Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 25 November 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                                                                                             25 November 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, 25 November 2014 at 6:00pm.

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

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

Amen”

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

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

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 October 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 69 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

Mayoral Minutes

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

Urgent Business

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting required)

 

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

 

CP108/14   89-89A Mooramie Avenue, Kensington (DA/560/2014)................................ 1

CP109/14   11 Monmouth Street, Randwick (DA/406/2012/A )................................... 21

CP110/14   2 Wolseley Road, Coogee (DA/160/2011/A)............................................ 31

CP111/14   5 Inman Street, Maroubra (DA/556/2014).............................................. 39

CP112/14   59-61 St Marks Road, Randwick
(DA/665/2014)..................................................................................
45

CP113/14   2 Virginia Street, Kensington (DA/536/2014)........................................... 55

CP114/14   395-397 Anzac Parade, Kingsford......................................................... 87

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP115/14   Report variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 and 31 October, 2014......................... 97

General Manager's Reports

GM32/14   Proposed Community Partnership with the Eastern Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club................................................................................... 101

GM33/14   Community consultation - alcohol consumption in Coogee beachside parks.. 105

GM34/14   Review of the 2014-15 Annual Operational Plan - September Quarterly Report 113

GM35/14   Kingsford Food Market...................................................................... 119

Director City Services Report

CS20/14    Upcoming Buildings for our Community project - Coogee Lower Promenade Amenities - community consultation report............................................................ 121

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF72/14    Code of Conduct Complaint Statistics................................................... 133

GF73/14    Schedule of meetings for 2015 and arrangements for decision making during the Christmas/New Year period................................................................ 135

GF74/14    Appointment of Electoral Commission NSW to Conduct 2016 Local Government Election.................................................................................................... 139

GF75/14    Quarterly Budget Review - September 2014.......................................... 141

GF76/14    Investment Report - October 2014...................................................... 161

GF77/14    Withdrawl of Caveat......................................................................... 169  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM132/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Nash - Proposed Naming - Small part of Coral Sea Park - Molly Dunn ............................................................................................ 171

NM133/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Local Volunteer Expo......................... 173

NM134/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Randwick and Botany Chinese New Year Celebrations.................................................................................................... 175

NM135/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Integrating bicycle racks into all of Randwick City town centres................................................................................... 177

NM136/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposing a third party insurance scheme for cyclists........................................................................................... 179

NM137/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Malabar Headland............................. 181

NM138/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Amalgamations.................................. 183

NM139/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Response to Fit For the Future............. 185

NM140/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Response to the request by the American President to the people of Australia for a continued commitment to addressing Climate Change issues.................................................................................................... 187

NM141/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Request for Stingless Bee Hive at Randwick Public School........................................................................................... 189

NM142/14  Notice of Motion from Cr Smith - Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel models 191  

 

Closed Session

 

Director City Planning Report (record of voting required)

CP116/14   Extension of Waste Disposal and Processing Contracts

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.

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report (record of voting NOT required)

GF78/14    Insurance Claim - Benjamin Stewart & Olivia Stewart v Randwick City Council

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (g) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

 

Director City Services Reports (record of voting required)

CS21/14    Tender T2015-10 - Coogee Senior Citizens Hall Refurbishment, Coogee

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.

 

CS22/14    Tender T2015-05 - Chifley Sports Reserve Amenities Building

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

  

Notice of Rescission Motions

NR13/14    Notice of Rescission Motion from Crs Andrews, Seng and Stevenson - Environment Report - Proposal for the "Walk it Off" campaign for Kensington and Kingsford business precincts........................................................................................ 193  

 

 

 

……………………………………………………

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP108/14

 

 

Subject:                  89-89A Mooramie Avenue, Kensington (DA/560/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/560/2014

Author:                   Elise  Crameri , Planning Consultant - APP Corporation Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Change of use of the existing dwelling house and out building to a boarding house including associated alterations and additions to the building and a new disabled ramp

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Mr W W Wu

Owner:                        Ms W Wu

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview58972.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is reported to Council for consideration at request of Councillors Nash, Stavrinos and Andrews.

 

The existing property has undergone extensive unauthorised modification that has not been clearly articulated on the submitted plans or supporting documentation. Under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, retrospective consent cannot be granted for physically commenced building work. As such Council is legally bound to refuse the Development Application in its current form.

 

Notwithstanding the above, a full assessment of the proposed development has been undertaken against all relevant state and local environmental planning instruments and controls.

 

The proposal is considered suitable for the locality and the delivery of affordable housing is generally supported. However in this instance, the intensity of the use is considered unsuitable for the site contributing to adverse impacts on the amenity of future residents in relation to site and building layout and functionality of common spaces and the potential for the building and site to be considered accessible under the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

If further application is made, it should be accompanied by a concurrent building certificate to regularise any unauthorised construction intended to be retained and seek to improve the plan and site layout by reducing the number of boarding rooms and residents.

 

1.0      Proposal

 

The proposed development involves a change of use from an existing dual occupancy residence and double garage to permit the operation of a boarding house, with 11 boarding rooms and up to 17 boarders.

 

The use will operate from the existing dual occupancies buildings present on the site including, a two (2) storey dwelling located at the front of the site and a one (1) bedroom dwelling with two (2) car garage located to the rear of the site.

 

The use will be managed in accordance with the submitted Plan of Management (PoM) that outlines the operational characteristics of the site including house rules that limit, visitation, the use of external areas and common areas after 10pm, use of parking facilities and the like.

 

To facilitate the proposed use the following construction works are outlined in the submitted documents and plans:

 

Main Building – Ground Floor:

·      Remove entry door to enclosed front dwelling entry and create new “communal room”;

·      Remove steel enclosure from the existing raised side entry;

·      Remove existing sliding entry doors and replace with windows to proposed southeast “communal room”;

·      Construct new entry ramp along the southern side of the dwelling to an existing entry point to create a new principle point of entry;

·      Existing side entry hall to be used as principle point of entry to the dwelling and “communal room”;

·      Conversion of an existing bathroom to a walk in wardrobe and ensuite;

·      Conversion of existing store room to a separate laundry and bathroom;

·      Conversion of an existing laundry to an accessible bathroom;

·      Conversion of an existing lounge room to double room;

·      Retention and remodeling of the existing kitchen;

·      Retention of three (3) existing bedrooms as boarding rooms, two (2) singles and one (2) double; and

·      Remove a portion of the eastern rear wall to create a new opening to the rear deck.

 

First Floor

·      Retention of existing west (street) facing balcony;

·      Conversion of upstairs entry hall to a store room and cleaners closet;

·      Conversion of existing bathroom to walk in wardrobe and ensuite;

·      Conversion of existing store room to a separate laundry and bathroom;

·      Conversion of an existing laundry to an share bathroom, containing two (2) water closets and a full bathroom;

·      Conversion of an existing lounge room to double room;

·      Conversion of existing kitchen to a double room, including ;

·      All three (3) existing bedrooms, converted to double boarding rooms (one 91)with ensuite); and

·      Remove a portion of the eastern rear wall to create a new opening to the rear deck.

 

Outbuilding

·      Retain existing garage component at the southern end of the outbuilding for car parking; and

·      Convert the existing one (1) bedroom granny flat to a boarding house containing bathroom facilities, kitchen and two (2) boarding rooms.

 

External Works:

·      Southern extension of the existing pedestrian entry from Mooramie Avenue to the existing raised side entry to create a new accessible principle point of entry;

·      Remove two (2) existing trees from within the front setback and transplant a third;

·      Install six (6) new bicycle rack;

·      Construct a new patio between the main building and rear detached outbuilding;

·      Construct a new bin store behind the existing 1.8 metre (approx.) front boundary fence;

·      Demolish part of the existing side boundary fence along Barker Street and create new site entry; and

·      Establish two (2) motorcycle parking spaces under the proposed patio adjacent to private open space.

 

Note:         The plans and documentation submitted do not accurately reflect the buildings as presently constructed on site. It is also advised that when the property was sold in 2013, the layout of each building was markedly different from those now shown as “existing”.

 

Site

 

No. 89 Mooramie Avenue Kensington, legally described as Lot 59 in DP 10943, is located on the north eastern corner of Mooramie Avenue and Barker Street (the site).

 

The site is generally rectangular in shape with a primary street frontage to Mooramie Avenue of 10.215 metres and secondary street boundary to Barker Street of 39.015 metres. The site has an approximate area of 589.7m².

The site falls from west to east from RL23.16 at the Mooramie Avenue frontage to RL21.45 at the rear boundary, a total of 1.71 metres with a gradient of approximately 4 per cent.

 

The site currently contains a two (2) storey residential building last approved for use as a dual occupancy with a detached outbuilding approved for use as part garage, part granny flat. A hardstand area, served by a second driveway provides open parking between the main residence and outbuilding.

 

Figure 1: Site Plan (source: New Era Design)

 

Figure 2:  Street view of the site looking east, from the western side of Mooramie Avenue

 

Figure 3: View of the site looking northwest, from Barker Street.

 

The immediate surrounding locality is defined by low density residential area characterised by detached and semi-detached dwellings varying between one (1) and two (2) storeys.

 

Kensington Park is located immediately to the south of the site on the opposite side of Barker Street and local commercial and retail is available along Anzac Parade approximately 400 metres east of the site. the University of New South Wales Kensington campus is located a further 100 metre east on the opposite side of Anzac Parade.

 

Text Box: University NSW Kensington Campus



Text Box: Kensington ParkText Box: The site Text Box: Anzac Parade

Figure 4: Locality Plan (Source: www.nearmap.com)

 

3.0 Background

The following section provides a summary of the known history of the site. It is evident that between 1992 and 2014 significant works have been undertaken to each of the dwellings present on the site.

 

3.1 Site History

A  review of Council’s files indicate that the property is currently approved as a dual occupancy, permitted to contain a two (2) storey residence and detached rear garage and single dwelling. The application history is summarised in Table 1.

 

Table 1: Development Application History

Date

Application Reference

Development Considered

06.02.1989

539/89/D-355/88

Approval granted for the construction a new single dwelling and garage to the rear of No. 89 Mooramie Avenue to create a dual occupancy.

 

At the time of granting consent the existing dwelling (located to the front of the property) was identified as single storey.

25.01.1993

539/89/D-535/92

Approved second storey addition to existing detached dual occupancy (front residence).

 

A specific condition (condition 5) was imposed restricting the use of each domicile to a single dwelling domicile.

 

The property was sold in mid 2013 at the time of sale indicative floor plans were provided showing the main residence having being converted into two (2) separate domiciles. Notably this adaption contravenes the conditions of consent 539/89/D-535/92. It is unclear at what point these works were undertaken.

 

3.2 Application History

The subject application was submitted with Council in response to compliance action commenced due a complaint registered with Randwick Council in relation to the use of the rear garage.

 

An inspection was subsequently carried out by Council’s Senior Building Surveyor who identified the following works:

 

·      The southern portion of the existing garage had been converted into six (6) separate rooms for a place of shared accommodation; and

 

·      Internal works were underway to the existing two (2) storey dwelling.

 

Two (2) Notices of Intent were subsequently issued to the owner, for the following:

 

·      Cessation of use of the southern portion of the garage as a place of shared accommodation combined with the demolition of unauthorised works; and

 

·      Cease the unauthorised buildings works occurring within to the inside of the existing dwelling.

 

Council records indicate that the use was ceased and the internal walls within the garage were demolished thereby complying with the orders.

 

Subsequently, the applicant engaged a planning consultant and the subject application lodged with Council.

 


4.0 Submissions

 

The proposed development was notified for a period of 14 days from 29 August 2014 17 September 2014. Notification occurred in the form of direct mail to the adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties and a sign was placed at the front of the site in accordance with Part A of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2014 (RDCP 2013)

 

At the closing of the notification period a total of three (3) written submissions had been received. Following this a further 20 submissions and two (2) petition were received from the properties listed below. A summary of the issues raised is provided in Table 2:

 

·      58 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·      60 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·      87 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·      34 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·      62 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·      77 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·      85 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·      81 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·      66 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·      69 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington (Head of petition with 68 signatures)

·      85 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·      52 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·      48 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·      64 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·      87 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·      56 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·      83 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·      205 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington (Head of petition with 14 signatures)

·      Rapport Heritage Consultant

·      Kensington & West Kingsford precinct

 

Table 2: Submission summary

Issues

Comments

Loss of visual privacy due to:

 

·      Raised balcony;

·      Safety – views of the park; and

·      Intensity of use (dwelling vs. boarding house).

 

 

The proposed development continues a residential purpose on the land, utilising the existing and approved balconies.

 

The proposal includes built responses to control direct overlooking between the property and the adjacent dwelling at 87 Mooramie Avenue. The extent of the screening restricts view lines to capture only the extensive rear yard on an oblique angle. Protecting the more utilized principle private open space.

 

In relation to properties east of the site, the potential for loss of privacy due to the continued use of balcony is considered limited due to the 16 metre extent of separation between the balcony and rear boundary.

 

In relation to concerns raised regarding overlooking of the park. Casual surveillance of public spaces enhances safety and security and is a key element in the States guidelines for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.

 

A Plan of Management (PoM) was submitted in support of the application that restricts the hours of use of common areas. That would further contribute to reducing any adverse impacts.

 

Noise impacts

 

The use of premises is consistent with the zoning of land. Boarding houses as a form of residential accommodation are unlikely to generate more use than a large dwelling house.

 

Moreover, the PoM submitted for the site proposes stringent controls regarding music and social activities beyond 10pm.

 

In the circumstance there is no substantiating evidence that the premises, if properly managed, would generate excessive noise levels.

 

Residents may pose a safety threat to children and the community.

Affordable housing is an important and vital element to sustaining a functioning city through providing for social inclusion within established communities with access to essential services.

 

There is no evidence to support the claim that mentally ill residents would pose a threat to the community. Moreover, to refuse the application on these grounds would be contrary to Commonwealth Anti-Discrimination legislation.

 

It serves the broader community interest to provide for a spectrum of housing choice that promotes an integrated and inclusive community.

 

Traffic impacts

The site is located within 400 metres walking distance of public transport. State Environmental Planning Policy (affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPPARH) intentionally limits parking within accessible areas as a means of encouraging the use of active and alternate modes of transport, thereby reducing car ownership for persons residing in boarding houses.

 

The development is considered unlikely to contribute to an unreasonable increase in local traffic.

 

Inadequate onsite parking causing loss of on street parking;

 

 

The provision for car parking is compliant with the provisions of SEPPARH. Under the provisions of the SEPP, where the minimum standard is met Council cannot use parking impacts as a means for refusal.

 

As noted above, the location of the site within an accessible area promotes the use of active and alternate modes of transport. In this regard the applicant has proposed to include additional bicycle parking which is considered an appropriate contextual response.

 

Intensity of the use – overcrowding.

The majority of the boarding rooms are compliant with the minimum gross floor area for boarding rooms.

 

Notwithstanding this, a reduction in the number of boarding rooms would allow for a general elevation in the quality of the development and amenity for future residents.

 

Resident Tenure

The PoM submitted requires residents to stay a minimum of three (3) months.

 

Inadequacy of:

 

 

·      Kitchens; and

SEPPARH requires that where common kitchens are proposed they should be “adequate”.

 

The proposed development provides, two (2) kitchens:

·      1 in the main residence with a GFA of 12m² and shared by up to 15 residents; and

·      1 in the detached outbuilding (GFA undisclosed) and shared by up to 2 residents.

 

Taking into account, the average bench width is 600mm, the proposed 12m² kitchen would have approximately 9m² of clear floor area.

 

15 peoples worth of groceries would require more than a single fridge and the bench space and cook top provision is insufficient to allow residents to cook simultaneously.

 

When the limited size of the kitchen is measured against the limitation on the use of common areas, it becomes questionable as to whether all residents would gain access to the kitchen prior to the house rules prohibiting its use.

 

·      Communal areas.

Agreed. The communal areas limited in size and are not considered to provide for the recreational needs of residents.

 

It is considered that the proposed spaces fail to meet the definition of “communal room” defined under the SEPP. The limited dimensions of the rooms would mean that once furniture was placed in each room, persons of mobility restriction would experience difficult in manoeuvring through or within them.

 

There needs to be an onsite manager.

Under SEPPARH boarding houses with no more than 20 residents are not required to provide an onsite manager.

As this is a State Level control, Council has no discretion to vary the requirement.

 

A boarding house is a commercial use.

Boarding Houses while run as commercial enterprises are for purpose of planning regulation a form of residential accommodation. Under the provisions of the RLEP 2014, the use is permitted within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

 

Litter and illegal dumping.

The development is supported by an area designated within the site boundaries allowing for suitable waste storage.

 

As all furniture for the residents is provided by the owner/operator the potential for illegal dumping is markedly reduced.

 

Fire Safety

A detailed Building Code of Australia report was submitted with the DA that makes recommendations in relation to fire safety measures necessary to ensure the safety of the building and those adjacent.

 

Both the main residence and outbuilding are capable of being appropriately upgraded to ensure fire safety.

 

It is unclear as to the need for the inclusion of fire safety dividing structures within the “double” rooms given they are assessed as one single occupancy and not two under the provisions of the BCA. In this regard, these measures appear facilitative to further works.

 

Loss of trees and limited open space

Tree removal appears unnecessary and is not supported by an arborist report. Given this could be avoided through an improved design outcome that would also result in an elevated amenity for future residents, tree removal not supported.

 

The existing building footprint and site layout constrains the provisions of open space, landscaped area and deep soil. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development unnecessarily exacerbates this.

 

Plans are inaccurate and do not properly document potential changes.

Agreed. A review of previous approvals together with a site inspection confirms that the building has undergone extensive unauthorized works. Not all detailed in the submitted plans as either “existing” or “proposed”.

 

In particular the site inspection confirmed that several external walls have been modified to create new openings.

 

Adverse impact on property values.

No evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim of adverse impact on local property values. Notwithstanding this, these matters are not prescribed for the purpose of section 79C as a matter for consideration in the assessment of application and therefore cannot be considered or used as a means of restricting development of land.

 

Approval will set a precedent for other boarding houses in Mooramie Avenue.

The development (if approved) would not establish a precedent as the form of development is permitted within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone under RLEP 2012.

 

The application is generally compliant with SEPPARH and the relevant provisions of Council’s DCP. If the intensity of the development was reduced and the unauthorised works resolved it would be appropriate for the site.

 

It is considered that the following modifications (subject to resolution of existing compliance issues) would result in a positive outcome: 

·      Retention of the existing entry and adaption to make accessible;

·      Retention of the existing ground floor open plan lounge and kitchen; and

·      Modified laundry layout to make “accessible”;

·      Provision of side path at suitable gradient to make accessible to rear yard or install chair lift from back verandah to rear yard; and

·      Deletion of the two single boarding rooms from the rear garage to allow relocation of all bicycle and motorbike parking and waste management areas to the detached outbuilding.

 

 

5.0 Key Issues

 

5.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 109F – Restriction of issue of Construction Certificate

Under section 109F of the Act retrospective consent cannot be granted to physical commence construction works. 

 

The submitted application details unauthorised works to include dividing walls in existing bedrooms at the ground and first floor of the main building and nominates these elements for demolition.

 

Inspection of the property combined with a review of the last known floor plan layout of the dwellings reveals much more unauthorised works have taken place, some of which the applicants indicate are “proposed” under the current application, including (but not limited to) partial demolition of external structural walls to create new door and window openings.

 

Given the lack of clarity in identifying the extent of works that have taken place and the restriction placed on Council to retrospectively approve any such works under a development application or construction certificate the application must be refused.

 

Section 5.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992

The development does not comply with the Access to Premises standards or the Building Code of Australia in relation to minimum access requirements. In particular the development does not provide the following:

 

·      The rear outbuilding, classified as a class 1b building does not contain an accessible room or facilities to include bathroom.

 

·      The main building, classified as a Class 3 building does not provide at least one (1) of each room of space for use in common by residents as accessible. In particular the development does not provide an accessible shower or laundry. Furthermore the accessibility of the “communal living rooms” would be restricted once furniture was placed within them.

 

·      Access by way of a continuous path of travel is not provided to the rear of the property or between the detached outbuilding and the main dwelling for mobility restricted persons.

 

The development is incapable of complying with the requirements of DDA 1992 and the provisions of the BCA.

 

5.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Standards for Boarding Houses

Clause 30 of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP prescribes that a consent authority must not grant consent to a development unless it is satisfied of each of the following:

 

(a)    a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided.

 

For the purposes of SEPPARH, Communal Living Room is defined as follows:

 

communal living room means a room within a boarding house or on site that is available to all lodgers for recreational purposes, such as a lounge room, dining room, recreation room or games room.

 

The proposal includes the provision of two (2) common rooms located on the ground floor, as follows:

 

1.     The first common room is located immediate at the relocated entrance to the main dwelling and functions as a thoroughfare providing access to the stairs and the first floor and other habitable living spaces located on the ground floor.

 

This room has an irregular shape with an overall area shown on plan as 12m². Given the location of this space in the southwest corner of the existing dwelling it would not receive 3 hours solar access.

 

2.     The second communal space is located in the northwest corner at the front of the property and is the existing entry verandah. The space is rectangular in shape with dimensions of 2.47m x 5.26m and a total floor area shown as 12m². This space would receive three (3) hours sunlight at the winter solstice.

 

The plans do not show the placement of furniture within each of the communal rooms. However, the Plan of Management details that each will be provided with a dining table and chairs.

 

The limited dimensions of each space (i.e. less than 3 metres) and gross floor area (i.e. each less than 20m²) are considered to restrict the use of the spaces or meet the needs of the residents.

 

In particular the communal room located at the point of entry is considered to be more akin to entry foyer. The placement of any furniture within this space is likely to compromise the accessibility of the dwelling for mobility impaired persons.

 

The spaces are not considered to be of a suitable size or dimension to be “available to all lodgers” or achieve the aim of being used for “recreational purposes”. In this regard the proposal is not considered to provide a communal living room that meets the definition of SEPPARH or the needs of the likely future residents.

 

The proposal is not considered to satisfy this standard of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP and therefore consent cannot be granted to the application.

5.2 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

·      Preservation of Trees (clause 5.9)

Clause 5.9 of RLEP 2012 serves to protect and retain local amenity and biodiversity values through the preservation of established trees.

 

The site contains three (3) trees within the front setback of the property (refer to Figure 2), described as follows:

 

·      Tree 1: located in the northwest corner of the front setback with a trunk diameter of 400mm, height of 6 metres and canopy spread of 4 metres;

·      Tree 2: located adjacent to the front boundary in the front setback near the front fence with a trunk diameter of 300mm, 6 metre height and 2 metre canopy spread; and

·      Tree 3: located in the southwest corner of the front setback with a trunk diameter of 300mm, height of 5 metres and canopy spread of 4 metres.

 

The proposal seeks to remove trees 1 and 2 and transplant tree 3 in the location of existing Tree 1. The applicant has indicated that tree removal is necessary to facilitate the construction of the waste storage area and new entry ramp.

 

The application was not accompanied by an arborist report to assess the health and vitality of the existing trees or the potential impact on transplantation of Tree 3. No replacement planting are proposed to compensate for the proposed removal of two (2) trees.

 

 

As outlined in later sections of this report, the proposed tree removal and increase in permeable surfaces also contravenes adopted controls relating to landscaped area and the location of waste management service areas.

 

In this instance the loss of landscaped areas and the removal of trees is in part driven by the intensity of the land use that requires necessary support facilities to meet the requirements of SEPPARH.

 

A reduction in the intensity of the use, to remove the two (2) boarding rooms from the rear garage would allow for the location of all support facilities to the outbuilding away from common spaces and the front setback. This would allow for an improved amenity and the retention of existing trees.

 

5.3 Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

A detailed assessment of the proposed development against the relevant provisions of the DCP is included in the attachment to this report.

 

·      Part B6 Waste Management

Section 6.4: Operational Waste Management

Controls (i) and (iv) promote the suitable design and location of waste storage facilities to complement the design of a development. Control (iv) specifically states that developments should avoid locating waste storage areas between the front alignment and the street where possible.

 

The proposed development locates the waste storage area forward of the building alignment immediately adjacent to the front boundary and pedestrian entry to the site. While it is noted that the location is screened from the street by an existing 1.8 metre high solid fence.

 

The relevant objectives of the control state the following:

 

·      To ensure quality design of waste management facilities that complement the building design and minimise noise, odour and visual impacts on adjacent uses and the public domain.

 

The intensity of the use requires the provision of a minimum five (5) waste bins to adequately service the development. The location of such immediately adjacent to the boundary has the potential to contribute to odour impacts within the public domain.

 

Moreover, the position immediately adjacent to the pedestrian entry point is not considered to contribute to the amenity of the property and contributes to a loss of soft landscaping including the removal of trees. Both of which are considered to be contrary to the general character of the landscape setting of the broader locality and the likely future character as dictated by Council’s controls. 

 

In this instance, the location of waste services is driven by the intensity of the use that leaves no alternate space for bins to be placed within the site.

 

·      Part C1 Low Density Residential

Landscaped area and permeable surfaces

Section 2.4 controls (i) to (vi) require the following:

 

·      For lots between 451m² and 600m² a total of 20 per cent deep soil permeable surfaces (to be counted areas must have a width not less than 900mmm);

·      Deep soil to the front setback should be maximised;

·      Existing mature trees to be retained and incorporated into landscaping. Where trees are removed they are to be replaced;

·      New development to provide at least one large canopy tree with a mature height of 6 metres (4 metres may be accepted where the site is demonstrated to be constrained); and

·      Proposed and/or existing trees to be retained.

 

The development proposes the following:

·      A reduction in deep soil and permeable landscaping from 19 per cent to 15.6 per cent. A loss of 19.74m² or 17.6 per cent of the existing provision of deep soil;

·      All deep soil to be removed from the site is from the front setback;

·      The proposed works within the front setback will also remove two (2) existing trees that have not been indicated to be replaced.

 

The objectives of the control include the following:

 

·       To ensure landscaped areas are effectively distributed on the site to achieve a visual balance between building structures and open space.

·       To provide privacy screening between dwellings.

·       To retain and provide for canopy trees and large shrubs to contribute to the establishment of vegetation corridors across the locality.

·       To assist with stormwater infiltration and reduction of overland flow.

 

The existing development already exceeds the distribution of hard paved/impermeable surfaces across the site.

 

The proposed development to change the land use to allow use of the site for the purpose of boarding house places further demand on those spaces remaining to accommodate essential support facilities.

 


Safety and Security

Section 5.5 control (i) requires dwellings to orientate the main entry to the front elevation.

 

The proposed development seeks to relocate the building entry from the front of the main dwelling to side elevation. The relocated entry point will not be clearly visible from the street or any site entry.

 

The existing entry point for the rear outbuilding, along the eastern elevation, is not clearly visible from the rear side access along Barker Street.

 

The objective of the control includes:

 

·      To reduce crime risk and minimize opportunity for crime;

·      To ensure that relevant crime principles are applied to the siting and design of building and landscaping;

·      To ensure that siting and design of buildings and spaces contribute to the actual and perceived security of dwellings and the personal safety of residents and visitors.

 

In general the proposed alteration in the building entry is not considered to promote legibility of the site and would be considered inconsistent with the principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design.

 

In particular the property is noted to contain two (2) separate residential building elements, with three (3) separate site entry points. Not all of which are subject to passive surveillance opportunities or clear and connectivity sightlines between the street entry point and the dwelling entry point.

 

The number of entries undermines access control, while the 1.8 metre high fence surrounding the property contributes to restricted passive surveillance.

 

Clothes Drying facilities

Section 7.8 requires the provision of outdoor clothes drying facilities behind the main building line.

 

The proposed development does not include outdoor clothes drying facilities. In this instance, given the extensive demands already placed on the available space within the rear yard of the site there is no opportunity to provide a clothes line.

 

·      Part C4 Boarding Houses

Council has adopted controls to regulate boarding house development. The controls prescribe the following:

 

·      Outdoor communal space;

·      Indoor communal living rooms;

·      Communal kitchens, bathrooms and laundries facilities;

·      Safety and Crime Prevention;

·      Visual and Acoustic amenity and Privacy; and

·      Managements Plan.

 

Where controls are in conflict with SEPPARH, the SEPP is taken to prevail. These matters are detailed in the compliance report. The following section addresses those matters that are taken to supplement or clarify the SEPP and where the application has been assessed as inconsistent.

 

The objectives of these controls is stated as:

 

·   ensure boarding rooms and communal spaces are appropriately sized, located and equipped with suitable facilities;

·   reduce the opportunity for crime and enhance the feeling of safety for residents; and

·   protect the acoustic and visual privacy and living amenity for both boarding house residents and neighbours.

 

Outdoor Communal Open Space

Section 2.2 (ii) and (v) of the DCP requires that communal outdoor open space be provided at or above ground level (i.e. on a podium) and that the provision of common space be accessible to all as well as being provided with fixed elements such as seating and/or BBQ facilities.

 

A space meeting the dimension and area requirements of 20m² with a minimum dimension of 3 metres is provided to the rear of the property between the main dwelling and the out building. This space has approximate dimensions of 3.2 metres x 6.4 metres and is accessible from the main dwelling by a set of stairs leading from the ground floor verandah and the outbuilding via an entrance in the western façade.

 

The significant level change between the main dwelling and the designed area of private open space/communal open space, renders this space inaccessible to persons of mobility restriction.

 

Moreover, there is no other suitable space with adequate dimensions provided that would meet the needs or requirements for accessibility.

 

In this regard, the proposed communal outdoor space is not considered to meet relevant objective of the control to provide suitably located, sized or equipped facilities to meet the needs of residents.

 

Indoor Communal Open Space

Section 2.3 (i) extends the provisions of SEPPARH and requires communal living rooms to have an area of at 20m² of 1.2m² per resident (whichever is the greater).

 

As noted earlier the development provides two (2) communal living rooms, each with a floor area of 12m². While it is noted that the gross floor area of these rooms combined would meet the minimum requirement the usable floor area of each is restricted in relation to the following:

 

·      one room serves as the dwelling entry and thoroughfare to the remainder of the ground floor limiting both its use for the purpose of passive recreation, as well as the placement of furniture to retain a clear and unobstructed path of travel;

·      the second room, located at the front of the premises has restrictive dimensions of less than 3 metres also constraining the placement of furniture and its potential use for recreation purposes to support up to 17 residents.

 

In this regard, it is considered that the rooms provided do not meet the definition of “communal living rooms” under the SEPP. Furthermore they do not meet the objectives of the control under the RDCP 2013 to be appropriately sized.

 

2.4 Communal kitchen, bathroom and laundry facilities

Section 2.4 of the RDCP 2013 requires that boarding houses be supported by easily accessible facilities to include kitchens, bathrooms and laundry facilities.

 

The proposed boarding house over the two (2) residential building present on the site will accommodate up to 17 residents, with the following communal facilities:

 


Main dwelling:

·      single kitchen of 12m²;

·      Two (2) laundries each with a single washing machine and tub (ground and first floors)

·      One (1) bathroom (with shower) accessible through the laundry (at ground and first floor); 

·      One (1) accessible toilet with basin; and

·      One (1) share bathroom at the first floor containing, two (2) toilets and one (1) bathroom.

 

Detached dwelling (Outbuilding):

·      Separated toilet and shower; and

·      1 communal kitchen.

 

For most users of the premises the facilities may be considered “easily accessible. However, as noted earlier in this report the laundry facilities have not been suitably designed to meet the access standards and the “accessible bathroom” fails to detail shower facilities.

 

No provision has been made within either the residential component or the external areas of the property for the purpose of drying clothes.

 

In this regard, the proposal is not considered to meet the requirements of the control or the objectives. Given the limited availability of space within the dwellings and the external areas of the property these matters could not be conditioned without further potential adverse impact on residential amenity.

 

Visual and acoustic privacy

Section 2.6 (ii) requires that wet and common areas, likely to generate noise transmission, be located together to reduce potential noise impacts on sensitive receivers (i.e. to sleeping areas/bedrooms).

 

Both residential dwellings place active and wet areas immediately adjacent to and between bedrooms. The fragmented nature of living areas, means that most bedrooms will experience transmission of noise. In particular the following is noted:

 

·      BR1 has a window and common wall to the proposed communal area;

·      BR4 has a common wall to the shared entry foyer/communal area and kitchen;

·      BR3 located between common kitchen and rear verandah;

·      BR2 located between common laundry kitchen and ensuite bathroom of BR1; and

·      BR7 located between common laundry kitchen and ensuite bathroom of BR6;

·      BRs 5 and 11 adjacent to communal kitchen and share a common wall with parking areas.

 

In general the plan layout of both residential components is poor and contributes to a reduction of residential amenity for residents. Retention of the existing entry and open plan living space that currently allow for direction connection to the kitchen and rear verandah would dramatically elevate the amenity of the dwelling and utility of space.

 

Furthermore consideration should be given to locating ensuite bedrooms with common walls to share bathrooms to serve a buffer to noise transmission between spaces.

 

The layout and fragmented nature of habitable/active spaces is symptomatic of the over intensification of the use.

 

The applicant should consider reducing the number of boarding rooms with the view to improving the layout and functionality of internal and external spaces.

 

Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative effect of the numerous variations sought to Council’s planning controls is considered to be symptomatic of an overdevelopment of the site that undermines and compromises the residential amenity of the site for future residents.

 

In particular this is due to the constrained nature of open space provision to the rear of the site capable of meeting the demands of the use. In particular the inability of the development to achieve the following:

 

·       Suitably designed and located private open space that does not serve as a thoroughfare connecting the main dwelling to the outbuilding;

·      Suitable separation between onsite parking and proposed private open space;

·      The provision of outdoor clothes drying facilities;

·      Waste management areas away behind the building alignment;

·      Retention of existing trees and deep soil.

 

Moreover, the intensity of the use is also affecting the internal layout of rooms that compromises accessibility, functionality, amenity and safety. In particular the following:

 

·      The relocation of the front door to deliver an inefficient and inappropriately designed communal area that is incapable of meeting the needs of 17 residents; and

·      The delivery of fragmented common spaces that adversely affects their utility and functionality but also undermines the safety and security of the building through creating opportunity for concealment and removing clear and unobstructed sightlines.

 

In this instance, the quantum and nature of the variations sought is not considered to contribute to adverse impact on residential amenity for future residents.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The application seeks consent for a change of use, from dual occupancy to a boarding house containing 11 boarding rooms for up to 17 residents.

 

The application has been submitted in response to compliance action taken by Council against the owners in relation to the operation of an unauthorised boarding house that required the demolition of works undertaken to the rear garage and a cessation of works within the main dwelling.

 

Accordingly, the application also includes demolition works to remove unauthorised internal walls and the reconstruction of internal elements to the main dwelling and outbuilding.

 

An inspection of the site and review against the last known building plans indicates that not all works have been clearly detailed on the submitted plans. Moreover, the plans indicate that some works that have been completed are now “proposed”.

 

Under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 retrospective consent cannot be granted for physically commenced construction works. In this regard the application is required to be refused and an building certificate application made to regularise any such works.

 

The heads of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as are of relevance to the application, have been taken into consideration in the assessment of this application.

 

In this instance the proposal is assessed to result in a poor residential amenity for future residents. The proposal fails to satisfy a number of standards contained within State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

In view of the circumstances, refusal of the application is recommended.

 

 

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/560/2014 to change the use from dual occupancy to boarding house, containing 11 rooms for up to 17 residents with associated construction works at No. 89 – 89A Mooramie Avenue, Kensington for the following reasons:

 

1.     Retrospective consent for physical commencement of construction works cannot be issued pursuant to section 109F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2.     The proposed development does not demonstrate consistency with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 access to premises standards embodied with the Building Code of Australia. In particular the development fails to provide equitable access to all common facilities of the site both internal and external to the buildings.

3.     The application is not supported by an appropriate BASIX Certificate and therefore does not satisfy the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

4.     The proposed development is contrary to a number of standards prescribed within State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. In particular, the application does not provide an acceptable or adequate communal living room, kitchen or laundry facilities. The cumulative effective of the variation is considered to impact on the residential amenity of the development.

5.     The proposed development is contrary to section 2.4 Landscaping and Permeable surfaces of Part C1 Low Density Development, resulting in a reduction of onsite landscaping below Council’s recommended minimum of 30 per cent of the site. The reduction occurs within the front setback of the property and is considered to be inconsistent with clause 29(2)(b) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

6.     The proposed development is contrary to clause 5.9 Preservation of Trees, of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the provisions of Part B5 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. In particular, the proposal seeks the removal of two (2) trees without compensatory plantings to replenish the urban forest and the transplantation of another tree, without sufficient evidence to support the health and vitality of the tree by way of suitable arborist report.

7.     The proposed development is contrary to the waste management requirements prescribed within Part B6 of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. In particular, the proposed development locates waste storage and management areas forward of the building line.

8.     The proposed development is contrary to section 5.5 Safety and Security of Part C1 Low Density Residential of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. In particular the modified design and layout of the boarding house does not reflect the principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental design in respect of the following:

a.   Relocation of the primary point of entry to the side elevation of the dwelling, reducing legibility of the site and promoting concealment; and

 

b.   The fragmentation of active spaces throughout the dwelling disrupts sightlines and promotes concealment.

 

9.     The proposed development does not comply with section 2.2 Outdoor communal open space or section 2.3 indoor communal open spaces of Part C4 Boarding Houses of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. In particular, the proposed communal facilities are considered inadequate to meet the demand or intended function due to the limited linear dimensions and fragmented layout. The design of communal spaces is also inadequate to permit universal access to mobility impaired persons.

 

10.   The identified non-compliances with both Council’s Development Controls and the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 are symptomatic of an overdevelopment of the site. In particular this is seen in the inadequacy of communal facilities, the reduction in landscaped area to facilitate the poor location of waste servicing. In this regard the development in its current form is not considered suitable for the site.

 

11.   In view of the above, approval of the application would not be in the public interest.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 89-89A Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP109/14

 

 

Subject:                  11 Monmouth Street, Randwick (DA/406/2012/A )

Folder No:                   DA/406/2012/A

Author:                   Shona Porter, Development Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification to increase the height of the rear fence and change the privacy treatment to the north facing bedroom window. Original consent: Demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey dwelling

 

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Ms K Kipper

Owner:                        Ms K Kipper

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview55015.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The S96 application is referred to Council as the original was determined by Council.

 

1.        
Proposal

 

The subject application seeks consent for the following modifications:

 

-    Removal of the privacy louvre on the north facing bedroom window and replacement with 1.5m high privacy film;

-    Retrospective approval for the rear boundary fence ranging in height from 1.92m to 2.357m; and

-    Modification of Condition 46 in relation to a Gum Tree removed by an adjoining neighbour.

 

Amended plans were submitted on 8 October 2014 following discussions on site between the applicant and Council Officers. The amended plans raised the height of the privacy film to 1.6m.

 

2.         The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 19, Section 1, Deposited Plan 3716, No. 11 Monmouth Street, Randwick. The site is located on the eastern side of Monmouth Street, between Stanley Street and Stephen Street. The site is rectangular in shape. Dimensions and land area of the site are provided in the table below:

 

 Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, side boundary

37.645m

458.8m2

Southern, side boundary

37.645m

Eastern, rear boundary

12.19m

Western, front boundary

12.19m

 

The topography of the site includes a fall from the rear of the site to Monmouth Street of approximately 2.5 metres. Monmouth Street significantly slopes down south to north with the subject site situated halfway along the street.

The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential and located within the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area pursuant to Clause 5.10 and Schedule 5 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) and is located within the vicinity of four Heritage Items including the Emanuel School.

 

3.         Relevant Background

 

DA/410/2011

An application for demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey dwelling part basement level garage with storage and associated works was deferred by Council 28 February 2012 and subsequently refused by Council 10 April 2012.

DA/406/2012

Subject application approved by the Land and Environment Court 26 October 2014.

 

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:

 

7 Monmouth Street

Issues

Comments

Louvres were required to be specifically upward facing and not openable beyond 45 degrees to ensure privacy.

The proposal achieves the same level of privacy to adjoining neighbours as the approved louvre and does not allow overlooking into the neighbouring private open space at both 7 and 9 Monmouth Street as shown in Photo 1 further within key issues section of this report.

Extensive compliance history.

Issues relating to compliance with the Development Consent and Construction Certificate have been dealt with under separate cover by the Principal Certifying Authority and Council’s Compliance and Regulatory Section.

Actual fence height is 2.7m; proposed height is excessive in a heritage conservation area.

Some excavation and fill was undertaken on the subject site as approved under the original approval. The fence measurements are consistent with the slope of the land and supported by the documentation received.

 

The rear fence cannot be seen from the street, and therefore does not affect the streetscape. The fence is indicated at 2.357m, representing a minor non-compliance of 157mm for sloping sites. See further discussion in Section 6: Key Issues.

Letter of support is not from the owner of 12 Chepstow and the house is vacant.

The owner of 12 Chepstow Street received a notification letter regarding the proposed development. No conflicting submission was received, and access to the site was provided by the owner’s son. The rear fence has been assessed with regard to the impact on 12 Chepstow Street, and the impact is considered acceptable. See further discussion in Section 6: Key Issues.

 

13 Monmouth Street

Issues

Comments

Overlooking concerns.

The proposed privacy film is considered prevent overlooking onto the adjoining sites. See further discussion in Section 6: Key Issues.

Privacy film is not a permanent solution.

The privacy film is shown on the proposed plans and by condition of consent and is a permanent solution.

 

9 Monmouth Street

Issues

Comments

Bulk and scale of development has impacted the amenity.

Not relevant under the subject application.

Proposal is not in the spirit of the LEC approval and results in overlooking.

The proposed privacy film will adequately to prevent overlooking onto the adjoining sites. See further discussion in Section 6: Key Issues.

 

1.5m is not adequate.

Council’s controls require a minimum of 1.6m. This has been amended to comply by the applicant.

 

Stripe frosting inadequate.

The windows showing striped frosting is not part of the subject application, and the approved plans do not require any frosting on those windows. The frosting proposed does not have stripes running through it.

Curtains are not considered privacy measures.

Council does not consider curtains as a privacy measure and an assessment was undertaken of the proposed privacy film.

Permanency of frosting.

The required privacy film is subject to condition of consent  and must be implemented in perpetuity.

Adjoining windows do not contain privacy measures.

These windows were approved as acceptable and are not part of this application. It is noted that other first floor windows and balconies existing within the street without privacy measures, resulting in mutual cross viewing.

Compliance issues regarding the rear and side fence.

As discussed above, issues relating to compliance with the Development Consent and Construction Certificate have been dealt with under separate cover by the Principal Certifying Authority and Council’s Compliance and Regulatory Section. See further discussion in Section 6: Key Issues.

Garden and internal lighting is too bright.

Not a matter for consideration under the subject application.

Rear fence does not comply with the controls resulting in an undesirable precedence.

The rear fence is considered to be consistent with adjoining fences along Monmouth Street and Chepstow Street. See further discussion in Section 6: Key Issues.

 

14 Chepstow Street

Issues

Comments

Eastern windows do not contain privacy measures.

These windows were approved and are acceptable. They and are not part of the subject application.

Property contains spotlights.

Not a matter for consideration under the subject application.

Poor health of tree in the rear yard.

Not a matter for consideration under the subject application.

Privacy screening is the most effective solution.

As discussed above, the proposal achieves the same level of privacy to adjoining neighbours as the approved louvre and does not allow overlooking into the neighbouring rear yards as shown in Photo 1 further within the report.

 

Bulk and scale of dwelling house.

Not a matter for consideration under the subject application.

 

The writer of the letter of support is not a resident of the ‘abandoned’ 12 Chepstow and we question his decisions regarding the replacement fence and other trees planted in the rear yard.

As discussed above, the owner of 12 Chepstow Street received a notification letter regarding the proposed development. No conflicting submission was received, and access to the site was provided by the owner’s son. The rear fence has been assessed with regard to the impact on 12 Chepstow Street, and the impact is considered acceptable. See further discussion in Section 6: Key Issues.

 

Security cameras installed at the rear of 11 Monmouth Street.

Neither a Council matter nor a matter for consideration under the subject application.

 

3 Monmouth Street

Issues

Comments

Overlooking concerns. Curtain not an acceptable privacy measure.

The proposed privacy film is considered to prevent overlooking onto the adjoining sites as shown in Photo 1 below. The film is a permanent measure by way of approved plans and condition of consent. See further discussion in Section 6: Key Issues.

 

Council does not consider curtains as a privacy measure and an assessment was undertaken of the proposed privacy film.

 

5.         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:-

 

5.1    Substantially the Same Development

The modifications are consistent with the original application and will not change the nature of the approved development as a two storey dwelling house. The modifications sought are ancillary to the use of the site as a residential dwelling and will therefore remain substantially the same as approved in the subject development consent.

 

6.         Key Issues

 

·    Privacy Louvre

The subject application seeks to delete the approved privacy louvre attached to the main bedroom on the northern elevation. A privacy film to a height of 1.6m is proposed following amended plans lodged on 8 October 2014. The proposed height meets the requirements of the RDCP 2013, and is considered sufficient to minimise overlooking as shown in the photos below:

 

Description: M:\Development Assessment\Shona\11 Monmouth\1.6m (2).JPG

Photo 1: Taken from the adjoining window. The paper is located at a height of 1.6m taken flush against the window.

 

As shown in Photo 1 above, the 1.6m privacy film prevents overlooking into the adjoining residential sites, whilst providing some city skyline views to the master bedroom of the subject dwelling.

 

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed privacy film effectively maintains the current privacy of adjoining properties and meets the objectives and controls of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013).

 

·   
Rear Boundary Fence

The proposal seeks retrospective approval of a rear boundary fence ranging in height between 1.92m and 2.357m. The RDCP 2013 requires that rear boundary fences of 2.2m for sloping sites. Notwithstanding the minor non-compliance with the controls, the objectives for boundary fences require that the height and rhythm of fences should complement the development onsite and the streetscape. The topography of Monmouth Street includes a fall from south to north down the street, with a significant stepping of side and rear fences existing throughout the street. The stepping of the subject fence is consistent with those existing within the street, and similarly steps down within the site. The topography of the street and rear fence is shown below:

 

Description: M:\Development Assessment\Shona\11 Monmouth\DSC07828.JPG

Photo 2: View of staggered fence line due to sloping topography to the north.

 

Description: M:\Development Assessment\Shona\11 Monmouth\DSC07834.JPG

Photo 3: Rear fence viewed from 11 Monmouth Street.

 

Written support from the rear neighbour at 12 Chepstow Street was submitted with the development application and subsequent telephone conversations held with the neighbour confirmed their support. As viewed from the adjoining neighbour’s site, the impact of the rear fence does not result in unreasonable bulk presented to 12 Chepstow Street:

 

Description: M:\Development Assessment\Shona\11 Monmouth - 12 Chepstow\DSC08028.JPG

Photo 4: Photo of the rear fence viewed from 12 Chepstow Street.

 

Given that the rear fence maintains the predominant rhythm of the street and achieves a good level of privacy between the site and the affected rear neighbour, the minor non-compliance with the RDCP 2013 is considered to satisfy the objectives of the RDCP 2013.

 

·    Condition 46

The application was amended to include a modification to Condition 46 which states the following:

       

Tree Management

46.   With the exception of the large Gum Tree growing on the rear (eastern) boundary, halfway across the width of the site, no objections are raised to the removal of any other existing vegetation within the site, due to their small size and significance, as well as to accommodate the proposed works as shown, subject to full implementation of the approved landscaping.

 

The abovementioned ‘large Gum Tree’ was removed by the adjoining neighbour at 12 Chepstow Street, approved by Council on 13 March 2013. Given that the tree has been removed, part of the Condition is inconsistent. It is therefore recommended that Condition 46 be modified as follows:

 

Tree Management

46.   With the exception of the large Gum Tree growing on the rear (eastern) boundary, halfway across the width of the site, No objections are raised to the removal of any other existing vegetation within the site, due to their small size and significance, as well as to accommodate the proposed works as shown, subject to full implementation of the approved landscaping.

 

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 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. 406/2012 at 11 Monmouth Street, Randwick, in the following manner:

 

Amend Conditions Nos 1, 2 and 46 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:

 

Prepared by

Title

Drawing No

Issue

Date

Anna Vaughan Architects

Site Plan

AO1

B

17.10.12

Anna Vaughan Architects

Proposed Lower & Ground Floor Plans

AO2

D

17.10.12

Anna Vaughan Architects

Proposed Upper Floor & Roof Plan

AO3

E

18.10.12

Anna Vaughan Architects

Proposed Western & Southern Elevations

AO4

C

17.10.12

Anna Vaughan Architects

Proposed Northern & Eastern Elevations & Sections

AO5

B

17.19.12 (sic 17.10.12)

Anna Vaughan Architects

Proposed Driveway Plan and Section

AO6

B

17.10.12

Anna Vaughan Architects

Proposed Pool Plan and Section

ARO7

B

17.10.12

Anna Vaughan Architects

Landscape Area-General

ARO9

B

17.10.12

Anna Vaughan Architects

Landscape Areas-Soft Landscaping

ARO10

B

17.10.12

Anna Vaughan Architects

Existing & Proposed Shadow Diagrams-Plans

SSD01

B

17.10.12

Anna Vaughan Architects

Existing & Proposed Shadow Diagrams -Elevation #13

SSD02

B

17.10.12

Anna Vaughan Architects

Basix Certificate

433253S

 

19.06.12

 

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:

 

Prepared by

Title

Drawing No

Issue

Date

Received by Council

Anna Vaughan Architects

Part Plan and East Boundary Wall Elevation

F01

03

11.07.14

14 August 2014

Anna Vaughan Architects

Northern Elevation

SK01

A

7.10.14

8 October 2014

 

            Amendments of Plans & Documentation

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

       

a)         Angled louvre timber privacy screens must be installed around the perimeter of the northern side balcony at first floor level from the top of the solid balustrade to a height of 1.8m from floor level. The screens must be designed to block all horizontal or downward view lines to No. 9 Monmouth Street and louvres must be operable between a maximum of 45 degrees and 90 degrees.

 

b)         The first floor rear window on the northern elevation shall be fixed with frosted glazing or frosted film to a minimum height of 1.6m as measured from the finished floor level.

 

Tree Management

46.     No objections are raised to the removal of any other existing vegetation within the site, due to their small size and significance, as well as to accommodate the proposed works as shown, subject to full implementation of the approved landscaping.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP110/14

 

 

Subject:                  2 Wolseley Road, Coogee (DA/160/2011/A)

Folder No:                   DA/160/2011/A

Author:                   Olivia Yana, Development Assessment Officer      

 

 Proposal:                   Section 96(AA) modification of the Land and Environment Court approval by extending the size of the basement area, adding new mezzanine level in the void area above the basement level and various internal alterations.

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                X Pace Design Group

Owner:                        Elena Nova Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview54068.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This section 96 modification application is referred to the Ordinary Council Meeting for its consideration, as the original application was refused at the Planning Committee Meeting on 10 May 2011. An appeal was subsequently lodged with the NSW Land and Environment Court, which was upheld on 7 October 2011.

 

1.      Proposal

 

The Section 96 application is referred to Council as the original determination was made by Council. The approved development is for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of 3 storey multi-unit housing consisting of 3x3 bedroom dwellings, basement parking for 6 vehicles and associated site works valued at $2,600,000.

 

This section 96 application is currently seeking to modify the approved development in the following manner:

 

Basement Level

-    Reduce driveway width to 3.6m,

-    Extend basement area resulting in additional floor area of 21m,

-    Relocate bicycle room,

-    Change garage gate to roller door, and

-    New air conditioning room with louvres for ventilation between the driveway and bicycle room.

 

Ground Floor Level

-    Increase landscaped area on the northern boundary and reduce driveway width,

-    New mezzanine floor level in the void area above the basement car parking resulting in additional floor area of 97.06m to accommodate gym, games room, theatre, toilet, sauna and store room,

-    Install fixed glazing on the eastern side of the gym room,

-    Relocate air conditioning room to basement level,

-    Relocate hot water units room to the ground level plant room, and

-    Change internal staircases design to spiral stairs.

 

First Floor Level

-    Change internal staircases design to spiral stairs.

 

2.      Site

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Wolseley Road, Coogee, between Neptune Street to the North and Oberon Street to the south. The site is legally identified as Lot 1 in DP 320504 and has an area of 490.7m2. It forms a regular rectangle with a width of 14.635m and a depth of 33.53m. It falls relatively steeply, at almost 5m to the street frontage.

 

To the rear is located a two storey residential building with an access handle running along the northern boundary of the subject site adjoining Neptune Park. To the south is a 3 storey residential flat building at No 4, and a 5 storey residential flat building at Nos. 6-8. To the east, across Wolseley Road is the Trenerry Reserve and beyond that, the Pacific Ocean.

 

 

Street photograph of the subject site and surrounds

 

3.      Submissions

 

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

 

-    Unit 1 and 3/4 Wolseley Road, Coogee

-    251-261 Oberon Street, Coogee

-    1 Cairo Street, South Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The submissions are mainly objecting to the new additional floor space, non-compliance to Council’s development standards, height of the proposal, and amenity impacts from any windows and air conditioning unit on the basement level.

The proposed works would be contained wholly within the void area above basement level and no changes are proposed to the height or envelope of building above ground level. No new windows are proposed on the elevations and the air conditioning will be relocated internally into the middle section of the basement area. Amenity impacts to adjoining properties are not anticipated from the internal relocation of air conditioning room. The additional habitable areas and increase in FSR are addressed below.

 

 

4.      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:

 

4.1      Substantially the Same Development:

 

The modification to the approved development does not significantly 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. The modification consists of internal alterations to the approved residential flat building. No substantial changes are involved in the built form and envelope of the approved development, thus the works remain consistent with the original consent. 

 

 

5.      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.

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

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

The proposed new mezzanine level is consistent with the principles of Design Quality of Residential Flat Building and will continue to satisfy the objectives of Residential Flat Design Code. Refer to Part 6.1.1 of this report for compliance.

 

State Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

The proposed modification will continue to comply with the requirements of SEPP: BASIX. Refer to Part 6.1.2 of this report for compliance.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

Zone R3 - Medium Density Residential

The site is zoned Residential R3 Medium Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent. Refer to Part 6.1.3 of this report for compliance.

 

The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will not detract from the desirable elements of the streetscape and locality while providing for the housing needs within a medium density residential environment and protecting the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring residents.

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

Nil.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Refer to Part 6.2 of this report for compliance.

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed in this report.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the dominant residential character in the locality. The proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.

 

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

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

 

The submissions received for this proposal are addressed in Part 3 of this report.

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

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

 

6.1    Relevant Environment Planning Instruments:

 

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

 

No additional comments from Design Review Panel are required for this application, as it is seeking relatively minor internal modifications. It is proposed to convert void section above the basement level into areas to be used as a gym, games room and theatre with proposed floor to ceiling height of 2.4m. The proposed ceiling height for the new mezzanine level is considered acceptable having regard to the types of activities to be carried out in the rooms. Further, the fixed glazing on the eastern side of the gym room in conjunction with artificial lighting and mechanical ventilation will supplement limited access to a natural source of day light and ventilation. These measures are not indicated clearly on the plans received by Council on 24 September 2014 and further condition is to be included within this report to ensure adequate provision of day light and ventilation. 

 

6.1.2         State Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

 

SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for all new dwellings, dual occupancies and some transient residential accommodation where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2004. A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

Clause 55A of the EP & A Regulation requires that a new BASIX certificate be lodged for amended plans or where a section 96 modification makes a material change to the BASIX commitments as originally approved.

 

No BASIX certificate is submitted with this application. Amended condition of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX is to be included within this report.

 

6.1.3          Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

 

The following clauses of RLEP 2012 are relevant to the proposed development:

 

Zone R3 - Medium Density Residential

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will not detract from the desirable elements of the streetscape and locality while providing for the housing needs within a medium density residential environment and protecting the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring residents.

 

Clause 4.3 – Height of buildings

The height of the building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map, which is 12m. No changes to the height of building proposed.

 

The proposal continues to be consistent with the objectives of this clause in that the size, scale and character of proposed built form is compatible with the desired future character of the locality and building in a conservation area, whilst protecting the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum floor space shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map, which is 0.9:1.

 

The total approved FSR from the original determination was 1.182:1, which includes FSR for the built form above ground of 0.88:1. FSR calculations made under Clause 4.5 of RLEP 2012 will result in total floor space ratio of 1.31:1. No changes proposed for FSR of the built form above ground level. The proposal does not change the bulk, size and scale of the building and utilises the void area above the basement as new mezzanine level. The increase of FSR for the area below the ground level is regarded satisfactory and consistent with the objectives of this clause in that the size, scale and character of proposed built form is compatible with the desired future character of the locality, whilst protecting the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

Further to that, exception to the development standard is not required as the proposed increase in FSR is applied for under Section 96 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

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.

 

Proposed internal alterations will not change the appearance of approved residential flat building and it is considered satisfactory in terms of its contribution to the scenic quality of the foreshore area.

 

6.2             Development Control Plan:

6.2.1          Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RCDCP) 2013 – Section C2 Medium Density Residential

 

Clause 5.2 - Natural Ventilation and Energy Efficiency

The objectives of this clause are to ensure that dwellings are designed to provide all habitable rooms with direct access to fresh air and assist in promoting thermal comfort for occupants; to provide natural ventilation in non-habitable rooms; and to reduce energy consumption by minimising the use of mechanical ventilation. Modification to the approved development proposes artificial lighting and mechanical ventilation for the new mezzanine level. Non-compliance with Council’s development control in this instance is considered acceptable, as the internal amenity of the additional habitable area on the new mezzanine level is subject to the continuation of conditions in relation to BASIX commitments and the provisions of Building Code of Australia (BCA). 

 

6.      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.

 

7.      Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

8.      Conclusion

 

Due to the ancillary nature of proposed works in comparison to the extent of the approved development, this current proposal to modify development consent is not considered to result in any adverse impacts to the adjoining properties in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views. The proposed modifications are to be carried out internally and will continue to comply with the controls and objectives of Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 and Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RCDCP) 2013 in which coherently consistent with the original development consent. The application, therefore, is recommended for approval subject to the relevant conditions of consent.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council as the consent authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No. DA/160/2011/A by extending the size of the basement area, adding new mezzanine level in the void area above the basement level and various internal alterations at 2 Wolseley Road, COOGEE  in the following manner:

 

A.         Amend the following Conditions to read:

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 2.01, 3.01 and 3.02 all revision A and all dated 28/09/11, the landscape plan LP-DA-01 Revision C dated 29/09/11, the application form and on any supporting information received with the   application, as amended by the:

 

·              the Section 96 “A” plans numbered 1.01 and 2.01 all revision B and plan numbered 1.02 revision A, all dated 19/09/14 and received by Council on 24 September 2014,

 

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

 

11.   In accordance with Section 80A(11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all of the required commitments listed in the relevant BASIX Certificate for this development is fulfilled. An amended BASIX Certificate that includes the habitable spaces on the basement level is to be submitted to the Certifying Authority.

 

          B.      Add the following Condition:

85.   Amended plans indicating the provision of glazing to the gym room and operable glazing to allow ventilation for the new mezzanine level are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority with the Construction Certificate application for this development.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP111/14

 

 

Subject:                  5 Inman Street, Maroubra (DA/556/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/556/2014

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to dual occupancy including the conversion of the existing garage roof into a trafficable terrace

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                M R Degabriele

Owner:                        R Degabriele

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview60599.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

The application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Andrews, Nash and Stavrinos.

 

The application details alterations and additions to the rear ground level of the existing dual occupancy to provide for an enlarged living area leading to a terrace and the conversion of the roof of the existing garage at the front of the building into a trafficable terrace.

 

The main issue is the impact that the conversion of the garage roof into a terrace will have upon the privacy of the adjoining properties.

 

The application is recommended for approval, subject to a condition to delete the garage roof terrace from the application.

 

Site

 

The site is on the eastern side of Inman Street and contains at present a two storey dual occupancy. The site has a frontage of 11.85m, a depth of 45.14m and area of 537m2. The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of dwelling types.

 

Figures 1:  Street frontage

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:

 

Issue

Comment

 

3 Inman Street Maroubra

-The close proximity of the proposed terrace above the garage to their ground floor bedroom and upper level living rooms at the front of their dwelling will result in a loss of privacy and noise nuisance.

 

7 Inman Street Maroubra

-There are concerns in relation to the length of the building towards the rear boundary.

 

-The new railing to the garage terrace will impact upon their view, it should be clear glass with no visible railing.

 

-Concerns in relation to heat and glare off the rear extension roof. The rear roof is sloping upwards rather than away from the rear of the existing dwelling.

 

 

 

 

-There are a number of windows in the southern elevation.

 

 

 

 

 

See discussion in the Key Issues section below in relation to privacy impacts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The building is setback 14.6m from the rear boundary which exceeds the DCP control minimum of 8m.

 

See comments below in the Key Issues in relation to the garage roof terrace.

 

 

A condition of consent is included with respect to the external colours and finishes schedule being provided to Council for consideration to ensure that the colour of the metal roof will not reflect glare to the adjoining or surrounding properties.

 

There are new windows within the southern side of the dwelling which are to the bedroom, bathroom, pantry, kitchen and living room. The bathroom window is nominated as being of obscured glazing, and the bedroom window and living room window are a high light style. The two windows to the pantry and kitchen are mid level windows, which in the kitchen form a splashback to the kitchen bench.

 

Key Issues

 

Privacy

Part 5.3 of the Randwick DCP – Low Density Residential details the objectives and controls with respect to Visual Privacy.

 

The objectives for Visual Privacy seek;

 

To ensure development minimize overlooking or cross viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.

 

The relevant controls are;

 

Where a balcony, deck or terrace is likely to overlook the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings, privacy screens must be installed in positions suitable to mitigate the loss of privacy.

 

Privacy screens must be permanently fixed and have a minimum height of not less than 1600mm as measured from the finished floor level. Privacy screens must achieve a minimum of 70% opaqueness and may be constructed with:

 

        -Translucent or obscured glazing

        -Fixed timber or metal slats mounted horizontally or vertically.

        -Fixed vertical louvers with the individual blades orientated away from the      private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings.

 

Screen planting and planter boxes may be used as a supplementary devise for reinforcing private protection. However, they must not be used as the sole privacy protection measure.

 

At present there is an existing double garage which extends across most of the frontage of the site and is sited to the front of the building and up to the front boundary. See photo below.

 

Figures 2: Front Boundary

 

The application proposes the conversion of the roof of the garage into a trafficable roof terrace. The terrace as originally proposed has been amended to reduce the extent of the terrace by providing a 920mm wide planter to the perimeter of the terrace.

 

From the proposed roof terrace it is possible to look directly upon the four windows in the southern side of the adjoining dwelling at 3 Inman Street which serve at ground level a bedroom and within the upper level a living room.

 

See photo below which is taken from the middle of the existing garage roof near the front of the building.

 

Figures 3:    View from the middle of the existing garage roof near the front of the building.

 

As is evident from the photos above it will be possible to look directly into the adjoining windows of 3 Inman Street which will result in a significant loss of privacy and amenity to those residents.

 

The existing front yard of 3 Inman Street is a parterre style garden with raked pebbles and a water feature within enclosed planting and is not an area that could be used as an outdoor living area. There is no possible cross viewing from 3 Inman Street onto the proposed terrace.

 

It will also be possible to look directly into the windows within the front of the adjoining building at 7 Inman Street from this terrace.

 

The proposal includes the provision of a planter box to the perimeter of the proposed terrace. As can be seen from the photo above, from a standing position it will still be possible to look directly into the windows of the adjoining dwelling.

 

The DCP control details that where a deck or terrace will overlook the private open space or windows of adjacent dwellings, privacy screens, screen planting or planter boxes may be used as a supplementary device for reinforcing privacy protection.

 

Those measures must not be used as the sole privacy protection means.

 

The proximity of the terrace to the living areas of the adjoining dwelling would require the installation of a screen across the whole northern side of the terrace as the only means to maintain privacy to that dwelling.

 

The provision of a visual barrier as described above is not suitable given the visual prominence of the terrace at the front of the building. Any privacy screen would add to the bulk of the building as viewed within the street and would also obscure views from the subject and adjoining properties.

 

A planter box to the perimeter of the terrace as proposed by the amended plans will not maintain privacy. From any position on the terrace it will still be possible to look directly into the adjoining dwellings. For planting to perform as effective screening it would be necessary for the planting to be at a height and thickness to obscure vision, which would result in the same negative impact upon the streetscape as a privacy screen would as described above.

 

In conclusion the proposed terrace to the existing garage roof will fail to satisfy the objectives of Part 5.3, Visual Privacy, of the Randwick Development Control Plan – Low Density Residential and it is recommended that the garage roof terrace be deleted from the application.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to a condition to delete the garage roof terrace.

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 556/2014 for alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy at 5 Inman Street, Maroubra subject to the following non standard condition and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard condition

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a)     The proposed terrace to the garage roof does not comply with Section 5.3, Visual Privacy of the Randwick Development Control Plan – Low Density Residential. The terrace is to be deleted from the application.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 5 Inman Street , Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP112/14

 

 

Subject:                  59-61 St Marks Road, Randwick
(DA/665/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/665/2014

Author:                   Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Conversion of the existing Strata title lot into two (2) Torrens Title lots (land subdivision).
(Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Mrs G Vincent

Owner:                        The Owners - Strata Plan No. 16488

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council as the proposed lots have a shortfall greater than 10% to the 400m2 minimum lot size standards under Clause 4.1(3) of the RLEP 2012.

 

1.      Proposal

 

The proposal involves converting the existing two lot strata subdivided properties into two Torrens title subdivided lots. The Torrens title subdivision is proposed to accommodate the pair of semi detached dwelling houses built circa pre-1930 onto separate allotments.

 

The proposed allotments comprise:

 

•      Lot 1: 208.2m2 with a frontage of 6.93m and

•      Lot 2: 205.3m2 with a frontage of 6.41m.

 

2.      Site

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of St Marks Road in Randwick and is presently occupied by an existing pair of single storey semi detached dwellings.  The total site has an area of 413.5m2 a total site frontage width of 13.34m, side boundary depths of 31.00m. Neighbouring the property to the south is a 3 storey multi-unit housing development; to the north is a pair of single storey semi-detached dwellings.

 

Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding sites.

 

The surrounding locality is generally characterized by a mixture of multi unit residential developments, detached and semi-detached dwellings. The aerial photo below shows the subject site and surrounding area, those sites bounded by blue are strata titled developments.

Figure 2. Subject site and surrounding area (blue are strata titled developments.)

       

Shown below in figure 3 are sites which consist of similarly sized subdivided semi-detached dwellings within the immediate vicinity.

 

Figure 3: Subject site and surrounding area (blue are subdivided semi-detached dwellings).

 

3.      Submissions

 

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

 

4.      Key Issues

 

4.1      Minimum allotment size - subdivision

Clause 4.1 (3) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 states:

 

(3)  The size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

 

Pursuant to Clauses 4.1(3) of the RLEP, the minimum allotment size for subdivision of land zoned R2 zone is 400sqm per allotment and the proposal contravenes the standard as contained in clause 4.1 (3) of RLEP 2012. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Lot 1 – 59 St Marks Road

Lot 2 – 61 St Marks Road

Proposal

208.2m

205.3m

Variation

191.8m2 below the development standard this equates to a proposed 47.95% shortfall.

194.7m2 below the development standard this equates to a proposed 48% shortfall.

 

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012: Exception to a Development Standard

 

4.2      Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to vary development standard

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

 

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 sub clause (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 minimum lot size standard are set out in clause 4.1(3) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

(a)     to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties,

(b)     to ensure that lot sizes allow development to be sited to protect natural or cultural features, including heritage items, and to retain special features such as trees and views,

(c)      to ensure that lot sizes are able to accommodate development that is suitable for its purpose.

 

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

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

In assessing the proposed variation against the objectives of Minimum Subdivision Lot size standard, it is considered that the submitted justification substantiates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, as follows:

 

(a)    to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties,

 

The main objective for applying the minimum allotment size standard is to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties. There is no development proposed for the site, no change in built form and the sites will be similarly configured in terms of layout to what currently exists and various other properties within the surrounding area which contains circa 1930’s semi detached housing. It is considered that there will not be any adverse impacts as a result of the proposed Torrens Title subdivision. In addition the existing development on site complies with the majority of controls and objectives for low density development under the RDCP 2013 (see Compliance report under separate cover). See also further discussion of subdivision under objective c further below.

 

(b)    to ensure that lot sizes allow development to be sited to protect natural or cultural features, including heritage items, and to retain special features such as trees and views,

 

The proposed development is located within the St Mark’s heritage conservation area and is within the immediate vicinity of several heritage listed items under the RLEP 2012. It is noted that the proposal does not involve any building work or changes to the built form of the property. It is considered that the proposal not affect any adjacent natural or cultural features, including heritage items.

 

(c)    to ensure that lot sizes are able to accommodate development that is suitable for its purpose.

 

The development standards for minimum allotment sizes are intended to maintain the existing character of the R2 zone and to ensure acceptable environmental outcomes from housing that are suitably located with access to services, transport, shops and the like, whilst minimising the impact on adjoining neighbours and maintaining or enhancing neighbourhood character.

 

Although the proposed land sizes of both lots have significant shortfalls to the current standards, it is not uncommon for semis constructed in the early 1900s through to the 1960s to be sited on small lots with small frontages. The historical nature of the existing semi detached dwellings on separate lots and the size of other separately titled old semis within the locality means that the proposed subdivision would be suitable for its purpose.

 

Council’s DCP which complements the RLEP in terms of providing more detailed guidelines stipulates the following objectives in respect of subdivision in the R2 zone:

·           To ensure land subdivision respects the predominant subdivision and development pattern in the locality.

·           To ensure land subdivision creates allotments that have adequate width and configuration, to deliver suitable building design and to maintain the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

The size of immediately adjoining site to the south is considerably larger as it is zone R3 Medium density and comprises of several RFB’s, the site directly to the north is of a similar size (R2 Low Density) and contains a Strata Title Semi-detached dwelling, however these sites are not considered a suitable basis for reference. More pertinent to this application, and as shown in figure 3 above, are those lots in the immediate vicinity that contain older semi detached dwellings and are in fact sited on similarly sized lots to those being sought as part of this application. Therefore, having regard to the applicant’s submission and the objectives for subdivision, it is considered that the proposed subdivision both in terms of layout and building design respects the relevant subdivision pattern in the locality.

 

In terms of future development opportunities, it is likely that the lot sizes will permit the scale of development commensurate with other small sized semi-detached residential dwellings in the locality. It is also considered, that the age of the semi detached dwellings means that the proposal would not set a precedent for permitting substantial shortfalls to lot sizes of more recent dual occupancy developments within R2 zoned land, which were only allowed so as to assist with housing affordability and intra family arrangements.

 

Overall, having regard to the abovementioned objectives, the exception to the development standard addresses the consistency of the proposed development with the objectives of the standard, the relevant aims and objectives of the RLEP and objectives of the Act, in so far as the historical context of the site, and where similar circumstances apply, applying the minimum allotment size standard to the proposed subdivision is unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

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

As discussed above, the proposal achieves the planning objectives for the locality, fits in with the subdivision layout and character of similar developments and at the same time will not set a precedent for similar contraventions of the development standard.

 

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 minimum lot size standard. The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 - Low Density Residential) are:

 

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

 

•    To 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.

 

In respect of these objectives, the proposal is consistent with the relevant zone objectives in that:

 

·      The proposed subdivision maintains the low density residential nature of the site

 

·      The amenity of residents will not be affected by any works associated with the subdivision

 

·      The proposed development is consistent with the existing strata subdivision on site.

 

·      The separate tenure applied to old semi detached dwellings has been a consistent approach taken by Council

 

·      The separate tenure will not cumulatively transform the character and density within the R2 zone in so far as the above-mentioned circumstances apply.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it represents the most orderly use of the site, it does not contravene the purpose of the standard, and it maintains the low density character of the area and therefore satisfies the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 – Low Density Residential 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 minimum allotment size  in clause 4.1 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the minimum lot size standard on this occasion is considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

The objectives of the minimum allotment size standard would not be defeated or thwarted as full numerical compliance in this particular instance is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in so far as the proposal will be compatible with the character for the existing development and nearby development and will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts on the neighbours or set a poor precedent for the cumulative transformation of the subdivision pattern into inappropriate small sized lots.

 

Overall, the applicant’s written justification for contravening the lot size standard are considered to be well founded and supportable, the resultant layout are suitable to the site and the proposed development does not exacerbate the contravention of the underlying purpose of Clauses 4.1A of the RLEP.

 

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 subdivision meets the relevant assessment criteria having regard to the objectives of the minimum allotment size standard and the R2 zone objectives under the RLEP 2012 and the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. The circumstances of the case, such as the old age of the semi detached dwellings and that it will not result in an undesirable precedent given that the proposed subdivision mirrors the current strata layout and those similar layouts on other similarly configured developments which exist in the vicinity. These ensure that the character and density of the R2 Low Density Zone is protected from any inordinate changes. Combined with the exception to the development standard it is considered that a well-founded planning argument is made and it is unreasonable and unnecessary to strictly apply the minimum allotment size standard to the proposal.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.1(3) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to minimum allotment sizes, 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. DA/665/2014 for for Torrens title subdivision, at No. 59-61 St Marks Road, Randwick NSW 2031, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA - Compliance Report - 59-61 St Marks Road, Randwick (DA/665/2014)

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP113/14

 

 

Subject:                  2 Virginia Street, Kensington (DA/536/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/536/2014

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and rear ground and first floor additions to the existing building for use as a child care centre accommodating 53 children, 3 on site parking spaces, new cantilevered awning over Virginia and Baker Street frontages, alterations of existing garage and changes to fence on Baker Street boundary and new acoustic screen

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Virginia Street Property Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mr W F L Chen and Mrs B O W Chen

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview57909.png

 

Subject Site

 

3 letters of support (one shown bounded in yellow)

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination at request of Councillors Andrews, Nash and Stavrinos.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal seeks rear ground and first floor alterations and additions to the existing building for use as a child care centre accommodating 53 children, 3 on site parking spaces, new cantilevered awning over Virginia and Baker Street frontages, alterations of existing garage, changes to fence on Baker Street boundary and new acoustic screens along rear first floor balcony for use as an outdoor play area.

 

The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the north-eastern corner of Virginia and Baker Street with a total site area of 689.8sqm. The subject site is rectangular in shape with a south western frontage to Virginia Street of 15.24m, a south-eastern side boundary of 45.265m shared with No. 4 Virginia Street, an outbuilding that abutts its north-eastern rear boundary and a secondary street frontage facing Baker Street.

 

The site is occupied by a two storey building with an outbuilding at the rear. The building is likely to have been constructed as a ground floor shop with first floor residential accommodation and which currently appears to be used solely for the purposes of residential flats. Council records have not been found showing approval of the premises for the purposes of flats and therefore the potential unauthorised use of the premises for a residential flat building has been referred to Councils Regulatory Building Section for investigation and action. Councils Heritage planner, suggests that the building appears to date from the Interwar period where it originally comprised shop windows on either side of a corner entrance with recessed balconies to upper level street frontages. Abutting the full length of the rear boundary of the subject site is an outbuilding.

 

Figures 1: Subject site - 2 Virginia Street, right side of the corner is Virginia Street and left side of the corner is Baker Street.

 

Adjoining to the south-east at No.4 Virginia Street is a single storey free standing dwelling with a western side-driveway along the shared north western side boundary with the subject site. Adjoining to the rear at No.1 McDougall Street is a free standing, dwelling house with its rear garage and swimming pool adjacent to the existing outbuilding located at the rear boundary of the subject site. On the opposite side of Baker Street are deep gutters which to a degree may be difficult for some passengers to exit from the passenger side of vehicles and therefore discourage parking on this side of the street. Photos below show the abovementioned sites in the context of the subject site.

Figures 2: Baker Street elevation showing the rear skillion section of the existing building.

 

Figures 3: Baker Street elevation showing the existing outbuilding at the rear and adjoining outbuilding at No. 1 McDougall Street.

                  

Figures 4: No. 4 Virginia Street.

 

 

Figures 5: Baker Street elevation of No. 1 McDougall Street.

 

Figures 6: Deep gutters along the opposite side of Baker 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:

 

Objections

 

·      21 Baker Street, Kensington NSW 2033

·      29 Baker Street, Kensington NSW 2033

·      3/6 Bradley Street, Randwick NSW 2031

·      Ethos Corporation

·      1 Mc Dougall Street, Kensington NSW 2033

·      Resident of Virginia Street

·      Resident of Virginia Street

·      4    Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

·      6    Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

·      8    Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

·      9    Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

·      10 Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

·      14 Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

·      24 Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

 

·      Petition 38 signatures

17 Baker Street, Kensington NSW 2033

19 Baker Street, Kensington NSW 2033

21 Baker Street, Kensington NSW 2033

21 Baker Street, Kensington NSW 2033

23 Baker Street, Kensington NSW 2033

23 Baker Street, Kensington NSW 2033

29 Baker Street, Kensington NSW 2033

31 Baker Street, Kensington NSW 2033

33 Baker Street, Kensington NSW 2033

8  McDougall Street, Kensington NSW 2033

9  McDougall Street, Kensington NSW 2033

3  Myrtle Street, Kensington NSW 2033

Resident of Virginia Street

4  Virginia Street Kensington NSW 2033

4  Virginia Street Kensington NSW 2033

5  Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

5  Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

6  Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

6  Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

6  Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

8  Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

8  Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

8  Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

9  Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

9  Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

10 Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

11 Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

12 Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

14 Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

14 Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

14 Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

15 Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

19 Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

20 Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

22 Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

24 Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

28 Virginia Street, Kensington NSW 2033

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed below and in the body of this report.

 

Issue: Child care centre is too small to accommodate 53 children and may result in children using the park

 

Comment: The internal and outdoor areas of the child care centre are of such a size that they are able to accommodate the 53 children in accordance with the controls under Part D11 of the DCP – see attached DA compliance report. Public reserves are open to everyone in the community to use.

 

Issue: Child care centre is a commerical use that is inconsistent with the residential character and heritage character of the area

 

Comment: Child care centres do operate as commerical enterprises but they are permissible in the R2 low density residential zone. The proposed child care centre has been considered in the context of the residential character and the character of the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area and considered to be acceptable. See also Heritage Planner’s comments under DA compliance report and Part B2 of this report.

 

Issue: Adverse acoustic (noise) privacy impacts resulting in sleep disturbance.

 

Comment: The premises will not operate during times in which the sleep disturbance criteria are applicable.

 

Issue: Child care centre will exacerbate existing high levels of traffic through Virginia and Baker Street which are used as a ‘rat run’ towards South Dowling Street, Zetland and Victoria Park to which no studies have been conducted.

 

Comment: Councils Development Engineer and Department of Integrated Transport considers that the child care centre will not result in an unacceptable level of increased traffic in Virginia and Baker Streets. Refer to Key issues section relating to Part B7 of the DCP and referral comments section of DA compliance report.

 

Issue: Dangerous condition of existing road conditions at corner of Baker Street and Virginia Street and for safety of children using the park opposite.

 

Comment: The recommendations and associated conditions made by Councils Development Engineer and Integrated Transport engineer have been considered in the context of road safety. The child care centre has sufficient open space and is not reliant on the nearby park. It is the responsibility of the operator of the childcare centre to ensure that children are escorted safely to and from the park.

 

Issue: There are already too many child care centres in close proximity to each other

 

Comment: A number of submissions received during notification expressed objection based upon a perceived saturation of child care centres in the locality. There are at least three centres operating in the vicinity at Myrtle Street , Milroy Avenue and Todman Avenue. The proposal is permissible within the zone and Council does not have controls limiting the numbers of child care centres or minimum radius in which such facilities are restricted. In this respect the proposal is assessed on merit, based on the likely environmental impacts of the proposed use on its surrounds, including cumulative impacts of noise and traffic in general. Having regard to the advice of Council’s technical officers, it is considered the potential for cumulative impacts of traffic, parking, safety and noise, is effectively addressed through information provided with the application and the implementation of appropriate conditions of consent. These conditions are considered to ensure reasonable residential amenity may be maintained and the proposal can effectively operate in the context of the site, regardless of similar existing uses.

 

Issue: Loss of mature tree within the rear yard of the subject site

 

Comment: Council’s landscape officer considers that whilst this mature tree is the most established vegetation within this site, and provides the only existing source of shade, consent should be granted for its removal for the following reasons:

 

·      It is of only fair health and condition due to dieback, deadwood and past pruning/storm damage, and has also been crown lifted to a height of about 5 metres above ground level to provide a clearance in the rear yard.

 

·      It is a relatively short-lived genus that is prone to decay, and for these reasons, is seen to have a short Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE), and may already been in decline.

 

·      An advanced, replacement native tree will be installed in this area of the site, which is an acceptable outcome.

 

Issue: Insufficient parking for staff and gutter conditions on the opposite side of the street mean that this cannot be relied upon for avaliable parking

 

Comment: The deep gutters on the opposite side of Baker Street will not affect the drop off and pick up area which is located adjacent to the frontage of the child care centre. In relation to parking, observations were made during site visits of on-street spaces available further along Baker Street where the road level meets the gutter level, along Virginia Street and the wider street network. With specfiic reference to safety, the installation of nibs on the corner of the site would provide a calming influence on traffic. Whilst it was observed during at least two site visits that cars do park on the opposite side of Baker Street, the drop off/ pickup area is adequately sized to meet the demands of the child care centre.

 

Issue: Insufficient drop off and pick up spaces

 

Comment: The proposal has a shortfall of one on-street parking space for drop off and pick up. Councils Traffic Engineer indicates that the reduction in timed parking from 15 minutes down to 10 minutes assists in addressing the one space shortfall in drop off and pick up spaces in combination with the parking availability in the surrounding streets.

 

Issue: Adverse impacts on the historical and social signficance of the residential area, is not consistent with the objectives of the R2 low density residential zone and not in the public interest

 

Comment: The predominant concerns expressed in submissions relate to the potential for traffic, parking, safety and noise from the proposed use, in addition to general compatibility with the residential area. With specific regard to these concerns, Council’s Integrated Transport, Development Engineering and Environmental Health Departments have all reviewed the application. Each has provided detailed comments, advising that in the residential context of the site, the proposal is suitable for approval, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

 

In relation to the overall impact and compatibility of the proposal on the desirable attributes of the residential area:

 

·      The proposed use is permissible within the R2 zone under both historical and current standards under the RLEP 2012;

·      The Land and Environment Court has previously established school and child care related development can co-exist in residential environments with the imposition of suitable acoustic criteria. Council’s Environmental Health Unit has advised this to be achievable in the context of the subject site;

·      Established educational and child care facilities exist within the area and operate successfully. The impact of the proposal located in proximity to these existing uses is not considered to unreasonably derogate from the existing attributes of the area, subject to conditions. 

 

The scale and likely impacts of the proposed use are not considered to eventuate in any adverse social impacts upon the locality and it is not considered that further assessment of the impact on the social significance of the application on the residential area is warranted.

 

Issue: Adverse impact on the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area. (WKHCA)

 

Comment: The proposed development, as amended, is considered to contribute to the significance of the WKHCA. Councils Heritage Planner considers that the proposed development will not result in any adverse impacts on the significance of the WKHCA.

 

Issue: Request traffic count and study of traffic flow and safety along and at the corner of Virginia and Baker Streets

 

Comment: Council currently has traffic count data from 2004 and 2011 in Virginia St and from 2010 in Baker Street. This data as well as recent survey data provided in the applicant’s Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment report has been used in assessing the likely percentage increase in traffic associated with the proposal. The outcome of such an assessment suggests the street network as well as key intersections will still operate effectively.

 

The efficacy of the proposed pickup and drop off zone was also considered by Randwick Traffic Committee at a meeting held on 14th October 2014. They raised no objections in principle to the proposed pickup and drop-off zone subject to a reduction in timed parking. In addition, in order to address safety concerns at the corner, Council's Traffic committee meeting has made the recommedation that traffic islands be provided at the corner physically preventing parents and carers from parking within the 10 metres of the corner. A no stopping zone will also improve pedestrian safety. Preliminary plans have already been submitted detailing these islands and zones with further detail required prior to a Construction Certificate being issued should consent be granted.

 

Issue: Outdoor play area:

·      Adverse visual privacy impact (overlooking) from first floor outdoor play area,

·      Size of first floor outdoor play area (which may have up to 30 children) is not in keeping with the context of residential environment (soundproof screening is not adequate)

 

Comment: The built form of the proposal is generally considered acceptable. The proposal does not seek to substantially alter the footprint or height of the existing building. The proposal is permissible in the zone and is not considered to adversely impact on the built form character of the locality. The upper level balcony for use as a play area will be limited to a maximum of 10 children (1 child per 7sqm) which is well below the acoustic modelling carried out on 30 children using this area. A condition is included requiring a 1.6m high screen along a portion of the rear elevation (with clear perspex behind the full length to alternate the noise) to sufficiently screen visual outlook (and acoustic buffering) across to the nearest neighbours rear yard at No. 4 Virginia Street. There are no other residential premises considered to be adversely affected by the proposed use of the outdoor play area having regard to visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Issue: Hours of operation are too long and other centres only operate from 8:30am to 4:30pm

 

Comment: The proposed hours of operation are between 7:00am and 6:00pm. Councils DCP states that as a general guide, the hours of operation for child care centres in residential zones should not extend beyond the core hours of 7:00am and 7:00pm.

 

Issue: Density objectives are breached

 

Comment: See assessment under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 - Floor space ratio standard

 

Issue: Economic and social impact on the area has not been properly addressed in the proposal. The development is likely to adversely impact property prices due to the change in nature from residential to partly commercial including traffic, noise etc and will not be in the public interest.

 

Comment: The broad economic and social aspects of a development, such as whether or not the community as a whole ‘needs’ a facility offered by an applicant or its impact on property values are not relevant planning matters under Section 79C of the EP&A Act, 1979. Regardless, this assessment is required to provide consideration of the pubic interest and in the relevant matters considered as part of this assessment; the proposed child care centre is a facility that the community will utilise. On balance the potential impacts have been effectively addressed and will be managed on an ongoing basis through the implementation of appropriate conditions of consent. As a consequence the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

Issue: On street parking for extra staff does not include part-time staff and deliveries

 

Comment: A maximum of 7 staff are permitted to work within the premises and should the applicant seek to accommodate additional staff, a further application will be necessary. Deliveries are an ancillary element of the child care centre and not considered an aspect of the development, within the proposed operating times, that would exacerbate traffic or parking issues.

 

Issue: The acoustic report has not been sufficiently thorough to counter concerns about traffic noise and other noise increases likely to occur with the development.

 

Comment: Noise impacts as a result of traffic generated by the proposed childcare centre have been the subject of assessment under the amended acoustic report whereby vehicle noise associated with the proposed child care centre was assessed as compliant.

 

Issue: We did not know that 2 Virginia Street was given boarding house status without Council notification to the residents and that the garage has been used as part of the boarding house setup and now as a gym

 

Comment: The subject premises don’t appear to have development consent for the purposes of boarding house or residential flats and as such this matter has been referred to Councils Building Regulatory Section for investigation and action.

 

Issue: The proposed development does not comply with the zone objectives as follows:

o   It does not provide for the housing needs of the community,

o   It does not encourage housing affordability

o   It does not protect the amenity of the area,

o   It is questionable whether it provides the day to day needs of the residents given existing childcare facilities in the area and no transparency on whether users will actually come from residents in the area;

o   The development will not be consistent with existing streetscape since it will replace a residential building with a commercial building which I expect will include signage and advertising for the business as occurs at other childcare centres.

o   The proposal does not protect the aural and visual amenity of the residents given the increased traffic noise, general noise and disruption that will come from the development

 

Comment: The first two points are irrelevant in so far as the proposal is not for the purposes of housing needs or affordable housing. The remaining objectives are relevant and despite the objection that the proposal is not considered by the objectors to satisfy the objectives it is considered that the proposal has been designed and amended to achieve compliance with the objectives having partilcuar regard to providing for the day to day needs of residents and the community, the development has been assessed as being consistent with and in many respects contributes to the streetscape character and the operational aspects of the proposed development will not result in any significant adverse impacts having regard to visual and aural amenity, parking, traffic conjestion, or general disruption subject to effective on going management.

 

 

Support

·      8 Myrtle Street Kensington, NSW 2033

·      Local resident

·      5 Ingram Street, Kensington NSW 2033

 

The points raised in letters of support include:

 

·      The child care centre at 1 Myrtle Street, opened over 10 years ago has not resulted in noise or traffic issues.

·      The proposed development will upgrade the building; Residents in immediate proximity will benefit from the cosmetic improvements to the building and landscape.

·      From experience, waiting list for child care centre spots in the locality are between 12 to 18 months which is similar to shortages experienced across Woollahra and Waverley councils respectively. Further, days offered are not necessarily the days that worked best for my family. I have also been contacted during this time by two Centres’ over the 12 months period asking if we would still like to be “on the list” – not offering my child a place.

·      The proximity of the proposed site to Sydney’s CBD makes it a perfect choice for those families choosing to live close to the city for employment purposes. With many families relying on two incomes to make ends meet with little or no support networks, they rely solely on available childcare to return to the workforce.

·      The development and running of a new establishment will bring jobs into the community. It will also give placement opportunities to those studying Early Childhood and related diplomas/degrees at nearby Randwick TAFE and UNSW.

·      Converting a 10 person boarding house to a community serving establishment in my eyes is a step towards improving the local community fabric.

·      The proposal provides for standard opening hours of 7am – 6pm Monday to Friday with closures on public holidays, will increase residential privacy at peak ‘backyard times’ of afternoons and weekends.

·      Child Care Centre’s are an important & wonderful part of the community fostering socialisation, confidence and independence in our children, and are the perfect stepping stone between home life and a 5 day week of Primary School.

·      A new childcare centre will provide the community with a much needed service, allowing some parents to return to work while providing a safe environment for children with a community feel.

 

Key Issues

 

The key issues relating to the development for a child care centre sought under this application relate to the following aspects of Council policy documents:

 

·      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 - Floor space ratio standard

·      Randwick Development control Plan 2013:

o Child care centre operation and management and visual and Acoustic privacy

o Parking and traffic

o West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 - Floor space ratio standard

Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio: The maximum floor space ratio under Clause 4.4 for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone is 0.5:1. The overall site area is 689.8m2; the proposed storage space in the garage accounts for additional floor space inclusive of associated works and will result in the existing floor space ratio increasing from 0.537:1 to 0.539:1 which represents a variation of 7.8% above the 0.5:1 standard. The variation from the existing floor area is 0.37% which is significantly lower than the variation from the standard. In general, the proposed works mainly redistribute and reduce floor area within the main building and increase floor area within the outbuilding for the purposes of a staff room and storage area.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

Assessing Officer Comment:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comment: The proposed development is of a size and scale that is generally consistent with LEP standards and DCP envelope controls and will be compatible with the desired future character of the area. In this regard, the proposed redistribution of the floor area within the main dwelling results in less floor area contained. The main reason for the additional floor area to the site is a consequence of the conversion of a portion of the garage into storage and staff room areas associated with the Child Care centre. In respect to the amenity of neighbouring properties the application demonstrates a high level of compliance with the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP) controls for low density development having particular regard to solar access to the neighbours north-west facing windows and privacy protection.

 

However, the provision of obscured glazing along the rear elevation and secondary Baker Street side elevation (south west) were considered to detract from the streetscape and heritage significance of the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area (WKHCA). In response to these concerns, the applicant has amended their application on two occasions. In the first instance, amended plans were received by Council on 29 September replacing the obscured glazing along the rear elevation and Baker Street elevation with timber balustrades with clear Perspex behind. On the second occasion, the applicant submitted amended plans received by Council on 7 November 2014 providing a 1.6m high privacy along the rear elevation running perpendicular away from the nearest neighbour at No. 4 Virginia Street, removing the Perspex along both the remaining parts of the rear elevation, and the secondary street elevation (Baker Street), and relocating the stairs to the other side of the balcony further away from the neighbouring dwelling at No. 4 Virginia Street. The applicant further submitted a statement from the acoustic consultant that the removal of the Perspex screens would continue to achieve compliance with the relevant noise criteria. Notwithstanding, it is considered that in the interests of ensuring minimal noise transmission that the Perspex screen along the full length of the rear elevation of the balcony remain with no objection to the removal of the Perspex screen along the Baker Street elevation. Councils Heritage Planner has considered these amendments and raises no objections.

 

Overall, the amendments and the overall size and scale of the development will be compatible with the desired future character of the locality, its size and scale will be compatible with the size of the scale of the development along the Baker Street elevation and maintain reasonable amenity to the neighbouring properties.

 

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

 

Comment: The proposed development maintains its existing architectural character and is designed to limit its environmental impacts.

 

 

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

 

Comment: Councils Heritage Planner has carried out an assessment against the relevant sections within the RLEP and RDCP and considers that the proposed development will be compatible with the scale and character of the West Kensington Heritage Conservation area subject to appropriate conditions.

 

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

 

Comment: The proposed size and scale of the development is generally considered acceptable. The proposed acoustic and visual privacy screen along the south eastern elevation of the first floor play area does add additional massing to the site which will be viewed from neighbouring sites. However, the additional massing is considered reasonable in so far as it is not dissimilar to a privacy screen that would be constructed to a rear 1st floor balcony attached to a dwelling and further the generous 2005mm side setback inclusive of planter along the length of this elevation will ensure that it will not present as an obtrusive element when veiwed from the neighbouring property. In addition, the application includes elevation shadow diagrams that clearly show that the neighbouring dwelling’s north west facing windows will continue to received direct solar access during the winter solstice for most the day.

 

The views from neighbouring properties are not considered to be of high value and whilst the proposal does add mass the additional density is largley contained within the existing outbuilding envelope at the rear of the site.

 

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

 

R2 zone Objectives

 

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

 

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

 

Comment: The existing building as a whole relates well to West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area and the proposed development is considered to recognise the highly desirable elements of which have either since been removed or dilapidated. Elements which have gained support in particular include the proposed streetside awning; colours and material finishes sought as part of the proposal and considered an improvement to the presentation of the building within the streetscape.The proposed additional floor area is limited mostly to the rear comprising the ground level additions with the majority of the additional calculable floor area contained within the outbuilding. These aspects of the development are minor in the context of the existing building, and streetscape.

 

Council’s Heritage planner has considered the proposed works sought to be carried out and recommends approval subject to a condition requiring further details of the windows fronting Baker and Virginia Street.

 

The massing created as a result of the proposed rear first floor balcony are not calculated as floor area and therefore not directly related to this exception to the floor space ratio standard. Notwithstanding, amendments such as replacing obscured screens with timber balustrades along this balcony will reduce the massing and appearance of bulk as a whole and be more sympathetic to the streetscape character and the WKHCA.

 

b)       To protect the amenity of residents

 

Comment: The proposed additional floor area is largely contained at ground level along the north western half of the site closest to Baker Street and within the envelope of an existing outbuilding.

 

The proposal will not impose any significant impacts on the amenity of the occupants of nearby dwellings in terms of visual bulk and scale. The additional massing and potential for adverse amentiy impacts on the neighbouring property at No. 4 Virginia Street is mostly associated with the proposed first floor balcony play area and the associated acoustic wall along the south-eastern side of the first floor play area. This matter is related to height and massing and whilst this issue is dealt with under a different section of the DCP, it is generally considered that in conjunction with general compliance of other DCP controls, the size, scale, massing, setbacks and site coverage of the proposed development is sastisfactory and will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts on the environmental amenity of residents.

 

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

 

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

 

Whilst the child care centre is not a business use as defined under the RLEP 2012, the proposed conversion and adaptation of the existing corner building to a child care centre will provide an adaptive reuse of former “corner shop” building. The availability of two street frontages for drop off and pick up and on site parking for staff inclusive of associated noise reduction measures will enable the premises to operate cordially within the R2 low density residential zone.

 

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

As discussed in earlier sections above, the additional floor area sits comfortably within the residential character of Virginia and Baker Street and it is considered that the proposal achieves the planning objectives for the floor space ratio standard and the objectives of the zone.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it represents a permissible and orderly use of the site.

 

Overall, the proposed development does not contravene the objectives of the floor space ratio standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 – Low Density Residential.

 

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

 

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

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

Comments: Pursuant to the assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4), the proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

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

 

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

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP):

The proposed development is assessed against the relevant provisions of the DCP. Particular reference is made to key parts of the DCP. These Part D 11, Specific Commercial uses – Childcare Centres, and Part B7 Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access.

 

The DCP and parts within it adopt a performance based approach where the provisions typically consist of two components, being objectives and controls (such as a numerical standard). However, if a proposal does not meet the numerical controls in the DCP, it may still be supported in so far as it successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome.

 

The application has been assessed against, and is consistent with, the objectives of the DCP. The development will not result in significant impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The issues elaborated upon below have been raised as issues during the assessment of the application.

 

Part D 11, Specific Commercial uses – Child Care Centres

This section applies to the proposed development which is seeking conversion or adaptation of an existing building to a child care centre and sets out objectives and controls to guide the location and design of child care centres with a key focus on ensuring the safety and well being of children and achieving a high standard of amenity for the site and surrounding locality, particularly adjoining residential land uses.

Relevant objectives include: 

 

·      To provide for the establishment of high quality child care centres that is located and designed to achieve a high level of safety, security, environmental health and amenity for their users.

 

·      To ensure that child care centres respond positively to the context and setting and minimise adverse environmental impact in the locality.

 

·      To deliver certainty to applicants, operators and the local community about the planning requirements for child care centres.

 

The proposed child care centre is located in the Residential R2 zone in which the proposed use is permissible. The proposed centre is located in proximity to three other child care centres (Myrtle Street, Milroy and Todman Avenue). The premises is also located in proximity to existing schools (Kensington Public, Our Lady of the Rosary). The site is also in proxmity to public transport.

 

The proposal is mainly contained within the existing buildings on the site with outdoor areas reserved for play. The site is considered to be of sufficient size in which to accommodate a child care centre operation. The proposal comprises alterations to the existing building and use of a rear detached building on a corner lot of 689.8sqm. The corner lot and two frontages to Virginia Street and Baker Street are considered characteristics that make it a suitable location for a child care centre having regard to providing a relatively open space with kerb side areas utilised for drop of and pick up of children. The existing building is built over a site whose topography is relatively flat and considered to contribute to the effective and safe use of the site for purposes of a child care centre.

 

The number of staff members is 7 which is appropriate for 53 children based on the management arrangements of children between the ages of 0 to 6 years.  The proposed hours are from 7.00am to 6:00pm weekdays (closed weekends and public holidays). Given the variance in staff to student ratios depending on the age of children, a condition is included limiting the maximum number of staff to seven.

 

Potential impacts of acoustic and visual privacy and parking and traffic, have been investigated and assessed appropriately by Council’s technical officers who consider the proposed use and intensity can be reasonably accommodated within the site and residential area, subject to suitable conditions to protect amenity of the surrounding area.

 

Acoustic Amenity and Privacy

A key consideration of child care centres is that appropriate design and siting of child care centres should minimise overlooking and noise intrusion to and from adjoining properties and maintain a high level of environmental amenity for children, staff and other centre users.

 

The relevant objectives under this part of the DCP seek:

 

·      To minimise any potential adverse impacts on the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbouring properties.

·      To protect the visual and acoustic privacy of children, staff and other users of the child care centre.

 

Acoustic Amenity

As required by this part of the DCP, the applicant submitted an acoustic report which was the subject of a request by Councils Environmental Health Section to review and amend where applicable the following aspects of the proposed development:

 

·         Noise generated from cumulative noise of 53 children playing in the outdoor play areas that includes consideration of different types of activities and peak noise generated from all children screaming (worse case scenario) during periods of active play.

·         Noise emissions from children playing and screaming in the outdoor area (peak noise levels) and how this complies with the proposed 5dB noise level criteria at all times of the day in conjunction with other noise sources.

 

·         Noise generated from music in the outdoor play areas. (period of time, type of music etc)

 

·         Noise generated from increase traffic to the centre in the morning and evening times.

 

·         Details of how 53 children will be managed in the outdoor area (to be provided by the applicant and incorporated within the Plan of Management but considered by the consideration)

 

 

·         Provide a statement advising how the recommendations, including the acoustic walls, will ensure the noise from 53 children playing in the outdoor area and other play areas will not exceed the 5dB above the background noise level criteria.

 

·         Outline noise emissions that include accumulated noise impacts from all noise sources of the development including noise emanating from 53 children playing in the outdoor play area for the entire period of time (7.00am-6.00pm), noise from music playing in the outdoor play area and noise from all mechanical equipment will comply with the relevant acoustic requirements.

 

An amended acoustic report was received by Council on 29 September 2014 advising of the following:

 

·           Noise impacts from the 53 children playing in the outdoor play areas, to the nearest residential receivers, are predicted to comply with the relevant noise criteria provided the recommended acoustic mitigation measures outlined in the report are implemented, including the following;

              

1)  Acoustic absorption material with a minimum NRC of 0.8 shall be fixed to the underside of the partial roof cover over the north- eastern section of the first floor balcony to the maximum extent possible ( i.e. not covering skylights etc)

 

2)  A combination of 2.1m and 1.8m high acoustic screen along the south- eastern side of the first floor balcony is to be installed. The 2.1m high section should extend 4m out from the building facade with the remaining section extending 1.8m high.

 

3)  A 1.5m high screen should be installed along the north- western & north eastern side of the first floor balcony incorporating a door with a safety latch at the top of the landing with acoustic seals. This acoustic screen and door may be constructed as timber rails and battens with 6mm thick perspex behind.

 

4)  The existing south-eastern boundary fence is to be upgraded with a 2.1m high acoustic screen for approximately 20m in length. The remainder of fence remains unchanged at 1.8m. The 2.1m high acoustic screen may be constructed from standard solid metal fencing material or lapped and capped timber.

 

·           Breakout of indoor noise from the childcare centre to the nearest affected residences is not predicted to be an issue.

 

·           The location of air conditioners is ideally situated on the northern façade of the building behind the existing color bond fence and noise from these units will comply with the relevant noise criteria whilst also not add cumulatively to noise from outdoor play.

 

·           Noise impacts from site related traffic on public roads comply with the NSW Road Noise Policy and are acceptable.

 

·           Traffic noise intrusions from South Dowling Street into the child care building is acceptable.

 

·           Music will not be played in outdoor areas and a condition of consent to that effect should be included.

 

With regards to the potential noise impact from the proposed development, after reviewing the acoustic reports and statements provided by the acoustic consultants it was considered by Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer that the proposed development will comply with the relevant noise criteria pending implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the acoustic report. Councils Environmental Health team also recommends including conditions relating to compliance with the acoustic report prepared by Renzo Tonin & Associates dated 29 September 2014  Doc Reference TG767-02F03 Noise Assessment and an acoustic statement provided by Renzo Tonin & Associates as well as including Councils standard noise conditions for development consent. The Officer also recommends that an acoustic validation assessment is undertaken three months after occupation to confirm the operation of the childcare centre is operating in accordance with the requirements of the acoustic report supporting the development application as ameded.

 

Plan of management

A more detailed Plan of Management was requested and submitted to Council on 29 September 2014. The Plan of Management outlines how children will be managed and supervised in the indoor and outdoor play areas to ensure noise is kept to a minimum. The plan of management is referenced as a condition of consent.

 

Overall, acoustic amenity is considered to have been reasonably addressed by the applicant and subject to appropriate conditions of consent being imposed should approval be granted, the proposal will not adversely impact on the acoustic amenity of neighbouring residents.

 

Visual Amenity - proposed rear first floor balcony for use as an outdoor play area

This section of the DCP applies to the proposed development. The relevant controls include that:

 

·      Extensions should be orientated to minimise overlooking, overshadowing and to preserve the acoustic amenity of adjoining properties.

·      Outdoor and indoor play areas, balconies and terraces and openable windows should be located to minimise the direct line of sight to and from neighbouring properties.

·      Pedestrian access ways and ramps should be located away from neighbouring residential properties where practical and

·      Fencing, landscape buffers and window coverings may be used to protect visual privacy and acoustic amenity for the centre and neighbouring properties.

 

The proposal includes a rear first floor balcony with an area of 73sqm for the purposes of an outdoor play area which on the basis of the control that requires 7sqm of an unencumbered area per child would be limited to a maximum of 10 children. This outdoor play area was originally designed with both acoustic and visual screening measures employed along all elevations as follows:

 

·      South eastern elevation: A solid acoustic screen varying in height between 1.8m and 2.1m setback 2005mm from the side boundary shared with the neighbouring residential property at No. 4 Virginia Street,

·      North eastern elevation (facing the rear yard): A 1.5m high acoustic screen and balustrade incorporating a 300mm solid component with obscured glazing above

·      North western elevation (facing Baker Street): same screen as that located along the north eastern elevation.

 

On the basis of an assessment of acoustic and privacy impacts, the abovementioned screening is considered suitable for the purposes of both visual and acoustic privacy being maintained to neighbouring properties. However, the use of obscured glazing as a material along the rear north-eastern elevation and Baker Street elevation was considered by Councils Heritage Planner as not being sympathetic to the significance of the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area (WKHCA).

 

In response to these heritage concerns, the applicant submitted amended plans, received by Council 29 September 2014, replacing the obscured glazing with timber balustrades with clear Perspex behind along these elevations (as referenced and assessed in the amended acoustic report). Upon investigation of the amendments, it was considered that direct sight lines would still be afforded into the the rear yard of the neighbouring property at No. 4 Virginia Street. In order to provide restricted sight lines to the neighbouring property at No. 4 Virginia Street and upon raising this issue with the applicant and through consultation, amended plans received by Council on 7 November 2014, show a 1.6m high and 4.6m long privacy screen installed along the rear elevation running from the south-eastern corner of the balcony in a southwestward direction. This screen is considered suitable for purposes of providing sufficient visual privacy protection from the outdoor first floor play area in so far as there would be no direct sightlines within 9m of the boundary shared with this neighbouring property at No. 4 Virginia Street. Further amendments incorporated into these amended plans flip the stairs over to the other side of the balcony away from the neighbouring property at No. 4 Virginia Street. Councils Heritage planner raised no objections to these further amendments having regard to the significance of the WKHCA.

 

For the purposes of visual privacy the proposed design and orientation of the rear first floor balcony play area and the overall design of the child care centre is considered to have satisfied the objectives under this part of the DCP.

                                                                      

Part B7 Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access - Parking and traffic

Part B7 -Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP) applies to the proposed development.

 

The DCP requires that parking be provided for child care centres at the rate of 1 space per 2 staff members plus 1 space per 8 children for pickup and drop-off of children. Based on the requirement for 53 child care places, the proposal requires four (4) spaces for staff and seven (7) spaces for drop off and pick up. The proposal provided three (3) on-site staff spaces wtihin the outbuilding and 7 kerb side spaces for drop off and pick up with concurrance sought for 15 minute time restricted kerb side parking. The proposal results in a shortfall of one space for staff. A Traffic and Parking assessment report has been submitted with the application.

 

In accordance with the performance approach identified under the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013, an assessment of the application on the basis of parking and traffic, with due regard to concerns raised by residents in the community, is considered against the relevant objectives under part B7 of the DCP.

 

These objectives in relation to transport, parking and access are: 

 

·      To promote sustainable transport options for development, particularly along transport corridors, in commercial centres and strategic/key sites.

·      To manage the provision of car parking within the broader transport network.

·      To support integrated transport and land use options which can demonstrate shared and effective car parking provision with car share facilities, motorbikes/scooters, bikes and links to public transport.

·      To ensure car parking facilities, service and delivery areas and access are designed to enhance streetscape character and protect pedestrian amenity and safety.

 

In assessing the application against the abovementioned objectives, concurrence was sought by Council’s Development Engineer from Councils Department of Integrated Transport Management. This meant the application was put on the agenda of a Randwick Traffic Committee meeting held on 14 October 2014. At the meeting In-principle approval for the pick-up and drop-off zone was obtained from the Traffic Committee subject to the following amendments:

 

·      Requirement for the installation of kerb side nibs at the corner of Baker Street and Virginia Street which both calms traffic and restrict parking too close to the corner (reducing the number of pick up drop off spaces by 1 down to 6 – 5 along Baker Street and one at Virginia Street frontage)

·      Reduction in the originally sought 15 minute time restricted kerb side parking down to 10-minutes.

 

In regard to increased traffic, the traffic and parking study submitted with the application contains recent traffic and parking survey data (May 2014) and satisfactorily demonstrates, that the intersection of Baker/Todman Avenue and Baker/McDougall Street will likely maintain their current level of service with only minor increases in their degree of saturation levels. 

 

In terms of the safety aspects of the pickup/drop off area reference is made to a recent case heard in the Land and Environment Court (The Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust v Woollahra Municipal Council), where the Senior Commissioner dismissed the appeal based on the failure of parents to observe safe behaviours during the drop off and pickup times. Whilst the current proposal is for the establishment of a new child care centre, there is nothing to suggest that the drop off/pickup arrangements proposed would lead to a similar scenario, especially given that the size and operation of the drop off/pickup area will adequately deal with the demand generated and provides a safe and convenient access to the child care centre.

 

Overall, Traffic and parking issues has been the subject of assessment by both Councils Development Engineers and Integrated Transport Unit. The outcome of these considerations is that appropriate design and management conditions of consent can effectively mitigate any potential traffic and parking impacts from the childcare centre and that they will adequately meet the relevant objectives of the Comprehensive DCP with regard to parking, traffic and access and safety issues around the site and within the surrounding area.

 

Part B2 West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area

Clause 5.10 Heritage conservation

 

The subject site is located within the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area and Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation of the RLEP 2012 is applicable to the site. The main objectives under this clause are:

 

(a)     to conserve the environmental heritage of Randwick,

(b)     to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

 

Under subclause 5.10(5) Heritage assessment, the consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause require a heritage management document to be prepared to the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the area concerned – in this instance the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area (WKHCA).

 

The applicant has submitted a heritage impact statement which has been the subject of assessment by Councils Heritage Planner. The Heritage Planner has considered the proposed development inclusive of changes to the street elevations, the rear and the outbuilding inclusive of choice of colours and materials. It is held that the proposed works will contribute to the appearance of the development within the streetscape and will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the heritage significance of the WKHCA. Notwithstanding the above, certain aspects of the original proposal neccessitated additional or amended details including the concerns that the use of obscured glazing used within the upper level balustrades facing Baker Street would detract from the significance of the WKHCA. Elements warranting further consideration such as the window detailing along the front elevation are considered able to be the subject of assessment as a non-standard condition of consent.

 

In respect to the use of obscured glazing on balustrades for the rear upper level balcony, the applicant submitted amended plans replacing the obscured glazing to the first floor rear balcony with timber balustrades (Perspex behind for the purposes of acoustic privacy). Further changes to the balustrades along the rear elevation include the provision of a 1.6m high screen at the south eastern end running for a length of 1.6m which is considered necessary for the purposes of maintaining reasonable levels of visual privacy to the neighbouring properties rear yard at No. 4 Virginia Street. Other amendments included the relocation of the rear external stairs to the other end of the balcony closest to Baker Street. Council’s heritage planner raised no objections to these amendments on the basis of heritage significance.

Referral Comments

 

Councils Environmental Health, Development engineer, Transport Engineer, Landscape Officer, and Heritage Planner comments are included in the DA compliance report attachment.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The application for the childcare centre is considered to satisfactorily address the relevant provisions the Randwick DCP, subject to the implementation and compliance with appropriate conditions of consent.

 

In respect to the application history and assessment the following concluding points are made:

 

·      The application was notified and advertised between 20 August 2014 and 3 September 2014. A number of requests were received for extensions of the notification period where advice was provided that Council is obliged to accept submissions up to the recommedation is made. A total of 14 individual submissions and one (1) petition of 38 signatures (some of which made individual submissions) were received expressing objection to the proposal. Submissions detailed issues predominantly in relation to traffic and safety implications, parking availability, compatibility of child care uses in residential zones and noise and visual impacts associated with the proposal. Three (3) submissions of support were received.

 

·      Council consultations with the applicant were largley in relation to issues such as the acoustic report considerations, traffic design and operation, heritage considerations and visual privacy. Clarification of operational detail was also sought throughout the assessment process. In response to the above concerns, the applicant amended the proposal on 29 September 2014 and 7 November 2014, submitting an amended acoustic report, plan of management, amended balustrade/acoustic screens along the rear first floor balcony rear and Baker Street elevations. The amendments were not required to be re-notified.

 

·      Council’s Environmental Health Unit has advised that the noise expected to arise from the proposal is capable of complying with the relevant noise criteria pending implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the acoustic report. The proposed management procedures have also been reviewed by Environmental Health and been found to include details on the management surpervision of indoor and outdoor play areas to ensure noise is kept to a minimum.  Recommended conditions relate to requirements for compliance with the acoustic report (subject to 3 month validation report), restrictions on operation, waste management, and regulatory food requirements. These conditions will preserve residential amenity. 

 

·      Council’s Development Engineers and Integrated Transport Unit have considered the application on the basis of traffic counts, road conditions, relevant Roads and Maritime Services criteria and Councils policy guidelines under Part D11 Child care centres and Part B7 traffic and parking of the Development Control Plan 2013. As a result of the Randwick Traffic Committee meeting on 14 October 2014, the proposal was given in principle support subject to a reduction of the time restricted parking from 15 minutes down to 10 minutes and for the installation of traffic nibs to restrict parking within 10 of the corner. Appropriate conditions have been included in the recommedation section of this report. Despite the application resulting in a shortfall of one on site space for staff and one on street space for drop off and pick up, it is the outcome is acceptable, with the surrounding street network capable of absorbing the overflow.

 

·      The proposed alterations and additions are of an appropriate scale in the context of surrounding development and the significance of the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area.

 

·      The proposal meets the majority of control requirements of the relevant Environmental Planning Instruments and relevant parts within Council’s Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 having regard to Child Care Centres, Traffic and parking, West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area and Low density development. Where there are shortfalls to the controls it is considered that the application is able to meet the associated objectives of these controls subject in part to conditions which thus allow the proposed use to effectively operate within the existing residential context.

 

Given the above, the proposed child care centre is considered to have merit and will contribute a necessary service to the community. Subject to the application of the below recommended conditions of consent, the application is supported by this assessment.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Floor space ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & 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. 536/2014 for Alterations and rear ground and first floor additions to the existing building for use as a child care centre accommodating 53 children, 3 on site parking spaces, new cantilevered awning over Virginia and Baker Street frontages, alterations of existing garage and changes to fence on Baker Street boundary and new acoustic screen, at No. 2 Virginia Street Kensington, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   A 1.6m high privacy screen provided to north-western elevation of the first floor rear balcony running from the south eastern corner of the balcony for a length of 4.6m must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  The privacy screen must be constructed to ensure no direct line of sight into the rear yard of the neighbouring property at No. 4 Virginia Street. The remaining sections of balustrades along the rear elevation must have clear Perspex installed behind the timber balustrades to a height of 1.5m above the balcony level.

 

Details showing compliance with the abovementioned conditions shall be submitted to Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development

 

b.   Further detail is to be provided in relation to glazing to the ground floor facades to Virginia Street and Baker Street, e.g.- clear, opaque, translucent, partially clear.  Additional detail is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

Details showing compliance with the abovementioned conditions shall be submitted to Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development

 

c.   The landscaping sought to be planted on Council property along the Baker street side shall be deleted from the landscape plans.

 

d.   Parent or student access through the gate entry adjacent to the staff parking garage is prohibited.

 

e.   A maximum of 10 children are permitted to use the outdoor play area within the rear first floor balcony.

 

f.   No consent has been granted for signage to the premises.

 

g.   No obscured glass balustrades are permitted along the rear first floor balconys rear elevation and Baker Street elevation.

 

Kerb Island design

38.     Prior to the commencement of any works on Council property detailed designs for the proposed kerb nibs/island at the corner of Virginia Street and Baker Street must be submitted to and approved by Randwick Traffic Committee. The plans must demonstrate the following to the satisfaction of Randwick Council’s Traffic Engineers.

 

·    The islands should be designed to adequately allow a 12.5m bus or 8.5m service vehicle to make  a left turn from Baker Street into Virginia Street

·    The kerb islands are to be designed to the relevant requirements of RMS technical directions and Austroads.

 

NOTE: The applicant shall liaise with Council’s Department of Integrated transport to discuss the above requirements and to arrange placement of item on the agenda for the next available meeting of Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

66.     A validation report must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics three (3) months after the business commences trading. The report should demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration from the development satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Office of Environment & Heritage/Environment Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s development consent.

The report is to be forwarded to and approved by Council. This report must address (but not limited to) the accumulation effect of mechanical plant and equipment and noise generated from all children in the outdoor play area. Any recommendations outlined in the acoustic report are to be implemented in accordance with the report.

 

67.     The operation of the site and the project specific criteria for noise emissions shall be in accordance with the acoustic report Renzo Tonin & Associates dated 29 September 2014, Doc Reference TG767-02F03 Noise Assessment (r0) unless otherwise stated by this development consent.

 

68.     Music is not to be played in the outdoor play areas at any time.

 

69.     The operation of the child care centre shall be in accordance with the Plan of Management dated 21 July 2014, received by Council 29 September 2014, prepared by Childcare consultancy PTY LTD unless otherwise stated by this development consent.

 

70.     The childcare centre indoor and outdoor areas shall not exceed a maximum number of 53 children at any one time.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 2 Virginia Street, Kensington

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP114/14

 

 

Subject:                  395-397 Anzac Parade, Kingsford

Folder No:                   RZ/1/2014

Author:                   Stella Agagiotis, Co-ordinator, Strategic Planning      

 

Introduction

 

This report assesses the merits of a rezoning application received by Council proposing an increase in height and floor space ratio on the land at 395-397 Anzac Parade, Kingsford.  It forms part of a “Key Site” in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP) known as the Kingsford Triangle at Anzac Parade, Bunnerong Road and Sturt Street, Kingsford (see Figure 1).  The proposal has been submitted by Tristate Property Pty Ltd on behalf of the owners of the subject land.

 

The Department of Planning’s “Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals” forms the basis of the assessment to assist in determining whether the planning proposal should proceed to the next stage of the rezoning process, which is its referral to the Department of Planning and Environment for a ‘gateway determination’ under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (the Act). 

Background

The whole block (known as the Kingsford Triangle) in which the subject land is located, was investigated by Council in 2011 (as part of the Business Centres Discussion Paper) and subsequently rezoned under Randwick LEP 2012 in response to a rezoning request submitted by the owner of 17 Bunnerong Road, Kingsford.  The whole block was rezoned from 2C Residential under the previous Randwick LEP 1998 (which permitted a maximum FSR of 0.9:1 or 0.65:1 depending on lot size) to B2 Local Centre (under the new Randwick LEP 2012) with an FSR of 3:1 and maximum height of 24m consistent with the zoning controls for the Kingsford Town Centre. 

 

The rezoning request in 2011 was supported on the basis that the whole block contains a mix of residential, commercial and retail uses which were not consistent with the medium density residential zoning and given its location adjacent to the Kingsford business centre would provide a continuous business zoning along Anzac Parade to connect the northern end of the centre to the South Sydney Junior Rugby League Club opposite.  Rezoning requests relating to the town centres were reviewed by Council officers as part of the City wide Business Centre Discussion Paper on the basis of whole blocks or streets addressing a range of planning criteria including land use patterns, proximity to town centres, availability of public transport and compatibility with surrounding urban form/development.  Given the prominent location of this triangular shaped block, Council supported the recommendation that the precinct be identified as a Key Site in the Randwick LEP and that this should be considered by any future applicants/owners or as part of any future planning/design review for the Kingsford Town Centre.  Key issues identified for this key site included the need for a detailed traffic study with future major redevelopment proposals, potential overshadowing of residences to the south and the adjacent heritage conservation area.

 

State Government’s Urban Activation Precinct (UAP)

The whole block is located within the State Government’s proposed Randwick Urban Activation Precinct (UAP) which was put on hold by the Government in December 2013.  The Government undertook a series of focused community forums during 2013 and informed the broader community that further consultations would be undertaken as part of the next round of public engagement in 2014.  The two UAP’s announced for the Randwick LGA have remained on hold during 2014.  Council has written on two occasions to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking advice on how Council should proceed with planning proposals it receives for land within the UAP area.  A response is yet to be received from the Department.

 

Rezoning (LEP) Process

The process for rezoning land is outlined in the Act and involves the preparation of a draft local environmental plan (LEP).  The first step in making an amending LEP is the preparation of a planning proposal which explains the objectives of the proposal, outlines the draft LEP provisions/clauses, provides the justification and the merits of the rezoning and describes the consultation intended to be undertaken as part of the planning process. 

 

In August 2014, the applicant, Tristate Property Pty Ltd submitted a planning proposal or spot rezoning and an accompanying urban design report.  Council as the relevant planning authority is required to formally consider the application and if adopted, the planning proposal is to be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking a ‘Gateway Determination’ in accordance with the Department’s criteria contained in “A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals”.  The purpose of the ‘Gateway Determination’ is to ensure there is sufficient justification early in the planning process to proceed with the rezoning.  The ‘Gateway Determination’ will stipulate whether the planning proposal should proceed, whether it needs to be resubmitted, the timeframe for its completion (usually nine months from the date of the gateway determination), the community consultation and State/Commonwealth agency requirements and whether a public hearing is needed. 

 

A planning proposal is formally placed on public exhibition along with any supporting technical studies.  Following consultation with the community and public authorities, a planning proposal may need to be updated in response to submissions made.

 

The final LEP and accompanying maps which amend the Council’s principle planning instrument – Randwick LEP 2012 are made by the Minister for Planning (and notified on the NSW legislation web site) in accordance with the Act.  Certain routine LEP’s which are of local significance can be finalised by Council via delegation from the Minister (this is determined at the gateway stage). The subject planning proposal is not considered routine or of local significance.

 

Pre-gateway reviews

If a planning proposal is not supported by a council or if the council has failed to indicate its support 90 days after the proponent has submitted a request (accompanied by the required information), a proponent may ask the relevant Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) for a pre-Gateway review (this must be within 40 days of being notified of Council’s decision).  The Department of Planning and Environment will undertake its own assessment to determine if the proposal has strategic merit prior to review by the JRPP.   The JRPP is required to take into consideration the Department’s recommendation and the report and advice of both council and the proponent when reviewing the proposal and advise the Minister accordingly. 

Subject Site

The site is made up of 4 parcels of land with a total site area of 1844sqm located between Anzac Pde, Gardeners and Bunnerong Roads adjoining the Nine Ways Roundabout at Kingsford (shown outlined in red on Figure 1 below).  It forms the southern end of the Kingsford Town Centre and is adjacent to Dacey Gardens (to the west in the Botany Bay LGA).

 

The applicant for the proposal, Tristate Property Pty Ltd (property developer) has obtained land owner’s consent from the 3 separate owners of the 4 parcels.  Current land uses on the site comprise single and 2 storey retail/business uses on the ground floor fronting Anzac Pde and Bunnerong Road including car repair workshop, restaurant and retail uses.

 

Figure 1- Location of Subject Site (outlined in red)

 

The Proposal

The Planning Proposal has two key objectives to facilitate mixed use retail, commercial and residential development on the land:

1.  To amend the Randwick LEP 2012 Floor Space Ratio Map and

2.  To amend the Randwick LEP 2012 Height of Buildings Map

 

A summary of the proposed rezoning amendment is provided below:

 

 

Current LEP

Planning Proposal

Zoning

B2 Local Centre

No change

Floor Space ratio

3:1

8:1

Height of Buildings

24m (6-7 storeys)

65m (19- 21 storeys)

 

The proposal for the amalgamated site is for a 19 storey building containing a 4 level podium with retail uses at ground level, commercial uses on levels 1, 2 and 3 and residential uses on levels 6 to 19.  The total developable gross building area of 18,450m2 is proposed which equates to approximately 8:1 FSR.  The proposal assumes an anticipated future building yield of:

·      148 residential units (based on an average of 90 m2 for a 2 bedroom unit) and

·      7 commercial units (based on 250m2 each)

 

A driveway approximately 6m wide is shown on the ground level plan accessed off Bunnerong Road, presumably leading to basement parking (not indicated in the floor plans).  The applicant’s Urban Design report shows three built form options that were tested for the site: a model based on the State Government’s Residential Flat Code (State Environmental Planning Policy 65), a model proposed in the Randwick UAP and an alternative model which is the applicant’s preferred model on the basis that it maximises northerly and easterly apartment orientation, considers the visual and planned character of the area, scale of existing adjacent development and reduces the overshadowing to adjoining properties to the south by incorporating a greater building setback.   The applicant states that the preferred modeling does not preclude further future amalgamation and development of adjoining sites.  Figure 2 shows the applicant’s artistic impression of the preferred proposal with a red line showing the approximate permissible height limit (6-7 storeys or 24m) under Randwick LEP 2012.

 

Figure 2- DCC Architecture and Urban Planning- Artistic impression

 

Description of surrounding area

The whole triangular block of 18 allotments has a combined site area of 7,900 square metres (note- the land subject to the Planning Proposal comprising 4 lots makes up about 23% of the entire block).  Other adjoining land uses within the block comprise a variety of residential and commercial uses including two storey strata titled residential flat buildings, single dwellings, the Church of Christ and associated uses, boarding house, child care centre and other business uses including a drive-in car wash centre at the corner of Sturt Street (southern end of the block).  Lots range in size from 50 square metres to 1,000 square metres.   A Council owned reserve adjoins the subject site immediately to the north, at the intersection of Gardeners Road, Anzac Parade and Bunnerong Road (known as 391R Anzac Pde).  Directly opposite the site along Anzac Parade is the Council owned car park proposed to be redeveloped as part of the CBD and South East Light Rail terminus and bus interchange.


Relevant Planning Documents

 

Randwick LEP 2012

The site is zoned B2 Local Centre under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. 

The permissible maximum floor space ratio for the land is 3:1 and the permissible maximum height is 24m (6-7 storeys). 

 

The entire block (bounded by Anzac Parade, Gardeners Road, Bunnerong Road and Sturt Street) is identified as a “Key Site” on the Key Sites Map as is the land opposite (to the north) owned by Council and Transport for NSW at the corner of Rainbow Street and Anzac Parade.  In accordance with clause 6.12 of Council’s LEP, a site specific draft development control plan must be prepared for land greater than 10,000 square metres or land that is identified as a key site addressing a range of issues including design, building envelope, open space, transport, public domain and environmental management matters.  The purpose of the clause is to ensure key issues related to redevelopment of larger sites and/or strategically located sites can be comprehensively addressed prior to development consent being granted.

Randwick DCP 2013

The subject land is located within “Block 2 – The triangle at Anzac Pde, Bunnerong Road and Sturt Street” of the Randwick DCP Chapter D2 Kingsford Centre.  The objectives for Block 2 are:

 

·      To provide a range of uses and scales suitable to the site’s location on the fringe of Kingsford Centre.

·      To maintain and expand affordable housing options for students and key workers.

·      To improve site permeability by providing through-site links and landscaped corridors in suitable locations.

·      To respect and protect the amenity of existing uses on the block that are unlikely to change.

 

Council’s DCP controls require the preparation of a site specific DCP for the whole Block to address more detailed matters that are particularly relevant for this block being, the mix of dwellings including affordable housing, through site pedestrian/cycle links with suitable landscaping to connect the site with other key destinations such as a public plaza and public transport.  These specific, more detailed issues are in addition to the DCP matters required to be addressed in clause 6.12 of the Randwick LEP 2012 (as outlined above under the heading Randwick LEP 2012).

Department of Planning – A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals

Part 1: Objectives or intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal

The applicant has provided a statement that the objective of the Planning Proposal is to “facilitate a significant mixed use development on land bounded by Anzac Parade, Gardeners Road and Bunnerong Road.  The development will allow for residential apartments above commercial podium comprising ground level retail uses”. It is further stated that the key outcome of the proposal is the increased building height and FSR for the subject land.  Both the Department’s Guidelines and Council’s Rezoning Fact Sheet suggest a pre-lodgement meeting to enable council and the proponent to reach agreement on the information necessary to justify further consideration of the proposal.  This stage of the process was not undertaken by the applicant. 

 

Whilst the stated objectives in the Planning Proposal express the applicant’s desired outcome for increased density, it is considered that the site’s strategic location warrants the inclusion of other objectives for the whole block (including key issues identified in Council’s DCP provisions) to ensure any future redevelopment meets design excellence, provides an appropriate range of land uses, incorporates best practice environmental sustainability, achieves high quality public domain outcomes and adequate protection for the amenity of existing residential uses in the block that are unlikely to change in the short term.

 

Part 2: Explanation of Provisions

The proposed mixed use residential, retail and commercial development is permissible within the existing B2 Local Centre Zone which applies to the whole Kingsford Town Centre.  The Planning Proposal seeks to maintain this zone which is appropriate for the proposed range of uses.  The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Randwick LEP 2012 Height of Buildings and FSR Maps in order to achieve the intended outcomes of developing a high density mixed use development with a maximum height of 65m and maximum FSR of 8:1.  Council’s 2012 LEP and associated studies considered a strategic rather than an ad hoc approach. These proposed LEP amendments will be piecemeal and create a significant inconsistency between the planning controls that apply to the subject site and those that apply to the sites adjoining to the south and to the broader Kingsford Town Centre.

 

Part 3: Justification

The guidelines require planning proposals to include adequate justification for preparing an LEP. These matters are addressed below:

 

(a)    Need for the Planning Proposal         
Q1- Is the Planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report?

The proposed increased densities for the site have not been adequately justified on the basis of a separate strategic study demonstrating the need for the Planning Proposal (in accordance with clause 2.3(a) of the Department’s Guidelines).  The existing controls for the site were reviewed and updated by Council as part of an extensive community engagement process.  A separate strategic study taking into account the economic impacts on the Kingsford Town Centre and suitable range of land uses for the site has not been undertaken.  The Proposal significantly exceeds the scale of development that has been established as being appropriate for the site (6-7 storeys) and the Kingsford Town Centre under Council’s LEP and requires further consideration of the following key issues as outlined in Council’s DCP:

·      scale transition to existing 2-3 storey development to the south

·      public domain improvements including through-site pedestrian and cycle links and landscaping

·      affordable housing opportunities

 

The case for increasing the height and FSR for the site outlined in the Planning Proposal is primarily based on:

·      the State Government’s broader housing objectives for the draft East Sub-Regional Strategy;
Council officer response: State Government housing objectives for the East sub-region of Sydney are noted and Council addressed housing diversity, social housing and the dwelling target (of 8,400 extra dwellings to 2031) in the Council’s Residential Discussion Paper in 2011.   Both the Residential and Business Centres Discussion Papers demonstrated that the Randwick LGA has capacity to meet housing targets in existing business centres, major redevelopment sites, the Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre and other infill areas.

·      the UAP proposals for Randwick;
Council officer response: In relation to the UAP proposals, the State Government commenced preliminary consultation with the community in 2013 including on-line updates and presented working documents to focus groups to facilitate discussions.  However, since December 2013 the State Government placed the UAPs on hold.

 

·      the desire to locate increased densities near transport nodes (the light rail terminus proposed to be located opposite); 
Council officer response: In relation to density, a change in zoning and increased height and FSR for the subject land was adopted by Council as part of the comprehensive review of planning controls across the City under LEP 2012.  This recognised the existing mixed-uses within the triangular block and desire to improve its connection to the Kingsford Town Centre.  Council’s analysis also recognised that appropriate scale of development for this block should be consistent with the remainder of the Kingsford Town Centre. 

 

 

Q2- Is the Planning Proposal the best means of achieving the objectives?

The Department’s Guidelines also requires a Planning Proposal to demonstrate that it is the best means of achieving the objectives/outcomes or if there is a better way.  Alternative approaches or consideration of other planning options have not been demonstrated in the Planning Proposal for the subject land as required under section 2.3(a) of the Department’s Guidelines.  It is considered that a spot rezoning (as proposed) is not the best, most efficient or most effective means of achieving a review of the planning controls that currently apply to the site.  A review of controls was undertaken during the preparation of LEP 2012 with consideration for the potential introduction of the light rail. Therefore, the controls of LEP 2012 are appropriate for this location.

 

Community benefits

The Planning Proposal includes an assessment of the community benefits of the proposal.  This analysis forms part of the State Government’s draft Centres Policy and required for rezoning of land for retail or commercial development that is not permissible within an existing zone.  In this case, the proposed mixed use development is permissible within the B2 Local Centre Zone and this assessment is not necessary.  Nevertheless, it is noted that a mixed use redevelopment on the land would provide an opportunity for built form streetscape/public domain improvements, facilitate residential and employment uses along existing (and proposed) transport infrastructure, enhance existing retail and business services within the Town Centre and provide opportunities for diverse dwelling types.  Detailed design guidelines will need to be prepared in order to achieve these benefits in line with the scale of development currently permitted on the site. The current controls that apply to the site can achieve the desired community benefits.

 

Part 4: Details of Community Consultation

The Department of Planning Guidelines suggest that where relevant, consultation with agencies would be valuable to assist in identifying technical information requirements.  As noted above, the applicant did not participate in any pre lodgement process with Council and simply lodged the application. Further, The applicant has not indicated whether preliminary discussions have been undertaken with relevant government agencies to assist in informing the process prior to lodgement of the application.  The Planning Proposal suggests that the following relevant agencies should be consulted:

·      Transport for NSW

·      Office of Water

·      NSW Roads and Maritime Services

·      Relevant utility authorities

·      Any other agencies determined at the Gateway Determination stage

 

In addition to the above it would be necessary to consult with the NSW Heritage Office and Botany Bay City Council given the site’s location adjoining Dacey Gardens and suburb of Daceyville.

 

Technical studies required

If the Planning Proposal were to proceed to the next stage of the rezoning process a number of studies would be required so as to provide further justification for the proposal:

·      Traffic, transport, parking and access study

·      Flood assessment

·      Heritage Impact Statement (addressing Dacey Gardens and the heritage conservation area of Daceyville within the Botany LEP 2013)

·      Infrastructure report

Additional studies may be required by the Department of Planning and Planning and government agencies.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship to the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome

4

Excellence in urban design and development.

Directions

4a:

Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

4b:

New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

Outcome

8:

A strong local economy.

Directions

8c:

Economic growth and development that strengthens our hospital and university precinct.

Outcome

9:

Integrated and accessible Transport.

Directions

9a:

A network of safe and convenient walking paths and cycleways linking major land uses and recreation opportunities.

 

9b:

The community is informed, educated and encouraged to use sustainable transport.

 

9d:

Residential amenity is protected by appropriate traffic Management.

 

9e:

Parking is managed to balance convenience against reduced car reliance.


Financial Impact Statement

 

The applicable fee for the preliminary assessment of the proposal was paid by the applicant as per Council’s Fees and Charges Policy ($6252) and further fees will be required should the rezoning progress to the next stage.


Conclusion

 

The subject site occupies a strategic location in Kingsford adjoining the Nine-Ways Roundabout providing a southern gateway to the Kingsford Town Centre.  It forms part of a larger block known as the Kingsford Triangle site.  The land was rezoned as part of the Randwick LEP 2012 from residential to commercial uses (B2 Local Centre Zone) allowing for an increased height and FSR consistent with the development standards that apply to the remainder of the Kingsford Town Centre (maximum height of 24m and maximum FSR of 3:1).

 

The applicant has justified the proposed significant increase in height and FSR (up to 8:1 FSR and height of 65m) primarily on the basis of increased densities outlined in State Government’s draft UAP documents for Randwick as well as the site’s access to the proposed light rail terminus opposite.     

The Planning Proposal is not supported on the basis that:

 

·      Increase densities were recently adopted for the block under Randwick LEP 2012;

·      a spot rezoning is not the best, most efficient or most effective means of achieving a review of the planning controls that currently apply to the site.  The established planning controls are based on achieving suitable business and residential uses that complement the Kingsford Town Centre culminating in the gazettal of LEP 2012. A review of this entire block is required in line with best practice planning policy.

·      the need for the planning proposal has not been adequately demonstrated;

·      rezoning would create a significant inconsistency in the planning controls that apply to the wider Kingsford Town Centre

·      Council’s DCP provisions which requires a site specific DCP for the block (Block 2) have not been addressed

·      No consultation has been undertaken by the applicant as part of the preparation of the Planning Proposal prior to its lodgement

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

1.     not forward the Planning Proposal prepared by DCC Urban Planning dated August 2014 for the rezoning of 395-397 Anzac Pde Kingsford to the Minister for Planning for a gateway determination in accordance with s.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

2.     Advise the applicant of Council’s decision.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP115/14

 

 

Subject:                  Report variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 and 31 October, 2014

Folder No:                   F2008/00122

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment      

 

Introduction

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

This report is in response to point 3) above. A table is attached to this report detailing all SEPP1s and Clause 4.6 exceptions approved in the period between 1 and 31 October, 2014 – three (3) were approved during this period, one (1) by delegated authority and two (2) 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 October 2014

 

 

 

 


Clause 4.6 October 2014

Attachment 1

 

 

 

SEPP 1 AND CLAUSE 4.6 REGISTER BETWEEN 1 AND 31 OCTOBER 2014

Council DA reference No.

Lot No.

DP No.

Apartment/Unit No.

Street No.

Street name

Suburb/Town

Post-code

Category of development

Environmental planning instru-ment

Zoning of land

Development standard to be varied

Justification of variation

Extent of variation

Concurring authority

Date DA determined
dd/mm/yyyy

Approved by

DA/437/2014

9

244768

 

14

Dwyer Avenue

LITTLE BAY

2036

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residen-tial

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 9.5m

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

Building height is 10.445m or 9.9%

NSW Dept of Planning

17-Oct-14

Delegated authority

DA/327/2014

A

362230

5

80

Coogee Bay Road

Randwick

2031

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density Residen-tial

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 12m

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

Existing building height is 12.735m increased to 14.37m or by 2:37m or 13.625%

NSW Dept of Planning

28-Oct-14

OCM

DA/208/2014

5

582740 INT IN ROW

 

12-14

Belmore Road,

Randwick

2031

 4: Residential - New multi unit < 20 dwellings

RLEP 2012

B2 - Local Centre

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 12m

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

Building height is 12.78 or 6.5%

NSW Dept of Planning

28-Oct-14

OCM

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM32/14

 

 

Subject:                  Proposed Community Partnership with the Eastern Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club

Folder No:                   F2014/00414

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

For a number of years now, Council has had an extremely successful community partnership in place with the South Sydney Rugby League Football Club which has targeted schools and disaffected youth in the south of the Randwick City area. Following on from the success of this partnership, an approach has been made by the Eastern Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club to enter into a similar community partnership which will target schools and disaffected youth in the central and northern suburbs in the Randwick City area.

 

Issues

 

As part of the partnership, a large number of tickets will be made available to every Roosters’ home game and will be available for Council to distribute as it sees fit. These tickets could be used as a reward for progress made at school, for volunteer work undertaken in the local area, for group morale building events, as gifts to schools in the area or for any other reason chosen by Council and its youth workers.

 

Throughout the year there will also be tickets allocated to Council for various events which Council will also be able to utilise as a reward for those community members identified as having made the most outstanding contribution to our community in a voluntary capacity. The Roosters will also contribute a framed signed jersey which Council can use as it sees fit, for example Council could provide the jumper to the Clovelly Crocodiles Junior Rugby League Club to assist with their annual fundraiser.

 

A further initiative under this community partnership will be an annual coaching clinic held by the Sydney Roosters at Burrows Park, Clovelly. Invitations will be sent to all schools in the Clovelly, Coogee and Randwick areas and council youth workers will also be able to invite selected youth they have dealings with.

 

In addition to these wonderful programs there are a number of other opportunities for both organisations to get our positive messages out into the community. These include, but are not limited to:

 

·           Joint banners at strategic locations throughout Randwick and Clovelly promoting youth events;

·           Youth project related stories from both organisations in our respective newsletters;

·           Including information on both organisations’ youth projects in our rates notice;

·           Links between our websites with each others good news and/or important stories on our respective websites and other publications;

·           The Roosters will provide a high profile player(s) to certain Council events such as White Ribbon Walk, Coogee Family Fun Day, Randwick Spot Festival and Naidoc Week;

·           Roosters school visits could tell the kids about some of Council’s Programs and other youth programs available;

·           The Roosters working with our local chambers of commerce in an attempt to work together to create business and economic development opportunities; and

·           The Roosters working with Randwick City Council Partner organisations, community groups and programmes in particular Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Programs and Multicultural Programs and Projects.

 

These initiatives would be of immense value to targeted areas within Randwick City and, through participation with the football club and their high profile athletes, more people could be reached and influenced than ever before.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of this community partnership will be $20,000.00 plus GST per year, with the first allocation coming from savings identified in the next quarterly budget review and following years being allowed for in Council’s Community Development budget.

 

Conclusion

 

This exciting “Community Partnership” with the Eastern Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club will result in major benefits for both our organisations and, more importantly, our local community. These benefits include:

 

·           Both organisations will raise their profile in the community through the local media and with mutual marketing and advertising opportunities;

·           Better targeting of schools and particular disaffected youth using high profile footballers who can better connect with these traditionally difficult areas;

·           Greater community awareness of the programs being run by both organisations; and

·           Being able to reward our volunteers, school children and disadvantaged youth for their efforts.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council enter into a “Community Partnership” with the Eastern Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club with the $20,000.00 plus gst contribution to come from savings identified in the December 2014 Budget review;

 

b)     the General Manager be delegated authority to enter into a Memorandum of     Understanding with Eastern Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club; and

 

c)     a report on the success of the 2015 Community Partnership to come back        before Council.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM33/14

 

 

Subject:                  Community consultation - alcohol consumption in Coogee beachside parks

Folder No:                   F2014/00332

Author:                   Joshua Hay, Communications Manager     

 

Introduction

 

On 25 February 2014 Council resolved that Council:

 

a)  adopt the recommendation in MM1/14 with the effect that Council not proceed with a total prohibition of the consumption of alcohol on beachside parks of Clovelly and Coogee; and

 

b)  calls for community consultation on this important  issue and report back to Council on potential solutions to antisocial behaviour;

 

c)  as an interim measure impose a ban on the consumption of alcohol in Goldstein Reserve from 6pm to dawn;

 

d)  agree that the consultation process be limited to residents, businesses and ratepayers of Coogee;

 

e)  immediately set up a dialogue with the Police, Mayor and East Ward Councillors to discuss the problems; and

 

f)   set up a committee to address this ongoing issue, including looking at an education program at Coogee Beach and appropriate signage.

 

Following the above Council resolution, Council consulted with the Eastern Beaches Local Area Command in relation to the restrictions. The police advised it was appropriate to have a fixed end time rather than ‘dawn’ for the restrictions and indicated 8am would be appropriate. This advice was communicated to Councillors and the signage installed as alcohol restricted 6pm-8am in Goldstein and Dunningham Reserves.


On 25 March 2014 Council considered a report and resolved to undertake a combined community consultation survey program exploring issues of alcohol consumption in beachside parks, public toilets and the upgrade of Coogee Bay Road.

 

This report presents the outcomes of the community consultation in relation to the consumption of alcohol in beachside parks.

 

Current alcohol restrictions

 

Park name

Alcohol status

Goldstein Reserve, Coogee

Alcohol restricted 6pm – 8am

Dunningham Reserve, Coogee

Alcohol restricted 6pm – 8am

Grant Reserve,  Coogee

Alcohol prohibited at all times

Trenerry Reserve, Coogee

Alcohol prohibited at all times

 

The above restrictions are sign-posted in the parks and enforced by the NSW Police Force who have the ability to exercise discretion to maintain public safety.

Issues

 

In May and June 2014, Randwick City Council conducted one its largest single consultations of the Coogee area to gather feedback from residents, ratepayers and business owners on the issue of alcohol consumption in the Coogee beachside parks.

 

Council staff developed a paper-based survey and an online survey. The paper-based survey was posted with a letter from the Mayor and a reply paid envelope to a total of 9,065 ratepayers, residents and business owners in the suburb of Coogee. The survey was personally addressed to the ratepayer.

 

Where Council’s records showed that the ratepayer’s postal address was different to the property address (which often indicates a tenanted property), we sent an additional survey pack to the property address marked “To the resident” or “To the business proprietor”. This was particularly important given that approximately 50 per cent of the properties in Coogee are leased.

 

An online survey replicating the paper survey was developed and available for the general public to complete at www.yoursayrandwick.com.au/coogee.

 

Communication

Council used a range of methods to communicate and encourage participation in the survey in addition to the mailout. The communication methods included:

 

·           Facebook posts to Council’s 5,000+ strong Facebook page

·           Tweets on the @RandwickMayor and @RandwickCouncil accounts

·           Advertising in the Southern Courier

·           Promotion through Council’s Precincts

·           Promotion in Council’s weekly Randwick eNews sent to 10,000+ subscribers

·           Posters and flyers distributed to shops on Coogee Bay Road

·           Focus groups to further explore some of the findings of the survey

 

Survey validity

·           1,901 total completed surveys

·           1,611 completed paper surveys

·           290 completed online surveys

·           1,787 responses from Coogee residents, ratepayers and business owners

·           Consultation period: late May 2014 to 20 June 2014

·           Postal surveys accepted until 27 June 2014

 

The response rate of 1,901 surveys is a sound sample size and the response from 1,787 Coogee residents, ratepayers and business owners is a good representation of the Coogee suburb.

 

The current population from the 2011 ABS is 14,012 people and there are 6,564 dwellings. There are 11,954 residents in Coogee aged 18 years of age and older.

 

·           15% of Coogee residents aged 18+ completed the survey

·           26% of properties in Coogee are represented in the completed surveys. (This is based on responses from 1,700 unique Coogee addresses)

 

The completed surveys from 1,787 Coogee residents, ratepayers and business owners represent:

 

·           2.14% margin of error

·           at a 95% confidence level

 

This means that if this survey was repeated 100 times, the results to the questions would be within plus or minus 2.14% in 95 of the 100 surveys (95%). 87% of respondents visit Coogee beachside parks at least weekly.

 

Survey response

 

 

Alcohol in Coogee beachside parks

Only responses from verified residents, ratepayers and business owners of Coogee have been included in the data analysis for questions about alcohol. This is in compliance with Council’s resolution of 25 February 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49% of respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement with being able to drink alcohol during the day in a Coogee beachside park. 34% disagreed or strongly disagreed with this question.

 

Most respondents feel safe in the beachside parks during the day, but perceptions of safety are split during the night with 36% feeling unsafe and 37% feeling safe.

 

60% disagree with banning alcohol in all Coogee beachside parks while 29% agree.

 

48% of respondents agreed or agreed strongly that they felt safe around people drinking alcohol in Coogee parks during the day, while 28% disagreed and disagreed strongly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is general support for the existing alcohol restrictions across the four beachside parks.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 3:       An informed and engaged community.

Direction 3c:      A community involved in shaping and enhancing our City.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

·           60% of respondents oppose or strongly oppose banning alcohol in all parks

·           Most respondents felt safe in Coogee parks during the day (87%), but at night 37% feel safe and 37% feel unsafe.

·           48% said they felt safe around people drinking alcohol in parks during the day compared with 27% who felt unsafe.

·           Respondents were generally supportive of the existing alcohol restrictions at Coogee beachside parks

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:

 

1)     note the results of the community consultation in relation to alcohol consumption at Coogee beachside parks which found general support for the existing alcohol restrictions.

 

2)     maintain the existing alcohol restrictions at Coogee beachside parks.

 

3)  liaise with the Eastern Beaches Local Area Command to make temporary amendments to the timing of the restrictions to support key family-friendly events at the beachside parks such as the Coogee Sparkles NYE and Coogee Carols.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM34/14

 

 

Subject:                  Review of the 2014-15 Annual Operational Plan - September Quarterly Report

Folder No:                   F2014/03001

Author:                   Karen Hawkett, Coordinator Integrated Planning & Reporting      

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to update Councillors and the community on the implementation of the annual Operational Plan. The 2014-15 Operational Plan was adopted by Council on 24 June 2014. For each action in the 2014-15 Operational Plan, achievement and status comments are provided in this report. Highlights are also provided where appropriate.

 

Issues

 

This is the September 2014 Quarterly Report and first review of the 2014-15 Annual Operational Plan. All projects are proceeding as planned and during the quarter all services were delivered to agreed standards. For eight projects there was no reported activity for this quarter as these projects are scheduled to commence later this financial year.

 

There were many highlights from the activity undertaken by Council during the quarter. The following table lists our significant highlights:

 

 

City theme

City Plan Outcomes

Action code

Highlight

 

1. Leadership in Sustainability

 

1b. Leadership

 

 

3a. Communicating Effectively

 

 

 

S002

 

 

S044

 

Our Turf War Community Consultation program (Rabbitohs vs Roosters Rugby League finals series) drew a large number of comments and was popular with residents. The campaign attracted broad range of media coverage from the Southern Courier to a leading Channel 7 News story. This year the NRL banners flown during the finals season off Council’s banner poles throughout the City proved extremely popular, while promoting Council’s logo and colours. 

 

 

    Description: C:\Documents and Settings\whitmarshl\Desktop\Rabbitohs_2.jpg  

   Rabbitoh and Rooster’s banners flying throughout Randwick City

 

 

 

1. Leadership in Sustainability

 

1b. Leadership

 

 

S006

 

Audits show full compliance with internal purchasing procedures and tendering processes with legislative requirements. Inventory stock take shown to be 100 per cent accurate.

 

 

1. Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1b. Leadership

 

 

S015

 

Council received 10,231 service requests during the September quarter while the call centre received 31,441 phone calls. Of those calls, 1.9 per cent were abandoned which is well within Council’s accepted rate.

 

 

1. Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1b. Leadership

 

 

S020

S024

S025

S045

S047

S046

 

 

 

The new Council website was launched on 12 August with a user focused site structure, striking visuals, smart content that auto generates related items, new functionality-like maps, and online forms allowing interaction with users. It includes a number of new features, such as maps showing the location of all Council's 2014-15 capital works; wards and waste zones and pickup dates.

The website features a new section of interactive online maps - Explore Randwick City Council, which provides a snap shot of a particular property's details such as lot and DP information, next waste collection dates, land zoning information and list of current council works within 2,000 metres.

 

The new Library website was launched in September with features in line with industry trends.

 

 

1. Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1b. Leadership

 

 

S012

 

Randwick City Council has achieved its best ever result for outstanding rates.

 

1. Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1c. Continuous Improvement

 

 

P011

 

The focus of the All Stops To Randwick training event this year was team collaboration, relationships and leadership.

 

 

      Description: C:\Documents and Settings\whitmarshl\Desktop\Picture 109.jpg      

         Staff at the annual All Stops to Randwick Training event

 

 

2. A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

 

 

2a. Understanding Community Needs

 

2d. Cultural diversity

 

10a. Leader in Environmental Sustainability

 

 

 

S039

 

 

S030

 

 

S082

 

 

Key events delivered to the community included: Bastille Day celebrations held at the La Perouse Museum; Little Bay Neighbour Day at the Prince Henry Centre; National Tree Day and free plant give-away at the Randwick Council Nursery; the second annual Breach Breaks Carnival; and a special commemoration to mark the 100th anniversary of the commencement of WW1.

 

The 2014 Eco-living Fair successfully provided workshops, demonstrations, eco stalls and family entertainment to around 7,000 residents and visitors.

 

 

2. A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

 

2b. Strong Partnerships

 

 

S036

 

With the revamp of Council’s website, precinct agendas, minutes and Council responses are now posted for widespread public viewing.

 

 

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

 

3a. Communicating Effectively

 

 

S042

 

The total reach of Randwick City Council’s Twitter page for the quarter was 216,685, which is well above industry averages.

 

The number of subscribers to Randwick City Council's weekly eNews has grown to more than 12,000 subscribers and has maintained an above industry standard open and click rate.

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

 

3c. Community Involvement

 

 

S050

S051

 

During the September quarter, there were 59,000 visitors to Council’s Your Say Randwick websites providing feedback on projects such as the Chifley all abilities playground, Chifley Reserve Skate Park, Coogee Bowling Club proposal, the Communications Survey and the Community Light Rail Plan Support Committee. The most hits were to the NRL Turf War website. The Turf War campaign reached over 2.4 million people on Twitter and the hashtag #turfwar was considered to be the number one Twitter trend in Sydney the day it was released.

 

 

4. Excellence in Urban Design and Development

 

 

4a. Improved Design

 

 

P025

 

The adoption of the Randwick City Council Light Rail Urban Design Guidelines.

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

5b. Range of Activities

 

P034

 

A very informative consultation meeting was held with the Chifley Reserve Playground Committee resulting in the vision for an All Abilities playground.

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

5b. Range of Activities

 

 

S053

 

Des Renford Leisure Centre achieved a 44 per cent increase in attendances during the September quarter compared to the same period last year.

Learn to Swim and Gym membership numbers continue to increase each month, achieving record numbers.

A number of unique programs have been introduced including a children's painting workshop and a specific weight loss program.

 

 

Des Renford Leisure Centre

 

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

5d. Innovative Library Programs

 

 

S054

S056

 

Amongst the numerous events offered by the Library during the September quarter the Author Talks series were a highlight. Of those attending, 99 per cent rated the event as having met their expectations and 98 per cent rated the overall impression as outstanding or very good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

5d. Innovative Library Programs

 

 

P038

 

A new Randwick City Library logo was developed, based on the Council logo. This logo and new visual identity has been incorporated into all promotional and advertising material, rebranded library membership cards, customer library bags, and the library’s What’s On publication.

 

 

                           New Randwick City Library logo

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

 

6a. Public Asset Management

 

 

P046

 

During the September quarter construction got underway for the following Buildings for Our Community projects: Beiler Park gateway, Cromwell Park - Malabar Beach inspectors tower, and James Robertson fountain.

 

 

6.A Liveable City

 

 

6c. Community Safety

 

 

S064

 

Randwick City Council provided new and detailed information about pool safety and pool fencing requirements on its web site. Council is liaising with other council's to share and develop information and strategies to promote pool safety and compliance.

 

 

  Description: C:\Documents and Settings\whitmarshl\Desktop\5 Cromwell Beach Inspectors Tower.jpg    Description: C:\Documents and Settings\whitmarshl\Desktop\Building Program Pictures 047.jpg

 Cromwell Park-Malabar Beach                          Beiler Park Gateway                          James Robertson fountain

          inspectors tower               

 

 

8. A strong Local Economy

 

 

8d. Tourism

 

 

S076

 

Council promoted Kensington businesses through a display at the Randwick Community Day Council stall at Royal Randwick Racecourse and its Shop Local campaign through a stall at the Eco-living Fair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

 

10a. Leader in Environmental Sustainability

 

 

S083

 

During the September quarter approximately $1.3 million of additional resources from external funding sources was received which will contribute to Council's waste and sustainability initiatives.

 

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

 

 

10b. Management of Environmental Risks

 

 

 

P071

 

 

The new multipurpose field, baseball fields and two car parking areas at Chifley Reserve have been completed at this old landfill site.

 

 

Chifley Reserve

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

 

10c Biodiversity and Natural Heritage

 

 

S085

 

Volunteers planted approximately 400 native plants at Bumborah Point as part of Randwick City Council's 2014 Bushcare Major Day Out event.

 

 

 

                                          Bushcare Volunteers

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

 

10c Biodiversity and Natural Heritage

 

 

S087

S086

 

In the September quarter Randwick City Council received an Office of Environment and Heritage grant of $3,000 to assist with the control of bitou bush at Bunnerong Road, Chifley. The removal of bitou has aided the recovery of the endangered Acacia terminalis subspecies at this site.

 

Positive sightings of the ground nesting Eastern Spinebill have been reported at Frenchman’s Beach and Yarra Beach dunes. This is evidence that the bush regeneration program is having a positive impact on biodiversity.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

 

10e. Water conservation

 

S092

 

During the September quarter, 468 million litres of townwater was saved, from use of the Council's stormwater and borewater re-use initiatives.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of the September Quarterly Report is to inform and update Council and the community on the progress of all actions as set out in the adopted 2014-15 Annual Operational Plan. In addition, given that the Operational Plan is based on the 20-year Randwick City Plan and that Council’s reporting format is based on outcomes rather than organisational structure, the September quarterly report also provides a level of accountability against our long term vision for the City of Randwick.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the information contained in the September 2014 Review of the 2014-15 Annual Operational Plan be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Review of the 2014-15 Annual Operational Plan - September Quarterly Report

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM35/14

 

 

Subject:                  Kingsford Food Market

Folder No:                   F2012/00050

Author:                   Jeff Smith, Director Governance & Financial Services      

 

Introduction

 

At its Ordinary Council Meeting of 28 October 2014, Council considered Report GF65/14 Kingsford Food Market and resolved an amendment to the staff recommendation as follows:

 

“(Stavrinos/Andrews) That Council supports a trial Kingsford/Kensington food event and approve a budget allocation of $35,000.00 to be sourced in the December quarterly budget review.”

 

Issues

 

A rescission motion was subsequently lodged due to concerns regarding the naming of the event “Kingsford/Kensington”. This rescission motion was subsequently withdrawn following advice to Councillors that a rescission motion would result in the postponement of this event due to insufficient time remaining to plan for it. The agreed alternative was that a report would be put before Council to enable the matter to be considered further, which is the purpose of this report.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 8:       A Strong Local Economy.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Promotion of the event has proceeded and is generating substantial interest. To date the event has been promoted as the “Kingsford Night Noodle Markets”.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council endorse the naming of the event “Kingsford Night Noodle Markets” in accordance with promotions to date.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS20/14

 

 

Subject:                  Upcoming Buildings for our Community project - Coogee Lower Promenade Amenities - community consultation report

Folder No:                   PROJ/10695/2014/4

Author:                   Roger Quinton, Executive Planner - Buildings for Our Community      

 

Introduction

 

New public amenities are planned for the lower promenade at Coogee Beach under Year 5 (2014-15) of Randwick City Council’s Building for our Community program.  The project includes new toilets, change rooms, family change area, lifeguards, staff amenities, kiosk, storage and will be progressing to submission of Development Application in early 2015.  

 

Between May and June 2014 Council conducted surveys with Coogee residents, ratepayers and business owners on issues in the local area including the provision of public toilets. Following the surveys, Council conducted three focus group meetings with local residents and business groups. Results of the surveys and focus group meetings have been compiled into two reports: “Coogee Survey, Community Consultation Results Analysis Report” dated July 2014 and “Coogee Focus Groups, Community Consultation Report” dated August 2014 (Refer attachments 1 & 2 for Report extracts relating to public toilets in Coogee). 

 

The outcomes of these reports are of relevance to the proposed Coogee lower promenade amenities project as they detail how the local community perceives the need for these facilities and how the majority residents/business owners support the construction of new amenities in this location. The main points are detailed below.    

 

Results of Survey and Focus groups

Coogee Survey:

·      There is strong support for the proposal to build new toilets on the Coogee promenade with 73% supporting the development of detailed designs.

·      Only 20% of respondents rated the availability of public toilets in the parks immediately around Coogee beach as excellent or good, with 40% stating that availability was poor or very poor.

·      69% of respondents were of the view that there is a need for more toilets, change rooms and showers close to the beach.

·      58% of respondents think it’s important or very important to have toilets in Dunningham Reserve.   

 

Coogee Focus Groups

·      General feedback was that there was a lack of public amenities in the Coogee area.

·      Respondents felt that the proposed location of Council’s concept design was good, being close to the beach and that the impact of such a development on the natural landscape was appropriately addressed.

·      A number of participants also preferred permanent toilets to replace the temporary toilets at Dunningham Reserve and suggested that this be undertaken along with the new amenities in the lower promenade.

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  A Liveable City.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

Funding has been allocated in the 2014-15 Capital Works budget to accommodate toilets and amenities at the lower promenade part of Coogee beach.

 

Conclusion

 

The results of the survey of local residents/business owners and the outcome of focus groups containing members of the local community indicate that there is strong support for new amenities located in the promenade at Coogee beach, as is proposed by Council’s Building for our Community program.  A large majority of residents/business owners were of the view that there is a need for more toilets, change rooms and showers close to the beach.

 

From the comments raised in the survey and consultation, it should be noted that new amenities at Dunningham Reserve are to be considered in future Capital Works programs. 

     

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

1.     proceed with detailed design and Development Application documentation for the proposed amenity facility on the lower promenade at Coogee Beach.

 

2.     consider funding new amenities at Dunningham Reserve in future Capital Works budgets.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Coogee Survey Community Consultation Results Analysis and Report - extract regarding public toilets.

 

2.View

Coogee Focus Groups Community Consultation Report - extract regarding public toilets.

 

 

 

 


Coogee Survey Community Consultation Results Analysis and Report - extract regarding public toilets.

Attachment 1

 

 









Coogee Focus Groups Community Consultation Report - extract regarding public toilets.

Attachment 2

 

 


 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF72/14

 

 

Subject:                  Code of Conduct Complaint Statistics

Folder No:                   F2004/06569

Author:                   David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services      

 

Introduction

 

Under part 12 of the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct (Reporting on Complaints Statistics) Council's complaints coordinator must arrange for the following statistics to be reported to the council within 3 months of the end of September of each year:

 

a)     the total number of code of conduct complaints made about councillors and the general manager under the code of conduct in the year to September,

b)     the number of code of conduct complaints referred to a conduct reviewer,

c)     the number of code of conduct complaints finalised by a conduct reviewer at the preliminary assessment stage and the outcome of those complaints,

d)     the number of code of conduct complaints investigated by a conduct reviewer,

e)     the number of code of conduct complaints investigated by a conduct review committee,

f)     without identifying particular matters, the outcome of code of conduct complaints investigated by a conduct reviewer or conduct review committee under these procedures,

g)     the number of matter reviewed by the Office of Local Government and, without identifying particular matters, the outcome of the reviews, and

h)     the total cost of dealing with code of conduct complaints made about councillors and the general manager in the year to September, including staff costs.

 

The council is to provide the Office of Local Government with a report containing the statistics referred to in clause 12.1 within 3 months of the end of September of each year.

 

The following is a summary of Code of Conduct complaint statistics for the period September 2013 to September 2014:

 

Part 12.1 - Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct (Reporting on Complaints Statistics)

Sept 2013 to

Sept 2014

 

1

a

The total number of complaints received in the period about councillors and the general manager under the code of conduct

0

 

 

b

The total number of complaints finalised in the period about councillors and the general manager under the code of conduct

1

 

Overview of Complaints and Cost

 

 

2

a

The number of complaints finalised at the outset by alternative means by the General Manager or Mayor

0

 

 

b

The number of code of conduct complaints referred to a conduct reviewer

0

 

 

c

The number of code of conduct complaints finalised at preliminary assessment by conduct reviewer

0

 

 

d

The number of finalised code of conduct complaints investigated by a conduct reviewer

 

 

e

The number of finalised code of conduct complaints investigated by a conduct review committee

 1

 

 

f

Number of finalised complaints investigated where there was found to be no breach

 1

 

 

g

Number of finalised complaints investigated where there was found to be a breach

 0

 

 

h

Number of complaints being investigated that are not yet finalised

 

 

i

The total cost of dealing with code of conduct complaints within the period made about councillors and the general manager including staff costs

$40,000

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The reporting of Code of Conduct complaints is a requirement under part 12 of the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the Code of Conduct statistics for the period September 2013 to September 2014 be forwarded to the Office of Local Government (Department of Premier and Cabinet) in accordance with part 12 of the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF73/14

 

 

Subject:                  Schedule of meetings for 2015 and arrangements for decision making during the Christmas/New Year period

Folder No:                   F2004/06565

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

This report outlines a method for matters to continue to be processed during the Christmas/New Year meeting recess period and suggests a Council and Committee meetings schedule for the forthcoming calendar year.

 

Issues

 

This year the meetings recess will commence after the ordinary Council Meeting scheduled to be held on 9 December 2014. A meeting schedule for the 2015 calendar year has been prepared (based on the practice of past years) and is attached for Council’s endorsement.

 

Should the necessity arise for any meeting dates to be altered, the provisions of Council’s delegation to the General Manager ‘Council & Committee Meetings – Authority to vary dates and times’ will be utilised.  The delegation is as follows:

 

‘That the General Manager is authorised to vary the schedule of meeting dates and times for meetings of Committees and the Council, when it is not practicable or desirable to hold meetings on a particular designated night to ensure that one meeting of each general committee and an ordinary meeting of the Council is held each month, except for the month of January.’

 

It has been the practice for many years for the council to take a recess following the last ordinary meeting in December, to give Councillors and officers the opportunity to either take a break over the Christmas holiday period or to finalise the year’s activities and plan for the following twelve months.  During previous recess periods, Council policy ‘Council in Recess Procedure’ has prevailed.  This policy provides a means of attaining decisions on urgent or important matters during the meeting recess and provides:

 

‘The Mayor, the Chairpersons of the Planning Committee, the Administration & Finance Committee, the Community Services Committee and the Works Committee or, in his/her absence (or if the Mayor is the Chairperson of the Committee) the Deputy Chairpersons, and the General Manager jointly be authorised to make decision which would otherwise be made by the Council and any such decision are to be unanimous and circulated to Councillors for their information.’

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Urgent and important Council business can be dealt with during the Christmas/New Year period without the requirement for formal Council and Committee meetings by utilising the ‘Council in Recess Procedure’ during that time.  Any matters that are unable to be dealt with under the Council in Recess Policy, due to extenuating circumstances, could be dealt with at an Extraordinary Council Meeting.

 

 

Recommendation

That:

 

a)     the Council Meeting recess commence following the ordinary Council Meeting scheduled to be held on Tuesday 9 December, 2014 and meetings be resumed on Tuesday 10 February 2015 (with Committee meetings being held on that night) and during the recess period the ‘Council in Recess Procedure’ be utilised, subject to the need for any extraordinary Council Meetings, which may be called in extenuating circumstances; and

 

b)     the Meeting Schedule for the 2015 calendar year be adopted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Draft meeting schedule for 2015

 

 

 

 


Draft meeting schedule for 2015

Attachment 1

 

 



Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF74/14

 

 

Subject:                  Appointment of Electoral Commission NSW to Conduct 2016 Local Government Election

Folder No:                   F2014/00545

Author:                   David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services      

 

Introduction

 

Recent amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) introduced changes that need to be considered by Councils when administering future local government elections. One of these changes is the requirement for Council to enter into a contract with the Electoral Commissioner for the Electoral Commissioner to administer the council's elections and/or council polls and constitutional referendums, including the local government elections in September 2016.

 

Issues

 

To engage the Electoral Commissioner to administer elections, Council is required to make a resolution to enter into a contract with the Electoral Commissioner for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all elections.

 

If the council decides to make a resolution to engage the Electoral Commissioner, it is required to be made within 18 months before the 2016 local government election. This means councils planning on making such a resolution must do so before 10th March 2015. After this date, a council who has not resolved to engage the Electoral Commissioner for the administration of its elections and/or polls and referendums will be administering its own elections and/or polls and referendums as the Electoral Commission has no authority to administer elections and/or polls and referendums for those councils not having made the appropriate resolution. The next step following the making of the resolution is to formally enter into the contract or other arrangement.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1d:      Continuous Improvement based on Accountability, Transparency and Good Governance.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Funding has been set aside for the conduct of the 2016 local government elections.

 

Conclusion

 

The model resolution below is designed to assist Council in making a resolution that complies with subsection 296(2) of the Local Government Act, should it be Council's intention to engage the Electoral Commissioner for the conduct of all its elections, polls and constitutional referendums (but excluding an election of the Mayor or Deputy Mayor by the Councillors).

The resolution does not take effect until the 2016 ordinary elections and then continues on until March 2019 when it automatically terminates, unless it has already been terminated by either party in writing with four week’s notice.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Randwick City Council resolves:

 

1.     pursuant to s.296(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (“the Act”) that an election arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all elections of the Council;

 

2.     pursuant to s. 296(2) and (3) of the Act, as applied and modified by s. 18, that a council poll arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all council polls of the Council; and

 

3.     pursuant to s. 296(2) and (3) of the Act, as applied and modified by s. 18, that a constitutional referendum arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all constitutional referenda of the Council.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF75/14

 

 

Subject:                  Quarterly Budget Review - September 2014

Folder No:                   F2013/00404

Author:                   Mitchel Woods, Manager Corporate and Financial Planning      

 

Introduction

 

As part of the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework for NSW Local Governments, the Office of Local Government has a set of minimum reporting requirements for Councils, in order for them to facilitate progress reporting against the original and revised annual budgets at the end of each quarter.

 

Collectively, these documents are known as the Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) and are reported to council in accordance with the relevant legislation at the end of each quarter.

 

Section 203(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that at the end of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that indicates the latest estimates of income and expenditure for the 2014-15 year.

 

The regulation (Section 203 (2)) also requires that the budget review statement must include, or be accompanied by:

 

I.      A report as to whether or not the Responsible Accounting Officer believes that the Statement indicates that the financial position of the Council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure; and

II.     If that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

 

Issues

 

This report is a review of the Council’s 2014-15 current budget and recommends adoption of a revised budget for the 2014-15 financial year.

 

It proposes variations to Council’s adopted budget, which will result in a projected surplus at year end of $20,249.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The proposed variations in this report and listed in the attachment will result in a projected surplus at year end of $20,249.

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Manager Corporate and Financial Planning, as the Responsible Accounting Officer, advises that the projected financial position is satisfactory.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the report in relation to the September 2014 Budget Review be received and noted; and

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS) - September 2014

 

 

 

 


Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS) - September 2014

Attachment 1

 

 


















Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF76/14

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - October 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 – October 2014” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of October 2014. All investments have been made in accordance with the Act, Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Investment Commentary

 

The size of the investment portfolio may vary significantly from month to month as a result of cash flows for the period. Cash outflows (expenditure) are typically relatively stable from one month to another. Cash inflows (income) are cyclical and are largely dependent on the rates instalment due dates and the timing of grant payments including receipts of the Financial Assistance Grants.

 

Expenditure during the period was incurred for capital works, payroll and miscellaneous expenses. Main income sources were rates income, grants and miscellaneous fees and charges.

 

The investment portfolio decreased by $8.579 million during October 2014. The decrease is representative of a negative 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 October 2011 to October 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 October 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 October 2011 to October 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 3.85% compared with the benchmark index of 2.67%.

 

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

4%

96%

AA

100%

48%

52%

A

75%

48%

27%

 

 

 

 

 

 

The graph below shows the actual percentage of funds held by Individual Institutions V the Maximum Limits allowable under Council policy as at 31 October 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 $14.139 million in floating rates notes (FRN).

 

These investments are classified as “held for trading” requiring that they are reported at the latest indicative market valuations at month end.

 

The indicative market value of the FRN’s decreased by $18 thousand as at the end of October.

 

Covered Bonds

 

On advice from Council’s Investment Advisors CPG, Council sold the NAB Covered Bond on 30 October 2014. The bond was sold for $3,181,470.00 plus accrued interest of $22,380.00. The total realised gain for the period from purchase on 11 March 2014 to 30 October 2014 was $197,790.00. Actual total return for the 8 months of investing being 9.89%.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction:  Long term financial viability is achieved.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Funds are invested with the aim of achieving budgeted income in the 2014-15 financial year and outperforming the UBS Australian Bank Bill Index over a 12 month period. The current budget provision for investment income from this source is $1,932,150.00. Investment income to 31 October 2014 amounted to $800,500.86

 

Certification – Responsible Accounting Officer

 

I hereby certify that all investments as at 31 October 2014 have been made in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy. All investments meet the requirements of s625 of the Local Government Act and the Local Government (General) Regulation.

 

Mitchel Woods

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Conclusion

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF77/14

 

 

Subject:                  Withdrawl of Caveat

Folder No:                   F2004/06862

Author:                   Sharon Plunkett, Property Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

Clause 400 (Part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

Issues

 

It is necessary for the Council’s seal to be affixed to the ‘Withdrawal of Caveat’ form to remove a caveat number ‘K706856’ from the title of property at 21 Meagher Avenue, Maroubra (Lot 143, Deposited Plan 228875).  This caveat placed a restriction on the re-sale of the said property within a period of three (3) years from the date of its acquisition by the registered proprietor, Marcia Emily Brereton and Norma Claire Callinan. As the date of the acquisition was between 1966 and 1969, the caveat is now redundant.  Ms Primula Brereton the executor of the estate needs to lodge the Withdrawal of Caveat form with the Land Titles Office to remove the caveat and permit transfer of the property.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

As Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorising the Affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the Council’s Seal be affixed to the Withdrawal of Caveat form for the property at 21 Meagher Avenue, Maroubra also known as Lot 143 DP 228875.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM132/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Nash - Proposed Naming - Small part of Coral Sea Park - Molly Dunn

Folder No:                   F2004/06876

Submitted by:          Councillor Nash, Mayor     

 

 

That Council:

 

1.     Note the tragic death of 17 year old Melissa “Molly” Dunn on 1 September 2012 in Coral Sea Park.  Molly was a local Aboriginal person much loved by her family and friends;

 

2.     Note that the local Aboriginal community, including Molly’s family and friends, have made a small garden area within Coral Sea Park dedicated to Molly’s memory;

 

3.     Note the correspondence from Detective Acting Superintendant Rohan Cramsie of the Eastern Beaches Local Area Command dated 2 October 2014 in relation to this matter;

 

4.     Note that naming a small section of Coral Sea Park, including the small garden area dedicated to Molly’s memory, as “Molly’s Park” would be appreciated by her family, friends and the local Aboriginal community in dealing with their grief;

 

5.     Name a section of Coral Sea Park, including the small garden area dedicated to Molly’s memory, as “Molly’s Park”.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM133/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Local Volunteer Expo

Folder No:                   F2009/00215

Submitted by:          Councillor Roberts, East Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

1.         Note the high level of volunteerism in the Australian and Randwick community;

 

2.         Note the difficulties volunteer organisations and would-be volunteers have in linking up;

 

3.         Investigate and bring back a report on the option of hosting and marketing an annual local 'Randwick Volunteer Expo': Where local volunteer organisations can gather in one location allowing local would-be volunteers to come along and investigate what the local volunteer opportunities are.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM134/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Randwick and Botany Chinese New Year Celebrations

Folder No:                   F2008/00044

Submitted by:          Councillor Moore, West Ward     

 

 

That Council be supportive of a proposed Chinese New Year celebration to be held in Dacey Gardens in February 2015 and in so doing:

 

a)     Notes the event is drawing on a wide variety of local interest groups including the Kingsford Chamber of Commerce, local businesses, the University of NSW, the Chinese Consul General and Botany Council;

 

b)     Join with and match Botany Council with up to $50,000.00 contribution; and

 

c)     Provide event advice and support as determined appropriate to ensure Randwick’s involvement and partnership objectives are met.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM135/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Integrating bicycle racks into all of Randwick City town centres

Folder No:                   F2011/00193

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward      

 

 

That Council:

 

a)     bring back a report on how to integrate bicycle racks into the streetscape of all Randwick City town centres; and 

 

b)     as part of this report, consider the costing of such a scheme.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM136/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposing a third party insurance scheme for cyclists

Folder No:                   F2006/00536

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward      

 

 

That Council write to the NSW Roads Minister, the Hon. Duncan Gay MLC, requesting that the State Government consult with all concerned stakeholders, to investigate the possibility of implementing a compulsory 3rd Party Insurance scheme to protect cyclists, other parties and property damaged in the event of an accident.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM137/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Malabar Headland

Folder No:                   F2004/06759

Submitted by:          Councillor Roberts, East Ward      

 

 

That Council:

a)     note the special place Malabar Headland holds with many residents of Randwick City;

 

b)     note the uniquely wild and undeveloped nature of the headland and its close proximity to the CBD; and

 

c)     write to the owners of the headland, the Federal Government, outlining Council's future vision for the headland is one of national parks alongside mixed public use open space - to allow passive community recreation only - with no new development.  

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM138/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Amalgamations

Folder No:                   F2004/06554

Submitted by:          Councillor Bowen, East Ward      

 

 

On 24 October 2014 it was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald the NSW Liberal Treasurer Andrew Constance publicly stated the number of metropolitan councils in Sydney should be reduced from 41 to just 5. Given Sydney's population this would equate to local councils of approximately 800,000 residents each. The Treasurer was also reported to describe local government as "terrible" and that the state Liberal government would "pull out the stick to local government". The Treasurer's comments were made following the State Liberal government's announcement of local government reform. In response to these comments:

 

a)     the Council write the Premier to request he confirm there will not be a policy of forced amalgamations after the 2015 state election;

 

b)     noting the local government sector employs thousands of staff across NSW and provides an invaluable role in giving support and services to the local communities of this state (including sporting, cultural and volunteer organisations such as surf lifesaving), that this council unreservedly condemn the comments of the NSW treasurer that " Local Government is terrible" and that the state government intends to "pull out the stick to local government".

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM139/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Response to Fit For the Future

Folder No:                   F2004/06554

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Randwick City Council further articulates its current resolved position on the State Government’s Fit For the Future process by augmenting it with a rejection of any proposed alienation from the LGA of any of our historical land area or facilities.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM140/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Response to the request by the American President to the people of Australia for a continued commitment to addressing Climate Change issues

Folder No:                   F2008/00363

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council write to the President of the United States expressing our thanks on behalf of the residents of our LGA that he used his address to the recent G20 conference to call for continued global action on climate change when our own Prime Minister failed to do so on our behalf.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM141/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Request for Stingless Bee Hive at Randwick Public School

Folder No:                   F2009/00522

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council agrees to the principal of Randwick Public School’s request for the provision of a stingless bee hive and funds it from the contingency fund.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM142/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Smith - Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel models

Folder No:                   F2004/07960

Submitted by:          Councillor Smith, North Ward      

 

 

That Council:

 

a)     noting that the vast majority of Councillors have no formal qualifications or recognised experience in planning related disciplines;

 

b)     understanding the public’s frustration with several breaches of trust stemming from NSW Councillors unlawful behaviour in planning matters as outlined in ICAC findings;

 

c)     recognising the important role Councillors perform in ensuring public interest is considered in planning matters;

 

d)     does now direct its professional officers to bring forth a report outlining IHAP style models that could be used to review DA determinations whilst still allowing Councillors to be the final approver of matters involving public interest; and

 

e)     recognising that any changes to the planning process must be accepted by the community does commit itself to engaging in community consultation should any changes be contemplated as a result of the report’s recommendations. 

 

 

 

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                             25 November 2014

 

 

Notice of Rescission Motion No. NR13/14

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Rescission Motion from Crs Andrews, Seng and Stevenson - Environment Report - Proposal for the "Walk it Off" campaign for Kensington and Kingsford business precincts

Folder No:                   F2009/00507

Submitted by:          Councillor Andrews, Central Ward; Councillor Stevenson, Central Ward; The Mayor, Ted Seng      

 

That the resolution passed at the Environment Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 reading as follows:

 

“That Council:

 

a)     Approves the planning and delivery of a new “Walk it Off” campaign for residents in proximity of the Kensington/Kingsford business precincts;

 

b)     Endorses “Walk it Off” as a small-scale campaign to reward residents who reduce their car use and walk, cycle or take public transport to their local cafes and restaurants between February and June 2015; and

 

c)     Approves an amount of $9,800 to be allocated to the “Walk it Off” campaign from the environmental levy budget, particularly for the deployment of a rewards card and possible electronic registration of visits to cafes and restaurants.”

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

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

 

“That no further trial be proceeded with.”