Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 28 October 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                                                                                                 28 October 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, 28 October 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.”

 

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.

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 23 September 2014

Extraordinary Council Meeting - 30 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

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

Urgent Business


Director City Planning Reports (record of voting required)

CP102/14   5/80 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick (DA/327/2014)...................................... 1

CP103/14   12-14 Belmore Road, Randwick (DA/208/2014)....................................... 13

CP104/14   89 Boundary Street, Clovelly (DA/288/2013/A)........................................ 33

CP105/14   10 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/357/2014/A)................................. 47

Director City Planning Reports (record of NOT voting required)

CP106/14   Report variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 to 30 September, 2014....................... 57

CP107/14   State Government reforms to the domestic violence support services sector and Randwick City Council's awareness raising activities to stop domestic and family violence...................................................................................................... 61

General Manager's Reports

GM31/14   Randwick City Council 2014 Annual Report.............................................. 67

Director City Services Reports

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF60/14    Councillors' Access to Information and Interaction between Councillors and Staff Policy...................................................................................................... 71

GF61/14    Annual Review of Councillors' Expenses & Facilities Policy.......................... 81

GF62/14    2013-14 Disclosure of Interest Returns.................................................. 99

GF63/14    Investment Report - September 2014.................................................. 101

GF64/14    Coogee Bowling Club - Approach for Installation of a Group Fitness Centre on Premises - Community Consultation.................................................................... 109

GF65/14    Kingsford Food Market...................................................................... 117  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM115/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposed Economic Development Forum - Aboriginal Governance and the Creation/Establishment of Aboriginal Private Enterprises.................................................................................................... 123

NM116/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson - To ban Smoking on all Beaches in the city of Randwick from summer 2014 ............................................................ 125

NM117/14  Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Proposed Nurses Memorial................ 127

NM118/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Proposed Greeter Program in Randwick City        129

NM119/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Whale Watching Program .................. 131

NM120/14  Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Pop Up Shop................................... 133  

Closed Session (record of voting required)

CS19/14    Tender T2015-04 - Baker Park Tennis Courts Refurbishment

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.

 


Closed Session (record of voting NOT required)

GF66/14    23-27 Adina Avenue, Phillip Bay - Expression of Interest - September/October 2014

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (d) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

Notice of Rescission Motions

NR12/14    Notice of Rescission Motion from Councillors Bowen, Matson & Neilson - Development Application report - 15 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee (DA/191/2014)......... 135  

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP102/14

 

 

Subject:                  5/80 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick (DA/327/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/327/2014

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner      

 

Proposal:                              Alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building by addition of a roof attic level containing a bedroom, bathroom and terrace for Unit 5

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Celia Carroll

Owner:                        Kinen Lau

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview38421.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 


Proposal

 

The proposal is for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building by addition of an attic level for Unit 5. The attic addition contains a bedroom, bathroom and north facing terrace.

 

Amended plans were received by Council on 17 September 2014 to address the DRP recommendations.  The amended plans provide a pitched roof form to intergrate with the exisitng roof form, the wall height projection to the sides of the building have been reduced as a result of the pitched roof and a drop down ceiling is provided to the entry area.  The assessment is based on these amended plans.

 

Site description

 

The site is described as Lot A in DP 362230, known as Unit 5/80 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick. The subject and surrounding adjoining sites are zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential.  The site is restricted to 12 metres in height and 0.9:1 in floor space.  A significant portion of the surrounding developments within the vicinity exceeds the above numerical standards.

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Coogee Bay Road, with secondary frontage to Queen Street at the rear.  This site is rectangular in shape with a total site area of 670m².  The site has a frontage to Coogee Bay Road of 17.375m (south), a rear frontage to Queen Street of 17.375m (north) and boundary depth of 38.575m.  The site features a fall in topography toward the rear of the site to the effect of approximately four (4) metres.

 

The site is currently occupied by a 3 storey interwar style residential flat building containing 6 x 2 bedroom apartments with five garages fronting Queen Street to the rear. The front entry is on the eastern side of the building with direct access from Coogee Bay Road.  The communal open space is provided to the rear on a terrace above the garages.

 

The locality is predominantly occupied by a mixture of older style and 60s -70s style residential flat buildings, single and 2 storey semi-detached and detached dwelling housings.  Immediately to the east of the subject site at No. 262 Carrington Road is a 3 storey residential flat building and to the west at No. 24 Queen Street are single storey semi-detached dwelling houses.

 

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 one submission was received as a result of the notification process:

 

Unit 4/80 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

Noise pollution during construction

Concerned that the development will cause noise disruption and affect the quality of life of their tenant during construction.

 

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

 

Character of building

Concern the addition will have a negative effect on the original appearance of the building.

The additional attic level is limited in area (22m²) and the design has been amended to incorporate a pitched roof as recommended by the DRP in order for the addition to be compatible with the style of the existing building.

 

Further, the attic addition is positioned on the centre of the roof with the significant portion of the attic space being located within the roof area of the existing building and therefore, is not significantly visible from the street level. Furthermore, a condition is included within the consent which requires the colours, materials and finishes of the proposed addition to be consistent with the character and style of the existing building.

 

Structural concerns

Concern the extra load will affect the structure and foundations of the existing building.

A suitable condition is included within the consent which requires a certificate of adequacy to be prepared by a professional engineer to certify the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the proposed additional attic level.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Request to vary development standards

 

Clause 4.3 - Height of buildings

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

 

The ridge and roof profile of the existing building (RL 45.83) already exceeds the 12 metre height limit by 540mm at its southern end and 735mm at its northern hip end. The proposed development will further increase the maximum building height to 14.37m to the top of the roof attic addition for unit 5. The height of the proposal exceeds the 12 metre height limit by 2110mm at the southern end of the main ridge and 2370mm at the northern end of the ridge.

 

Clause 4.3 of the LEP nominates that the height of a building is not to exceed the maximum height on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum building height as shown on the map is 12m.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Maximum Height of Buildings

Development Standard

12m

Existing Building height

12.735m

Proposed Building height

14.37m (Northern end)

Excess above RLEP Standard

2.37m or 19.75%

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the maximum Height of Buildings standard are set out in clause 4.3 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

The applicant’s written justification for the departure from the standard is detailed below:

 

The development standard requires a height for the site of 12metres.

 

The height of the proposal exceeds the 12 metre height limit by 2110mm at the Southern end of the main ridge and 2370mm at the Northern end of the ridge. Due to the pitched roof form, this is the maximum height noncompliance, as the wall height of the attic level at the perimeter only exceeds the 12 metre height plane by 675mm at its Northern end, 415mm at the South. It has a maximum RL of 47.40. The existing ridge and roof profile of the building (RL 45.83) already exceeds the 12 metre height limit by 540mm at its Southern end and 735mm at its Northern hip

end. Thus the proposal represents an increased height non-compliance of a maximum 1570mm at the ridge.

 

Drawing below: Visual description of height non-compliance. Cropped from elevation, refer E02 of drawing set.

 

The proposed attic addition to the existing three storey brick building has a negligible impact on neighbours and the local neighbourhood.

 

It satisfies the relevant objectives of Clause 4.3’Building Height’ and the R3 Zone of the RLEP 2012;

 

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

The area within which the proposal is located, and the hillside behind the property to the South, is undergoing rapid densification and transition. Numerous examples of residential apartment buildings of up to 5 and 6 storeys within the same block on Coogee Bay Rd exist, including the building directly opposite the proposal, at 75-79 Coogee Bay Rd (5 storeys) and 57-67 Coogee Bay Rd ( 2 x 6 storeys). Thus the proposed addition to the existing three storey brick apartment building would not be out of scale.

 

(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 proposal does not impact on the amenity of adjoining blocks in terms of privacy,

overshadowing or views. The Shadow Diagrams (prepared by Deneb Design) for the original DA submission reveal the negligible impact of the proposal. The amended pitched roof proposal (which addresses SEPP 65 feedback) further decreases overshadowing as it has altered the mass, with the perimeter wall height reducing by over 700mm and the additional height limited to the central ridge. This ensures the majority of the additional shadow cast will be onto the building’s roof itself. Existing levels of daylight to neighbouring sites and their private outdoor spaces will be maintained.

 

The addition orientates major openings towards the Queen St Northern frontage, and the valley, so there are no privacy concerns for adjacent blocks. The design of the altered and added to residential flat building is consistent with the existing established built form context and will maintain the streetscape appearance of the site and locality. The addition has a very discrete street presence, significant side and street setbacks, ensures the appearance of the building is little affected, not even visible by a pedestrian from the Coogee Bay Road street frontage. Similarly due to the topography from Queen St and the pitched roof form, at the rear the line of sight means the proposal is primarily only visible from oblique views (refer drawing E02), with the top of the projecting volumes ridge barely visible from Queen street. The bulk and scale and maximum RL (47.40) of the modest addition is comparable to many flat buildings in the locality and does not set an undue precedent.

 

R3 Zoning objectives and Streetscape;

As part of the densification of the area, there are many new substantial contemporary residential flat buildings (which exceed the 12 metre height development standard) within the immediate vicinity, and additions and upgrades to existing flat buildings with various densities and architectural styles. It is considered the proposal sits very comfortably within this context and the desired character of the Residential R3 Medium Density zoning of the site and locality.

 

The proposed small addition, which increases urban density, has a very minor street presence, does not affect the amenity of other residents and diversifies the housing stock of the building, has no adverse externalities. Thus the proposal needs to be considered in relation to the changing demographic needs of the area and the need to embrace densification.

 

Clause 4.6 Exception to the Development Standard

Thus, we believe it is reasonable to depart from the Development Standard for Height as the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the RLEP12 Clause 4.3 Building Height. It is unnecessary to enforce the 12 metre height control as:

 

·      not only does the existing building already exceed it, the modest addition, less than 30 square metres in total roof area, has an appropriate height and mass relationship to the established, evolving and desired character of the locality. The immediate context is extremely dense and abounds with residential flat buildings of 3, 4, 5 and 6 storeys. The addition converts an interwar three storey brick apartment building to 4 storeys.

 

·      The pitched roof form limits the bulk of the additional height at the centre of the site, in line with the existing building ridge. The side walls of the addition, set well back from the building perimeter, only exceed the 12m height limit by a maximum of 675mm, which is below the existing ridge level of RL 45.83.

 

·      It is acceptable to contravene the standard as the minor increase in height and density that would result from this modest addition has no adverse effect on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, view loss or loss of privacy.

 

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

 

·      The non-complying portion of the attic addition is positioned on the centre of the roof with the significant portion of the attic space being located within the roof area of the existing building.  The attic addition therefore, will not be significantly visible from both street levels nor will it contribute to any significant adverse privacy, view loss or overshadowing impacts. The shadow diagrams demonstrate that the proposed development will have negligible impact on adjoining properties as majority of the additional shadow will cast onto the subject building’s roof. The development will continue to present as a 3 storey form to Coogee Bay Road and Queen Street, consistent with the existing character of the street.

 

·      The proposed building height is compatible with the scale and height of other similar residential flat buildings within the immediate area and will not detract from the established attributes of the residential area.

 

·      The proposed FSR on the site complies with the development standard under the current LEP 2012.

 

·      The development incorporates a pitched roof with lower wall height and the side walls are setback substantial distance from the main building footprint, which also aids in reducing the visual bulk of the proposal.  This aspect of the design was recommended by the Design Review Panel and is considered an appropriate urban design outcome.

 

·      Other environmental impacts resulting from the development are considered to be acceptable and comply with the relevant objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 as discussed in the compliance report and in following sections of this report.

 

·      It cannot be argued that concurrence to this variation is in conflict with the objectives of the R3 zone as approval would not impact on the amenity of surrounding residents or adversely impact on the desirable elements of the existing streetscape or character of the area.

 

Based on the above, it is considered the proposed development will be in the public interest as it will remain consistent with the objectives of the R3 Zone and the building height standard. 

 

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 portion of the building that breeches the height limit 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 of Buildings standard which are:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

•    To protect the amenity of residents.

•    To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposed development is permissible within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone of RLEP 2012. It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is sympathetic to the existing developed environment and built form and will not result in unacceptable impacts on the amenity of residents.

 

The proposal has been designed with consideration of surrounding amenity, seeking to minimise environmental impacts upon neighbouring sites. The proposed built form serves to maintain the desirable attributes of the existing and desired future character of the residential area.

 

The 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 Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for the maximum allowable height of buildings in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical height standard in this case will not be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary, in this case, for maintaining the medium density housing forms, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RCDCP 2013)

 

Part C2: Medium Density Residential

External Wall Height:

The applicant seeks to vary the development standard for the maximum height of buildings contained in clause 4.3(2) of RLEP 2012 and has submitted a Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standards as detailed above. It is considered that the relevant objectives in RLEP 2012 are satisfied and the departure from the standard is well founded.

 

Objectives for the external wall height control include ensuring the provision of interesting roof forms which are compatible with the street and the minimisation of bulk in order to limit overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity impacts.

 

The DCP control limits the external wall height to 10.5m. The maximum wall height of the attic level at the perimeter only exceeds the control by 675mm at its northern end, 415mm at the southern end.

 

The non-compliance is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·         The main roof form of the building will not be altered. The new pitched roof addition (as recommended by the DRP) is not significantly visible from the streetscape and will not create significant bulk to the existing roof form. The development incorporates low wall heights and the side walls of the attic addition are well setback from the main building footprint, which aids in reducing the visual bulk of the proposal from the streetscape and adjoining properties. The existing external wall height that is currently visible from the street complies with the maximum wall height control.

 

·         The proposed ceiling height of 2.7m for the habitable rooms and inclusion of north and east facing window and door openings in the attic level adequately promote light and quality of internal spaces, which has been supported by the DRP.

 

·         The additional area will not contribute to any significant adverse privacy, view loss or overshadowing impacts. The shadow diagrams demonstrate that the proposed development will have negligible impact on adjoining properties as majority of the additional shadow cast will be onto the subject building’s roof.  The addition orientates the terrace and majority of the window and door openings towards the Queen Street frontage.  Any overlooking will mainly be of the roof top areas of adjoining properties and will be obscured by the existing roof on the subject site, so there are no significant privacy concerns to adjacent properties. 

 

Having regard to the above assessment, departure from the external wall height requirement of Council’s DCP is supported.

 

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

The panel has reviewed the proposed development and a number of recommendations have been made to improve the overall design of the development.

Amended plans have been received addressing majority of the recommendations made by the Design Review panel.  A pitched roof has been adopted as suggested by the panel, however a metal roof is proposed rather than a tiled roof.  The metal roof is proposed to be in a sympathetic colour to the existing tiles.  Whilst the panel has suggested that a tiled roof would be more sympathetic to the building design the proposed metal roof is considered to be acceptable given that there are other metal roof designs within the area and the roof will not be significantly noticeable from the streetscape.  A condition is included to ensure that the colour of the metal roof is consistent with the roof colour of the existing building.

 

Windows are provided to the bathroom and stairway and appropriate sun and weather protection is provided to all window and door openings.

 

A dropped ceiling at the entry has been provided as per the recommendations of the panel.

 

Council is satisfied that the amended plans submitted satisfactorily addresses the recommendations made by the Design Review Panel. 

 

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 seeks to vary the building height standard under Clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012. The proposed development has merit and is considered to compatible with the height, bulk and scale of other residential flat buildings in the neighbourhood. Relevant controls and objectives within Randwick DCP 2013 are satisfied and environmental impacts have been assessed as being acceptable, subject to proposed conditions of consent. The scale and design of the proposal is considered to be suitable for the location and compatible with the surrounding streetscape.

 

The scale and amended design of the proposal has been commended by the Design Review Panel.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.3(2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Height of Buildings, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/327/2014 for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building by addition of a roof attic level containing a bedroom, bathroom and terrace for Unit 5 at No. 80 Coogee Bay Road, subject to the following non standard condition and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

          External Colours, Materials & Finishes

2.     The external colours, materials, finishes of the building including roof are required to match, as closely as possible, the existing building and the metal roof sheeting shall be pre-painted (e.g. Colourbond) to limit the level of reflection and glare.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 5/80 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP103/14

 

 

Subject:                  12-14 Belmore Road, Randwick (DA/208/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/208/2014

Author:                   Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of all structures, construction of part 3, part 4 level building containing ground level commercial, 4 residential units, 12 boarding house rooms with communal laundry, kitchen and lounge, bicycle parking and associated works (Heritage Conservation Area) (variation sought to requirement to provide motorcycle parking and to maximum height control)

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Primus DMS Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Nileey Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview38513.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application is referred to the Council for consideration as the estimated cost of development is $2.37 million and the application involves a departure from a development standard of greater than 10% for motorcycle parking.

Proposal

The proposal is for the demolition of all structures, construction of part 3, part 4 level building containing ground level bank, 4 residential units, 12 boarding house rooms with communal laundry, kitchen and lounge, bicycle parking and associated works

 

The development is broken up as follows:

 

Ground floor:

·         Commercial premises to be used as a bank, plant and rear laundry, bin storage and landscaped area to boarding house and central stairs to upper levels.

Level 1

·         Void to commercial, communal and outdoor area and boarding rooms 1and 2.

Level 2

·         Units 1 and 2 (1 Bedroom Units), central stair boarding rooms 3-7 and rear fire stairs.

Level 3

·         Units 3 and 4 (2 bedroom units), central stair boarding rooms 8-12 and rear fire stairs.

Level 4

·         Mezzanine level to units 3 and 4.

 

The development presents as a three storey development to Belmore Road with a recessed fourth level to residential units and the rear 4 storey boarding house component.

 

No parking is proposed or able to be provided on site.

 

Since lodgement of the original application, a number of amendments have been made including:

 

·         Reduction of the gross floor area of the development by 41m2.

·         Reduction in the height of the development from RL79.78 to RL79.03 in the centre of the site and RL79.78 to RL78.78 at the front of the rear boarding house component.

·         Reduction in the total number of units from 5 to 4.

·         Realignment of the façade of the uppermost level to be parallel to Belmore Road and façade treatment to enhance compatibility with adjoining contributory buildings.

·         Deletion of balconies on the uppermost residential floor level.

·         Relocation of the bicycle storage, laundry and bin storage areas to provide for a better through entry from Belmore Road.

·         Several internal modifications in accordance with DRP comments and recommendations.

 

Site and locality

The site is located on the western side of Belmore Road between Alison Road and Silver Street Randwick. The land has a frontage of 11.29m to Belmore Road and a total site area of 398m2. The site falls away from Belmore road to the west approximately 2m over the entire depth of the site representing a gradient of about 6%. The site is landlocked to the north south and west other than access to a pedestrian ROW in the north eastern corner of the site.

 

A part 1 and part 2 storey commercial building occupied by the ANZ bank exists on the site. To the north is a 2 storey commercial building fronting Belmore Road and 2 storey shop top housing development fronting Alison Road. To the west is a 2 storey commercial and shop top housing development with on the corner of Alison Road and Elizabeth Street.

 

The locality is occupied by commercial developments and shop top housing in the Randwick Junction shopping centre tending to medium density residential to the north and including parks and churches within immediate proximity of the site.

 

Figure 1: Subject site

Figure 2: View of development opposite subject site in Belmore Road to the east

Figure 3; Adjoining developments to the south

Figure 4: Adjoining development to the north

 

Figure 5 Adjoining development to the west fronting Elizabeth Street

 

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:

 

153-155 Alison Road, Randwick

Issue

Comment

Concern over the potential for intensification of usage of the pedestrian ROW.

The pedestrian ROW is to be used for egress purposes only in the event of an emergency. A condition is included in the recommendation requiring that the security gate to this ROW allow for emergency exit only. Similarly, a condition requiring that the plan of management be amended to include this restriction is also included in the recommendation.

It appears that stormwater will pass along this ROW.

The plans have been amended to preclude the use of the ROW for drainage purposes.

Concern that the fire egress stair at the rear of the property will affect redevelopment potential of the property to the west at 153 – 155 Alison Road Randwick.

See Key Issues section of this executive summary.

 

Key Issues

 

Request to vary development standard

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

 

 

Height

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Height

Development Standard

12m

Proposal

12.78

Excess above RLEP Standard

6.5%

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the height standard are set out in clause 4.3 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

CLAUSE 4.6(3)(a) - IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARD UNREASONABLE AND UNNECESSARY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE?

 

4.1     Randwick LEP 2012 aims

 

Clause 1.2(2) of LEP 2012 contains the following aims:

 

(a) to foster a liveable city that is accessible, safe and healthy with quality public spaces and attractive neighbourhoods and centres,

(b) to support a diverse local economy and business and employment opportunities for the community,

(c) to support efficient use of land, vibrant centres, integration of land use and transport, and an appropriate mix of uses,

(d) to achieve a high standard of design in the private and public domain that enhances the quality of life of the community,

(e) to promote sustainable transport, public transport use, walking and cycling,

(f)  to facilitate sustainable population and housing growth,

(g) to encourage the provision of housing mix and tenure choice, including affordable and adaptable housing, that meets the needs of people of different ages and abilities in Randwick,

(h) to promote the importance of ecological sustainability in the planning and development process,

(i)   to protect, enhance and promote the environmental qualities of Randwick,

(j)   to ensure the conservation of the environmental heritage, aesthetic and coastal character of Randwick,

(k)  to acknowledge and recognise the connection of Aboriginal people to the area and to protect, promote and facilitate the Aboriginal culture and heritage of Randwick,

(l)   to promote an equitable and inclusive social environment,

(m)       to promote opportunities for social, cultural and community activities.

 

The proposed development is consistent with relevant aims, as follows:

 

·          the proposal incorporates a new building within the Randwick Junction Town Centre, which is highly accessible and adds to the streetscape appeal of the locality (aim a);

·          the proposal incorporates new ground floor retail floorspace (aim b);

·          the proposal incorporates the efficient development of the site, incorporating retail, boarding house and residential accommodation in a highly accessible location (aim c);

·          the proposed new development has been designed to incorporate public and private areas, which will enjoy excellent levels of amenity (aim d);

·          the site is located in a highly accessible location, and a surplus of onsite bicycle parking is proposed, to encourage future occupants to ride rather than drive. The site’s location will also encourage walking and public transport usage (aim e);

·          the proposal incorporates new residential accommodation, to add to the stock of housing in the locality (aim f);

·          the proposal incorporates affordable housing as well as a range of residential dwellings to provide diversity and appeal to a range of demographics (aim g);

·          the proposal achieves environmental sustainability, through passive thermal design, cross flow ventilation, solar penetration and thermal mass (aim h);

·          the proposal will replace an existing unsympathetic building with a new form which will contribute to the quality of the Belmore Road Heritage Conservation Area (aims I and j); and

·          the provision of affordable housing will encourage an equitable local environment (aim l).

 

In this regard, the proposal meets the aims of LEP 2012, despite the non-compliance with Clause 4.3 of LEP 2012 and Clause 30(1)(h) of the AHSEPP.

 

4.2     Local Centre B2 Zone objectives

 

The site is located in the B2 Local Centre zone. The objectives of the B2 zone are as follows:

 

(a) “To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

(b) To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

(c) To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

(d) To enable residential development that is well-integrated with, and supports the primary business function of, the zone.

(e) To facilitate a high standard of urban design and pedestrian amenity that contributes to achieving a sense of place for the local community.

(f)  To minimise the impact of development and protect the amenity of residents in the zone and in the adjoining and nearby residential zones.

(g) To facilitate a safe public domain.”

 

The proposed development is consistent with the abovestated zone objectives, as follows:

 

•          the proposal incorporates a boarding house and new bank, which will cater to the demands of the local population;

•          the proposal will maintain a commercial use at the site, thereby ensuring ongoing employment opportunities in this highly accessible location;

•          the proposal incorporates twenty-six (26) bicycle parking racks, thereby encouraging future occupants to cycle or walk, rather than drive. Furthermore, bus stops are located immediately adjacent to the site’s front boundary, ensuring convenience for future occupants;

•          the proposal incorporates boarding house and residential accommodation which will support the primary commercial function of the development and its location within the commercial centre;

•          the proposal incorporates high quality architecture and urban design, as discussed throughout this report and as can be seen in the documentation accompanying this DA. The quality and design will ensure that the proposed development contributes to the amenity of the local streetscape and pedestrian amenity will be maintained, with the proposed new shopfront;

•          the proposal has no unreasonable adverse amenity impacts in relation to nearby residents, as discussed throughout this report; and

•          the proposal will rejuvenate the site and introduce a new residential population to the locality. This will ensure that passive surveillance over the public domain in the vicinity of the site occurs, thereby adding to the safety and security of the public domain.

 

In this regard, the proposal meets the objectives of the zone, despite the non-compliance with Clause 4.3 of LEP 2012 and Clause 30(1)(h) of the AHSEPP.

 

4.3     Clause 4.3 Objectives

 

The objectives of the Building Height Development Standard at Clause 4.3 of LEP 2012 are as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

The proposed development is consistent with these objectives, as follows:

 

•    DCP 2013 identifies the buildings to the north, south and east of the site as being Contributory Buildings within the Randwick Junction Heritage Conservation Area. The site itself is not identified as having any significance. Section D3 of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 relates to Randwick Junction and Section 4 contains the following comments in relation to development affecting Heritage Items and Contributory Buildings:

 

§ “Contributory buildings should be retained. Original fabric should be conserved, new work should be sensitive, and neighbouring development should be sympathetic to their character. “Facadism” (the retention of only the outer skin of a building) is not acceptable as suitable conservation practice.”

 

Having regard to this DCP control, the proposal is considered acceptable. The proposed new development is sensitive to the neighbouring development, in terms of form and scale. The proposed upper level will not be readily apparent from the public domain, as can be seen from the photomontages and streetscape elevations accompanying this DA. In this regard, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the desired future character of the locality, despite the non-compliance (objective a);

•          the adjoining contributory buildings comprise two (2) storeys, within what is essentially a three (3) storey scale, due to their generous parapets. The proposed development incorporates a parapet which ties in appropriately with the parapets of the nearby buildings. The setting back of the upper level ensures that the parapets are the dominant visual element in the streetscape, and that the upper level does not detract from this (objective b); and

•          the proposal does not unreasonably impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land, in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views, as follows:

the proposal does not create any significant or unreasonable visual bulk. Furthermore, the proposed upper level is situated so as to minimise its visibility from the rear yards of neighbouring properties;

the proposed upper level is oriented to the east (Belmore Road) and will therefore not create any overlooking of neighbouring properties;

detailed shadow diagrams have been prepared, showing the impacts of the proposal and a complying scheme, on neighbouring properties. The diagrams show that the impacts from the proposed development are commensurate to those of a complying development, in terms of overshadowing of adjoining properties. In this regard, requiring the proposal to comply with the maximum 12m building height Standard, would have no benefit in terms of improving solar access to nearby properties; and

there are no known views or vistas which will be affected by the proposal (objective c).

 

In this regard, the proposal meets the objectives of Clause 4.3 of LEP 2012, despite the non-compliance.

 

 

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 height of the building which exceeds the maximum height is recessed from Belmore Road frontage enabling a streetscape presentation of the proposed development compatible with adjoining buildings. To the rear the building is compatible with developments of similar or greater height in Elizabeth Street and further to the west. As such the proposed development is consistent with the existing development and desired future character of the area.

·      As detailed in the proposal section of this report the design has been amended to achieve a development that that is compatible with the scale and character of surrounding contributory buildings.

·      The excess of the proposed development in height is relatively minor and will not create significant additional impact on adjoining properties in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

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

 

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

The proposal has been carefully designed to achieve the planning objectives for the locality and to fit in with the scale and character of development in the immediate context, whilst minimising potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties. 

 

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

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the height standard. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (B2 Local Centre) are:

                                                                                                       

•    To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

•    To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

•    To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

•    To enable residential development that is well-integrated with, and supports the primary business function of, the zone.

•    To facilitate a high standard of urban design and pedestrian amenity that contributes to achieving a sense of place for the local community.

•    To minimise the impact of development and protect the amenity of residents in the zone and in the adjoining and nearby residential zones.

•    To facilitate a safe public domain.

 

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it provides a well-integrated mixed use development including affordable housing in a built form that does not impact adversely on the amenity of nearby 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 the B2 Local centre zone.

 

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the

Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

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

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director- General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for the maximum allowable FSR of buildings in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical height standard will not be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. However, strict adherence to the numerical standard will be unnecessary in this case for maintaining the built forms envisaged under the LEP for the site and locality.

 

Request to vary development standard

Clause 30 (h) of the ARH SEPP requires the provision of 1 motorcycle space for every 5 boarding rooms resulting in a requirement for 2.4 spaces. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

Motorcycle Space Provision

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Motorcycle Space Provision

Development Standard

1 Space per 5 Boarding Rooms

Required

2.4 spaces

Proposal

0 space

% of Non-Compliance

100%

 

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 Envrironment 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. Whilst there are no stated objectives in this instance it is generally understood that the intention of this standard is to promote the provision of alternative means of transport.

 

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

 

·      The site is landlocked to the north, south and west and access is undesirable from Belmore Road in a very busy section with a bus stop immediately in front of the site.

·      The applicant has made unsuccessful attempts to purchase the property to the rear which would have allowed for provision of the required motorcycle parking at the rear of the site.

·      The proposal provides 13 bicycle spaces (in lieu of the required 2.4 spaces) to compensate for the shortfall of motorcycle spaces.

·      The site is located adjacent to bus stops providing excellent availability of alternative means of transport.

·      There is sufficient on street availability to accommodate the required number of motorcycle spaces.

 

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 development is ideally located in term of available alternative public transport being located with bus stops in front and opposite the site with services to the CBD, surrounding areas and beaches.

·    The provision of motorcycle parking within the residential entry, in this instance, does not provide for a desirable urban outcome.

 

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 relevant standard. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (B2 Local Centre) are:

                                                                                                       

•   To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

•   To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

•   To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

•   To enable residential development that is well-integrated with, and supports the primary business function of, the zone.

•   To facilitate a high standard of urban design and pedestrian amenity that contributes to achieving a sense of place for the local community.

•   To minimise the impact of development and protect the amenity of residents in the zone and in the adjoining and nearby residential zones.

•   To facilitate a safe public domain.

 

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it provides a well-integrated mixed use development including affordable housing in a built form that does not impact adversely on the amenity of nearby 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 the B2 Local centre zone.

 

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the

Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

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

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director- General of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for the maximum allowable FSR of buildings in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical 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 built forms envisaged under the LEP for the site and locality.

Car Parking

The proposed development currently has no parking provision on site and the proposed development does not seek to provide any additional parking. This aspect has been reviewed by Council’s Development Engineer and determined to be acceptable in the circumstances for a number of reasons. The following is a reproduction of the comments received:

 

Summary

The lack of any vehicle or motorbike parking is of significant concern to Development Engineering although it is recognised that there does appear to be a number of alternative sustainable transport options available. In consideration of this, the lack of parking alone may not be sufficient grounds for refusal.

 

Engineering and Landscape conditions have therefore been attached to this report which include conditions relating to parking permits that are intended to actively discourage vehicle ownership/use and minimise the impacts on the availability of on-street parking.

 

There will also be unavoidable parking impacts during the demolition and construction phase of the development due to the relocation of a bus stop and installation of a works zone. It is intended to minimise these, by restricting the work zone length and reinstatement of some kerb side parking to the south (near commonwealth bank) after the temporary relocation of the bus stop.

 

Further discussion and detail of the parking issues is provided below.

 

PARKING PROVISION

Applying the parking rates specified in the SEPP (Affordable housing) and Part B7 of Council’s DCP 2013, the proposal is required to provide the following parking provision (including motorbike and bicycle parking).

 

Vehicle Parking

·      2.4 spaces for boarding house (0.2 spaces/room - accessible area, no caretaker)

·      4.4 spaces for residential units (2 x 2Bedroom + 2 x 1Bedroom)

·      1.0 visitor space residential (1 per 4 units)

·      4.9 spaces for commercial ( 1 space per 40m2 for 196m2)

 

Total = 12.7

 

Motorbike Parking

·      2.4 motorcycle spaces for boarding house (0.2 spaces per room)

·      0.27 motorcycle spaces for residential (5% of vehicle parking)

·      0.25 motorcycle spaces for commercial (5% of vehicle parking)

 

Total = 2.92

 

Bicycle Parking

 

·      2.4 bicycle spaces for boarding house (0.2 space per room)

·      2 bicycle spaces for residential (1 space per 2 units)

·      0.5 bicycle spaces for commercial (1 space per 10 car spaces)

 

Total = 4.9

 

TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED = (rounded to the nearest whole number)

 

·      13 vehicle parking spaces

·      3 motorcycle spaces

·      5 bicycle spaces

 

TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED = 13 bicycle spaces (No vehicle or motorbike parking provided)

 

SEPP (Affordable Housing) Parking Comments

The assessing officer is advised that Regulation 30(h) of the SEPP Affordable Housing states that consent authorities must not consent to development unless at least one parking space is provided for a bicycle and one for a motorcycle for every 5 boarding rooms.

 

The proposed development complies with the bicycle parking but is unable to meet its requirement for motorbike parking. As the number of boarding rooms is 12, a minimum provision of 2 motorbike spaces is required.

 

A Clause 4.6 objection has been received to vary this aspect which references the Land and Environment Court Decision File No. 10930 of 2011 between Rosen vs City of Sydney Council [2012] NSWLEC 1124. In this matter the court accepted that SEPP 1 was available to vary the numerical standard in relation to motorcycle parking. It is recommended the SEPP 1 variation therefore be referred to Council’s solicitors to determine if it is equally applicable for the subject site.

 

Vehicle Parking Comments

As the proposal involves the complete demolition of the existing premises and construction of a new building, parking credits are generally not applicable and Development Engineering would expect the proposed development to comply with its parking obligations. It is noted however that the proposed use of the commercial tenancy as a bank is a continuation of the existing use of the premises and hence there is an argument that only the additional parking demand created by the proposed units and boarding house need be considered,. This deficiency, which is approximately 8 spaces, is generally considered to be grossly excessive & there is concern it may establish an undesirable precedent in this locality.

 

It should also be noted that there will also be considerable parking impacts during the period of demolition and construction works due to the necessary relocation of the bus stop and establishment of a work zone on Belmore Road.

 

In consideration of the vehicle & motorbike parking deficiency the following characteristics of the site should be noted;

 

·      As no other street frontage is available, the provision of vehicle or motorbike parking would necessitate the construction of a vehicle crossing on Belmore Road. This would be undesirable from a pedestrian safety and streetscape perspective, especially when considering its location adjacent to a busy bus stop.

 

·      In pre-lodgement advice it was suggested that approaches be made to the western neighbour so as to acquire road frontage to Elizabeth Street to provide opportunity for off-street parking. The SEE states that this was undertaken but all offers were rejected. Evidence of this has been provided.

 

·      The site is located immediately adjacent to a bus stop in Belmore Road that has excellent links to numerous destinations including the city, Bondi Junction, Coogee and Maroubra. The terminus for the future light rail link will also be approximately 450m to the south in High Cross Park. Another light rail station  will also be approximately 450m to the west on Wansey Road

 

·      There are car share bays operated by GoGET carshare nearby in Silver Street, Church St and Botany Street.

 

·      There are cycleways nearby on Botany St(on road) and Wansey Road (off road).

 

·      The site is situated within Randwick Town Centre and easy walking distance of many local amenities including Randwick Shopping Village, Alison Park, Randwick Library. University of NSW and Prince of Wales Hospital.

 

·      The proposed development has provided 13 bicycle spaces significantly exceeding Council’s DCP & SEPP requirements for bicycle parking.

 

·      In combination with the site’s geometric constraints and planning controls it is likely that any reasonable development on the site will not be able to comply with its parking obligations.

 

·      Future occupants of the boarding house and units will be fully aware of the lack of off-street parking which should naturally deter people with vehicles. Clause 2.4 of Part B7 of Council’s DCP should also be noted ;

 

Ø Council will not issue any residential parking permits to occupants/tenants of the development and this fact must be notified to all prospective owners and tenants of the building.

 

Ø A notice shall be placed in the foyer/common areas of the building advising tenants/occupiers that they are in a building which does not qualify for on-street resident parking exemptions.

 

To reinforce this, and to ensure that occupiers to not impact on availability of on-street parking it is recommended the above requirements be conditioned in any consent. Appropriate conditions have been included in this report.

 

Having regard to the above comments, the departure from the parking provision for vehicles and motor cycles is supported. The inclusion of a boarding house component in this location is considered ideal and results in a lesser deficiency than would otherwise result from a conventional shop top housing style development on the site.

 

Heritage Controls, Built Form and Relationship to Surrounding Developments

Given the contributory nature of immediately adjoining developments and the site’s inclusion in the Randwick Junction heritage conservation area, the presentation of the development to Belmore Road is considered to be of critical importance. In this regard the proposal has been amended on several occasions to achieve an upper level setback of 4.47m (see south elevation) which will have the effect of limiting the immediacy of the building to Belmore Road and obscuring significantly the visual bulk of the development to this frontage. Council’s heritage officer has reviewed this aspect and has supported the plan in its final form: The following is a reproduction of the comments received:

 

Comments

Demolition of existing building

The Urban Design Study of Randwick and The Spot prepared by Knox and Tanner in 1994 identified the building as dating from 1960s/1970s, and considered it as detracting from the streetscape.  Earlier buildings were demolished and the existing building was constructed in around 1950 as a Woolworths Variety Store.  There are no heritage objections to the proposed demolition of the existing building. 

 

          Proposed infill building

In relation to siting and setbacks, the proposal adopts a T-shaped building footprint comprising apartments at the front of the site, with zero setbacks from the front and side boundaries, and boarding house rooms at the rear of the site, in the form of a rear wing set back from the northern side boundary, with an access balcony along the southern side boundary.  The proposed siting and setbacks reproduces one of the predominant building typologies in the heritage conservation area and reinforces the street wall of buildings along Belmore Road. 

 

The original application proposed a 2 bedroom unit with front balcony on the top level.  The current application proposes mezzanine units with bedroom, ensuite and void area to the 2 units below.  The original application had a stepped front elevation (set back between 4.2m and 7.2m) with a straight balcony edge parallel to the street façade (set back 3.8m).  The current application has a straight front elevation set back 3.8m.  The height of the top level has also been lowered by around 800mm.  The detailing and external materials treatment has also been changed, with zinc cladding and narrower edge frame. 

 

The photomontage of the proposed development indicates that the proposed top floor level will be visible in the streetscape above the parapets of the proposed development and surrounding buildings.  The more simplified massing and detailing of the top level however will be a recessive element in the skyline and will not compete with the stepped and curved edges of the parapets to adjacent contributory buildings. 

 

The original application proposed recessed balconies to levels two and three, reproducing the façade of traditional buildings, although the 1m depth was probably insufficient for useability.  The current application has amended the size and configuration of lower level balconies to provide triangular recessed balconies of more useable dimensions. 

 

As compared to the earlier façade elevations, the current façade elevations have slightly altered the finishes and detailing of framing elements, spandrel, balustrades and screening.  The proposed horizontal and vertical façade divisions, as well as the solid balcony balustrades and sliding louvred metal screens articulate the upper level façade. 

 

While the existing building comprises a single storey building with a high blank parapet, adjacent contributory buildings comprise two storeys with parapets.  High decorative parapets are a characteristic feature of the Victorian, Edwardian and Inter-war buildings in the heritage conservation area.  Proposed divisions for the new façade will not assist in integrating the new façade with the horizontal lines on adjacent buildings which emphasise window sill and window head levels and break up the expanses of the generous parapets.  While more emphasis could be given to the horizontal lines of the new façade, the façade design is evidence of the difficulty of integrating a three storey façade in a two storey streetscape.  It is noted that the existing building through its solid rendered appearance also provides an interruption in the highly detailed face brick facades of adjacent buildings.

 

The comments conclude with suggested conditions which have been included in the recommendation.

 

To enable a satisfactory assessment of the proposed development in the context of existing and likely future developments on surrounding properties the applicant was requested to provide a master plan analysis. This analysis provided probable, possible and unlikely scenarios. The proposal which incorporates a minimal setback to the southern boundary and a siting of the fire stairs to the western boundary has been comprehensively addressed in the compliance report and represents an acceptable form of development without unreasonably compromising the potential redevelopment outcomes on surrounding properties.

 

The Land and Environment Court in the case of Karavellas v Sutherland Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 251 established planning a principle in relation potential amalgamation of sites for redevelopment to ensure that surrounding redevelopment potential is assessed and the isolation of lots is avoided. The court asks two questions as follows:

 

·      Firstly, is amalgamation of the sites feasible?

·   Secondly, can orderly and economic use and development of the separate sites be achieved if amalgamation is not feasible?

 

In this instance the applicant has provided written documentation of attempts to purchase the property adjoining the site to the rear at 153 -155 Alison Road, Randwick which have been unsuccessful. Additionally, the master plan analysis demonstrates that whilst amalgamation would be desirable, development of the subject site will not unreasonably compromise redevelopment of that site. Therefore the principle of the Court is satisfied in the form of the proposed development.

 

Use of Rear Fire Stairs and Pedestrian ROW

The proposal incorporates a rear fire stair egress sited to the southern and western boundaries of the site. The acceptability in terms of built form and associated impacts in regard to visual bulk, scale, height and overshadowing is addressed in the compliance report and considered acceptable. Notwithstanding to ensure that the use of the stairs and the ROW does not cause any potential amenity impacts on existing likely future forms of development on surrounding properties, the use of the stairs and the pedestrian ROW should be restricted for emergency purposes only and the plan of management should highlight this restriction to residents. Appropriate conditions are 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 proposed development is assessed as acceptable and is supported.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliances with Clause 4.3 (2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Clause 30 (h) of  SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, relating to Height of Buildings and Minimum Provision of Motorcycle Parking 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. 208/2014 for demolition of all structures, construction of part 3, part 4 level building containing ground level bank, 4 residential units, 12 boarding house rooms with a communal laundry, kitchen and lounge, bicycle parking and associated works at No. 12-14 Belomore Road, 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 landscaped area at the rear north western corner of the site is to be increased in size to provide a deep soil area of the following minimum dimensions:

 

•      East to west from the outer face of the plant room: 5.8m

•      North south from the northern site boundary: 1.5m

 

The deep soil area is to be landscaped in accordance with a landscape plan prepared by an accredited landscape architect in accordance with plans submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Development prior to issue of a construction certificate.

b.     The security gate to the pedestrian ROW is to be provided with a locking system which allows for exit (in the case of emergency) only. This access is not to be used a means of entry to the premises. Details are to be included in the construction certificate.

c.     The use of the rear fire stairs to the boarding house component shall be restricted for emergency use only. The plan of management is to be amended to highlight this restriction to residents. The amended plan of management is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Development Services prior to issue of the construction certificate.

 

84.   The rear fire stairs to the boarding house and external security gate to the pedestrian ROW is to be used in the event of emergency only.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report 12-14 Belmore Road, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP104/14

 

 

Subject:                  89 Boundary Street, Clovelly (DA/288/2013/A)

Folder No:                   DA/288/2013/A

Author:                   Shona Porter, Development Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 (2) application to modify the approved development consent by altering the internal layout, increasing the size of the ground floor level bedrooms including rear extension of the ground floor ensuite, extension of the rear first floor balcony roof, new cupboard addition on the western side of the rear first floor balcony and alterations to window openings

 

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Jamisa Design Architects C/- Jamie Grounds

Owner:                        Martin Gardiner

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application is referred to the Council for consideration as requested by Councillors Neilson, Bowen, Matson and Shurey.

 

1.         Proposal

 

The proposal seeks consent for the following modifications:

 

Lower Ground Floor

§  Correction of typographical errors shown for the swimming pool to RL41.345

§  Internal alterations to relocate the wardrobe

 

Ground Floor

§  Extension of approved ensuite towards the southern side with associated window on the western elevation

§  Extension of bedroom 3 and ensuite towards the western boundary by 300mm

 

First Floor

§  Extension of roof towards the eastern side of the building and removal of the associated balcony posts

§  Construction of a storage cupboard on the western side of the rear first floor balcony

 

2.         The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 34 DP 5607, 89 Boundary Street, Clovelly. The site is located on the southern side of Boundary Street, between Blackwood Avenue and Park Street, and is adjacent to Waverley Cemetery. The site is rectangular in shape. Dimensions and land area of the site are provided in the table below:

 

 Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, front boundary

9.15m

349.80m2

 

 

 

Southern, rear boundary

9.15m

Eastern, side boundary

38.25m

Western, side boundary

38.25m

 

The topography of the site includes a significant fall from the street to the rear with a total fall of approximately 6m (from RL45.78 to RL39.73). A sewer line runs across the width of the site towards the rear.

 

The subject site is currently occupied by a part one/part two storey dwelling with a driveway along the western boundary from Boundary Street and a retaining wall at the rear. The surrounding streetscape is primarily residential with a mix of part two/part three storey dwellings that appear as part one/part two storey dwellings when viewed from the street, due to the sloping topography of the street. The locality is generally undergoing redevelopment into larger dwellings featuring predominantly modern architecture style. Ocean and headland views are accessible from Boundary Street.

 

Under Clause 6.7 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012), the site is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

3.     
Relevant Background

 

DA/288/2013   On 31 October 2013, development approval was granted for demolition of major portion of existing dwelling, construction of new part 2/part 3 storey dwelling with car port and garage to front, swimming pool to rear and associated works.

 

4.         Submissions

 

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

 

A)     Letters of Support

Three submissions of support have been received from 19 Blackwood Avenue, 91 Boundary Street and 93 Boundary Street.

B)     Objections

21 Blackwood Avenue

Issue

Comment

Pool RL discrepancies and non-compliance with RDCP 2013 regarding pool protrusion.

The application seeks to resolve a typographical error only in relation to the pool level as shown on the approved plans. The correct level is RL41.345, which is consistent with the level measured off the approved plans, and no actual level changes are proposed within the subject application. See further discussion under section 6 - ‘Typographical Error Correction‘.

 

Accurate survey plan was not submitted.

The submission makes reference to a survey plan undertaken by the objector which shows different RL’s to the survey obtained for the subject site. The contesting survey has not been attached to the submission, and does not give details as to the extent of the variation. The detail survey/ site analysis plan submitted with the original development application was completed using a survey plan drawn by a qualified surveyor, which has subsequently been submitted to Council. Accordingly the submitted survey plan is considered satisfactory.

 

Request for reassessment of the approved development application.

The objector has been advised that a reassessment of the original development application as a whole could not be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of an application made under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act 1979). An assessment under Section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979 has been undertaken in relation to the proposed modifications only.

 


87 Boundary Street

Issue

Comment

Resubmitted the objection related to the original development application and raised that these objections were not incorporated into changes of the original application.

The issues raised in relation to the original Development Application were addressed in the delegated report. This report only focuses on the matters in relation to the proposed modifications.

Ensuite extension will result in the loss of morning sunlight on the ground floor.

Ensuite extension results in additional visual bulk.

The proposed ensuite extension at ground floor level is located within the approved building envelope and therefore will not result in any additional overshadowing to the adjoining neighbour or result in any additional visual bulk.

Ensuite extension results in view loss.

As noted previously, the ensuite extension of ground floor level is located within the approved building envelope and will not result in any additional view loss from the objector’s property.

The location of bedrooms on the ground floor and living areas on the first floor creates significant bulk.

The location of bedrooms and living rooms on specific residential levels does not relate to visual bulk.

Statement of Environmental Effects provides that the drawings were shown to all neighbours, however fails to stipulate that the plans were not agreed upon.

Noted.

FSR exceeded as part of the application.

The proposal complies with the maximum FSR allowed for the site.

Excavation and shoring concerns.

No excavation proposed in the subject application. However, standard conditions were included in the original development consent regarding excavation and shoring of adjoining properties.

Site inspection not conducted as stipulated within the delegated report for DA/288/2013.

Council has investigated this issue and provided a written response regarding the inspection undertaken.

View loss within the original delegated report does not accurately reflect the actual view loss.

The view loss issue was comprehensively addressed in the delegated report for the original development application and a further assessment has been carried out in section 6 of the report which demonstrates that the original view loss assessment was accurate.

87 Boundary did not receive a copy of the view loss assessment undertaken by the applicant within the original application.

A set of all submitted documentation was provided for viewing at Council’s Customer Service Centre and the application was notified in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 


Section 96 Assessment

Under the provisions of Section 96 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 modifications are consistent with the original application and will not change the nature of the approved development as a part two/part three storey dwelling house. The modifications sought are minimal, with a minor change in the building envelope on the first floor, with the ground floor extensions resulting in an additional 3.35m2 or 1.3% increase in gross floor area. No level changes are proposed to the approved swimming pool, only a typographical error is sought to be corrected. The nature of the development will therefore remain substantially the same as approved in the subject development consent.

 

5. Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

·      Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

The subject application seeks a minor increase in the approved floor space ratio (FSR), with an additional 3.35m2 proposed, resulting in a total of 260.09m2. Accordingly, the proposed FSR totals 0.74:1 and remains under the allowable FSR of 0.75:1. Notwithstanding, the proposed modifications are generally within the approved built form and are of appropriate size and scale of nearby development. The massing is consistent with the approved form, and visual bulk presented to adjoining neighbours is still articulated despite the modifications. Accordingly the subject application is considered to meet the numerical controls and objectives of the RLEP 2012.

 

6. Key Issues

 

·   Typographical Error Correction

The subject application seeks to correct a typographical error in relation to the approved swimming pool level and does not seek to change the pool level as shown on the approved plans. No physical level changes are sought in the subject application.

 

Various levels were indicated on the approved plans including RL42.245, RL41.345 and RL41.245. The Applicant seeks to correct the pool RL to RL41.345, which is consistent with the level as measured off the approved plans.

 

·      Internal Alterations and Extension of Bedroom 3

Alterations are proposed to the lower ground floor level by reducing the size of the staircase to create a wardrobe for the guest bedroom. The minor alterations are considered satisfactory and will not impact on adjoining residents.

Bedroom 3 (and associated ensuite) on the ground floor level proposes to extend an additional 300mm towards the western boundary, resulting in an additional 1.55m2 of floor area. The extension is minor and does not greatly impact on the articulation of the western elevation with two building modulations remaining, whilst also maintaining the approved 1200mm setback (above the required 900mm setback under RDCP 2013). 

An additional window (Window 8a) is proposed which is connected to the ground floor ensuite extension (see further discussion regarding the assessment of the ensuite below within ‘ground floor ensuite extension’). Window 8A faces the balcony and looks towards 91 Boundary Street. Connected to a shower room and therefore low trafficable, the proposed window is unlikely to result in additional overlooking opportunities than otherwise currently available on the approved deck.

·   First Floor Modifications

The subject application seeks to modify the approved privacy screen on the western elevation by partially constructing a cupboard along the side deck and extending the deck roof by 800mm towards the eastern elevation. The privacy screen on the western elevation has been conditioned by Council to be constructed so that the privacy louvres overlap or fixed at an angle to prevent overlooking. The Applicant has provided that given the privacy screens have been conditioned from open horizontal louvres to vertical louvres which are to be designed to block direct viewing between adjoining neighbours, that a 1215mm cupboard adequately provides similar privacy screening whilst also improving additional functionality to the subject site. The proposed cupboard and privacy screen also seek an increase in height from 1.8m to 2.2m.

 

The cupboard is proposed for part of the privacy screen, resulting in a 900mm extension towards 87 Boundary Street on the western elevation for the width of the cupboard. A privacy screen of 1085mm for the remaining deck is still required, and remains at the approved location. The additional height of the cupboard is considered acceptable given that it tapers down from the approved wall height; however it is considered that the proposed privacy screen should be reduced to 1.8m as approved. This reduction will result in a decrease in the visual bulk presented to 87 Boundary Street whilst maintaining privacy between the adjoining neighbours. A setback of 1500mm is still maintained by the proposed development. Whilst the increased height does create some minor additional overshadowing, this will primarily fall beyond 87 Boundary Street. Accordingly, the cupboard addition and privacy screen is not anticipated to result in unreasonable visual bulk to the neighbour with the inclusion of suitable conditions.

 

An 800mm roof extension is proposed to comply with the BASIX certificate in order to provide shade to Window 11. The approved balcony posts are to be removed with a cantilevered roof extension proposed. A submission of support was received by the affected neighbour at 91 Boundary Street, and roof extension and removal of the post is not anticipated to result in undesirable visual bulk to the adjoining neighbours.

The first floor modifications are minor and are not expected to result in additional amenity impacts above the current approved development in terms of overshadowing and visual bulk. The proposed alterations meet the controls and objectives of the RDCP 2013 and are therefore considered satisfactory. 

 

·   Ground floor ensuite extension

The proposal seeks to extend the approved ensuite by an additional 900mm, totaling an additional floor area of 1.8m2. The proposed ensuite is situated where a privacy screen has been required in order to prevent viewing between 89 Boundary Street and 87 Boundary. A horizontal privacy screen had been proposed as part of the original development application; however a condition of consent has been imposed requiring fixed louvres or overlapping louvres. As a result, the conditioned privacy screen does not allow for any views to be obtained from 87 Boundary Street. Additionally, in order to maintain the same level of privacy between the neighbours, the proposed ensuite window on the western elevation shall be provided with fixed and obscured glazing.

 

A submission received raised concerns that the impacts of the ensuite extension on 87 Boundary Street will result in a reduction of morning sunlight, increase in visual bulk, view loss and increased permanency of the ensuite as opposed to the privacy screen. With regard to the morning sunlight, the northerly orientation of the subject site results in the existing development currently overshadowing 87 Boundary Street in the morning, with the subject application not resulting in any additional overshadowing from the proposed ensuite than otherwise currently approved. In relation to visual bulk and the permanency of the ensuite, given that the ensuite is proposed in the same location as the privacy screen, the visual bulk presented to 87 Boundary Street will be substantially the same as approved. The building form is considered to be consistent with the RDCP 2013 controls with appropriate articulation throughout the external wall facing 87 Boundary Street. The scale and proportions of the dwelling and proposed ensuite relate to the existing and desired future built form of Boundary Street, and do not exceed the allowable floor space ratio. Further, the privacy screen structure as conditioned is considered to be a permanent structure to prevent privacy impacts, and is therefore unlikely to be removed by Council. Accordingly, the privacy screen is considered to be a consistently permanent structure as the proposed ensuite. In regards to view loss, please refer to the full view sharing assessment below. In light of the above, it is therefore considered that the proposed ensuite extension meets the relevant controls of the RDCP 2013 and is satisfactory.

 

·   View Sharing

The potential impact of the proposed development on views obtained from the adjacent site has been considered within the assessment undertaken of DA/288/2013. Within that assessment it was demonstrated that whilst some view loss was experienced from 87 Boundary Street, substantial views would be retained. An objection has been received in relation to view loss from the proposed ground floor ensuite extension. Whilst the ground floor ensuite extension does not alter the building envelope as currently approved under DA/288/2013, a view sharing assessment has nonetheless been undertaken as detailed below.

 

It is noted that the below assessment of the building line is not a reassessment of the original development application, however seeks to fully address the concerns of the objection received in relation to the subject application.

 

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

 

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

 

Under the original development application, the approved dwelling will result in a loss of partial water views of Clovelly Bay from a sitting or standing position. Views over the eastern side boundary from the first floor dining room, kitchen and deck of 87 Boundary Street will be affected.

 

Iconic interface views between the land and water of Malabar Headland, Mistral Point and Wedding Cake Island from 87 Boundary Street will be fully retained.

 

The objection raises issue with additional view loss that will occur as a result of the proposed ground floor extension as opposed to the approved privacy screen. However the subject application will not result in additional view loss as the building line is not proposed to be extended.

 

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

 

The affected views of Clovelly Bay are obtained from the first floor rear balcony, kitchen and dining room over the eastern side boundary of 87 Boundary Street. Views are lost from both sitting and standing positions within these locations.

 

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

 

The submission from 87 Boundary Street raises concerns that the proposed development will result in a loss of panoramic views from the main living room and kitchen. The following photographs show the extent of the view loss by the approved development under DA/288/2013, and not as affected under the subject application:

 

Photo 1: Standing position from the back of the dining/kitchen area of 87 Boundary Street.

 

As illustrated in Photo 1, the approved development will result in some minor view loss to Clovelly Bay from the rear of the dining room. The majority of the views to Malabar Headland, Wedding Cake Island and Mistral Point will be retained.

Photo 2: Photo from a standing position from the rear first floor balcony of 87 Boundary Street.

 

As illustrated in Photo 2, the approved development results in a minimal loss of partial water views over the eastern boundary of Clovelly Bay. The significant iconic views are retained including Wedding Cake Island, Mistral Point and Malabar Headland. 

 

Photo 3: Photo taken from a sitting position in the dining room.

 

As illustrated in Photo 3, the sitting view from the dining room over the side boundary is the worst affected by the approved development. The view loss from the dining room is considered significant with regard to the use as a living room and the extent of the loss as shown. Notwithstanding, the view loss is contained to the side boundary and results in a loss of partial water views of Clovelly Bay. The position from which the view is obtained is from a sitting position; however sitting views of Wedding Cake Island, Malabar Headland and Mistral Point are retained and also include interface views between the water and land.  As per the principle, this view is not considered as significant when compared to the iconic views retained to the rear and west of the sitting position illustrated above (panoramic view shown in Photo 1).

 

Photo 4: Photo taken from a standing position from the kitchen showing the extent of the eastern side view lost.

 

As illustrated in Photo 4, the approved development results in a minor loss of partial water views as obtained from the kitchen. Panoramic ocean views are retained and current iconic views of the Malabar Headland and Wedding Cake Island are unaffected.

 

The subject application seeks to extend the approved ensuite where the privacy screen is currently located, as shown below:

 

Figure 1: Approved elevation as viewed from 87 Boundary Street, privacy screen in question circled in red.

 

The approved privacy screen is also subject to the following condition:

 

“2a. The proposed privacy screens to the lower ground, ground level and first floor level balconies must be constructed so that the screens overlap and/or the screens when operable must be fixed at an angle to prevent overlooking into the neighbouring properties.”

 

As the above condition requires the subject privacy screen to be overlapped or fixed at an angle to prevent overlooking into the adjoining property, potential views through the screen from the adjoining property are already lost. Figure 2 below shows that the proposed ensuite extension is wholly contained within the approved built form behind the privacy screen:

 

Figure 2: Proposed ensuite extension.

 

The two floor plans are also provided below to demonstrate the proposal does not result in an extension of the approved building line:

 

Approved:

 

 

Proposed:

 

As shown in the above elevations and floor plans, the proposed ensuite extension is located within the approved building envelope. Accordingly, the subject application is not considered to result in any additional view loss other than already approved under the original development application.

 

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

 

In accordance with the above assessment, the subject application has demonstrated that the modifications sought will not result in additional view loss. As noted within the original assessment, valuable iconic views of Wedding Cake Island, Mistral Point and Maroubra Headland will be significantly retained and enjoyed from the first floor dining and kitchen rooms and deck. The concerns raised by the objector regarding view loss are primarily contained to the side boundary and partial water views.

The subject application is not considered to result in additional view loss as the structure does not protrude beyond the approved building line. For the reasons detailed above, the subject proposal is considered acceptable. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification to the approved development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013 as well as the heads of consideration under section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979 (as amended). The proposed modification is minor and will not result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or the character of the streetscape and is substantially the same as the approved development. For these reasons, the subject application is therefore recommended for approval subject.

 

 

 

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/288/2013/A by altering the internal layout, increasing the size of the ground floor level bedrooms including a rear extension of the ground floor ensuite, extension of the rear first floor balcony roof, increasing the size of the first floor balcony to construct a cupboard and modifying the window opening at 89 Boundary Street, Clovelly, subject to the following conditions:

 

Amend Conditions Nos 1 and 2 to read:

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

DA01 (Issue C)

Jamisa Design PTY LTD

May 2013

24 October 2013

DA02 (Issue C)

Jamisa Design PTY LTD

May 2013

24 October 2013

DA03 (Issue C)

Jamisa Design PTY LTD

May 2013

24 October 2013

DA04 (Issue C)

Jamisa Design PTY LTD

May 2013

24 October 2013

DA05 (Issue C)

Jamisa Design PTY LTD

May 2013

24 October 2013

DA06 (Issue C)

Jamisa Design PTY LTD

May 2013

24 October 2013

DA011 (Issue C)

Jamisa Design PTY LTD

May 2013

24 October 2013

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received

 

A161155_02

13 May 2013

14 May 2013

 

Except as amended by the Section 96 ‘A’ plans and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn By

Dated

Received by Council

S96-01

(Issue D)

Jamisa Design Pty Ltd

18 July 2014

16 September 2014

S96-02

(Issue D)

Jamisa Design Pty Ltd

18 July 2014

16 September 2014

S96-03

(Issue D)

Jamisa Design Pty Ltd

18 July 2014

16 September 2014

S96-04

(Issue D)

Jamisa Design Pty Ltd

18 July 2014

16 September 2014

S96-05

(Issue D)

Jamisa Design Pty Ltd

18 July 2014

16 September 2014

S96-06

(Issue D)

Jamisa Design Pty Ltd

18 July 2014

16 September 2014

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received

 

A161155_03

1 July 2014

9 July 2014

 

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

 

 

 

            Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     All privacy screens must be constructed so that the screens overlap and/or the screens when operable must be fixed at an angle to prevent overlooking into the neighbouring properties.

 

b.     The proposed colourbond roof colour ‘Surfmist’ is highly reflective. To limit the level of reflection and glare the external finishes schedule must be amended to include a darker colour for the roof finish. Details of the amended external finishes schedule must be resubmitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

c.     The window to the ensuite at ground floor level on the western elevation shall be provided with fixed obscured glazing.

 

d.     The privacy screen on the western side on the rear first floor deck shall be reduced to 1.8m, measured above the deck level.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - DA/288/2013/A - 89 Boundary Street, Clovelly

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP105/14

 

 

Subject:                  10 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/357/2014/A)

Folder No:                   DA/357/2014/A

Author:                   Olivia Yana, Development Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 application to delete condition 2 relating to the extension of the height of existing fence on Edgecliffe Avenue boundary

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Mrs K Katris

Owner:                        Mr E Kalogerakis and Mrs K Katris

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview52141.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The application is referred to the Council for determination at the requests of Councilors Andrews, Stavrinos and Brendan.

 

 


Proposal

 

The application seeks consent to delete condition 2, which requires the extension above the existing fence on the Edgecliffe Avenue boundary to be deleted. 

 

Site

 

The site identified as Lot 18 DP 9452, is an irregular corner property located on the western side of Seaside Parade and southern side of Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee. It has a land size of 498.4m2 with street frontage of 13.78m and depth of 36.575m. The land falls away from the western end towards Seaside Parade. The area is characterised by 2/3 storey single dwellings within Foreshore Scenic Protection Area in R2 Low Density Residential zoning.

 

Application History

 

1.   DA/994/2003

 

Consent for deferred commencement (DA/994/2003) was granted by Council under delegated authority on 26 May 2004 for the demolition of existing dwelling and the construction of a new part 2/3 storey dwelling with garages to the front. Four (4) section 96 applications were submitted subsequently. DA/994/2003/A to rescind condition of consent relating to maximum fence height of 1.8m on Seaside Parade and Edgecliffe Avenue was refused on 23 December 2004. Further amendment to the fence height was approved by DA/994/2003/B on 17 February 2005 subject to the condition that part of the wall along Edgecliffe Avenue frontage incorporating glass panel shall not exceed overall RL of 30.05. 

 

2.   DA/357/2014

 

Consent for alterations to boundary fence/wall on Edgecliffe Avenue and Seaside Parade frontages was granted under delegated authority on 6 August 2014 subject to the following condition.

 

Condition 2

The proposed fence and angled gate extension above the existing fence/wall on the Edgecliffe Avenue boundary are not supported and shall be deleted from the application.

 

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 submission was received as a result of the notification process.

 

Key Issues

 

S.96 Assessment

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

 

Substantially the Same Development:

The modification to the approved development does not alter the nature of the approved development and the proposed changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which consent was granted for the purposes of legislative requirements under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

S.79C Assessment

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

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

Zone R2 Low Density Residential 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent subject to further assessment as stated below.

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the aims of RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed fence will detract from the desirable elements of the streetscape, which will result in an undesirable precedent on the future character of the locality.

 

Clause 6.7 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Development consent must not be granted for development on the land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

(a)      is located and designed to minimise its visual impact on public areas of the coastline, including views to and from the coast, foreshore reserves, open space and public areas, and

(b)      contributes to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore.

 

The proposed extension above the boundary fence on the Edgecliffe Avenue boundary is considered unsatisfactory in terms of its contribution to the scenic quality of the foreshore area and therefore fails to comply with the relevant objectives of Clause 6.7. Whilst the height of proposed fence will not affect view sharing, the visual impact created by the additional bulk and scale will result in undesirable precedent in the immediate locality.  

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RCDCP) 2013

Fencing (Section C1 – sub-section 7.3)

Whilst it is necessary for fencing to be designed to promote adequate privacy for the occupants of the dwelling, the design must also consider the quality of streetscape by ensuring that visual impact on public domain is minimised. The assessment of this proposal takes into consideration of the opposing demands between the proposed development and Council’s DCP numerical controls and objectives.

 

The increase of height to the existing boundary fence is ranging from 2.2m to 3.5m from natural ground level. Improvement to the privacy of ground floor level rooms, private open space and swimming pool situated towards the northern and eastern sides of the subject property is anticipated by this proposal. Existing swimming pool fence along the northern boundary is measured at 0.9m above the finished pool level and it is considered acceptable in complying with AS 1926-1986 in that the height of fence as measured from north-south external façade is more than 1.2m. Overlooking from the nature strip directly adjacent to the subject property on Edgecliffe Avenue is obstructed by the height of existing boundary fence and the view from the fence openings is angled and upward (refer to Figure 1 and 2). Direct overlooking from the Edgecliffe Avenue street level and the upper levels of the adjoining properties on 7, 8 and 9 Seaside Parade has separation distance between 14-20m (refer to Figure 3).

 

Measurement taken with height pole from inside of the property (refer to Figure 4) indicated that overlooking from the nature strip and street level could be contained from the proposed increase of fence height. However, the upper levels of the adjoining properties could still potentially overlook into the ground level of subject property due to the sloping nature of the site and the existing built form. 

 

The height of proposed fence viewed from Edgecliffe Avenue denotes a structure that does not conform to the established streetscape character (refer to Figure 5). Edgecliffe Avenue is dominated by front fence between 1.2m to 1.6m in height (refer to Figure 6). No. 8 Seaside Parade is similar to subject site in terms of its location and topography and has a boundary fence up to 2m (refer to Figure 7).

 

The proposal to increase the height of the fence along the Edgecliffe Avenue boundary up to 3.5m does not comply with the numerical controls of the DCP for side fencing as follows:

 

                

 

The proposal made reference to 16 Seaside Parade (refer to Figure 8), which has maximum fence height of 5.85m facing Liguria Street. This fence is not considered as a direct comparison to this proposal as it is not located in the same visual catchment and has a different topography. The fence height at 16 Seaside Parade is suitable for the sloping nature of the site, which has significant level differences.

 

Non-compliance of the proposed fence height for this application could not be considered on its merit as the levels on the site are not regarded as having significant changes.

 

The increase of fence height along Edgecliffe Avenue boundary will not completely avoid overlooking from the adjoining properties. The impact of proposed design of fence is considered unacceptable and will pose unreasonable adverse impact for the building on site and its surrounding development. The length and height of the proposal are regarded as excessive and unrelieved whilst dominating the subject dwelling and confining the appearance of the streetscape. 

 

The modification is regarded inappropriate as presented in its context and therefore could not be supported for the following reasons.

 

1.     The proposed fence height is considered to be excessive.

2.     The design of boundary fence does not complement the building on site. 

3.     The proposal does not integrate with the natural landform of the site

4.     The proposed development detracts from the established streetscape character.

 

 

 

FIGURE 1. View into 10 Seaside Parade private areas from nature strip

 

 

 

FIGURE 2. Upward viewing taken above 2m high fence

 

 

FIGURE 3. Direct viewing from 14m away (Edgecliffe Avenue street level)

 

 

Extension facing 7 and 9 Seaside Parade

Extension facing 8 Seaside Parade

Close up view of extension facing 8 Seaside Parade

Extension facing the rear of subject site (western end)

 

FIGURE 4. Proposed extension as viewed from the inside of subject property

 

 

Figure 5. Extent of Proposed Development

 

 

Description: DSC_0275

Subject property – 10 Seaside Parade side boundary fence

8 Seaside Parade side boundary  fence

(max. height 2m)

Description: DSC_0278

Description: DSC_0281

35 Edgecliffe Avenue front fence

(max. height 1.6m)

37 Edgecliffe Avenue front fence

(max. height 1.6m)

 

Unauthorised front fence – 7 Edgecliffe Avenue (max. height 3.68m)

 

 

FIGURE 6. Established Streetscape Character of Edgecliffe Avenue

 

 

 

FIGURE 7. Approved Height Side Boundary Fence DA/198/2011 (8 Seaside Parade)

 

 

 

Figure 8. 16 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal to increase the height of existing fence along Edgecliffe Avenue boundary does not meet the relevant assessment criteria of RCDCP 2013 Section C1 sub-section 7.3 for fencing and fails to satisfy the general aims and specific objectives of RLEP 2012 by creating an undesired precedent in the streetscape within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and will result in significant adverse impacts upon the environmental qualities of the surrounding development.

 

 

 


 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/342/2014/A to delete condition 2 relating to the extension of the height of existing fence on Edgecliffe boundary at No. 10 Seaside Parade, South Coogee, for the following reasons:

 

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

 

(i)       The proposal fails to recognize the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form, which will result in undesirable precedent on the future character of the locality.

 

2.  The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and controls of Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 Section C1 – sub-section 7.3 for Side Fencing in that the height of proposed fence along the Edgecliffe Avenue boundary is excessive and does not integrate with the streetscape and will adversely affect the aesthetic value and characteristic of the streetscape.

 

3.  The proposal does not comply with provisions of Clause 6.7 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as it does not minimise visual impacts on public areas and does not contribute to the scenic qualities of the foreshore area.

       

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP106/14

 

 

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

Folder No:                   F2008/00122

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment      

 

Introduction

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

This report is in response to point 3) above. A table is attached to this report detailing all SEPP1s and Clause 4.6 exceptions approved in the period between 1 and 30 September, 2014 – four (4) were approved during this period, two (2) by delegated authority and two (2) either by Planning Committee meeting or by Ordinary Council meeting.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Clause 4.6  variation - September, 2014

 

 

 

 


Clause 4.6  variation - September, 2014

Attachment 1

 

 

 

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

Council DA reference No.

Lot No.

DP No.

Apartment/Unit No.

Street No.

Street name

Suburb/Town

Postcode

Category of development

Environmental planning instru-ment

Zoning of land

Develop-ment standard to be varied

Justification of variation

Extent of variation

Concur-ring authority

Date DA determined
dd/mm/yyyy

Approved by

DA/370/2014

24

82375

 

29/36

McKeon Street

MAROUBRA

2035

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

B1 - Neighbourhood Centre

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 2:1

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

FSR increased by 0.06% or 91.37m2

NSW Dept of Planning

04-Sep-14

Delegated authority

DA/370/2014

23

82375

 

28/36

McKeon Street

MAROUBRA

2035

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

B1 - Neighbourhood Centre

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 2:1

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

FSR increased by 0.06% or 91.37m2

NSW Dept of Planning

04-Sep-14

Delegated authority

DA/280/2014

344B

36798 SUBJ TO CROSS EAMENT

 

59-65

Chester Avenue,

MAROUBRA

2035

 4: Residential - New multi unit < 20 dwellings

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density Residential

Clause 4.3 (2) - 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 11.9m or 25.26%.

NSW Dept of Planning

09-Sep-14

PCM

DA/326/2014

14

13587 (BEING LOTS 1-4 IN SP 17037)

 

40

Marcel Avenue,

RAND

WICK

2031

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density Residential

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 9.5m  & Clause 4.4 FSR = 0.75:1.

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

Proposal building height is 9.8m or 3%.Overall FSR variation  is 27%, however the existing FSR is  0.81:1, increased to 0.95:1 or 8%

NSW Dept of Planning

23-Sep-14

OCM

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP107/14

 

 

Subject:                  State Government reforms to the domestic violence support services sector and Randwick City Council's awareness raising activities to stop domestic and family violence

Folder No:                   F2013/00153

Author:                   Melinda Leves, Generalist Community Development Officer - La Perouse & Surrounding Areas      

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is three-folds:

 

·   Provide the Council with a status update following its 24 April 2014 resolution regarding domestic violence against women and children;

·   Inform the Council of recent policy and operational changes to the NSW domestic and family violence service sector; and

·   Describe awareness raising activities proposed to be held in partnership with local service providers during the period known as 16 Days of Activism to Stop Violence Against Women, from November 25 to December 10; and

 

 

Issues

 

The Council resolved on the 29 April 2014 as follows:

 

RESOLUTION: (Roberts/Belleli) that Council write to the NSW Education Minister calling for the inclusion in the high school syllabus of an increased emphasis on domestic violence and its impacts and to endorse white ribbon day in order to reinforce a culture of non-violence throughout our society.

 

In June 2014, the Mayor wrote to Minister of Education, the Hon Adrian Piccoli MP to seek his support for the above resolution.  In August 2014, the Minister wrote to the Council advising that a mandatory curriculum in being implemented within the school’s educational syllabus.  The Personal Development, Health and Physical Education (PDHPE) syllabus is aimed at 2 different age groups.  For example, the syllabus from Kindergarten to Year 10 focuses on the development of personal health and safety of child, including personal behaviours and interactions with others.  This sets the foundation of how relationships can be formed and nurtured and how to build positive relationships.  For Years 7-10, the emphasis is on recognition, understanding and responding to abusive relationships.  Students are taught how to recognise the different forms of abuse and explore the impact of such behaviour.

 

Minister Piccoli also advises that his Department fully supports White Ribbon Day and has, since 2011, encouraged teachers to make a contribution in classes during White Ribbon Day, supported by the Breaking the Silence program rolled out by the school in the last two years. Minister Piccoli thanked the Council for sharing the thoughts of its community and gave his assurance that this year, in 2014, the Department will continue to support and promote White Ribbon Day (See Attachment – NSW Minister for Education Adrian Piccoli’s letter to Randwick City Council dated 14 August 2014).

 

 

New reforms to NSW domestic violence sector

 

Significant reforms are being introduced to the domestic violence support programs and funded service providers. The reforms relate to the way service providers are to respond to domestic violence incidents and in the delivery of support services to victims. 

 

In February 2014, the NSW Government launched It Stops Here: Standing together to end domestic and family violence – the NSW Government’s Domestic and Family Violence Framework for ReformIt Stops Here is a five year, whole of government strategic approach for reducing domestic and family violence in NSW.  The framework contains five elements:

 

·              a strategic response to prevention and early intervention

·              streamlined referrals pathways

·              person centred service responses

·              skilled and capable workforce, and

·              strengthened criminal justice response.

 

A key component of the It Stops Here reform is the introduction of a coordinated service referral system.  Called It Stops Here Safer Pathway, the aim is to tailor services to meet the victim’s immediate and longer term safety and support needs.  This pathway model requires the Police to use an assessment tool called Domestic Violence Safety Assessment Tool (DVSAT) each time they attend a reported domestic violence incident.  The DVSAT will enable the Police to link a victim to a central referral point (CRP) thereby enabling the victim to receive protection and related support services through the one service point.   Non-government service providers are also encouraged to use the same tool.

 

The new Local Coordination Point (LCP) has also been introduced to provide streamlined case coordination, risk assessment and review, and referrals to support services.  The new LCP requires the cases of all victims, whose safety is in jeopardy, to be referred to a Safety Action Meeting (SAM).   For example, if a woman is at serious risk, a senior police officer at the LCP will convene a SAM with key government agencies to put in place systems to keep the woman and her children safe e.g. organise school support for children if needed, allocation of housing at a different location, mental health and housing services, court assistance, informing school, and address possible safety issues and drug counselling if the offender is a substance abuser.

 

Representatives at the meeting are senior officials from the various government departments with the authority to commit resources and make decisions such as Police, Corrective Services, Health, Education, Housing, and Community Services, and specialists from services with expertise in domestic violence. 

 

The nearest LCP to Randwick City is the Waverley LCP, located at Bondi Junction.  Launched on the 22 September 2014, SAMs are hosted by the Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Services.

 

Further reforms initiatives are still being finalised, including the establishment of minimum standards for all funded domestic and family violence service providers.

 

 

 

Councils Domestic Violence prevention programs and activities

 

Randwick Council continues to provide a range of support a range of prevention programs and activities.  It does so in a variety of ways, such as community partnership grants to specialist services that assist victims of domestic violence.  The Council also delivers awareness-raising and prevention activities as part of its annual community development program.  A Council officer co-chairs the local Domestic Violence Network (comprising of key agencies that are responsible for delivering support programs to victims and their family members), and takes a lead role in supporting and coordinating the activities of the network.

 

The 16 Days of Activism to Stop Violence Against Women Campaign encourages women and men to speak out about violence, and to challenge the attitudes that allow violence to continue in our society.  This timeframe includes International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and White Ribbon Day on 25th November, Stop Domestic Violence Day on December 5 and ends on 10 December which is Human Rights Day. 

 

Randwick City Council is proposing to support a range of activities to raise awareness of domestic and family violence during this period; actions that are consistent with the Council’s resolution of 29 April 2014 calling for increased emphasis in schools and in the community to promote “… a culture of non-violence throughout our society” (Resolution: Roberts/Belleli).  

 

 

Sydney’s White Ribbon Walk – Tuesday 25th November

 

The NSW Police Eastern Beaches Local Area Command and Randwick City Council organise the annual historic walk which aims to engage community and broaden support to stop violence against women.  Thousands of community members, along with representatives from NSW Parliament, Emergency Services and sporting representatives join the walk from Randwick to Coogee Beach and end the walk with a mass oath ceremony at Grant Reserve.  This is a powerful event in getting the message across ‘Never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women’.

 

Domestic Violence - Speaker - How can I make a difference?  5.30pm Tuesday 2 December

 

Dr Michael Flood, a senior lecturer at the University of Wollongong and internationally recognised researcher on violence prevention, to talk about steps people can take to stop violence in their community. 

 

Stop Domestic Violence Day – Friday 5 December

 

The Eastern Suburbs Domestic Violence Network with the support of Council staff, will hold an information stand at Maroubra Pacific Square.  Local service staff will be available to talk with visitors to the stall about domestic and family violence and its impacts.  The stand will provide face painting and balloons to engage children and families. 

 

Flash Mob Event – Let’s Get Loud – Stop DV

 

Local service providers in the Eastern Suburbs are collectively organising a flash mob to perform in the local area to raise awareness and to encourage more open conversations about domestic and family violence in the community. 

 

 

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 it is acknowledged and supported through proactive policies, programs and strategies.

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

The total cost of implementing these events and activities is an estimated $10,000, already allocated under the Community Development Budget 2014-15.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Significant changes to domestic and family violence sector are being introduced by the government to improve response rate and delivery of appropriate services to victims.  It is hoped that these reforms will improved outcomes for women and children fleeing violence. 

 

Council remains committed to raising awareness of domestic and family violence and in supporting local initiatives designed to improve the safety of women and children. Holding and supporting the activities and events detailed in this report during the 16 Days of Activism to Stop Violence Against Women Campaign, demonstrate the Council’s on-going resolve and effort to end this heinous crime against women and children.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the Council:

 

a)     note and accept the NSW Minister for Education’s letter

 

b)     note the reforms being introduced to the NSW domestic violence support services sector, and

 

c)     endorse the Council’s participation in the suite of domestic violence awareness raising activities proposed to be held during the 16 Days of Activism to Stop Violence Against Women Campaign.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

NSW Minister for Education, Adrian Piccoli's letter to Randwick City Council dated 14 August 2014

 

 

 

 


NSW Minister for Education, Adrian Piccoli's letter to Randwick City Council dated 14 August 2014

Attachment 1

 

 


 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM31/14

 

 

Subject:                  Randwick City Council 2014 Annual Report

Folder No:                   F2014/03005

Author:                   Karen Hawkett, Coordinator Integrated Planning & Reporting      

 

Introduction

 

The 2013-14 Randwick City Council Annual Report has been prepared as per the requirements of the Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009. The report details Council’s operating and financial position as at June 2014, satisfies statutory reporting requirements and includes the supplementary State of the Environment report.

 

The Council must prepare and publish an annual report by November 30 each year and must include the audited financial reports. The audited financial reports were presented separately to Council on 23 September 2014.

 

Issues

 

The 2013-14 Randwick City Council Annual Report details Council’s financial and operational position for the year ending June 2014.

 

Since the adoption of the 20-year Randwick City Plan, Council has demonstrated a strong commitment and continuous improvement approach to integrated planning. In line with this approach, the Annual Report 2013-14 is organised according to the Randwick City Plan themes and outcomes. This provides accountability to our community regarding the implementation of the 20-year plan.

 

The annual report is one of the key accountability mechanisms between council and the community. It is a report to the community about meeting our objectives as set out in the Randwick City Plan themes:

 

·      Responsible management

·      A sense of community

·      Places for people

·      A prospering City

·      Moving around

·      Looking after our environment.

 

The City Plan themes help shape the community’s vision of building ‘a sense of community’ and are achieving this by - “working together to enhance our environment, celebrate our heritage and to value and serve our diverse community”. 

 

State of the Environment Report

 

In addition to required statutory reporting, Randwick City’s annual report includes a supplementary State of the Environment (SoE) report. This supplementary report will complement the comprehensive SoE report which must be prepared every four years in accordance with the Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009. The next comprehensive SoE report will be required in 2016.

 

The key element required of Council in the preparation of the supplementary SoE report, is to report against the environmental objectives identified in Council’s 20-year City Plan.

 

Council’s 2013-14 SoE report directly aligns with and provides accountability for the six environmental objectives (10a to 10f) adopted by Council within Outcome 10, A Healthy Environment.

 

City Plan Outcome

Direction

10. A Healthy Environment.

10a. Council’s programs and partnerships foster sustainable behavioural changes and outcomes.

10b. Policies and programs are developed and implemented in response to environmental risks and their potential impacts.

10c.Bushland, open spaces and biodiversity are protected and enhanced for future generations

10d.Waste is managed sustainably to ensure highest level of resource recovery.

10e.A total water cycle management approach including water conservation, re-use and water quality improvements is adopted.

10f.Energy conservation and efficiency programs are implemented.

 

The supplementary SoE intends to update changes across our environmental indicators over the 12 month period since the last report.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship to the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:           Leadership in sustainability.

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

Direction 1b:         Council is a leader in the delivery of social, financial and operational activities.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Council reported a $9.619 million operating surplus for the 2013-14 financial year, maintaining our sound financial position.

 

Conclusion

 

The Randwick City Council Annual Report 2013-14 meets the stipulated statutory requirements. The report provides a detailed analysis of Council’s achievements and financial performance over the previous year. The report provide an account to the community of our progress meeting our objectives as set out in the 20-year Randwick City Plan.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the Randwick City Council Annual Report 2013-14, be received and noted;

 

b)     the General Manager be authorised to make any minor changes if required; and

 

c)     a copy of the Annual Report be submitted to the Chief Executive, Office of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Randwick City Council 2013-14 Annual Report

Included under separate cover

 

 

   


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF60/14

 

 

Subject:                  Councillors' Access to Information and Interaction between Councillors and Staff Policy

Folder No:                   F2004/06110

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

In February 2007, Randwick City Council adopted a policy in relation to “Councillors’ Access to Information and Interaction between Councillors and Staff”. The policy now needs updating to reflect the wording in the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW which commenced on 1 March 2013.

 

Issues

 

Council’s current policy is based on the ‘Model Policy’ developed by the DLG and the Independent Commission Against Corruption in 1997 and, incorporates additional provisions from DLG Circular ‘Councillors’ Access to Information’ dated 2 December 2010. The policy has been amended again to reflect the wording of the Model Code of conduct released in 2013. These are administrative changes only and do not change the intent or practical application of the policy.

 

For the information of Councillors, this policy also contains a copy of the current ‘Councillor/Staff Liaison listing’.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 11:      Excellence in Staff Management.

Direction 11a:    A working environment that provides a strong platform for productivity and achievement and allows all staff to contribute to the best of their ability to achieving Councils outcomes.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Minor amendments have been made to the policy to bring the wording inline with the Model Code of Conduct. No changes are proposed to the intent or the practical application of the policy.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the amended Councillors’ Access to Information and Interaction between Councillors and Staff policy be adopted.

 

 


Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Amended - Councillors' Access to Information and Interaction between Councillors and Staff policy

 

 

 

 


Amended - Councillors' Access to Information and Interaction between Councillors and Staff policy

Attachment 1

 

 









Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF61/14

 

 

Subject:                  Annual Review of Councillors' Expenses & Facilities Policy

Folder No:                   F2004/06576

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

Section 252 of the Local Government Act requires Councils to adopt a policy for the payment of expenses incurred by and the provision of facilities to Mayors, Deputy Mayors and other Councillors.  Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors can only be reimbursed for expenses and provided with facilities in discharging the functions of civic office in accordance with this policy.  The Councillors’ Expenses and Facilities Policy must comply with the provisions of the Act, the regulations and the Department of Local Government ‘Guidelines for the payment of expenses and the provision of facilities for Mayors and Councillors for Local Councils in NSW.’

 

The policy must be adopted annually and, within five (5) months after the end of each financial year, must be forwarded to the Division of Local Government – Department of Premier and Cabinet) (DLG). 

 

Issues

Council is reminded that:

 

·           Under section 252(5) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council’s Expenses and Facilities Policy must comply with the DLG Guidelines

·           Provisions made by the policy in regard to the payment of expenses and the provision of facilities to Councillors, must be acceptable to and meet the expectations of the local community

·           Limits to expenses and the level of provision of equipment and facilities must be set by individual Councils to suit their need and capacity to afford them

·           There are no circumstances in which legal expenses should be met by a Council for proceedings initiated by a Councillor.  Nor should legal expenses be met for a Councillor defending any action in a matter not arising directly as a result of his or her civic duty.

 

The Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy was last reviewed in February this year when the following amendments were made:

 

Part 3 (Clause (xii):

 

Currently reads

Access to shared Councillors’ Rooms in the Town Hall.

Change to

Access to shared Councillors’ Rooms in the Town Hall with appropriate furniture, fittings, business equipment and meeting supplies as determined by the General Manager in consultation with the Mayor.

Part 3 (Clause xiv)

 

Currently reads

From within the Councillors’ Rooms in the Town Hall, access to external email and internet facilities and internal email with staff appearing on the ‘Councillor/Staff Liaison List.

Change to

Delete clause – no longer required.

Part 4 (Clause iii)

 

Currently reads

Office accommodation at the Town Hall and standard business equipment. The provision of a refreshment cabinet in the Mayor’s Office maintained and stocked by the Council within budgetary limits.

Change to

Office accommodation in the Council Administration Building with appropriate furniture, fittings, business equipment and meeting supplies as determined by the General Manager in consultation with the Mayor and the provision of a refreshment cabinet in the Mayor’s Office maintained and stocked by the Council within budgetary limits.

 

There are no other amendments proposed to be made to the Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy as a result of the current review. The policy, however, will require re-advertising as part of the annual review process.

 

It is worth noting that the Local Government Amendment (Red Tape Reduction) Bill 2014 (which has not yet been enacted) refers to the annual review process for Councillors’ Expenses and Facilities policies. The following is an extract from the Minister for Local Government’s second reading speech in parliament in relation to the Bill (on 14 October 2014):

 

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability.

Direction 1c:      Continuous improvement in service delivery based on accountability, transparency and good governance.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter. Any expenses and facilities provided to the Mayor and Councillors as part of this policy have been allowed for in the 2014-15 Budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy (copy attached) is required to be publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993. After the public exhibition period, this matter will be reported back to Council (at the November 2014 Council Meeting) for the policy to be formally adopted. The amended policy is required to be forwarded to the DLG (in accordance with legislative requirements) by 30 November 2014.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the annual review of the Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy be publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Draft Councillors' Expenses & Facilities Policy

 

 

 

 


Draft Councillors' Expenses & Facilities Policy

Attachment 1

 

 
















Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF62/14

 

 

Subject:                  2013-14 Disclosure of Interest Returns

Folder No:                   F2014/00237

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

The Local Government Act requires Councillors and designated staff to lodge Disclosure of Interest Returns in accordance with Section 449 of the Local Government Act.  Section 450(A) of the Act requires the General Manager to keep a Resister of Returns and to table Returns at the first Council meeting after the last date for lodgement (30 September 2014 ).

 

Issues

 

In tabling the Register of Returns for 2013-14, I report that all Councillors and designated staff have submitted their duly completed returns within the prescribed timeframe.

 

Anyone is entitled to inspect the ‘Returns of the Interests of Councillors, designated persons and delegates’ under Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability.

Direction 1c:      Continuous improvement in service delivery based on accountability, transparency and good governance.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

It is necessary for the Disclosure of Interests Returns (for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014) to be tabled at this Council Meeting for the purpose of legislative compliance.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That it be noted that the Register of Disclosure of Interests Returns for 2013-14 has been tabled at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 28 October 2014.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF63/14

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - September 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 – September 2014” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of September 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 $4.67 million during September 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 September 2011 to September 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 September 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 September 2011 to September 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   3.86% compared with the benchmark index of 2.67%.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate at the end of September 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 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%

8%

92%

AA

100%

43%

57%

A

75%

49%

26%

 

 

 

 

 

 

The graph below shows the actual percentage of funds held by Individual Institutions V the Maximum limits allowable under Council policy as at 30 September 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 $14.157 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 decreased by $29 thousand as at the end of September.

 

On advice from Council’s advisors CPG, the Bendigo Adelaide FRN was sold during September for $2,537,425.00. This was inclusive of accrued interest of $12,050.00. The sale of this FRN with lower yields to maturity enabled the switch into a new Bendigo Adelaide FRN issue for the amount of $2,000,000.00 with a coupon margin over the bank bill swap rate (BBSW) of 93bpts.

 

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 September is $3,165,000.00

 

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 30 September 2014 amounted to $582,822.33

 

 

Certification – Responsible Accounting Officer

 

I hereby certify that all investments as at 30 September 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 30 September 2014 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF64/14

 

 

Subject:                  Coogee Bowling Club - Approach for Installation of a Group Fitness Centre on Premises - Community Consultation

Folder No:                   F2011/06336

Author:                   Sharon Plunkett, Property Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

Following an approach to Council by the Coogee Bowling Club and a consortium of three local gentlemen, Stephen Hoiles, Adam Ashley-Cooper and Mitch Chapman seeking permission to implement a F45 Group Training Facility within the Bowling Club premises in the lower level of the club (currently housing pool tables and lockers) and on the most eastern bowling green (currently disused), Council resolved at the Ordinary Council meeting on 22 July 2014;

 

“(Smith/Roberts) that Council;

 

a)     undertakes an appropriate public consultation process to obtain community feedback on the preferred option moving forward with respect to the proposed installation of an F45 Group Training Facility within the Bowling Club premises in the lower level of the club;

 

b)     reports back to Council on the outcome of the public consultation process; and

 

c)     holds a Councillors’ briefing session concurrently with the public consultation process.”

 

Issues

 

Background

Council undertook community consultation on the Coogee Bowling Club proposal from 8 to 30 September, 2014. Residents were asked to “tell us what you think of a fitness group using part of the Coogee Bowling Club” by completing an on-line survey through the dedicated website:

www.yoursayrandwick.com.au/coogeebowlingclub

 

The website provided the following information:

 

“Coogee Bowling Club and the F45 Fitness Group want to install a group fitness centre, using part of the club building and the green at the eastern end. They have approached Randwick City Council about this and Council is asking for community feedback on the proposal. The Bowling Club building and site is Crown Land administered by Council. Any change of use will require consent by Crown Lands as well as a development application to Council. The Fitness Group will be having a drop-in session where you can discuss their ideas and plans on Monday 22 September at 6pm at the Coogee Bowling Club. You can let Council know what you think of this proposal by:

 

·           completing the comments form on this site, or

·           writing to the General Manager, Randwick City Council, 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031.

The deadline for comments is Monday 29 September 2014.”

 

Promotion of the Consultation

Council informed residents of the opportunity to have their say on this issue by:

 

·   letterbox distribution of a Council produced flyer to 6,000 Coogee households, which included details of how people could have their say and the F45 Fitness Club’s information night;

·   email notifications to the Coogee Precinct Committee and Coogee Chamber of Commerce;

·   items in Council’s eNews to 12,300 subscribers in three editions – 10th, 17th & 24th September;

·   an email newsletter to all 2,500 subscribers on Council’s Your say Randwick database; and

·   notices in the Southern Courier during the consultation period.

 

In addition the F45 Fitness Group:

 

·   attended and spoke at the September meeting of the Coogee Precinct Committee;

·   held an information night at the Bowling Club on Monday 22 September 2014; and

·   letterboxed Coogee residents about the proposal and their information night.

 

Consultation Outcomes

The consultation website attracted 1023 site visits, with 931 clicking through to find out more about the proposal. In all 213 residents completed the survey.

 

The results of the two key questions in the survey were as follows:

 

 

 

The majority of residents completing the survey were from Coogee (52%), with 14% from Randwick, 10% from Maroubra and 6% from Clovelly. The other 18% were scattered fairly evenly across other parts of Randwick City.

 

The Coogee Precinct committee was consulted on the issue and have advised that:-“Given the intent of the LGA is to protect residents and public land for public access, the Precinct feels that public land should not be alienated for private enterprise and profit, and that Council should have a duty of care to keep public land as is, public and accessible for all.”

 

Club & Fitness Group consultation summary

The consortium group emailed a summary of their consultation dated 3 October 2014.  Steve Hoiles attending the 15 September 2014 precinct committee meeting, 7000 flyers were prepared and distributed to the local community and an open night was held at the Club on 22nd September 2014 with ten people attending and raising issues regarding lighting and parking.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is currently no information provided by the Club or F45 Group Training Facility to identify any financial impact on Council’s income. Such information will be sought upon determination of owners consent in principle to the proposed use.

 

Conclusion

 

The results of the Council consultation process indicated a general support for the proposed incorporation of a fitness club using the identified sections of the Bowling Club.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council;

 

a)            provides written owners consent to the Coogee Bowling Club and F45 Fitness Group to lodge a development application to be assessed in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

 

b)     writes to NSW Trade & Investment (Crown Lands Division) seeking their approval in principle to a variation to the licence agreement to permit occupation by the F45 Fitness Group, amend the permitted use, and seek written consent for the Club to undertake alternations and additions; and

 

c)     subject to successful development consent to the proposed works through the Development Application process, enters into a variation of licence agreement with the Coogee Bowling Club to amend the affected terms of the agreement.

 

 


Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Coogee Bowling club consultation DL flyer_V5_FINAL

 

2.View

51-61 Dolphin Street, Coogee - Coogee Bowling Club - Email from Steve Hoiles about community consultation - F45 Group Training

 

 

 

 


Coogee Bowling club consultation DL flyer_V5_FINAL

Attachment 1

 

 

 


 



51-61 Dolphin Street, Coogee - Coogee Bowling Club - Email from Steve Hoiles about community consultation - F45 Group Training

Attachment 2

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF65/14

 

 

Subject:                  Kingsford Food Market

Folder No:                   F2012/00050

Author:                   Suzanne Williamson, Economic Development Officer     

 

Introduction

 

At its ordinary meeting of 23 April 2013 Council resolved as follows:

 

“(Moore/Matson) Council, as a key participant, initiator and stakeholder in the improvements proposed for the Kingsford Town Centre, explore ways to celebrate and promote the culinary experiences that make Kingsford unique within the City by outlining, through a report, the establishment of a “Kingsford ‘Hawker’ Market” event:

 

a)   hosted either within or in the vicinity of the Kingsford Town Centre;

b)   offering participation by the rich and diverse range of restaurants, cafes and eateries within the Kingsford Town Centre;

c)   held annually with the first event targeted this year;

d)   exploring the possibility, requirements and benefits to partnering with the Crave Sydney Food Festival; and

e)   comprising suitable commercial models applicable to supporting financial viability including any proposed contribution by Council in cash or kind.”

 

This report has been prepared in response to the above resolution.  It outlines for Council’s consideration a proposal for trialing a food related festival in Kingsford, and the estimated event costs.

 

Issues

 

Context

Successful economic development outcomes are built around true partnerships between government and business. Randwick City Council’s Economic Development Strategy (2009) is grounded on the principle of working in partnership with local businesses and the general community and these partnerships are viewed as important drivers to facilitate both a sense of community and a prospering city. Kingsford Town Centre Strategy (adopted in 2013) identified the need to explore opportunities with local businesses to develop community and cultural events to be held within Kingsford town centre.

 

Typically, localities develop their own distinct character and identity. Over time, Kingsford has evolved into a thriving restaurant precinct recognized for its diverse and affordable Asian cuisine.  Currently the town centre is home to approximately fifty (50) food related businesses, cafes and restaurants.

 

Consultation

The Kingsford Chamber of Commerce was initially consulted about the hawker food market concept.  Following the Chamber’s endorsement, council officers conducted site visits in August to speak with, and to gauge food owners’ interest in participating in a Council organised food festival in the Kingsford town centre. The idea of a food festival was well-received by local food businesses, with many restaurants suggesting that an event held early evening in November/December would best suit them.  This is the ‘off-peak’ time when the restaurant patronage is significantly reduced due to the university summer vacation period.

 

There was also the suggestion that the event be held as close as possible to the centre of the Kingsford retail/commercial area so that all businesses could profit from exposure to new visitors to the area. Holding a hawkers food event gives the Council an opportunity to partner with local businesses and to test out the effectiveness of the town centre’s activation strategy. 

 

In the light of positive feedback from local Kingsford businesses and the Kingsford Chamber of Commerce, and subject to the Council’s approval, the hawkers food event should be held in early December.  The event can then be promoted as a food precinct to local residents as well as to the wider Sydney community.   It is hoped that the event will attract returned visits during the university vacation period and grow to become an attractive destination year round.

 

Holding the trial food event in Meeks St will give council staff the added benefit of assessing the potential for differing social and cultural uses, given that the Council’s Light Rail Support Plan Package has identified that section of Meeks St as a potential permanent urban plaza.

 

In terms of partnering with key Sydney food festival events, it is considered too early to participate under an established Sydney-wide food festival such as The Sydney Morning Herald Good Food Month or Crave Sydney International Food Festival.  As this event is effectively undertaken on a trial basis, it would be prudent to hold a standalone event in the first year to gauge community response to this event. 

 

Event proposal

Therefore the following arrangement for trialing a Kingsford food event (event branding to be confirmed) is proposed:

 

·           Hold event on Saturday 6 December 2014, 4pm-9pm in Meeks St, Kingsford bounded by Anzac Parade and Middle Lane (see attachment).

·           Implement temporary road closure for the duration and locate food stalls, tables and chairs on road with pedestrian access through the middle. The small Council car park located on the corner of Meeks St and Middle Lane within the proposed enclosed area will become part of the food event precinct.

·           Invite Kingsford restaurants located along Anzac Parade to participate from their regular business premises and be seen as a part of the event.

·           Given local Kingsford restaurants the first opportunity to take a stall, with restaurants from other areas of Randwick being given next priority.

·           Council staff to liaise with stall-holders to ensure that a culturally diverse range of food will be offered. It is envisaged that no more than two stalls should be selling the same type of food.  The aim is to reflect the wide array of food that Kingsford restaurants currently offer to encourage sampling and maintain a true multicultural flavor to the event.

 

An initial outline of costs is presented below:

 

Event Requirements

 

Costing

Infrastructure

Staging, stalls, seating, tables, marquee, fencing, generators, cool room, sanitation etc

$18,000

Health and Waste Management Services

Food inspections, waste bins, event waste removal etc

$2,000

Traffic Management

Road closures, signage, traffic personnel etc

$7,000

Publicity and Event Styling

Advertisements, letterbox drop, posters, signage etc

$5,000

Entertainment

Lion dancers, music, fire crackers, roving performers, bi-lingual MC etc

$3,000

 

Total

$35,000

 

Since the restaurant and food outlets are predominantly small businesses, their financial contribution towards the cost of holding the Kingsford food event is limited to food provision, preparation, selling and employee costs.  Based on the above table, the cost of the event infrastructure provision, publicity and entertainment will be borne by Randwick City Council.  Should this venture be successful, there is scope for the Council’s contribution to be revised with local businesses potentially increasing their financial contribution.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:     A liveable city.

Direction 6f:    Foster distinct neighbourhoods with commercial centres that meet the needs of our community as places to work, shop, live and socialise.

Outcome 8:     A strong local economy.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of the trial Kingsford food event is estimated at $35,000, funds of which, if endorsed by the Council, will need to be sourced in the December quarterly budget review.

 

Conclusion

 

Local outdoor food related festivals/events provide a significant contribution to the quality of public places and to community life. They encourage an active street frontage, provide opportunity for spontaneous social interaction and are ideally suited to Randwick City’s diverse community and outdoor lifestyle.

 

Kingsford has developed into a vibrant sector of small food businesses in response to local demands for affordable, local, fresh, ethnic cuisine. Partnering with the Kingsford Chamber of Commerce and the local Kingsford food businesses in a local food event will provide the opportunity to promote Kingsford and the culinary experiences available in Kingsford to Randwick City residents and to a new Sydney wide audience.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council supports a trial Kingsford food event and approve a budget allocation of $35,000, to be sourced in the December quarterly budget review.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Proposed location Kingsford Food  Event – Saturday 6 December 2014

 

 

 

 


Map - to be inserted on Monday

Attachment 1

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM115/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposed Economic Development Forum - Aboriginal Governance and the Creation/Establishment of Aboriginal Private Enterprises

Folder No:                   F2007/00684

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward      

 

 

That council:

 

a)     Invite Mr Warren Mundine at councils cost, to address an Economic Development Forum Breakfast on Aboriginal Governance and the Creation/Establishment of Aboriginal Private Enterprises.

 

b)     Extend the invitation for breakfast to Local and Regional Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal business leaders.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM116/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson - To ban Smoking on all Beaches in the city of Randwick from summer 2014

Folder No:                   F2004/07518

Submitted by:          Councillor Neilson, North Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

1)     acknowledges the public health dangers and detrimental environmental impacts associated with smoking and that there is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke.

 

2)     consistent with Council’s No Smoking around playgrounds takes a more proactive role in stopping smoking throughout the city at bus stops and other locations including beaches.

 

3)     moves to exercise its powers under the Local Government Act to prohibit smoking on Council controlled beaches in the city of Randwick from the earliest possible time.

 

4)     Progressively install and upgrade signage informing the public of the no smoking ban on beaches which will also enable Council's regulatory staff to enforce the prohibition as and when required.

 

5)     run an extensive information campaign about the dangers of smoking, the huge environmental costs eg cigarette filters are made from petroleum-based plastic acetate and do not biodegrade. According to NSW Health, “There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke and it causes a range of serious health problems, especially in children. Tobacco remains the single biggest most preventable cause of ill health and death in Australia. The health impacts are estimated to cost the NSW Government $8 billion annually.”

 

6)     officers to report back with an appropriate fine that may apply.

 

7)     make every effort to have this regulation in force by summer 2014 on the beaches throughout the city of Randwick. Our beaches are healthy, fun places and we should do all in our power to keep them this way.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM117/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Proposed Nurses Memorial

Folder No:                   F2004/06254

Submitted by:          Councillor D'Souza, South Ward     

 

 

That Council acknowledges the long historical connection between the Randwick LGA and the nursing profession by investigating a permanent memorial to commemorate the invaluable contribution of nurses to our community at the Nurses Museum Little Bay, this memorial to be developed in consultation with the Prince Henry Hospital Trained Nurses Association.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM118/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Proposed Greeter Program in Randwick City

Folder No:                   F2013/00113

Submitted by:          Councillor Roberts, East Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

a)     investigate the feasibility of establishing a volunteer tourist greeter program in Randwick City and that a report come back to Council in relation to its management, promotion, demand and any associated costs;

 

b)     open dialogue with Randwick City Tourism Inc to discuss implementation of such a greeter program; and

 

c)      update, print and distribute, in partnership with Randwick City Tourism Inc, the Coastal Walkway tourist map.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM119/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Whale Watching Program

Folder No:                   F2013/00113

Submitted by:          Councillor Roberts, East Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

a)     note the value of the coastal walkway to local tourism, economic development and local jobs,

b)     note the increased number of humpback whales passing Randwick's shores every year,

c)     consider  the construction of a whale viewing platform on the coastal walkway and bring back a report on its viability, cost, source funding and where such a platform would ideally be situated.

d)     consider in the report the option of locating it south of Maroubra Beach to stimulate tourism opportunities in the southern sections of the coastal walkway.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM120/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Pop Up Shop

Folder No:                   F2007/00586

Submitted by:          Councillor D'Souza, South Ward     

 

That a report be brought back to Council detailing options for Council to facilitate a landlord liaising directly with a prospective pop up shop tenant in circumstances where a shop, that is vacant or unused for a long period, can be used by another business for a short or seasonal period, such report to include options available to Council to provide incentives for such pop up shops.

 

 

 

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 28 October 2014

 

 

Notice of Rescission Motion No. NR12/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Rescission Motion from Councillors Bowen, Matson & Neilson - Development Application report - 15 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee (DA/191/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/191/2014

Submitted by:          Councillor Bowen, East Ward; Councillor Matson, East Ward; Councillor Neilson, North Ward     

 

That the resolution passed at the Planning Committee meeting held on 14 October 2014 in relation to Item D85/14, reading as follows:

 

“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/191/2014 for substantial alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new first floor, additions at ground floor, double garage at lower ground level, swimming pool to rear and associated works at No. 15 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

Garage amendments

2.     The proposed garage door shall be recessed a minimum of 300mm into the garage structure to reduce prominence to the street.

 

Balcony amendments

3.     The proposed rear balcony and associated outdoor room shall be amended in accordance with the following requirements, as shown in red on the approved plans, prior to the issue of a construction certificate:

 

a.     The balcony shall be reduced in length by one (1) metre when measured from the rear;

 

b.     The planter along the eastern aspect of the balcony and outdoor room shall have a minimum width of one (1) metre;

 

c.     Suitable planting shall be provided in the planter along the eastern aspect of the balcony and outdoor room, in order to facilitate privacy to 17 Edgecliffe Ave.

 

          Pool equipment

4.     Filtering equipment associated with the new pool shall be contained within an acoustic enclosure. The enclosure shall be designed and constructed by a suitably qualified person and meeting the requirements of Condition 63. The pool plant equipment and enclosure detail shall be shown on the plans and submitted to the satisfaction of the PCA, prior to issuing a Construction Certificate for the development.”

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

If the Rescission Motion is carried, it is intended to move the following motion:

 

“That the matter be deferred with the invitation extended to the applicant to submit amended plans addressing view loss and solar access to adjoining neighbours.”