Cultural and Community Program funds totalling $49,316.30 to be allocated to the recommended grant applicants listed in Attachment One.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Cultural and Community Grants Program - September 2014 - Attachment 1 - details of recommended successful and non successful applications.

 

 

 

 


Cultural and Community Grants Program - September 2014 - Attachment 1 - details of recommended successful and non successful applications.

Attachment 1

 

 

Attachment One

 

2014/2015 CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM

 

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING – SEPTEMBER 2014 ASSESSMENT

 

No.

Organisation

Name of Project & Description

Amount

Requested

Rank

In-Kind Recommended

Cash

Recommended

In kind

Cash

2

Cape Banks Family History Society Inc

Cape Banks Family History Society Education Program

In-kind funds to use Maroubra Seniors Centre, and cash funds for printing, participant notes and promotion to help cover the costs of holding a series of meetings to hear guest speakers, information sessions and beginners workshops to information  and promote interest in hobby of genealogy.

$204.00

$250.00

A

$204.00

$250.00

3

Coogee Chamber of Commerce

Coogee Family Fun Day

Cash funds towards the public event to raise money for the Sydney Children’s Hospital which will include market stalls, rides for kids, entertainment.

Funds to be provided only on receipt of a full End of Project report for previous Cultural and Community Grant funds.

$10,750.00

$10,419.90

A

$0.00

$10,000.00

4

Ethnic Child Care, Family and Community Services Cooperative Ltd

Celebrating Asian Culture and Promoting Social Inclusion as an Integral Part of Multicultural Randwick

In-kind funds for the use of Randwick Town Hall; cash funds for food and community transport, for an event to celebrate more than 150 years of Asian migration to Randwick City. Approximately 250 elderly people, people with disabilities and their carers, and young people from socio-economic backgrounds are anticipated to attend.

$375.00

$1,800.00

A

$375.00

$1,800.00

5

Greek Orthodox Community of NSW Ltd

Lemnos Photographic Exhibition

In-kind funds for the use the Prince Henry Centre to display a photographic exhibition of the island of Lemnos in celebration of the 10th Anniversary of the Anzac – Lemnos campaign.  Cash funds towards printing and easel hire.

Grant funds to be used only for public exhibition expenses. The opening night event is ineligible because they propose to charge an entry fee.

$7,155.00

$16,925.00

B

$5,000.00

$6,000.00

9

La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council

Telling it our way

Cash funds pay for a DVD launch, and trained artists. Young people to work with Elders to record their stories.  Local Aboriginal people will be working with trained artists to illustrate these stories resulting in 3 animated stories on DVD.  These will be provided to local libraries, schools and childcare centres to promote local Aboriginal Culture.

$0.00

$5,000.00

A

$0.00

$5,000.00

14

South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club

Annual Proficiency Tests 

In-kind funds to cover the cost of using 3 lanes of the DRLC to conduct swim proficiency tests for approximately 400 children aged 8-14 years.

Funds to be provided only on receipt of a full End of Project report for previous Cultural and Community Grant funds by 8 October 2014.

$1,065.00

$0.00

B

$1,065.00

$0.00

15

South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club

South Maroubra Surf Carnival

In-kind funds for the use of South Maroubra Beach to conduct a surf carnival for under 8 and under 14 surf life savers.

Funds to be provided only on receipt of a full End of Project report for previous Cultural and Community Grant fun by 8 October 2014.

$1,170.30

$0.00

 

B

$1,170.30

$0.00

 

16

St Andrews Catholic Church

Pere Receveur Commeration Mass

Cash funds hire of sound, marque, and chairs for their mass at La Perouse to celebrate the French priest buried at La Perouse.      

$0.00

$3,814.50

B

$0.00

$3,814.50

17

Sydney Multicultural Community Services

Multicultural Seniors Carnivale

In-kind funds to use the Prince Henry Centre; cash funds for catering, transport, venue decoration and entertainment for a Senior’s Week Carnivale to meet, dance, and eat with others to celebrate the cultural diversity of Randwick.

$1,787.50

$3,850.00

A

$1,787.50

$3,850.00

19

Walsh’s Pharmacy

South Maroubra Village Green Art Show (Subject to endorsement of an amendment to Cultural and Community Grant Program Guidelines)

Cash funds towards the cost of staging a community art show in South Maroubra Village Green. 

$575.00

$29,900.00

Not assessed

$0.00

$9,000.00

 

 

 

 

 

Total

$9,601.80

$39,714.50

 

 

 

 

 

Total

$49,316.30


2014/2015 CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM

 

APPLICATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING – SEPTEMBER 2014 ASSESSMENT

 

No.

Organisation

Name of Project

Amount Requested

Rank

Reason for not recommending - future action

In kind

Cash

1

Fawzey Hage

Randwick Creative Writers Production

Cash funds to conduct a creative writing program over 8 months culminating in production and printing of a booklet of their works

$0.00

$1,000.00

C

Project is ineligible because it is for printing of items the result of activities that have already occurred. Council cannot fund projects retrospectively.

6

Heaven & Earth Writers Festival

Heaven & Earth Writers Festival

Cash funds to hold a one-day Writers Festival celebrating & supporting ecological and spiritual writings, writers, nature writing 

$0.00

$4,500.00

C

Does not meet program guidelines because the event is charging entry into the festival.

 

7

Holdsworth Community Centre

Holdsworth Community Choir

Cash funds to promote the choir and engage more participants from Randwick with an audition free activity

$0.00

$5,225.00

C

Does not meet program guidelines because the event is to be held outside Randwick City.  

8

Jacinta van Lint Photography

Ladies of the baths

Cash funds to hold an exhibition of 10 large canvas images from the water looking at the baths celebrating local women using the baths

$0.00

$6,690.00

C

Applicant is not eligible because the for-profit organisation applied for a project that is closely related to its core business.

10

MUM FOR MUM MCJWA LTD

Mum For Mum MCJWA

Cash funds to contribute to the provision of an early intervention service to help mothers successfully cope with the  pre and post natal months

$0.00

$5,000.00

C

Does not meet program guidelines because the event is to be held outside Randwick City. 

11

Options Youth Housing

Your Move Youth Housing Booklet

Cash funds to update and print their resource booklet for young people looking at moving out of home. The update is required to reflect the recent significant changes to service and support providers.

$0.00

$999.00

C

Project does not fit intent and aims the grants program and is to be conducted outside Randwick City.

12

Our Lady of the Annunciation

OLA Oktober Fete

Cash funds to contribute to the Schools Fete to purchase of play and IT equipment for the school.

$0.00

Not specified

C

Project is not eligible because it is a for-profit activity to raise funds for capital items which are outside the Grant guidelines.

13

South Coogee Learning Centre

Family Working Bee Bonanza  

Cash funds to pay for materials to be used in 3 family working bees to improve the children’s outdoor area and increase community spirit and social cohesion of the families of the Centre

$0.00

$6,000.00

C

Does not meet program guidelines because the applicant requests funds for capital items. 

18

Sydney Multicultural Community Services

Document translation

Cash funds for translation of Service’s brochures into 16 languages and translation of Multicultural Home Care Package (MHCP) brochures into 10 languages.

$0.00

$4,904.00

C

Project is not eligible because it is to pay for activities addressing the organisation’s administration issues.

 

 

Total

$0.00

$34,318.00

 

 

 

 

 

Total

$34,318.00

 

 

 

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF58/14

 

 

Subject:                  2013-14 Financial Statements

Folder No:                   F2012/00509

Author:                   Mitchel Woods, Manager Corporate and Financial Planning      

 

Introduction

 

Under the provisions of s418 the Local Government Act, Council is required to present its Financial Statements together with the Auditor’s Report to the public.

 

Issues

 

The Local Government Act contains specific requirements to be followed in relation to the preparation of its statutory Financial Statements.

 

In summary, the procedures are shown below:

 

1.     The Financial Statements are to be prepared and these reports are required to contain a Certificate which is signed in accordance with a resolution of the Council. Council authorised the signing of the certificate by resolution at the Ordinary Council Meeting held 22 July 2014.

 

2.     The Financial Statements and the Certificate referred to in (1) are then referred to the Auditor for audit.

 

3.     As soon as practicable after receiving the Auditor’s Report the Council must send a copy of the Auditor’s report and the audited Financial Statements to the Chief Executive of the Division of Local Government. These documents were forwarded on 27th August 2014 in compliance with this requirement.

 

4.     As soon as practicable after receipt of the Auditor’s Report a date must be fixed when Council proposes to present the Auditor’s Report and the audited Financial Statements to the public. This date has been fixed as 23 September 2014.

 

5.     Public Notice of the proposed meeting including a summary of the Financial Statements must be given. Copies of the documents are to be made available for inspection at the office of the Council. In accordance with this requirement public notice was given in the Southern Courier on 9 September 2014. Copies of the document were made available to the public at the Customer Service Centre and the Libraries. The document is also available on the Council’s website.

 

Copies of the Financial Statements including the Auditor’s report have been separately circulated to each Councillor.

 

The Auditor’s Report provides detailed comments in relation to the Council’s sound financial position and is attached.

 

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

 

Council’s auditor advises “Council’s overall financial position is, in our opinion, sound”.

 

Conclusion

 

The Council’s Financial Statements have been finalised for the 2013-14 Financial Year. The Council is in a strong and stable financial position.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Financial Statements for the financial year ended 30 June 2014 be adopted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

2013-14 Financial Statements

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF59/14

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - August 2014

Folder No:                   F2014/06527

Author:                   Greg Byrne, Manager Financial Operations      

 

Introduction

 

The Local Government (General) Regulation requires a written report to be provided to the ordinary meeting of the Council giving details of all monies invested and a certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Act, the regulations and the Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Issues

 

Council is authorised by s625 of the Local Government Act to invest its surplus funds. Funds may only be invested in the form of investment notified by Order of the Minister dated 12 January 2011. The Local Government (General) Regulation prescribes the records that must be maintained in relation to Council’s Investment Policy.

 

The table in this report titled “Investment Register – August 2014” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of August 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 increased by $16.920 million during August 2014. The increase is representative of a positive cash flow for the month reflecting the net effect of revenue receipts offset by capital works expenditure and other operational payments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The graph below illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from August 2011 to August 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 August 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 August 2011 to August 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   3.73% compared with the benchmark index of 2.72%.

 

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

 

Credit Quality of Portfolio

The credit quality of the portfolio is very high with 100% of assets rated “A” or better. 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. The final investment held with a credit rating of BBB+ matured on the 6 August 2014.

 

The credit quality maximums as per Council policy and the actual portfolio holdings are shown in the table below.

 

Credit Quality

Policy Maximum

Credit Quality (Holding)

Available Capacity

AAA

100%

9%

91%

AA

100%

43%

57%

A

75%

48%

27%

 

 

 

 

 

 

The graph below shows the actual percentage of funds held by Individual Institutions V the Maximum limits allowable under Council policy as at 31 August 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 $14.674 million in floating rates notes (FRN).

 

Changes to the classification of these investments from “held to Maturity” to “held for Trading” requires that they are reported at the latest indicative market valuations at month end.

 

The indicative market value of the FRN’s increased by $156 thousand as at the end of August.

 

On advice from Council’s advisors CPG, the ING Bank FRN was sold during August for $2,077,000.00. This was inclusive of accrued interest of $16,256.71. The sale of this FRN with lower yields to maturity enabled the switch into Suncorp-Metway FRN for the amount of $2,000,000.00 with a coupon margin over the bank bill swap rate (BBSW) of 94bpts.

 

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 quarterly.  The amortised amount to date is $613.66 bringing the book value to $2,984,293.66. The indicative market value for the bond as at the end of August is $3,203,610.00

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction:  Long term financial viability is achieved.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Funds are invested with the aim of achieving budgeted income in the 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 August 2014 amounted to $358,744.93.

 

Certification – Responsible Accounting Officer

 

I hereby certify that all investments as at 31 August 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.

 

Mitchel Woods

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Conclusion

 

All investments as at 31 August 2014 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Recommendation

 

That the investment report for August 2014 be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM83/14

 

 

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                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM84/14

 

 

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                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM85/14

 

 

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                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM86/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Crs D'Souza & Neilson - 150th Anniversary 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 150th Anniversary 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;

b)     acknowledges the important role that this Church has played in the lives of the residents of Randwick City over the past 150 years; 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 150th anniversary at its present site, with the cost of the function to be funded from the 2014-15 Contingency Fund.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM87/14

 

 

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                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM88/14

 

 

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                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM89/14

 

 

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                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM90/14

 

 

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                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM91/14

 

 

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                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM92/14

 

 

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                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM93/14

 

 

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                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM94/14

 

 

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                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM95/14

 

 

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                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM96/14

 

 

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                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM97/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr 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                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM98/14

 

 

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                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM99/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Building Design 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                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM100/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Andrews - Request for Clarification on Amalgamations

Folder No:                   F2004/06554

Submitted by:          Councillor Andrews, Central Ward      

 

 

That Council write to the Minister for Local Government and the Premier seeking clarification of the government’s policy on forced amalgamations and its relationship to the Fit for the Future package announcement made on 10 September 2014 (and in particular, whether the policy will apply beyond 30 June 2015).

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM101/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Recognition of Indigenous Australian Soliders

Folder No:                   F2008/00317

Submitted by:          Councillor Garcia, South Ward      

 

 

That Council:

 

1.     Recognise the contribution of the more than 1,000 indigenous Australians that fought in the First World War and those who fought in subsequent conflicts.

 

2.     Recognise the contribution of the many local indigenous Australian soldiers        who served in the First World War and subsequent conflicts.

 

3.     Recognise the discrimination many indigenous Australian soldiers faced upon     their return home including, for example, being prohibited from applying for       land under the soldier settlement scheme.

 

4.     Instruct the General Manager to liaise with the local indigenous community        and bring back a report to Council on ways in which the residents of Randwick    might commemorate the contribution of local indigenous Australian soldiers       including consideration of a permanent memorial or cenotaph.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM102/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Educating our residents on the dangers of illicit drugs

Folder No:                   F2004/07027

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward      

 

 

That Council:

a)     acknowledge that the use of Ice and other illicit drugs have become a serious   problem throughout all communities in Australia;

b)     bring back a report investigating ways on how to educate our residents and      children on the effects and dangers of taking illicit drugs; and


c)     as part of the report, find out what services are available in Randwick City to   help those with drug addiction and council use its resources to promote and aid      these services.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM103/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Council's position on amalgamations

Folder No:                   F2004/06554

Submitted by:          Councillor Bowen, East Ward      

 

In light of the recent Department of Local Government study rating Randwick Council as financially strong and the subsequent media reports indicating the Mayor of Randwick (Daily telegraph September 11 2014) was supporting amalgamations and had been in talks with the Mayors of Waverley and Woollahra Councils (SMH September 11 2014, that:

1.     this Council unambiguously state it is opposed to the amalgamation of      Randwick City Council;

2.     the Councillors affirm that they are opposed to amalgamation of Randwick       Council now and after the Council Election of 16 September 2016.

3.     the Council write to the State Members for Maroubra, Heffron and Coogee       and seek an assurance that there be no forced amalgamations of local      government after the 2016 Local Government Election.

4.     the Council immediately notify residents, ratepayers, businesses,     community        groups, sporting clubs, surf lifesaving clubs and council staff that this Council    does not support the amalgamation of Randwick Council.

 

5.     Council fund a public awareness campaign opposing any amalgamation of         Randwick Council.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM104/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Resident Parking Schemes

Folder No:                   F2004/07236

Submitted by:          Councillor Bowen, East Ward      

 

That, noting the increased parking pressures envisaged for the Council in the coming years, Council revise the current Resident Parking Scheme and initiate a new scheme, operative from 1 July 2015, whereby the first resident parking permit per household is free with additional costs to be incurred in relation to the second and subsequent parking permits to be increased to maintain the financial balance of the scheme overall.   

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                            23 September 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM105/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Recognition for The Stolen Generation

Folder No:                   F2004/06272

Submitted by:          Councillor Garcia, South Ward      

 

That Council:

 

1.     recognise the local members of the Stolen Generation - those local indigenous residents who were forcibly removed from their families by past Australian Federal and State government agencies.

 

2.     note the apology of the Commonwealth Government on 13 February 2008 and the then Prime Minister who said:

 

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

 

For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

 

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

 

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.

 

We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

 

3.     instruct the General Manager to liaise with the local indigenous community        and bring back a report to Council on ways in which the residents of Randwick    City might remember the stolen generation.

 

4.     request Council's Aboriginal and Torres Straight Island Advisory Committee to   give early consideration of the possible construction of a memorial garden to      the stolen generation.