Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 24 March 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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, 24 March 2015 at 6:00pm

 

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

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

Amen”

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

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

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 24 February 2015

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.

CP8/15     263-269 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/566/2014)..................... 1

CP9/15     2 Robey Street, Maroubra
(DA/704/2014/A)...............................................................
45

CP10/15    Post Exhibition - Draft s94A Plan 2015 and Draft Amendments to the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (Undergrounding Overhead Power Lines).............................. 53

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP11/15    Report variation to Develpment Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 to 28 February, 2015........................................ 101

CP12/15    Randwick Environment Park draft Plan of Management Peer Review............................................................................ 101

CP13/15    Proposed Randwick Community Centre Plan of Management  ...................................................................................... 111

CP14/15    Cultural and Community Grant Program March 2015 Round Assessment Report........................................................... 143

General Manager's Report

GM5/15     Development of a community pride campaign..................... 151

Director City Services Reports

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF8/15     Investment Report - February 2015................................... 155

GF9/15     Mayoral Aviation Council - 2015 Conference........................ 163

GF10/15   2015 National General Assembly of Local Government......... 165

GF11/15   2015 Asia Pacific Cities Summit and Mayor's Forum............ 181  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM11/15   Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Proposing a new community volunteer program "the casserole club".............................. 183

NM12/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Business Rates Relief during CSELR Construction.......................................................... 185

NM13/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos -  Australian Organ Donor Registry........................................................................... 187

NM14/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Obtaining legal advice on using section 18 of the Noxious Weeds Act with reference to the Botany Cemetery Trust..................................................... 189  

Closed Session (record of voting required)

CS3/15     Tender T2015-13 - Cooper Street Retaining Wall Stabilisation

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.

 

CS4/15     Chifley Sports Reserve Amenities Building – Requirement to re-tender

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

 

 

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP8/15

 

 

Subject:                  263-269 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/566/2014)

Folder No:               DA/566/2014

Author:                    Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Partial demolition, alterations and additions to the former RSL Club building for the establishment of a child care centre catering for 90 children and new parking area fronting Susan Lane (Heritage Item)(Variation to floor space ratio& building height controls)

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Hnl Properties Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Hnl Properties Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview29181.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for consideration as the Clause 4.6 variations to floor space ratio and building height standards are greater than 10% and the estimated cost of development exceeds $2 Million.

 


Proposal

 

The proposal involves partial demolition, alterations and additions to the former RSL Club building for the establishment of a child care centre catering for 90 children including a new parking for 7 vehicles off Susan Lane. The layout of the building will comprise:

 

The proposed child care centre will provide for the following age breakup of children:

 

·      12 x 0-2 Years

·      18 x 2-3 Years

·      60 x 3-5 Years 

 

The layout of the proposed facility is:

 

Ground Floor

·     Entry foyer, reception meeting room, kitchen, art room, cot room store, toilets and other ancillary facilities, indoor and outdoor learning and play areas and rear basement store (subfloor).

 

Level 1

·     Training room, store toilet and other ancillary facilities, indoor and outdoor learning and play areas.

 

Level 2

·     Staff room and amenities, office and foyer areas, indoor and outdoor learning and play areas, staff parking for 7 vehicles off Susan Lane.

 

The existing facades to Clovelly Road and Knox streets will be renovated. New works will be integrated with the existing building fabric, obscured from view from Clovelly Road and constructed of appropriate materials and finishes in keeping with the facades of the heritage building on the site.

 

The child care centre will require 11 staff and the proposed hours of operation are from Monday to Friday 7.00am – 6.00pm.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located at No. 263-269 Clovelly Road, Clovelly and is formally described as Lot 18-19 on DP719. The land is a corner lot with a primary frontage to Clovelly Road of 25.955m, side boundary frontages to Knox Street and No. 271 Clovelly Road of 39.625m, a rear frontage to Susan Lane of 29.985m and a total site area of 1036.5m2.

 

The site has a slight west east cross fall along the Clovelly Road frontage. Along the Knox Street frontage, at the boundary the site has a slope upwards towards the north a gradient of approx. 1 in 6 such that the apparent height of the existing building is relative to this slope when vied from the west.

 

The site backs on to a rock wall with a height of approx. 9.5m which extends east from the site and forms the effective rear boundary of the subject site and those including 271-285 Clovelly Road (travelling east). Along this same rear alignment is a ROW access 4.265m wide from Fewings Street benefitting the subject site.

 

The subject site is located approximately 550m north-west of Gordon’s Bay, 850m west of Clovelly Beach, 750m south west of Waverley Cemetery and 1.5km north east of the Royal Randwick Shopping Centre.

 

The site is located in an established residential area within close proximity to shops, schools, child care centres and public transport. (See Figure 1)

 

Figure 1: Subject Site

 

Submissions

 

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

 

1.     A resident at Knox Street, Clovelly

2.     41 Knox Street, Clovelly

3.     50 Knox Street, Clovelly

4.     54 Knox Street, Clovelly

5.     51 Knox Street, Clovelly

6.     51A Knox Street, Clovelly

7.     49 Knox Street, Clovelly

8.     38 Knox Street, Clovelly

9.     Que Consulting on behalf of 53 Knox Street, Clovelly

10.   2 Fewings Street, Clovelly

11.   12 Fewings Street, Clovelly

12.   10 Fewings Street, Clovelly

13.   Unit 3/171 Carrington Road, Clovelly

14.   Unit 3/99 Carrington Road, Clovelly

15.   175 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

16.   281 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

17.   261 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

18.   257 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

19.   253 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

20.   259 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

21.   255 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

22.   271 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

23.   277 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

24.   273 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

25.   GTK Consultting on behalf of 279 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

26.   279 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

 


 

Issues

Comments

Traffic including drop-off / pick-up parking spaces; increase of traffic on Susan Lane, Clovelly Road and Fewings Street; staff parking off Susan Lane; pedestrian safety; and garbage trucks accessing Susan Lane.

See Traffic and Parking in Key Issues section of this report.

Number of children and staff.

The number children have been reduced from 145 to 90 children and the associated required number of staff of staff has been reduced from 18 to 11 persons. The reduction is substantial and the traffic and parking implications are addressed with in the Key Issues section of this report.

Hours do not clarify activities that will occur outside trading hours including arrival of staff and frequency of ancillary activities outside trading hours.

The proposed opening hours of Monday to Friday 7.00am – 6.00pm are considered more suitable in a residential area than the previous RSL and Air Force Club usage of the site that operated Monday to Wednesday 11.00am – 11.00pm, Thursday and Friday 11.00am to midnight, Saturday 10.30am to midnight and Sunday 10.30am -11.00pm . A condition of consent requires the detailing and frequency of after hour events in the POM. Inclusive, the use of the upper floor outdoor play areas for these activities will not be permitted. An acceptable level of surrounding amenity should prevail. See also Acoustic Amenity and Privacy in Key Issues section of this report.

Bulk of the development including FSR and height.

See Clause 4.6 Objection section of this report.

Amenity impacts including potential noise, overshadowing and view impacts.

See Acoustic Amenity and Privacy and View Sharing in Key Issues section of this report.

 

Rear setback.

With the exception of the proposed staff parking and bin store structure on the corner of Knox Street and Susan Lane which are sited to the laneway, the new works are setbacks approx. 7.6m from the laneway. These new works are at a relative single storey height when viewed from the dwelling house to the north of the site on the north eastern corner of the laneway.

Mobile phone towers located nearby to the site.

The antennas located on the existing building and within proximity of the subject site are low impact structures. Notwithstanding, a suitable condition is included in the recommendation requiring submission of an electromagnetic radiation report by a suitably qualified consultant prior to issue of an occupation certificate.

Ground water and drainage of the site.

Concept drainage plans have been submitted with the application and assessed by Council’s Development Engineer as Acceptable. Standard conditions regarding detailed design are included in the recommendation.

Inconsistency with zone objectives.

The proposal in its amended form involves a significant reduction in the scale of the development to a maximum of 90 children. This aspect is addressed in the Compliance Report attached to this report and within the clause 4.6 objections in this Executive Summary.

Heritage impacts are unacceptable as they only deal with external features.

Conditions of consent will require the retention of some internal features including the existing stage area. This aspect is considered in detail under Heritage in Key Issues section of this report.

Plan of Management is not realistic and needs to address after hours events.

A condition of consent is included in the recommendation which requires the detailing of control measures in respect of after-hours events. See also Acoustic Amenity and Privacy section of this report

 

Key Issues

 

1.1     Request to vary development standard

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

 

Height of Buildings

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Height of Buildings

Development Standard

9.5m

Proposal

 

Maximum Height of Existing Building to be Renovated

13.47m

Maximum Height of New Additions

Approx. 11.2m

Excess above RLEP Standard

41.7%

 

The following images detail extent of the proposed departure:

         

Figure 1: Existing East Elevation

 

Figure 2: Proposed Eastern Elevation

 

Figure 3: Existing Western Elevation

 

Figure 4: Proposed Western Elevation

 

Figure 5: Existing South East 3D Elevation

 

Figure 6: Proposed South East 3D Elevation

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

1.     Consistency with the objectives of the building height standard in the LEP building height objectives:

 

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

 

Assessment: The proposed height and scale of the child care centre will sit comfortably within the site and the established streetscape. It is noted that the proposed height generally sits beneath the maximum building height of the existing building currently on the site (refer to the accompanying elevation plans).

The upper level of the proposed development is recessed to reduce the perceived bulk and scale of the development. The proposed built form will be screened by the retained trees along the western setbacks.

The overall bulk and scale of the proposal will be compatible with surrounding development and the desired future character of the locality.

 

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

 

Assessment: The Clovelly RSL and Air Force Club that currently exists on the site is listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 2012. The building, formerly Kings Theatre was opened in 1939, and was converted for use by the RSL and reopened in 1962. The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet notes the Interwar functionalist and Art Deco styling of the building.

The proposal is for adaptive reuse of the former cinema building as a child care centre. The proposed height is due to retaining and restoring the façade of the existing heritage building on the site. As suggested by Council in the pre-lodgement meeting held on 2 April 2014, a Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by Phoenix Architects accompanies the Development Application. The Statement of Heritage Impact assesses the extent to which the proposed development will affect the heritage significance of the heritage item and provides heritage guidelines and recommendations for the proposed development. The Statement of Heritage Impact confirms that the bulk and scale of the proposed development is compatible with the scale and character of the heritage item on the site.

 

3)   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.

 

Assessment: The proposal takes advantage of the site which has three road frontages and 1 adjoining residential neighbour, therefore having minimal privacy and acoustic impacts. Solar access is maintained to all surrounding residences, particularly to the adjoining residence to the east at No. 271 Clovelly Road.

A Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics accompanies the development application. The Noise Impact Assessment addresses the suggestions made by Council in the pre-lodgement meeting held on 2 April 2014. The Noise Impact Assessment demonstrates that adequate site planning and building design measures are proposed to minimise noise impacts, that the noise levels expected to be generated from the child care centre comply with the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the relevant guidelines, and that suitable noise attenuation measures have been incorporated into the proposal.

As suggested by Council in the pre-lodgement meeting held on 2 April 2014, the number of children proposed on the site has been reduced. The proposed child care centre caters for 90 children (12 x 0-2 years, 18 x 2-3 years and 60 x 3-5 years). The Noise Impact Assessment demonstrates that the proposed number of children would not result in an unreasonable impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring sites. Appropriate measures are recommended in the Noise Impact Assessment to reduce noise impacts on adjoining sites.

It is noted that the centre will be used only on weekdays and during the day.

The proposal provides satisfactory separation and design to achieve an appropriate level of privacy within the development. The upper levels of the proposed child care centre have limited openings along the eastern façade. Privacy screens will be installed to maintain privacy of adjoining neighbours. The proposed development will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development in terms of loss of privacy, and visual impact.

A Plan of Management accompanies the development application, which ensures safety and mitigates potential amenity impacts to nearby residents and occupants of the development.

 

2.     Consistency with the objectives of the R2 Low Density ResidentialObjectives of zone

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

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

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

·       To protect the amenity of residents.

·       To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Assessment: The proposed child care centre is permitted with consent in the R2 Low Residential zone. The proposal complies with the relevant objectives of the zone as it is a non-residential development that provides a facility and service for residents. The height associated with the proposed child centre will be compatible with the existing surrounding development and will not detract from the amenity enjoyed by nearby residents or the existing quality of the environment.

There are a number of non-residential uses contemplated by the R2 Low Residential zone. When compared to the other permissible non-residential uses on the site in this zone, the proposed child care centre is considered a reasonable use.

The proposed child care centre is well designed and will suitably meet the needs of children by providing amenity, health, access and safety. The layout and design of the proposal ensures that the child care centre will not unreasonably impact upon the amenity of surrounding properties. In this regard, indoor and outdoor play areas have been designed to be screened and oriented away from neighbouring properties.

The design of the child care centre will positively contribute to the locality. The articulated nature of the built form and high standard of colours, finishes and materials assists in providing a high quality streetscape presentation and urban design outcome. The proposal considers the heritage significance of the building on the site by retaining the existing main Art Deco façade. The high design quality of the proposal is displayed in the accompanying photomontages and materials and finishes schedule.

The existing landscaping along the Knox Street frontage provide for an attractive outlook from within and from outside the proposed development.

 

3.     Consistency with State and Regional planning policies

 

Assessment: The proposed height variation ensures the orderly and economic use of land as envisaged by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The proposed building height allows for achievement of a slight increase in building envelope/density to a site that is highly accessible to surrounding residents and bus services. The provision of a child care centre in close proximity to public transport and an established residential area is considered to be an efficient use of the site.

 

4.     The variation allows for a better planning outcome

 

Assessment: The proposed height and its use is considered an enhancement to the existing site and a better planning option when compared to the recent use of the site as an RSL Club in terms of noise and amenity impacts.

 

The proposed height allows for a viable and desirable use of the heritage listed property. The proposed height allows for a much-needed child care centre which is well located to shops, services and schools. The additional heritage allows for a positive heritage, social and planning outcome.

The variation to the building height control therefore allows for a better planning outcome while it minimises the impacts to the surrounding properties and ensures for an appropriate bulk and scale along Clovelly Road.

 

5.     There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation Environmental grounds are considered to include:

 

·       Internal amenity performance;

·       External amenity impacts; and

·       Proximity to transport, shops and recreation areas.

·       The following assessment demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the building height variation:

·       The proposed height is due to retaining and restoring the façade of the existing heritage building on the site.

·       The proposal provides a child care centre with a high level of amenity including natural cross-ventilation, solar access and large outdoor play areas.

·       The excellent internal amenity of the child care centre demonstrates that the proposal is not an over-development.

·       The proposed height and scale of the development are appropriate in its setting, noting that the site has three road frontages and 1 adjoining residential neighbour, therefore having minimal privacy and acoustic impacts.

·       The upper level of the proposed development is recessed to reduce the perceived bulk and scale of the development.

·       There are no adverse or unreasonable view, shadow or privacy impacts generated by the additional floor space.

·       The design of the proposal will positively contribute to the nature of the locality. The articulated nature of the built form and high standard of colours, finishes and materials assists in providing a high quality streetscape presentation and urban design outcome.

·       The proposal complies with the Department of Community Services staff to children ratio and exceeds the indoor and outdoor space requirements of the Randwick DCP 2013, demonstrating that the proposal is not an over-development.

·       The proposed height is associated with retention and refurbishment of the heritage listed building which assists in the long-term conservation of the item. The proposed height provides for a viable and appropriate use which has positive heritage outcomes as confirmed in the accompanying Heritage Report.

·       The numeric height provision is one of many standards which indicate whether a proposal is an over-development. In this instance, achievement of the objectives of the standard, high internal environmental performance and lack of external impact combine to demonstrate that the variation is warranted and that the proposal cannot be considered to be an over-development.

 

The above factors demonstrate that there are both numerous internal and external factors which confirm that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the height variation.

 

6.     The variation is in the public interest

 

The retention and upgrade of the heritage listed property which also has positive social benefits is in the public interest. The lack of parking, traffic, noise and privacy impacts further demonstrate that the proposal is in the public interest.

 

The shortage of child care spaces and high cost of child care has been well publicised in recent weeks. The recent article “Child Care Costs in Sydney: New figures reveal which suburbs fare best” in the Daily Telegraph dated 2 July 2014 explains that strong demand and a lack of supply in some areas of Sydney is driving up prices of child care centre and that the average mum in Sydney returning full-time work can expect to lose about two-thirds of her take home pay (refer to Appendix 3).

 

The lack of child care centres in the area affects families both economically and emotionally and also effects the economy with a mass of educated and skilled female work force left with little options, some having to stay out of employment due to lack of supply in child care centres.

 

A survey on the availability of child care in Clovelly was conducted in June and July 2014 (refer to Appendix 4 for the survey results). The responses to the survey stressed that child care centre waiting lists in the eastern suburbs are 2-3 years long. Some families are travelling to Alexandria, Centennial Park and the City for their child/children to be in child care, others have been able to arrange family day care, and some mothers have not returned to work due to limited child care options in the area. The survey results showed overwhelming support for a child care centre to be provided in Clovelly and on the on the subject site.

 

The provision of 90 child care places on the site will therefore assist in accommodating for the significant demand and will benefit parents and families in the local area. The social benefits are considered to outweigh the potential traffic and parking impacts associated with the proposal, particularly as the site can accommodate all staff parking and can provide 7 drop off/pick up spaces along its frontages.

 

It is also reiterated that there will be no impacts associated with the site from 6pm onwards and that the centre will not operate on weekends. This is considered to demonstrate the benefits of the proposal when compared to the late night operations of the existing club on the site or that could be associated with a refurbished club premises (for example Coogee Pavilion).

 

The provision of a child care centre in close proximity to public transport and an established residential area is considered to be an efficient use of the site. The proposed height is due to retaining and restoring the façade of the existing heritage building and maintaining the existing floor levels on the site. The appropriate bulk and scale along Clovelly Road and lack of external amenity impacts demonstrates that the proposal and its associated height are in the public interest.

 

Conclusion

 

For reasons mentioned herein, this Clause 4.6 variation is forwarded to Council in support of the variation to the building height associated with the development proposal at No. 263 – 269 Clovelly Road, Clovelly and is requested to be looked upon favourably by Council.

 

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

 

·          The relative height of the proposed development as viewed from the surrounding dwellings to the north (from across Susan Lane) and west (from across Knox Street) will appear well below the 9.5m height limit due to the setting of the development into the site (largely below surrounding street levels) and the reduced apparent height from surrounding vantage points at higher levels. To the south the façade will remain essentially intact and be restored. To the east the bulk of the proposed new works are setback well in excess of the required setbacks under Council’s DCP (Section D4 – Child Care Centres refers to section C1 – Low Density Residential controls which require 1200mm to ground and first floors and 1800m for second floor and above). The effect of the additional setbacks reduces the apparent bulk of the development at upper levels from the adjoining dwelling at No. 271 Clovelly Road.

 

·          The proposal in its amended form includes adequate setbacks, visual and acoustic privacy measures including appropriate window orientation and acoustic enclosures and results in overshadowing impacts that will retain a minimum of 3hrs of sunlight access to living areas and private open space areas on surrounding properties in conformity with the requirements of the DCP. The view loss assessment concludes a negligible impact on existing view corridors. Therefore the impacts on surrounding properties of the proposed development in its amended form in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views are considered acceptable.

 

·          The proposed development in its amended form includes a compliant provision of staff parking and set down and pick up areas in Knox Street as per the requirements of the DCP. The impact on traffic conditions has been assessed by Council’s Development and Transport Engineer. Conditions are included in relation to restricted parking in Knox Street and will result in acceptable impacts on the amenity of surrounding properties.

 

·          The amended plans, subject to conditions have been supported by Council’s Heritage Officer and approval of the proposed development will facilitate a restoration of a valuable local heritage item.

 

·          The use of the site as a child care centre in a form which will be adequately controlled by the limit on the maximum amount of children to 90 and the inclusion of appropriate conditions to ensure protection of local amenity represents a desirable form of adaptable re-use of an important heritage item.

 

·          The proposal does not raise any matters of State or Regional importance.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

The objectives of the Height of Buildings standard are:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

·          To protect the amenity of residents.

·          To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposed development in its amended form with a significantly reduced intensity of use is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 - Low Density Residential. The centre will provide a facility that serves the day to day needs of the residents. The limitation of a maximum of 90 children within the facility and appropriate conditions of consent in relation to traffic control measures, acoustic controls and a comprehensive plan of management, the amenity of residents will be protected.

 

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

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

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

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director- General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for the maximum allowable height of buildings in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012.

 

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

 

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

 

1.2     Request to vary development standard

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

 

Floor Space Ratio

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Development Standard

0.5:1

Existing Building

1.18

Proposal

1.15:1

Excess above RLEP Standard

130%

Reduction from Existing Floor Area

-2.5%

Note: The proposal results in a reduction in the amount of floor space as defined under the RLEP definition of floor space due to the proposed outdoor play areas and the exclusion of these areas. Notwithstanding the new works add physical bulk and scale to the building and the clause 4.6 exception has regard to this.

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the FSR standard are set out in clause 4.4 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

1.     Consistency with the objectives of the FSR standard in the LEP FSR objectives:

 

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,

 

Assessment: The proposed density is associated with a built form which will sit comfortably in its context. The distribution of floor space within the development has been sensibly provided to result in a bulk and scale which will not appear out of character in its context. The overall bulk and scale of the proposal will be compatible with surrounding development and the desired future character of the locality.

The modified proposal reduces the FSR of the development from 1.18:1 to 1.15:1. It is noted that the existing FSR of the RSL Club is 1.18:1. The proposed amended FSR is therefore less than the FSR of the existing building.

 

The accompanying amended architectural plans show the outline of the existing building and the outline of the proposed building demonstrating the components of the proposal that are visible from each street. As can be seen in the plans, the southern elevation of the proposed building which fronts Clovelly Road is relatively unchanged and the bulk and scale of the western elevation fronting Knox Street and the northern elevation fronting Susan Lane is satisfactory.

 

b.     to ensure that buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs

 

Assessment: The design of the child care centre will positively contribute to the locality. The articulated nature of the built form and high standard of colours, finishes and materials assists in providing a high quality streetscape presentation and urban design outcome. The high design quality of the proposal is displayed in the accompanying photomontages and materials and finishes schedule.

 

The modified proposal reduces the bulk and scale of the proposed child care centre. Room 7 and Room 8 (previously 145sqm) on the upper level of the proposed child care centre have been reconfigured to one room (Room 6 only), and the area reduced from 145sqm to 111sqm. This reduction results in the western setback of the northern portion of the upper level being extended from 3.1m to 6m. The proposal includes a combination of articulated walls, voids and glazed balustrades to reduce the perceived bulk of the building.

 

The proposal child care centre has a high level of amenity including natural cross-ventilation, solar access and large outdoor play areas.

 

The development itself is also considered to be sustainable through the use of renewable materials and reduced reliance on artificial heating, lighting and cooling means as achieved by the design response.

 

The design, construction and operation of development will minimise adverse impacts on the natural and built environment.

 

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

 

Assessment: The Clovelly RSL and Air Force Club that currently exists on the site is listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 2012. The building, formerly Kings Theatre was opened in 1939, and was converted for use by the RSL and reopened in 1962. The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet notes the Interwar functionalist and Art Deco styling of the building.

 

The proposal is for adaptive reuse of the former cinema building as a child care centre. The external Art Deco façade of the existing building is being maintained and that the internal dress circle foyer, which is the only original internal component of the building remaining, is also being retained.

 

A Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by Phoenix Architects accompanies the Development Application. The Statement of Heritage Impact assesses the extent to which the proposed development will affect the heritage significance of the heritage item and provides heritage guidelines and recommendations for the proposed development. The Statement of Heritage Impact confirms that the bulk and scale of the proposed development is compatible with the scale and character of the heritage item on the site.

 

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.

 

Assessment: The proposal takes advantage of the site which has three road frontages and 1 residential neighbour, therefore having minimal privacy and acoustic impacts. The single residential neighbour to the east is oriented towards Clovelly Road while the residential neighbour on the ridgeline to the north is oriented west and north, thereby maintaining limited overlooking to the subject site. The southern neighbours on the opposite side of Clovelly Road have their main aspects and vehicular access from the rear off Dans Avenue, not towards the proposed child care centre.

 

As demonstrated in the accompanying architectural plans, views and sight lines from surrounding properties will be maintained and there will be no view loss impacts form surrounding properties as a result of the proposal.

 

An updated Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics accompanies this Supplementary Statement of Environmental Effects. The Noise Impact Assessment demonstrates that adequate site planning and building design measures are proposed to minimise noise impacts, that the noise levels expected to be generated from the child care centre comply with the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the relevant guidelines, and that suitable noise attenuation measures have been incorporated into the proposal.

 

The outdoor program at the proposed child care centre is designed to be just like the indoor areas, primarily with activity based tables, learning centres, and gross motor activities. Therefore most of the children will spend that time sitting and involved in structured learning experiences with educators. This structured program allows the children to calmly flow to and from the indoor and outdoor areas and sit at the desired learning centres and participate in the available activity. The primary purpose of the outdoor area is to have some exposure to vitamin D, otherwise it is just an extension of the indoor area and program.

 

Under this outdoor program, children will have the opportunity to be outdoors between 9.45am - 11.00am and between 3.00pm - 4.15pm. As the indoor/outdoor program is designed to have both areas open simultaneously, it is predicted that only 50% of the children will outdoors and 50% indoors during these times.

 

It is noted that outdoor activities at the child care centre are limited by weather. If it is raining, too cold or too hot, the outdoor activities are limited and the children will mostly be inside.

 

The updated Plan of Management includes strategies to ensure that noise impacts of the child care centre are kept to a minimum including all outdoor activities being fully supervised and monitored; teachers and children being encouraged to participate in quiet play activities; and the child care centre manager ensuring that outdoor play activities are conducted in an orderly fashion and that excessive noise from children playing is avoided wherever possible and practical.

 

The former RSL opening hours were as follows:

·      Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday: 11.00am – 11.00pm,

·      Thursday, Friday: 11.00am – midnight,

·      Saturday 10.30am – 11.00pm,

·      Sunday 10.30am – 11pm,

 

with the exception of Anzac Day and New Year’s Eve when the hours of operation of the RSL Club are extended to 1.00am (refer to Development Application Notice of Determination No. 02/00625/GP in APPENDIX 4).

 

The proposal is considered an enhancement to the existing site and a better planning option when compared to the recent use as an RSL Club in terms of noise and amenity impacts. The proposed child care centre will operate during the daylight hours only (7:00am – 6:00pm Monday to Friday) compared to the existing RSL Club.

Generally, the proposal fosters a more pleasant environment than what currently exists on the subject site. The open smoking areas/balconies of the recently operating RSL Club, adjoining No. 271 Clovelly Road to the west, will be replaced with an enclosed child care room (refer to Figure 5).

 

There will be no impacts associated with the site from 6.00pm onwards and the child care centre will not operate on weekends. This is considered to demonstrate the benefits of the proposal when compared to the late night operations of the recent RSL Club operations on the site or that could be associated with a refurbished club premises (for example Coogee Pavilion).

 

Figure 7: Rear elevated view of 271 Clovelly Road-Source ABC Planning SEE (Note: Smoking rooms are actually oriented to the rear at the foot lower right hand foot of the photo and not as indicated on the photo).

Smoking rooms will be enclosed as part of the proposed child care centre to maintain the amenity of No. 271 Clovelly Road.

 

The number of children proposed on the site has been reduced. The proposed child care centre caters for 90 children (12 x 0-2 years, 18 x 2-3 years and 60 x 3-5 years). The updated Noise Impact Assessment demonstrates that the proposed number of children would not result in an unreasonable impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring sites. Appropriate measures are recommended in the Noise Impact Assessment to reduce noise impacts on adjoining sites.

 

The proposal provides satisfactory separation and design to achieve an appropriate level of privacy within the development. The upper levels of the proposed child care centre have limited openings along the eastern façade. Privacy screens will be installed to maintain privacy of adjoining neighbours. The proposed development will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development in terms of loss of privacy, and visual impact.

 

2. Consistency with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential

 

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

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

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

·     To protect the amenity of residents.

·     To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Assessment: The proposed child care centre is permitted with consent in the R2 Low Residential zone. The proposal complies with the relevant objectives of the zone as it is a non-residential development that provides a facility and service for residents. The proposed child centre will be compatible with the existing surrounding development and will not detract from the amenity enjoyed by nearby residents or the existing quality of the environment.

 

There are a number of non-residential uses contemplated by the R2 Low Residential zone. When compared to the other permissible non-residential uses on the site in this zone, the proposed child care centre is considered a benign use.

 

The proposal is considered an enhancement to the site and a better planning option when compared to the recent use of the site as an RSL Club in terms of noise and amenity impacts. Compared to the recent operations of the RSL Club, the child care centre will operate during the daylight hours only (7:00am – 6:00pm Monday to Friday) with peak traffic movements being spread out to dissipate the concentration of noise during morning and afternoon drop-off / pick-up times. The proposal will provide 7 staff parking spaces at the rear of the site accessed via Susan Lane. These spaces will be available to the public on weekends and only accessed twice a day during the weekdays, once in the morning when the staff arrive at the child care centre and once in the evening when the staff leave, thereby having minimal impacts on the adjoining northern neighbour, No. 53 Knox Street.

 

Generally, the proposal fosters a more pleasant environment than what currently exists on the subject site. The open smoking areas/balconies of the recently operating RSL Club, adjoining No. 271 Clovelly Road to the west, will be replaced with an enclosed child care room.

 

The proposed child care centre is located in an established residential area within close proximity to shops, schools, child care centres and public transport.

 

The proposed child care centre is well designed and will suitably meet the needs of children by providing amenity, health, access and safety. The layout and design of the proposal ensures that the child care centre will not unreasonably impact upon the amenity of surrounding properties. In this regard, indoor and outdoor play areas have been designed to be screened and oriented away from neighbouring properties.

 

The design of the child care centre will positively contribute to the locality. The articulated nature of the built form and high standard of colours, finishes and materials assists in providing a high quality streetscape presentation and urban design outcome. The proposal considers the heritage significance of the building on the site by retaining the existing main Art Deco façade. The high design quality of the proposal is displayed in the accompanying photomontages and materials and finishes schedule.

 

Figure 8: Location of Shops, Schools and Child Care Centres in the Locality (Source: SEE)

 

Figure 9: Bus Stops within the Locality (Source: ABC Planning SEE)

 

3. Consistency with State and Regional planning policies

 

Assessment: The proposed FSR variation ensures the orderly and economic use of land as envisaged by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The proposed FSR allows for achievement of a slight increase in building envelope/density to a site that is highly accessible to surrounding residents and bus services. The provision of a child care centre in close proximity to public transport and an established residential area is considered to be an efficient use of the site.

 

It is noted that the existing FSR of the RSL Club is 1.18:1. The proposed amended FSR is therefore less than the FSR of the existing building.

 

4. The variation allows for a better planning outcome

 

Assessment: The proposal is considered an enhancement to the existing site and a better planning option when compared to the recent use of the site as an RSL Club in terms of noise and amenity impacts. Compared to the existing RSL Club, the child care centre will operate during the daylight hours only (7:00am – 6:00pm Monday to Friday) with peak traffic movements being spread out to dissipate the concentration of noise during morning and afternoon drop-off / pick-up times. The proposal will provide 7 staff parking spaces at the rear of the site accessed via Susan Lane. These spaces will be available for use by the general public during evenings and on weekends improving the amenity of surrounding residents and their visitors. The staff parking will only be accessed twice a day during the weekdays, once in the morning when the staff arrive at the child care centre and once in the evening when the staff leave, thereby having minimal impacts on the adjoining northern neighbour, No. 53 Knox Street.

 

Generally, the proposal fosters a more pleasant environment than what currently exists on the subject site. The open smoking areas/balconies of the recently operating RSL Club, adjoining No. 271 Clovelly Road to the west, will be replaced with an enclosed child care room.

 

The modified FSR is less than the FSR of the existing building. The proposed distribution of FSR on the site has been provided in an appropriate and skillful manner by the architect. The upper level of the amended proposal has been further recessed and reduced in size. The proposal includes a combination of articulated walls, voids and glazed balustrades to reduce the perceived bulk of the building. The proposal child care centre has a high level of amenity including natural cross-ventilation, solar access and large outdoor play areas.

 

The accompanying amended architectural plans show the outline of the existing building and the outline of the proposed building demonstrating the components of the proposal that are visible from each street. As can be seen in the plans, the southern elevation of the proposed building which fronts Clovelly Road is relatively unchanged and the bulk and scale of the western elevation fronting Knox Street and the northern elevation fronting Susan Lane is satisfactory.

 

The proposed height and scale of the development are appropriate in its setting and compatible with the surrounding existing development. The proposed child centre will not detract from the amenity enjoyed by nearby residents or the existing quality of the environment.

 

There are no adverse or unreasonable view, shadow or privacy impacts generated by the additional floor space.

 

The variation to the FSR control therefore allows for a better planning outcome while it minimises the impacts to the surrounding properties and ensures for an appropriate bulk and scale along Clovelly Road.

 

5. There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation

 

The following assessment demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the FSR variation:

 

the perceived bulk of the building.

 

·       The accompanying amended architectural plans show the outline of the existing building and the outline of the proposed building demonstrating the components of the proposal that are visible from each street. As can be seen in the plans, the southern elevation of the proposed building which fronts Clovelly Road is relatively unchanged and the bulk and scale of the western elevation fronting Knox Street and the northern elevation fronting Susan Lane is satisfactory.

 

·       There are no adverse or unreasonable view, shadow or privacy impacts generated by the additional floor space.

 

·       The Traffic Impact Assessment Report prepared by TRAFFIX explains that the recent RSL Club operations on the site would require 190 spaces based on Council’s DCP (90-115 spaces based on other similar clubs) of which this demand would have occurred exclusively on-street and is substantially more than the 11 spaces generated by this application. On this basis, the proposed child care centre will improve the traffic conditions during the day, evenings and on weekends compared with the recent club operation on the site.

 

·       The proposal will provide 11 on-street parking spaces: 3 on-street parking spaces, including 1 accessible parking space, along the Clovelly Road frontage and 8 on-street parking spaces along both sides of Knox Street. The proposed parking spaces include several improvements to the existing conditions of Knox Street to improve the safety and amenity for parents using the proposed drop off and pick up zone and the general public. It is noted that the properties on the western side of Knox Street have off-street parking. The eastern side of Knox Street will be setback to allow for the provision of parking spaces No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 and for the carriageway of Knox Street to be widened to 10m. Refer to the supplementary comments to the Traffic Impact Assessment Report dated 8 January 2015. It is noted that the trees along Knox Street will be retained.

 

·       The proposal will provide 7 staff parking spaces at the rear of the site accessed via Susan Lane. These spaces will be available for use by the general public during evenings and on weekends improving the amenity of surrounding residents and their visitors. The staff parking will only be accessed twice a day during the weekdays, once in the morning when the staff arrive at the child care centre and once in the evening when the staff leave, thereby having minimal impacts on the adjoining northern neighbour, No. 53 Knox Street

 

·       The provision of parking complies with the controls, which is another indicator that the density of the development is suitably associated with the provision of vehicle parking.

 

·       The proposal is considered an enhancement to the site and a better planning option when compared to the recent use of the site as an RSL Club in terms of noise and amenity impacts. Compared to the recent operations of the RSL Club, the child care centre will operate during the daylight hours only (7:00am – 6:00pm Monday to Friday) with peak traffic movements being spread out to dissipate the concentration of noise during morning and afternoon drop-off / pick-up times.

 

·       Generally, the proposal fosters a more pleasant environment than what currently exists on the subject site. The open smoking areas/balconies of the recently operating RSL Club, adjoining No. 271 Clovelly Road to the west, will be replaced with an enclosed child care room.

 

·       The design of the proposal will positively contribute to the nature of the locality. The articulated nature of the built form and high standard of colours, finishes and materials assists in providing a high quality streetscape presentation and urban design outcome.

 

·       The proposal complies with the Department of Community Services staff to children ratio and exceeds the indoor and outdoor space requirements of the Randwick DCP 2013, demonstrating that the proposal is not an over-development.

 

·       The numeric FSR provision is one of many standards which indicate whether a proposal is an over-development. In this instance, achievement of the objectives of the standard, high internal environmental performance and lack of external impact combine to demonstrate that the variation is warranted and that the proposal cannot be considered to be an over-development.

 

The above factors demonstrate that there are both numerous internal and external factors which confirm that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the height variation.

 

6. The variation is in the public interest

 

The proposal is considered an enhancement to the site and a better planning option when compared to the recent use of the site as an RSL Club in terms of noise and amenity impacts. Compared to the recent operations of the RSL Club, the child care centre will operate during the daylight hours only (7:00am – 6:00pm Monday to Friday) with peak traffic movements being spread out to dissipate the concentration of noise during morning and afternoon drop-off / pick-up times. The proposal will provide 7 staff parking spaces at the rear of the site accessed via Susan Lane. These spaces will be available to the public on weekends and only accessed twice a day during the weekdays, once in the morning when the staff arrive at the child care centre and once in the evening when the staff leave, thereby having minimal impacts on the adjoining northern neighbour, No. 53 Knox Street.

 

Generally, the proposal fosters a more pleasant environment than what currently exists on the subject site. The open smoking areas/balconies of the recently operating RSL Club, adjoining No. 271 Clovelly Road to the west, will be replaced with an enclosed child care room.

 

The shortage of child care spaces and high cost of child care has been well publicised. The recent article “Child Care Costs in Sydney: New figures reveal which suburbs fare best” in the Daily Telegraph dated 2 July 2014 explains that strong demand and a lack of supply in some areas of Sydney is driving up prices of child care centre and that the average mum in Sydney returning full-time work can expect to lose about two-thirds of her take home pay (refer to APPENDIX 6).

 

The lack of child care centres in the area affects families both economically and emotionally and also effects the economy with a mass of educated and skilled female work force left with little options, some having to stay out of employment due to lack of supply in child care centres.

 

A survey on the availability of child care in Clovelly was conducted from 7 June 2014 to 27 September 2014 (refer to APPENDIX 2). The responses to the survey stressed that child care centre waiting lists in the eastern suburbs are 2-3 years long. Some families are travelling to Alexandria, Centennial Park and the City for their child/children to be in child care, others have been able to arrange family day care, and some mothers have not returned to work due to limited child care options in the area. The survey results showed overwhelming support for a child care centre to be provided in Clovelly and on the subject site.

 

The Randwick City Council City Plan 2013 shows on Page 16 that the population of 0-4 year olds in 2011 was just under 8,000 and had increased by over 1,500 since 2001 (refer to the demographic document in APPENDIX 3).

 

The NSW Department of Planning predicted in their 2008 population forecast release that the Randwick LGA population would continue to grow between 2011 and 2036 from 132,600 people to 150,300 people (refer to the demographic document in APPENDIX 3). Also there is forecast to be approximately 9,000 births in the Randwick LGA every 5 years to 2036. The community will have a strong need for childcare services in this area for many years to come. The provision of 136 extra places in the LGA will help alleviate the problem for parents, and also help to reduce fees as greater supply leads to lower price pressure.

 

The provision of 90 child care places on the site will therefore assist in accommodating for the significant demand and will benefit parents and families in the local area. The social benefits are considered to outweigh the potential traffic and parking impacts associated with the proposal, particularly as the site can accommodate the required staff parking on site and drop off/pick up spaces along its frontages.

It is also reiterated that there will be no impacts associated with the site from 6pm onwards and that the centre will not operate on weekends. This is considered to demonstrate the benefits of the proposal when compared to the late night operations of the recent RSL Club operations on the site or that could be associated with a refurbished club premises (for example Coogee Pavilion).

 

The provision of a child care centre in close proximity to public transport and an established residential area is considered to be an efficient use of the site. The appropriate bulk and scale along Clovelly Road and lack of external amenity impacts demonstrates that the proposal and its associated height are in the public interest.

 

Conclusion

For reasons mentioned herein, this Clause 4.6 variation is forwarded to Council in support of the variation to the FSR associated with the development proposal at No. 263 – 269 Clovelly Road, Clovelly and is requested to be looked upon favourably by Council.

 

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

 

·          The relative bulk and scale of the proposed development as viewed from the surrounding dwellings to the north (from across Susan Lane) and west (from across Knox Street) will appear reduced due to the setting of the development into the site (largely below surrounding street levels) and the reduced apparent height from surrounding vantage points at higher levels. To the south the façade will remain essentially intact and be restored. To the east the bulk of the proposed new works are setback well in excess of the required setbacks under Council’s DCP (Section D4 – Child Care Centres refers to section C1 – Low Density Residential controls which require 1200mm to ground and first floors and 1800m for second floor and above). The effect of the additional setbacks reduces the apparent bulk of the development at upper levels from the adjoining dwelling at No. 271 Clovelly Road.

 

·          The proposal in its amended form includes adequate setbacks, visual and acoustic privacy measures including appropriate window orientation and acoustic enclosures and results in overshadowing impacts that will retain a minimum of 3hrs of sunlight access to living areas and private open space areas on surrounding properties in conformity with the requirements of the DCP. The view loss assessment concludes a negligible impact on existing view corridors. Therefore the impacts on surrounding properties of the proposed development in its amended form in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views are considered acceptable.

 

·          The proposed development in its amended form includes a compliant provision of staff parking and set down and pick up areas in Knox Street as per the requirements of the DCP. The impact on traffic conditions has been assessed by Council’s Development and Transport Engineer in relation to restricted parking in Knox Street and will result in  acceptable impacts on the amenity of surrounding properties.

 

·          The amended plans, subject to conditions have been supported by Council’s Heritage Officer and approval of the proposed development will facilitate a restoration of a valuable local heritage item.

 

·          The use of the site as a child care centre in a form which will be adequately controlled by the limit on the maximum amount of children to 90 and the inclusion of appropriate conditions to ensure protection of local amenity represents a desirable form of adaptable re-use of an important heritage item.

 

·          The proposal does not raise any matters of State or Regional importance.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The objectives of the Floor Space Ratio Standard are:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

•     To protect the amenity of residents.

•     To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposed development in its amended form and significantly reduced in scale is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 - Low Density Residential. The centre will provide a facility that serves the day to day needs of the residents. The limitation of a maximum of 90 children within the facility and appropriate conditions of consent in relation to traffic control measures, acoustic controls and a comprehensive plan of management, the amenity of residents will be protected.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

1.3     Traffic and Parking

The application as originally submitted was for 145 children. The onsite parking provision and set down pick up areas were considered inadequate by Council’s Development Engineer and Integrated Transport Engineers. The amended proposal in relation to 90 children was the subject of a further assessment from Development Engineer which is reproduced:

 

General Comments

Following significant traffic and parking issues raised by Development Engineering the applicant has submitted an amended proposal.

 

Of note to Development Engineering;

·      The total number of children has been reduced to 90 (a reduction of 55 places) as suggested by Development Engineering.

·      The total number of staff has been reduced to 11 and all staff parking is now provided on site compliant with Part B7 of the DCP.

·      An indented parking bay has been provided on the eastern side of Knox Street which will widen Knox street carriageway to 10m and achieve compliance with Rule 208 of the Australian Road Rules.

·      Restricted 15 minute timed pickup and drop-off zones are proposed on both sides of Knox Street and Clovelly Road frontage affecting a total of 11 on-street spaces.

·      Eleven spaces are required for pickup and drop-off when adopting the rate of 1 space per 8 children specified in the DCP. The proposed timed pickup and drop-off zones would therefore be sufficient to meet this demand.

·      The peak traffic generation for the 7:00-9:00am morning period has been reduced from 116 vehicle trips (for 145 places) to 72 vehicle trips a reduction of 38%.

 

The amended proposal has been assessed and the impacts are now deemed to be acceptable to Council’s Development and Transport Engineer subject to the conditions provided in this report. In addition the proposed improvements to road infrastructure will improve safety in the area not just for patrons of the childcare centre but also the general public.

 

TRAFFIC GENERATION

Using the rates provided in the ‘RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’ the following vehicle trip generation has been calculated during the peak times associated with the amended proposal for 90 chidren;

 

Time                                               Number of Trips

7:00-9:00am                                    0.8 x 90 = 72

2:30-4:00pm                                   0.3 x 90 = 24

4:00-6:00 pm                                  0.7 x 90 = 63

 

This indicates that the proposed 90 place child care centre would generate a total of 159 vehicle trips per day. This is a significant reduction on the originally proposed 145 place centre which generated 261 daily trips. The amended proposal is now considered acceptable.

 

PARKING  PROVISION

Parking Requirements for childcare centres are assessed as per the following parking rate specified in Randwick Council’s Development Control Plan 2013 Part B7.

 

1 Space per two staff plus 1 space per 8 children for pickup and drop-off

 

Staff parking

A maximum of fourteen staff are proposed for the centre which will generate demand for 7 carspaces. These have been provided within the proposed carpark fronting Susan Lane. The amended proposal is therefore fully compliant with its staff parking obligations under the DCP.

 

In addition the previous use of the site as Clovelly RSL did not provide any off-street parking for staff and so the development represents a significant improvement in staff parking provision.

 

It is also noted that the applicant intends to make these spaces available to the general public after hours thereby providing a public benefit.

 

Pickup and Drop -off

Adopting the rate of 1 space per 8 children the amended proposal for a 90 place childcare centre would require 11 spaces for pickup and drop-off. These are not able to be provided on site and so amended application proposes a timed restricted  pick-up and drop-of zone on both sides of Knox Street (in front of the site) as well as 3 spaces (including a disabled space) on the Clovelly Road frontage. There will be total of 11 spaces provided within the timed pickup and drop-off zones thereby satisfying the requirements for pickup and drop-off under the DCP.

 

The section of kerb directly opposite the site on the western side of Knox Street is a single property frontage which has access to off-street parking. The impact of time restricted parking on residents is therefore expected to be minimal.

 

These impacts have to be assessed in the context of the previous use of the site as Clovelly RSL club.  Section 3.2, Part B7 of Council’s DCP 2013 states;

 

Where a development comprises an extension, modification or change in use to an existing development, Council will generally only require that additional parking be provided to cater for the additional demands arising from increases in floor space or change in use.

 

The previous use as a RSL club typically generated a steady parking demand throughout the day with peaks in the afternoon and evening. These impacts declined in the last few years of operation of the RSL club as patronage declined.

 

In this context it is considered the parking and traffic impacts of the amended development are acceptable and no further objections are raised.

 

Restricting the parking impacts to the site frontages or directly opposite the site is considered by Development Engineering a good outcome to Council and neighbouring  residents.

 

Provision of Indented Bay

An indented parking bay is now proposed along the eastern side of Knox street that will serve as one of the pickup and drop-off zones. This is required by Development Engineering to address the non-compliance with Rule 208 of the Australian Road which requires vehicles parked kerbside in Knox Street to be more than 3 meters from the double white dividing line. The non compliance was not considered acceptable when considering the frequent opening of doors and movement of pedestrians (including children) expected in pickup and drop-off zones. The widening of the carriageway to 10m wide will allow 5m on each side of the centerline which is sufficient to provide parking on both sides of Know Street in compliance with Rule 208. The painted centerline of Knox Street will have to be shifted approximately 0.5m eastwards in the vicinity of the pickup and drop-off zones to achieve compliance. This has been conditioned.

 

The engineering design details of the proposed indented bays have not been provided and are required to be approved by Randwick traffic Comitte. Appropriate conditions have been provided in this report to ensure approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Street Tree Comments

The inspection of 9 February 2015 revealed a self-seeded Morus nigra (Mulberry) growing out of the wall along the northern site boundary, fronting Susan Lane, which can be removed, as can the 6m tall Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia) that is growing out of the wall along the western site boundary, fronting Knox Street, with relevant conditions provided.

 

There are a row of eight Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo’s) spaced evenly along the length of the Knox Street frontage, between Susan Lane and Clovelly Road, of between 4-6m in height (3rd tree back from Clovelly Rd has already been cut off at stump level), which as a group contribute to the streetscape, and appeared in fair health and condition due to repeated past clearance lopping off the roadway and footpath, with evidence of pest attack/nutrient deficiancies on their leaves also, which may indicate stress.

 

Due to the increased traffic and parking demands that will result from this application, the Development Engineer has confirmed that new parking bays will need to be indented along the length of the Knox Street frontage, which will involve the kerb being completely re-constructed and relocated a further 1 metre to the east of its current location, providing an offset of only 500mm from their trunks, with the footpath also needing to be widened to accommodate future pedestrian movements, including prams.

 

Given their location in the public domain, and the expected level of disturbance that will result to both the eastern and western sides of their root plates, their safe retention will not be possible in this case, with conditions requiring that the applicant cover Council’s costs to remove and replace these trees as part of the external civil works, with new street trees which are more upright and compact than the low branching, broadly-spreading Tuckeroo’s to be used in their place, so as to maintain the streetscape, without affecting suitable pedestrian access in Knox Street.

 

Right of Way comments

There is an existing Right of way that serves the property that is accessed from Fewings Street.  It does not appear to have ever been used for vehicular access and was probably originally used to provide an emergency pedestrian exit to the previous use of the site as a movie theatre and/or RSL club (see photo).

 

Photo of existing Right of Way (subject site is at the end)

WP_20150224_002

 

The submitted plans indicate a roller door on the site facing the Right of Way which will provide access to an internal storage area. Development Engineering would not support the use of the Right of Way for vehicles as it is not finished in a way that is suitable for vehicle movement and does not provide any capacity to turn around at the end, forcing vehicles to reverse up the full length of the Right of Way to exit the site.

 

There is no objection to the continued use of the Right of Way for pedestrian access although it may now be redundant when considering the proposed improvements to the site.

 

It is recommended the assessing officer considers including a condition that restricts movements in the Right of Way to pedestrians only however this may require a legal opinion from Council’s solicitors since the terms of Way specifically mention the free movement of vehicles (as well as horses, carts, carriages and pedestrians).

 

The applicant has verbally confirmed that the intention of the proposed basement store is essentially to store items which will be transferred in person from upper levels only.

 

As details of any associated vehicular usage via the ROW has not been documented with the application and an accurate assessment of any impacts cannot be carried out, it is considered reasonable to attach a condition which restricts the use of the ROW for vehicular usage in association the child care centre usage of the site. The applicant may seek to vary this condition by way of a section 96 application at some future time when the associated impacts are known and able to be assessed.

 

Finally the Development Engineer has also made comment in relation to the proposed shaving of the existing rock wall as proposed. The comments are reproduced:

 

Proposed Wall and structural works adjacent to Susan Lane

 

The submitted plans indicate significant structural works adjacent to the Susan Lane Frontage. The existing rock wall adjacent to Susan Lane is proposed to be shaved to allow for the construction of a new wall which will support the carpark overhead and allow for a storage space.

 

There must be no loss of support for the roadway in Susan Lane and the proposed works must eliminate any on-going potential for rock to fall into the development site or neighbouring properties. Adequate provision must also be made for drainage of seepage and/or stormwater between the rock face and proposed wall.

 

Having regard to the significant reduction in scale of the proposed child care centre, the favourable comments from a traffic perspective and conditions of consent which will facilitate traffic management conditions both during and post construction, the proposal is supported in this regard.

 

1.4   Acoustic Amenity and Privacy

 

The application as originally submitted for 145 children had associated amenity impacts which were unsustainable. The application in its amended form has reduced the number of children to 90.

 

The implications in regards to acoustic amenity and privacy have been addressed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer and the comments are provided below:

 

Proposed Development:

The development application proposes a child care centre facility to cater for 90 children within the 0-5 year old age bracket. The proposed hours of operation are 7am – 6.00pm weekdays only. It is also proposed for the centre to be closed during weekends and public holidays.

 

Comments:

 

Food Safety Concerns:

 

A review of the development application confirmed a kitchen will be provided at the premises on the ground floor, the kitchen is required to comply with the Food Act 2003, Food Standards Code and Australian Standard 4674:2004.

 

Recommended food safety conditions of consent will be included in this referral to address any further food safety concerns raised by the Environmental Health team.

 

Noise Concerns:

A site inspection was undertaken on 24 September 2014 identified residential areas  located to the rear and eastern side of the premises. The environmental health team raised concerns regarding the noise generated from the external play areas and the general operations emanating from the proposed development.

 

Additional information was requested regarding:

 

·      Noise generated from children playing in the outdoor play areas that includes consideration of different types of activities and peak noise generated from all children during periods of active play.

 

·      Noise emissions from children playing 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  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 acoustic consultant)

 

An amended acoustic report prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics dated January 2015  Doc Reference 13260R6 Noise Impact Assessment was provided to Council.

 

The information provided advised the following;

 

·      Noise impacts from the 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)  The boundary fence on Outdoor Play Area 7 currently has suitable attenuating facades. However should they be demolished a new boundary fence of solid continuous construction (ie free of gaps) and of lapped and capped timber , colourbond aluminium, ,masonry or a combination of either should be installed on the eastern boundary with a minimum height of 1.5 metres.

 

2)  Upgrade the window glazing in Room 3 to meet acoustic rating of Rw 28-32 dB at the southern façade of room 3.

 

3)  No amplified music is to be played in the outdoor areas.

 

4)  A management plan shall be in place to manage the activities of the outdoor play areas which shall include detailed items in section 7 of the acoustic report. The management plan shall be reviewed and signed off by the acoustic consultant and Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued.

 

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

 

·      Mechanical plant selection and placement shall be reviewed by the acoustic consultant prior to installation and commissioning.

 

·      Traffic impacts are predicted to comply with relevant noise criteria.

 

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

 

It is advised the management plan reviewed by the acoustic consultant is required as part of consideration of the proposal and has been required as a condition of consent.

 

With regards to noise, after reviewing the acoustic report/s and statements provided by the acoustic consultants, it is considered that the proposed development will comply with the relevant noise criteria pending implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the acoustic report.

 

Therefore the Environmental Health team recommends including conditions relating to compliance with the acoustic report prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics dated 15 January 2015 and including Councils standard noise condition for development consent.

 

It is also recommended that an acoustic validation assessment is undertaken three month 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.

 

Advice from the acoustic consultant confirms compliance with recommended noise criteria, however in all businesses of this nature with outdoor areas it should be noted that they may have some amenity impact from time to time on the surrounding areas. 

 

Having regard to the comments which are supportive of the amended proposal and the inclusion in the recommendation of conditions which will ensure post commencement confirmation of acceptable noise levels and ongoing control measures including those contained in the POM, the impacts associated with acoustic amenity and privacy are considered acceptable.

 

1.4     Heritage

 

The original application for 145 was considered by Council’s Heritage Planner and was not supported based on the impacts on the internal fabric of the building.

 

The amended proposal for 90 children has been the subject of a further review and the comments from Council’s Heritage Planner are provided below:

 

The Site

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Clovelly Road at its intersection with Knox Street at 263-269 Clovelly Road. The site is occupied by the former Kings chain cinema built in 1939 and was owned and occupied until recently by the Closely RSL and Air Force Club.

 

The former cinema and club building is a landmark in the area and assessed as being rare due to being one of only three surviving Kings cinemas in Sydney. The building has largely intact exterior and a surviving space from the cinema period. Most of its interior has been extensively modified with only scattered ceiling detailing evident in fragmented form around the former foyer area. The Conservation Management Plan (CMP) prepared by Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners in 2002 also notes that the stage behind the curtain maintains its original form although has been completely lost its original stepped and elegant cinema stage form and design. Notwithstanding, the main theatre/cinema hall is still evident in its two storey high spatial space form.

 

Immediately east of the subject site is residential with various periods and types of development. The site is also within the close vicinity of the Clovelly shops.

 

Heritage Status and Significance

 

The site of the subject building is listed as a heritage item on Schedule 5 of the Randwick LEP 2012 under item number I13 as Clovelly RSL and Air Force Club (formerly Kings Theatre). The subject site is not located within a heritage conservation area or within the close vicinity (visual curtilage) of any heritage item. The heritage inventory form for the item provides only description and short statement noting the following:

 

·     One of the few remaining examples of Inter War Art Deco style architecture surviving in the Sydney Region.

 

The Statement of Significance for the building as assessed in the CMP notes:

 

·     The Clovelly RSL and Air Force Club is the last built and one of the very few surviving Kings Theatres, a Sydney chain which was part of the boom period of cinema building in New South Wales.

·     It is one of few surviving works of Guy Crick and Bruce Furs whose work is very influential in Australian Cinema design. Although altered and internally greatly remodelled, in its setting it is a fair example of cinema architecture of the 1930s.

·     It is socially important as the home of the Clovelly RSL and Air Force Club.

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal is for the conversion of the existing former cinema and club building in to a childcare centre involving major modifications to its interiors and addition of a second floor level for offices and outdoor play areas. The proposal requires demolition of the majority of internal spaces to the rear on both existing levels including the stage and creation of a light well from the roof to the ground floor. It also include some conservation works and reinstatement of original cinema glazed entry doors and removal of the later stone cladding on the Clovelly Road ground floor elevation. The existing external form, 1930s fenestration, Art Deco decorative detailing and awning of the building will be retained and the original vertical sign blade will be reinstated. The only surviving space, the former dress circle and its ceiling will be retained and maintained in its form.

 

Background

No investigation into previous Development Applications was undertaken for the subject site or is considered necessary. It is noted, however, that the current proposal has previously been considered and modified following the receipt of Council’s Heritage Planner’s comments. No previous heritage comments have been viewed during the assessment of the current design proposal.

 

Submission

The following documentation has been provided by the Council and the Designers for this application:

 

•   Set of Architectural Plans, Issue E, Bongiorno Hawkins Associates Pty Ltd

•   Conservation Management Plan, 2002, Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners

•   Heritage Impact Statement, June 2014, Janine Harkness of Phoneix Architects

Comments

The proposed development is assessed for its impact on the existing heritage item on the site and the overall streetscape presentation. A site inspection was carried out by the author on 16th February 2015 in order to confirm the existing internal conditions and integrity of any surviving original fabric.

 

It was clear at the site inspection that the main relatively intact surviving fabric of the former Kings cinema building are consist of its external form, detailing and fenestration as well as the former Dress Circle and scattered ceiling/cornice detailing in fragmented form. It was apparent that the interiors of the building have been altered and modified extensively since the 1950s and during its former RSL and Air Force Club occupancy to a degree that its former cinema configuration is only evident from the scale and stage of the main auditorium and the surviving oval ceiling of the former Dress Circle room. The configuration of the stage itself has also been noted in Figure 2.16 of the CMP as being relatively in its original form behind the proscenium although the spatial form and materials of the auditorium are not original.

 

The Heritage Impact Statement notes that the demolition involves only insignificant building fabric at the rear of the building and no original interiors. This demolition is essential to provide outdoor play areas for the heritage item to function as a child care centre as well as necessary fire upgrades for compliance.

 

In general the above statement is valid but the extent of the demolition is considerable and removes the understanding of the current, which is relatively similar to original, configuration of the main hall and stage layout. It is acknowledged that adaptive reuse of the former cinema and club building for childcare service will provide a much needed community facility to the Clovelly area and its immediate extended neighbourhood. Giving the proposed light-well to the ground floor being considered providing the sense of spatial quality of a cinema hall in part, it may be possible to slightly reconfigure the proposed layout of the ground floor to keep the stage footprint in situ (possibly relocating the toilets for Room No.2 within the existing stage location and allowing largely glazed partitions to maintain the sense of a large auditorium. Recommendation for design modification is made accordingly.

 

The works to the external form of the building in particular at the main front bulk of the Inter- War Art Deco form, fenestration and parapet detailing is considered minor and the proposed conservation and partial reinstatement works to the facade finishes and detailing are considered positive outcome for the heritage item. It is evident that the building has suffered from ongoing and incremental changes its interiors and rear through inappropriate additions creating an ad-hoc style and unsympathetic presentation within the building.

 

The proposed second floor level addition is considered to be acceptable as it has limited visibility from the main street facades of the heritage item and obscured behind the high Inter-War Art Deco parapet of the building. Impact on the streets presentation of the building along Knox Street is considered negligible and expected for such adaptive reuse of the building. The overall bulk, form and scale of the building will not be adversely affected.

 

Although no specifications have been provided at this stage, the proposed external front facade conservation and reinstatement of original details as detailed in the Heritage Impact Statement are considered and supported. Necessary requirements for Conditions of Consent have been provided in order to ensure appropriate treatment of the significant fabric during the implementation of the proposed works.

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed works do not visually dominate, compete with, or conceal the original form and massing of the former Kings cinema building. Notwithstanding, the demolition works on the ground floor in particular removal of the stage itself is considered to be diminishing the understanding of the former cinema hall and recommendations to explore its retention is considered necessary to maintain the sense of spatial space regardless of the existing auditorium not being in the original configuration, materials and finishes.

 

Given that the amended proposal for 90 children provides for internal learning and external play areas well in excess of those required, the scope and the ability to readily accommodate the recommendations is evident.

 

The external restorations have always been supported as having merit. The inclusion of the main stage area including the wooden steps and stairs has facilitated support for the amended proposal on heritage grounds.

 

1.5     Setbacks

The Child Care Centre provisions of the DCP require compliance with the Low Density Residential provisions contained in part c1 of the DCP.  The objectives of the DCP in regard to setbacks are:

 

·     To maintain or establish a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the character of the neighbourhood.

·     To ensure the form and massing of development complement and enhance the streetscape character.

·     To ensure adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access.

·     To reserve adequate areas for the retention or creation of private open space and deep soil planting.

·     To enable a reasonable level of view sharing between a development and the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

The following table summarises the proposed setbacks in relation to the DCP compliance:

 

Setbacks

Requirement

Proposed

Compliance

Front (South)

i)

The front setback must be consistent with the average setbacks of the adjoining dwellings. Where there are no adjoining dwellings, the setback must be no less than 6m.

Where a development is proposed in an area identified as being under transition in the site analysis, the front setback will be determined on a merit basis.

ii)

For corner allotments, the setback from the secondary street frontage must be in accordance with the following minimum requirements:

-

900mm for allotments with primary frontage width of less than 7m

-

1500mm for all other sites

Nil (unaltered)

Yes

Rear (North)

The minimum rear setback must be 25% of allotment depth or 8m, whichever is the lesser.

Note: Rear setback controls do not apply to corner allotments.

Nil to proposed car parking 7.6m to outer face of rear new works.

Yes.

Side (East)

(On a site of 12m or greater in width) 1200mm to ground and 1st floors and

Nil – 8m

Supported on merit.

Side (West)

(On a site of 12m or greater in width) 1200mm to ground and 1st floors and

3m – 8m to new works.

Yes.

 

To the eastern boundary with No. 271 Clovelly Road the new works will include:

 

·     Timber lapped and capped paling fencing along a central section of the common boundary (currently unfenced).

·     An existing 2 storey masonry wall setback approx. 2.1m from the respective boundary.

·     A rebuilt and expanded masonry wall to a height of approximately 4m on the boundary to the rear with a 3m recessed roller door access and fire exit onto and existing ROW serving the property across the rear yard areas of Nos. 271 – 285 Clovelly Road.

·     At upper levels the proposed new structures are setback a minimum of 3m up to 8m from the eastern boundary.

 

In relation to the timber lapped and capped fencing, whilst this area is adjacent to low trafficable access way, to allow for consistency in structures along this boundary and ensure adequate acoustic buffering, the provision of a masonry fence to a minimum height of 1.8m is included in the recommendation.

 

Given the height of the existing rock wall, the new and expanded section of masonry wall site to the boundary will have minimal additional impacts on the solar access to the dwelling at 271 Clovelly Road and retain unchanged conditions between 8.00am and 12.00pm.

 

From the western boundary the new works are setback a minimum of 3m up to 17.5m. The setbacks in this regard are therefore well above those required under the DCP and result in acceptable impacts including unchanged conditions after midday.

From the northern boundary to Susan Lane the proposed staff parking is set to the street alignment by way of a supported cantilever arrangement with a low rise retaining wall of approximately 1.2m in height at the southern extremity. A bin storage area of approx. 2.4m in height is located in the north western corner Susan Lane and Knox Street.

 

Further setback from is alignment to the south the new works comprising an indoor learning area is setback back approximately 7.6m from Susan Lane and will rise to a relative height above the laneway of approx. 3m. The interface is considered acceptable in the circumstances. There will be no impact on solar access currently available to the dwelling house at 53 Knox Street located on the north eastern corner of Knox Street and Susan Lane.

 

The southern façade as existing and proposed is set to the street alignment. It is proposed be restored and painted in accordance with the schedule of external finishes and colours which accompanies the application.

 

·        To maintain or establish a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the character of the neighbourhood.

·        To ensure the form and massing of development complement and enhance the streetscape character.

·        To ensure adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access.

·        To reserve adequate areas for the retention or creation of private open space and deep soil planting.

·        To enable a reasonable level of view sharing between a development and the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

The proposed setbacks are therefore considered consistent with the objectives of the DCP as the proposal will result in a form and massing of new development that will complement and enhance the streetscape, provide for an adequate separation of buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and an acceptable integration of the proposed development with the public domain. The acceptable impacts of the on view loss from affected properties are addressed in the following section.

 

1.6     View Sharing       

 

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

 

Objectives

 

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

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

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

 

Controls

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Objections have been received regarding view loss particularly in respect of the dwelling at 53 Knox Street, Clovelly.

 

The views concerned are illustrated in the images below from the submission on behalf of the applicant:

 

 

The following images demonstrate the height of the proposed development as viewed from the north (in front of the subject site) and from the west showing the relative height of the existing dwelling at No. 53 Knox Street in relation to the height of the proposed additions.

 

Figure 10: Proposed Northern Elevation

 

Figure 11: Proposed Western Elevation Showing Relative Height of the Dwelling at 53 Knox Street (LHS of image).

 

The planning principle established by Roseth SC pp25-29 Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 identifies a number of steps to qualitatively assess view sharing and is addressed in the following sections.

 

Principles 1 and 2: Assess views to be affected, and consider from what part of the property views are obtained.

“Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.”

 

“For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.”

 

The views are district views to the south, south east and south west from ground and first floor living and bedroom areas and are available from seated and standing positions as depicted in the photos. Similarly, distant ocean views are available to the east and south east from ground and first floor living and bedroom areas from seated and standing positions as depicted in the photos

 

Principle 3: Assess the extent of the impact.

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

 

From the photos and images above the extent of the impact is considered negligible.

 

Principle 4: Assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact

 

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

 

Notwithstanding the strict numerical non-compliance with the Maximum Height of Buildings Control, this aspect has been assessed and is considered justified having regard to the relative heights demonstrated in the abovementioned images. The views retained will continue to include district and distant ocean views to an almost unaltered degree, albeit with a changed foreground outlook to the proposed new works.

 

The proposal is entirely reasonable in this regard.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal for the reasons outlined in this report and the attached Compliance Report is considered worthy of support.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Building Height and Floor Space Ratio respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Environment be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 566/2014 for partial demolition, alterations and additions to the existing building for the establishment of a child care centre catering for 90 children including a new parking for 7 vehicles off Susan Lane, at No. 263-269 Clovelly Road, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report:

 

Non-Standard Conditions

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

 

a.     The proposed lapped and capped timber paling fencing shown adjacent to the eastern boundary is to be replaced by a masonry wall of a minimum height of 1.8m above existing ground level. Details are to be shown on the Construction Certificate Plans.

 

b.     The plans are to be amended to incorporate the existing stage area including wooden floor and steps in accordance with the plan prepared by City Plan Heritage noted as attachment A to the heritage report prepared for DA/566/2014 dated 25 February 2015. Details demonstrating compliance in this regard are to be submitted to Council’s Manager of Development Assessment for approval prior to issuing of the Construction Certificate.

 

20.     Fully detailed plans and specifications of the proposed rock removal and structural works adjacent to the Susan Lane frontage (including details of any ground anchors if required) as well as certification from a profession Structural Engineer are to be submitted to the Director of City Services for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate. The plans shall demonstrate compliance with the following;

 

•    There must be no loss of support for the roadway in Susan Lane

•    The proposed works must eliminate any on-going potential for rock to fall into the development site or neighbouring properties.

•    Adequate provision must be made for drainage of seepage and/or stormwater between the rock face and proposed wall.

 

31.     A separate written approval from Council is required to be obtained in relation to all works which are located externally from the site within the road reserve/public place, in accordance with the requirements of the Roads Act 1993.  Detailed plans and specifications of the proposed works are to be submitted to the Director of City Services & Randwick Traffic Committee for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

All works within the road reserve must be carried out to the satisfaction of Council and certification from a certified practicing engineer is to be provided to Council upon completion of the works.

 

Relevant Council assessment and inspection fees, as specified in Council's adopted Pricing Policy, are required to be paid to Council prior to commencement of the works.

 

NOTES

·       The proposed median on Clovelly Road is not required

·       The applicant shall liaise with Council’s Coordinator of Engineering Services & Department of Integrated Transport to discuss the above requirements and to arrange placement of item/s on the agenda for the next available meeting of Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

57.     At the completion of works, certification form a certified practicing structural engineer for all structural works adjacent to the Susan Lane frontage is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the PCA and Council (if Council is not the PCA). The certification is to include stated compliance with the relevant conditions of consent.

58.     Prior to release of an Occupation Certificate a report by a suitably qualified consultant is to be submitted to the PCA and Council (if Council is not the PCA) demonstrating acceptable levels of potential exposure impact on the centre and its occupants from sources of potentially significant electromagnetic devices within 300m of the site.

67.     A validation report must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics three (3) months after the business commences trading and from time to time as reasonably requested by Council. 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.

 

68.     The operation of the site and the project specific criteria for noise emissions shall be in accordance with the acoustic report by RSA Acoustics dated 15 January 2015, Doc Reference 13260R6 Noise Assessment unless otherwise stated by this development consent.

 

69.     Amplified music is not to be played in the outdoor play areas at any time.

 

70.     The outdoor areas on level 2 (uppermost floor) are not to be used in association with any periodic after hours events.

 

71.     The ROW serving the site from Fewings Street is not to be used for vehicular access in association with the child care centre usage of the site.

 

72.     A detailed plan of management shall be submitted to and approved by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant and Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued, which shall include but not be limited to:

 

·       recommendations included in acoustic report prepared by RSA Acoustics section 7 ref no:13260R6 dated January 2015,

·       shall include approved children numbers for all outdoor areas,

·       ensure compliance with the relevant conditions of approval,

·       minimise the potential impact of the operation of the premises upon nearby residents,

·       effectively manage behaviour of children including but not limited to outdoor areas,

·       clearly state permitted numbers of children in outdoor areas

·       minimise noise emissions and associated nuisances,

·       effectively manage and respond to resident complaints.,

·       detail the frequency and likely duration of periodic after hours events

 

73.     The childcare centre shall not exceed a maximum number of 90 children at any one time.

 

74.     Outdoor areas shall be used in accordance with RSA Acoustic report dated January 2015 doc. Ref: 13260R6 and the approved plan of management at all times.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 263-269 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP9/15

 

 

Subject:                  2 Robey Street, Maroubra
(DA/704/2014/A)

Folder No:               DA/704/2014/A

Author:                    Olivia Yana, Development Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 application to delete Condition 2(d), to allow the front fence to be constructed to 1.8m in height

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Ms C M Phillis

Owner:                    Ms C M Phillis

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

1.  Proposal

 

The application to modify the approved development is seeking to delete condition 2(d), which was imposed in the original determination to ensure that the height of front fence be reduced to 1.2m high above the existing ground level for the following reasons:-

 

1.  The proposed 1.8m high fence will obscure the front façade of heritage item building, is inconsistent with the scale of existing heritage fence and does not comply with Clause 5.10 of Randwick LEP 2012, and

 

2.  The proposed 1.8m high front fence is inconsistent with the established rhythm of the streetscape and the visual catchment of the site, and does not comply with objectives of Randwick DCP 2013 for front fencing.

 

The proposed deletion of condition 2(d) will allow the front fence to be constructed to a maximum height of 1.8m. Due to the slope of the land, the height of the proposed front fence actually ranges from 1.7m – 2m.

 

2.  Site

 

The site identified as Lot B DP 336085, is an irregular corner property located on the western side of Robey Street and southern side of Maroubra Road, Maroubra. It has a land size of 437.3m2 with curved street frontage of 24.5m and depth of 23.67m. The site presently occupied by an existing one to two storey traditional face brickwork pitched roof dwelling with a detached garage fronting Robey Street adjoining to a seven storey mixed use residential flat building on the eastern side and one to two storey detached dwellings on the western and southern sides (Figure 1). The streetscape is characterised by mixed use and low to high density residential development in R2 Low Density Residential area that adjoins to B2 Local Centre zone.

 

Figure 1: View of subject site from Robey Street

 

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. As a result of the notification process, no submissions were received.

 

4.  Key Issues

 

4.1     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:

 

4.1.1  Substantially the Same Development:

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

4.2     Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

Zone R2 - Low Density Residential 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the objectives of the zone require that new development must recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form, or in precincts undergoing transition, elements that contribute to the desired future character of the area. The proposed front fence with maximum height of 2m however is not considered to be consistent with the aims of RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the fence will not compliment the existing built form that is a local heritage item and the immediate streetscape character, which is dominated by low lying brick fence and open style fencing. The proposal therefore will detract from the desired elements of the streetscape and result in undesirable precedent on the future character of the locality.

 

Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation

 

The objectives of this clause are to conserve the environmental heritage of Randwick City, to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas including associated fabric, settings and views, to conserve known or potential archaeological sites, and to conserve places of Aboriginal heritage significance.

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has provided the follow comments in relation to the proposal

 

The Site

The site is prominently located near the corner of Maroubra Road, Robey Street and Walsh Avenue and is occupied by a post war house, listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 2012.  The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet for the property describes it as “outstanding post-war style.  Forms good pair with adjoining house on Walsh Avenue.  Typical period features are stepped brick on gable overhangs, terracotta tiling, textured brick and decorative use of brickwork.  Of special note is unusual leadlight glazing, simple design with coloured panes. Virtually intact down to fence and typical front garden.”  The dwelling is located on an unusual triangular corner site, and was designed as a pair with no.1 Walsh Avenue.  The site forms one of the gateways to a large cohesive subdivision on the southern side of Maroubra Road, laid out according to early twentieth century Garden Suburb principles.  While the Inventory Sheet identifies the dwelling as being of post-war construction, Council’s historic aerial photos indicate that the subdivision had begun in 1930, and was complete by 1942.  The subdivision followed drainage and playing field formation of Nagle and Snape Parks, made possible by depression era unemployment relief subsidies. 

 

Background

DA/514/2013 for provision of a secondary dwelling by carrying out a two storey addition to the rear of the principle dwelling was approved in November 2013.  The enclosing walls of the existing garage were to be removed to provide a covered outdoor area.  The secondary dwelling has now been constructed. 

 

DA/514/2013/A for provision of a new window and demolition of the existing garage was approved in October 2014.  The proposed garage demolition however was not approved. 

 

DA/704/2014 for a new front boundary fence and rear roofed pergola was approved in December 2014.  The height of the front fence was to be reduced from 1.8m to 1.2m. 

Proposal

A Section 96 application has now been received which again seeks approved for a 1.8m high fence, comprising new timber pickets on top of the existing brick fence. 

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Stubbs Design Tribe dated October 2014.  The HIS argues that the proposed fence will be complementary in style, finish and detailing to the existing dwelling and appropriate to the locality.  The HIS argues that the fence is compliant with Council controls, but has not addresses the Heritage section of Randwick DCP 2013 in relation to Fences. 

 

Controls

The Heritage section of Randwick Development Control Plan provides Objectives and Controls applying to development for heritage items, covering Fencing.  The DCP includes an Objective of encouraging the retention, repair or reconstruction of original fencing.  The DCP includes an Objective that new and replacement front fences must not obscure building facades, and that new fence heights and form must be appropriate to the character of the heritage item. 

 

Comments

The existing fence matches the brickwork of the dwelling and is noted in the Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet for the heritage item.  The fence as a site component is considered to have high significance and makes an important contribution to the setting of the dwelling itself. 

 

All of the radially laid our streets of the 1930s subdivision bounded by Maroubra Road, Robey Street, Fitzgerald Street and Bunnerong Road would have been defined originally by low brick front fencing which is typical of housing of this period.  Many surrounding properties in Robey Street and Walsh Avenue, including the heritage items at nos.7 – 9 and 23 – 25 Walsh Avenue retain their original low brick fencing or at least open fencing of medium height.  The provision of 1.8m high fencing to the Walsh Avenue and Robey Street boundaries of the subject site is inconsistent with the DCP Objectives of retaining original fencing, and providing fencing which is appropriate to the character of the heritage item.  The provision of 1.8m high fencing would also obscure the building façade, and be incompatible with predominant fencing styles in the surrounding area.  The provision of high fencing would also further reduce the integrity of the pair of dwellings on the corner of Robey Street and Walsh Avenue which form a gateway to the subdivision.  The previous development approval includes a consent condition that the height of the proposed fence be reduced to 1.2m.  This consent condition should be retained and should not be deleted. 

 

The fencing has been subject to damage adjacent to the driveway, presumably as a result of construction works.  This damage should be repaired and the existing fence retained.  Additionally, it is recommended that the approved picket fencing on top of the existing brick fence be carried out without any modification to the brick fence.  It is recommended that the upper section of the fence be constructed entirely of timber, with no extension to the existing brickwork to create piers.  The original brick fence should not be rendered or painted. 

 

The proposed modification is seeking the construction of front fence with maximum height of 2m, which will be situated along the entire boundary facing Robey Street. The proposed height of front fence is not considered appropriate in conserving the heritage significance of heritage item building and its associated settings and views. The height of proposed front fence would compromise the special sense of place of a local landmark building, which exemplifies the post war dwelling that is critical to the significance and setting of heritage items within Robey Street and Walsh Avenue. Public views of the heritage item will be altered given that the new fence height will change the original fencing style, visually dominate and obscure the view of the building facade and subsequently compromise from the heritage setting of the subject dwelling.

 

The proposal thereby is not considered to be satisfactory with the objectives of this clause.

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RCDCP) 2013

Fencing (Section B2: Heritage sub-section 2.10 - Fences and C1: Low Density Residential sub-section 7.2 – Front Fencing)

Council’s DCP section B2: sub-section 2.10 controls for fences state that new front fences must not obscure building facades and be appropriate to the character of the heritage item. Furthermore, section C1: sub-section 7.2 controls also state that the maximum height of front fencing may be increased to 1800mm provided the upper two-thirds are partially open, except for piers, and that solid front fence may be permitted for sites facing arterial roads.

 

The height of proposed front fence ranging from 1.7m – 2m is considered to be excessive, does not integrate with the streetscape and will adversely affect the heritage value of the dwelling and characteristic of the streetscape. Part of the subject dwelling containing the garden area that is facing Maroubra Road is setback approximately 15 metres from the arterial road. Therefore, increasing the height to achieve full enclosure of the building façade is not considered as necessary.

 

The existing streetscape of Robey Street and Walsh Avenue bounded by Maroubra Road and Chichester Street is dominated by low lying brick fence and open style fencing with maximum height of 1.6m (refer to Figure 36).

 

Photos of subject site and surrounds

Figure 2: Visual appearance of subject dwelling with 1.8m high fence (marked with red lines)

 

Streetscape analysis within 150 metres from the subject site

Figure 3: 4 Robey Street (1.05m high fence)

Figure 4: 1 Walsh Avenue (700mm high fence)

Figure 5: 16 Robey Street (1.2m high fence)

Figure 6: 31 Chichester Street (1.6m high fence)

 

4.3     Section 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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

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

 

Zone R2 - Low Density Residential 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal does not satisfy the aims of RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed fence will detract from the desired elements of the streetscape and result in undesirable precedent on the future character of the locality.

 

Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation

The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives of this clause in terms of conserving the environmental heritage of Randwick City and the heritage significance of heritage items including associated fabric, settings and views.

 

Schedule 5 – Environmental Heritage

The subject site, 2 Robey Street, is listed as a local heritage item (no. I227) in Maroubra.

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 does not satisfy the objectives of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 refer to Part 5.2 of this report for detailed assessment.

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

No submission was received for this application.

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.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal to extend the existing fence along Robey Street to maximum height of 2m does not meet the relevant assessment criteria of RCDCP 2013 Section B2 sub-section 2.10 and C1 sub-section 7.2 for front fencing and fails to satisfy the general aims, specific objectives, and Clause 5.10 - Heritage Conservation of RLEP 2012 in that the proposed fence detracts from the desired elements of the streetscape, results in an undesirable precedent on the future character of the locality, and fails to conserve the environmental heritage and heritage significance by obscuring the view of heritage item building façade and adversely impacting the heritage settings of the subject site. Therefore, the proposed deletion of condition 2(d) is not supported and recommended for refusal.

 

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/704/2014/A to delete condition 2(d) at No. 2 Robey Street, Maroubra for the following reasons:

 

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

 

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

 

2.       The proposal does not comply with provisions of Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as it does not conserve the heritage significance of a local heritage item by obscuring the view of heritage item and adversely impacting its heritage significance.

 

3.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and controls of Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 Section B2: Heritage sub-section 2.10 for Fences in that the proposed development does contribute in  fencing design to the character of the original building.

 

4.       The proposal does not comply with the objectives and controls of Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 Section C1: Low Density Residential sub-section 7.2 for Front Fencing in that the height of proposed fence along Robey Street is considered to be excessive, does not complement the building on the site and detracts from its streetscape character.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP10/15

 

 

Subject:                  Post Exhibition - Draft s94A Plan 2015 and Draft Amendments to the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (Undergrounding Overhead Power Lines)

Folder No:               F2014/00358

Author:                    Asanthika Kappagoda, Senior Strategic Planner     

 

Introduction

 

The draft s94A Development Contributions Plan 2015 (draft s94A Plan 2015) and draft amendments to the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 – Undergrounding Overhead Power Lines (draft DCP), were recently placed on public exhibition from 9 December 2014 to 13 February 2015, consistent with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and Regulation (the Regulation).

The draft s94A Plan 2015 provides for a number of new capital works items, a revised map, updated population projections and some minor formatting changes. The draft DCP supplements the draft s94A with controls to facilitate the undergrounding of overhead power lines in Kingsford Town Centre, as well as for large scale residential, mixed use and non-residential developments in other areas, in line with existing Council policy.

Fifteen submissions were received during the exhibition period. Key issues raised included concerns about specific design and construction aspects of the City to South East Light Rail network and coastal walkway. A number of submissions expressed support for proposed undergrounding of overhead power lines in Kingsford Town Centre, or requested that this program be extended to other areas e.g. Kensington Town Centre. There were suggested inclusions to the Schedule of Works such as water sensitive urban design projects and refurbishment works at the Kokoda Memorial Park. A submission was received from the University of NSW (UNSW) requesting an exemption from paying s94A levies and the reinstatement of $4 million previously allocated in s94A funding towards capital works in the Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre.

 

This report reviews submissions received and recommends that the Council endorse the draft S94A Plan 2015 and draft DCP for finalisation.

 

Background

 

In June 2012, Council adopted the Randwick Section 94A Plan 2012 which applies a flat percentage rate levy based on a sliding scale of development cost, when a development consent or complying development certificate is issued. Funds collected under the s94A framework are used to provide for additional or improved public facilities to meet expected demands arising from new development, in line with the requirements of the EP&A Act and Regulation.

 

Since its inception, s94A funding under the current s94A Plan 2012 has contributed to a number of major projects in conjunction with the Council’s Capital Works Budget and grant funding. Nearly $6 million in s94A funding has been spent on local infrastructure in Randwick City, benefitting the community as a whole, such as the Des Renford Centre.  

At the meeting of 11 November 2014,  Council considered and endorsed to place on exhibition a new draft Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2015 (draft s94A Plan 2015) together with supplementary amendments to the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (draft DCP).

 

The draft s94A Plan 2015 is a review of the current s94A Plan 2012.  It updates the Schedule of Works by omitting works that have already been completed (e.g. Des Renford Leisure Centre and Randwick Community Centre Internal fit out). It further provides for new items including a number of works identified in the Light Rail Support Plan (associated with the City/South East Light Rail roll out program), undergrounding of overhead power lines in Kingsford Town Centre, and upgrades to the La Perouse Museum and Randwick Literary Institute. The draft s94A Plan 2015 also includes a revised map, updated population projections based on recently released statistical data, as well as some minor formatting changes.

 

The draft DCP contains controls on the undergrounding of overhead power lines in Kingsford Town Centre, to support the provisions of the draft S94A Plan 2015, in line with legal advice received. It also contains controls for the undergrounding of overhead power lines in other areas in Randwick City, in line with existing Council policy. These controls apply to major developments only, including medium density residential and mixed-use buildings containing 40 or more apartments.

 

The new draft S94A Plan 2015 once made will repeal the existing s94A Plan 2012, while the draft DCP provisions on the undergrounding of overhead power lines will be included in the DCP 2013. 

 

Consultation Programme

 

The draft s94A Plan 2015 and draft DCP were subject to the consultation requirements of the EP&A Act and Regulation. Both draft documents were placed on public exhibition for an extended period between 9 December 2014 and 13 February 2015.

 

The public consultation programme included:

 

·      Placement of advertisements in the Southern Courier notifying of the exhibition.

·  Hard copies of the draft s94A Plan 2015 and draft DCP displayed at Council’s Customer Service Centre and local libraries.

·      A dedicated ‘haveyoursay’ webpage including provision for online submissions.

·      Targeted notification letters to key stakeholders; and

·  Distribution of hardcopies to Precincts and Chambers of Commerce as well as the Randwick/ Waverely Urban Design Panel seeking expert feedback.

 

Overview of Submissions

 

Fifteen submissions were received from a variety of stakeholders including the University of NSW, Bike East and residents. The submissions have all been reviewed and summarised as follows, with further detail and Council Officer’s comments included in Attachment 1.

 

Three submissions gave support to certain aspects of the draft Plan, including the proposed undergrounding of overhead power lines at Kingsford Town Centre and $1 million allocation towards mobility improvements across Randwick City.

 

Two submissions commented on the proposed coastal walkway design with additional information requested on the route and specific safety considerations. Such matters are notably beyond the scope of the s94A framework, as the role of the draft s94A Plan 2015 is to set aside funds towards the provision of local infrastructure, not  authorise the design or construction of a project. 

 

Four submissions raised concerns about the City to South East Light Rail network, such as the utilisation of High Cross Park as a terminus, pedestrian safety issues, the removal of street trees and potential disruption to residents from proposed traffic calming and parking mitigation works. Such issues relate to the specific design and construction of the City to South East Light Rail project and are thus not a s94A development contributions matter.

 

Two submissions requested that additional items be included in the Schedule of Works, including water sensitive urban design (WSUD) works on Rainbow and Kennedy Streets to address local flooding issues, the refurbishment of Kokoda Memorial Park together with a new monument and plaque, and the extension of the undergrounding overhead power lines program to other centres (e.g. Kensington Town Centre).

 

The WSUD request has been forwarded to the Council’s Engineering Department for consideration as it is not a s94A development contributions issue. The allocation of $1 million towards park improvements (Item 2.2) could be potentially utilised towards Kokoda Park refurbishment works, pending Council’s resolution on this matter. There is also scope to extend the undergrounding program to Kensington Town Centre once the works in Kingsford Town Centre are completed.

 

The submission received from the University requested an exemption from paying s94A levies for campus development (on the basis that it is a charity), as well as the reinstatement of $4 million in capital works funding for the Specialised Centre and terminology consistency between the draft s94A Plan 2015 and the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy: A Plan for Growing Sydney

 

Campus development generally does not meet the criteria for an exemption under the draft s94A Plan 2015 given the University is a business providing education on a fee basis, as opposed to a small scale charity. Further, campus development generates additional demands on Randwick City’s infrastructure (from the additional students, workers and residents it brings) which needs to be suitably accounted for by way of s94A levies.

 

With respect to funding allocation, the $4 million in s94A funding for the Specialised Centre (under the current s94A Plan 2012) has been accounted for, with $2 million committed in the 2012/2013 and 2014/2015 capital works budgets. A further $2 million has been assigned in the draft s94A Plan 2015 towards projects within the Specialised Centre catchment (including works in Kensington and Kingsford Town Centres) (see Items 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5).

 

Proposed Amendments

 

Based on feedback received, the following amendments are proposed (further detailed in Attachment 1).

 

·      All references to the ‘Specialised Centre’ in the draft s94A Plan 2015 be replaced with Randwick Education and Health Strategic Centre to ensure consistency with the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy: A Plan for Growing Sydney. Note: References to the Specialised Centre in the DCP will be amended as part of its first amendment.

 

·      Draft DCP Clause 3(ii) be deleted on the basis that the requirements for a letter from the relevant power supplying authority (confirming that the applicant has consulted/made prior arrangements to underground overhead power lines), is too onerous/may result in delays in the DA process.

 

The aforementioned amendments are indicated in strikethrough in Attachments 2 and 3. Minor numbering and wording changes are also proposed, for clarification and to update the description of items 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1 and 4.3 (see Schedule of Works in Attachment 2).

 

Commencement

 

Once adopted by Council, the draft s94A Plan 2015 comes into effect on the date that public notice of its approval is given in the local newspaper (Southern Courier), or on a later date specified in the notice.

 

Once notice is given, the draft s94A Plan 2015 will repeal the existing s94A Plan 2012. The amendments introduced by the draft DCP will be included in the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013.

 

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

 

The new draft s94A Plan 2015 will provide for a continuing revenue stream and enhance the Council’s ability to levy contributions for public amenities and services.

 

The draft s94A Plan 2015 is being prepared in-house with a budget of approximately $5,000 for exhibition, consultation, design, printing and finalisation costs.

 

Conclusion

 

The new draft s94A Plan 2015 is the result of a comprehensive review of the existing s94A Plan 2012, since the plan commenced in 2012.

 

The draft s94A Plan 2015 was prepared consistent with the Department of Planning and Environment guidelines and practice note for development contributions. The draft s94A Plan 2015 was placed on public exhibition and 15 submissions were received.

 

As a result of feedback received, it is proposed that the draft s94A Plan 2015 be amended to include references to the Randwick Education and Health Strategic Centre, together with minor changes to the Schedule of Works for clarification and to update the description of a number of items. It is also recommended that clause

3(ii) in the draft DCP be deleted in relation to the need for a letter from the relevant power supplying authority.

 

This report recommends the draft s94A Plan 2015 and draft DCP be endorsed by the Council for finalisation and note that the existing s94A Plan 2012 be repealed.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)  Endorse the Draft s94A Development Contributions Plan 2015 for finalisation in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations 2000;

 

b)  Note the Draft s94A Development Contributions Plan (2015) will repeal the existing Randwick City s94A Development Contributions Plan 2012;

 

c)  Endorse the draft DCP provisions on the undergrounding of overhead power lines for finalisation in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000;

d)  Agree that the Director, City Planning may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors if required, in the finalisation and printing of the Plans.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Post Exhibition Submissions Table

 

2.View

Draft s94A Plan 2015

 

3.View

Draft DCP Amendments

 

 

 

 


Post Exhibition Submissions Table

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Submission No

TRIM

Submitter

Key Issues Raised

Council Officer’s Response

1

D02240421

Resident

Strong support for the undergrounding of power lines wherever possible.

 

Strong support for proposals on Belmore Road, Randwick. A pedestrian plaza along a substantial section of the road would add to residential amenity, and encourage a livelier hub for a range of commercial, social and cultural activities.

Support noted. The Light Rail Support Plan (adopted in April 2014) proposes a pedestrian plaza at the junction of Waratah Avenue and Belmore Road, in Randwick Town Centre (see Item 2.4 of Schedule of Works).

 

The creation of this plaza will offer a number of social and economic benefits to Centre users, including improved visual and pedestrian amenity, the encouragement of longer visitations, and subsequent increased commercial activity along Belmore Road.

2

D02238937

Resident

Concerns raised that Council can justify monies spent on projects, while residents of Matraville struggle to obtain funds for traffic lights and other basic life needs.

The capital works projects highlighted in the draft s94A Plan 2015, are spread across Randwick City and fall under the various Randwick City Plan themes.

 

As indicated in the Schedule of Works (Item 3.1), an allocation of $500,000 has been made towards public domain strategies, concept plans, on street/ off street parking and townscape improvements in a variety of centres, including Matraville. A further allocation of $1 million has been made towards mobility improvements (e.g. bike plan implementation, walkways and pedestrian improvements) across Randwick City (including Matraville) (see Item 4.2). Project design and implementation will be undertaken on an ‘as needs’ basis.

3

D02238936

Resident

The undergrounding of power lines in Kingsford Town Centre is not supported. The existing power lines are not ugly, haven’t caused danger, and the costs for undergrounding  would be better spent in other areas such as  newer wider footpaths, plants, and  turning parts of Borrodale Rd and part of Meeks St into modern carparks.

 

These are what residents need given population increase in Kingsford as a result of new apartment buildings.

The proposed undergrounding of overhead power lines in Kingsford Town Centre is to address urban clutter and visual amenity issues that would otherwise be exacerbated with the introduction of additional poles and wires via the City to South East Light Rail network.

 

The draft s94A Plan 2015 allocates $750,000 in funding towards a number of public domain upgrade works in Kingsford Town Centre in line with the Light Rail Support Plan and Council resolution (29 April 2014). These works include new smart poles, mature street trees, and street furniture (see Item 3.4 in the Schedule of Works). 

 

A plaza is proposed at the corner of Meeks Street and Anzac Parade to improve pedestrian amenity as well as traffic calming and parking reconfiguration measures in surrounding streets (see Items 2.4 and 4.3 respectively).  The staging of these works are over the short to medium term (1-4 years).

 

It should be also noted that in accordance with the Development Agreement for the City to South East Rail project, Transport NSW is required to prepare a Parking Offsets and Management Strategy in consultation with Council (and other stakeholders) to identify and address parking impacts as a result of the light rail roll out.

4

D02238935

Resident

The documents refer to “Coastal Walkway- Concept Design and Construction ($1,300,000). Where can further information be obtained on where the coastal walkway is to be constructed?

The draft s94A Plan 2015 map shows an indicative location for the proposed coastal walkway (see page 16). Further information can also be found on Council’s website:

http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/

 

It is important to note that the draft s94A Plan 2015 does not authorise any work. Rather, it sets aside funds which are used (in conjunction with other funding sources) towards the construction of the coastal walkway.  The actual design and construction of the coastal walkway is part of a separate process, outside the scope of the draft s94A Plan 2015.

5

D02238934

Resident

S94A Levies

Concerns are raised that the s94A levies are too high, particularly in regards to replacement or renovation of existing dwellings which have no negligible impact on Council services.  It should be assumed that Council has raised adequate funds from each dwelling at its first development to provide adequate services, not at every improvement to that residence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost Estimate Reports

It is requested that the cost estimate report be indexed and not be required for single dwelling developments under $500,000. The applicant should be able to determine the cost in such cases, not Council officers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Renewal of Assets Levied Across All Ratepayers

It is requested that the renewal of assets be levied across all rate payers and not just those who are undertaking works on their properties. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exemptions

Exemptions should be removed for places of worship and charitable purposes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Refunds of Unspent Contributions

S94A contributions not spent should be refunded to those who have paid it.

S94A Levies

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) provides for a flat percentage rate levy for s94A Plans. This framework accounts for minor or low cost development, by not requiring developer contributions for development with a value of $100,000 or less. It is also reduced at 0.5% for works costing up to $200,000. Development valued over $200,000 has an applicable 1% s94A levy.

 

The draft s94A Plan 2015 percentage levy framework (including the development cost threshold) is consistent with a Ministerial Direction for s94A Plans. Council is required to comply with Ministerial Directions as per the provisions of the Act.

 

Cost Estimate Reports

The request to exempt applicants from submitting cost estimate reports for development worth less than $500,000 is not supported.

As a s94A levy is applicable to developments that are over $100,000 in value, Council requires qualified documentation such as a quantity surveyors report (for developments worth over $500,000) or a cost summary report (for developments less than $500,000), to verify development cost. This ensures a transparent system for collecting s94A levies and importantly ensures that the correct percentage levy is applied.

 

The supporting documentation requirements are in line with s25J(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (the Regulation) which allows Council to have regard to a cost estimate identifying development cost, to assist in determining the appropriate s94A levy.

 

It is also important to clarify that Council officers have no role in determining the cost of development.

 

Renewal of Assets Across All Ratepayers

Not supported. The s94A framework is an equitable approach as it requires the applicant to contribute towards the funding of infrastructure and/or facilities to meet increased demand. This ensures that existing rate payers are not unfairly burdened by the provision of public infrastructure/facilities required to meet the demands of new development.

It is important to note that funding for the renewal of assets is derived from a variety of sources and not solely s94A levies. Other funding sources include Council rates, grants and domestic waste funding. In this regard, rate payers are already contributing, in part, to the renewal of assets across the City, via the rating base.

 

Exemptions

The aforementioned Ministerial Direction also

exempts certain development such as

affordable housing, adaptive re-use of heritage buildings, energy and water saving

development from the levy. As outlined earlier, Council is obligated to comply with Ministerial Directions under the EP&A Act.

 

Refunds of Unspent Contributions

Council’s budgeting framework ensures that s94A funding received and its expenditure is fully accounted for. Council schedules to expend s94A funds received during the life of the Plan.  

 

Should there be any amendments to the Schedule of Works (such as to account for changes to project allocation), an amendment will be placed on public exhibition for feedback, in accordance with EP&A Act provisions.

6

D02238932

Resident

How is the coastal walkway along the edge of the golf course going to protect walkers from being hit by golf balls?

 

Why doesn’t the planned walkway extend all the way around Malabar headland?

The issues raised are not a s94A development contributions matter. It is important to note that the draft s94A Plan 2015 does not authorise any construction work nor contain detailed project design. Rather, it sets aside funds which are used (in conjunction with other funding sources) towards the construction of the coastal walkway. 

 

Risk assessment and mitigation measures will be considered during the detailed design phase of the coastal walkway project. A walking route on the western edge of Malabar Headland is planned, linking Maroubra Beach and Pioneers Park as part of the coastal walkway. The eastern part of the headland is currently too constrained for public access, given proximity to the rifle range.

7

D02265074

Resident

All overhead wires should be undergrounded in the future.

 

More trees should be saved as street trees will not be visible with the light rail and pavement narrowing.  Safety issues will still not be eradicated nor congestion created. 67 metres is a long vehicle for our roads. Intersections are being downgraded. Who is compensating us for that? It is suggested that the levy be doubled.  Consider calling it “Inflation and Chaos Levy”? Small businesses will be grossly impacted upon and community assets lost.

The draft DCP outlines controls for the undergrounding of overhead power lines in Kingsford Town Centre, to support the draft s94A provisions. In addition it contains controls for the undergrounding of overhead power lines across Randwick City which are applicable to large scale residential and mixed use developments containing 40 or more apartments, as well as large scale non-residential developments. These controls are in line with existing Council policy.

 

Following the conclusion of undergrounding works at Kingsford Town Centre, there is scope to extend this program (via partial utilisation of s94A funding) to other centres in Randwick City. 

 

Issues relating to the design and construction of the light rail (e.g. length of the light rail vehicles, street tree removal, safety, and traffic congestion) are beyond the scope of the draft

s94A Plan 2015 and draft DCP.

 

With respect to the suggestion of doubling the s94A levy as a result of the City to South East Light Rail, it should be noted that the s94A percentage levy framework in the draft s94A Plan 2015 is mandated via a Ministerial Direction. As Council is obligated to comply with Ministerial Directions under the provisions of the EP&A Act, doubling of the s94A levy thus cannot be supported.

8

D02264508

Resident

Draft s94A Plan generally supported.  Works program should include provision for Water Sensitive Urban Design along Rainbow and Kennedy Streets as this area is constantly being eroded on the north side. Compaction and hard surfaces result in local flooding near the roundabout with Anzac Parade.  This could be reduced by implementing initiatives such as rain gardens and should be included in Part 5- Looking After Our Environment.

Water sensitive urban design (WSUD) is not a s94A development contributions matter.

 

The Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP) already contains a range of provisions to encourage WSUD in new developments (see section B8 of the DCP).

 

The issue of implementing a WSUD project along Rainbow and Kennedy Streets to address local flooding issues has been forwarded to Council’s Engineering Department for further investigation and consideration.

9

D02258921

Resident

The present bus system is the best solution for Randwick/Coogee transport needs. The planned terminal at the intersection of Avoca and Belmore Rd is not appropriate as the park is well utilised by hospital workers, residents and visitors.  Green space is precious and should not be sacrificed for the interchange.

 

The buses currently run 24 hours to the city and are well used by Randwick and Coogee residents. The proposed light rail has been undertaken by the State Government with no consultation with the local community.

Issues raised relating to the design and construction of the light rail (e.g. the proposed terminus at High Cross Park, community consultation and patronage of existing bus networks) are beyond the scope of the draft s94A Plan 2015 and draft DCP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

D02238933

Resident

Population projection increase rate has more than doubled between the s94A Plan 2006 and draft s94A Plan. Is this because of the increase in multi storey apartments being proposed along the tram route? 

 

The argument is spurious i.e.: population increase has resulted because of high density developments, so we need to build a tram to service this increase and then build more high density towers to justify expenditure on the tram network.

 

The presence of Zetland style monoliths along Anzac Parade far outweighs the ‘visual amenity’ of putting power lines underground.

 

Unanswered questions regarding the tram line include: destruction of High Cross Park, refusal to bypass Wansey Rd by using derelict land within the racecourse, forcing residents to use 2 modes of transport to the city instead of one, suggestion to demolish High St medical precinct etc.

Noted. The population projections released by the NSW State Government (and reflected in the draft s94A Plan 2015) take into account recent and current trends for births, deaths and migration, based on assumptions by demographers. These projections are not based on development density. Further information is available on the NSW Department of Planning and Environment website: www.planning.nsw.gov.au

 

The matters raised relating to the design and construction delivery of the City to South East Light Rail, as well as the visual amenity of developments along Anzac Parade, are beyond the scope of the draft s94A Plan 2015.

 

 

 

11

D02247268

Resident

Recommended that the draft DCP clause on requiring a letter from an electrical authority be deleted on the basis that it is too onerous and electrical authorities are slow in providing non-essential correspondence, thus making the preparing of a DA more difficult.

Agreed. This requirement has been reviewed as a result of this submission. It is recommended that this clause be omitted from the draft DCP on the basis that it may result in delays to the DA process.

 

 

 

12

D02270664

Resident

Kensington Community Centre

Concern raised that the Kensington Community Centre concept plan is yet to be completed and has been allocated a cost of $100,000.

 

The Kensington Community Centre was supposed to have been completed in the 2014/2015 period at a cost of $2.7 million, however, the draft s94A Plan indicates that the project will be undertaken over 5-10 years.  The previous Mayor (in the year 2000) indicated that every ward should have a community centre and the west ward has been waiting for more than 15 years.  It is accordingly requested that this project be brought forward to enable the community to engage in numerous activities.

 

 

 

Undergrounding Overhead Power Lines

Concerns are raised that the draft s94A Plan does not propose undergrounding of overhead power lines at Kensington Town Centre. The reasons given for the undergrounding of power lines in Kingsford should equally apply to Kensington Town Centre.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kokoda Memorial Park

It is requested that the refurbishment of the Kokoda Memorial Park together with new a sandstone wall , pylons at the entrances, a plaque and monument be constructed to commemorate the sacrifices of men who fought along the Kokoda track. This should be included as a capital works item and be completed in the 2015/2016 period.

Kensington Community Centre

s94A does not authorise any construction work. Rather, the s94A framework sets aside funding for various capital works projects, which are also complemented by other sources of funding (detailed in Council’s annual budget).

 

Funding for the Kensington Community Centre was included in Council’s 2013/2014 General Budget, adopted by Council in June 2013.

 

As explained in the commentary section of the draft s94A Plan Schedule of Works (exhibited version), the concept plan for Kensington Community Centre has been removed as a capital works item on the basis that sufficient allocation has been made for this project under the previous budget.  It should be noted that the Kensington Community Centre project has already commenced with the DA recently submitted for assessment.

 

Undergrounding Overhead Power Lines

The proposed undergrounding of overhead power lines in Kingsford Town Centre has been proposed after a detailed analysis of the light rail alignment route along Anzac Parade in conjunction with consultations with Ausgrid (owners of the overhead power line infrastructure).

 

Kingsford Town Centre was determined to be the most suitable precinct to commence the undergrounding program on the basis that:

·    it is a relatively small catchment (and therefore less expenditure compared to undergrounding larger precincts),

·    it has a high concentration of overhead power lines and visual clutter,

·    it would result in a substantial continuous length of Anzac Parade having no overhead power lines given that a significant area of the UNSW institutional precinct adjoining Kingsford has already been undergrounded (i.e. it would result in approximately 610 metres for the entire Town Centre being undergrounded and 1.2 km on the eastern side of Anzac Parade from 9 ways intersection to corner of Doncaster Avenue, Kensington). 

 

There is scope to extend the undergrounding program (partially utilising s94A levies) to other town centres (such as Kensington), following the completion of works at Kingsford Town Centre.

 

Kokoda Memorial Park

$1 million in s94A funding has been allocated towards park improvements, which could potentially be utilised towards future refurbishment works at Kokoda Memorial Park, pending Council’s resolution on this matter (see Item 2.2 in the Schedule of Works).

 

The proposed refurbishment of the Kokoda Memorial Park was subject to a Mayoral Minute (MM5514) at the meeting of  22 July 2014, where it was resolved (Mayor, Cr Nash) that this issue be further discussed at a subsequent Councillor Briefing. Outcomes from the subject Councillor Briefing and recommendations will be reported to a future Council meeting for resolution and action.

 

Given there is uncertainty regarding Council’s position on the potential implementation and staging of Kokoda Memorial Park refurbishment works, it is premature to include this as a separate line item in the Schedule of Works.

13

D02270341

Resident

It is queried as to whether the proposed traffic calming and parking reconfiguration measures will involve the ripping up of the nature strips in streets surrounding the light rail (tram) route to provide extra parking. If this is the case, will Randwick City Council inform affected local residents and will the project be for the short to medium term while the light rail is being constructed or on a permanent basis?

Residents who will be greatly affected are not truly being briefed as to what impacts are going to be felt. If the project is to construct speed humps and rip up nature strips to provide car parking, then this aspect of the draft s94A Plan 2015 is not supported.

The draft s94A Plan 2015 indicates the staging of the light rail support measures (traffic calming and parking reconfiguration) to be in the short to medium term (ie 1-4 years) (see Item 4.3).

 

The traffic calming and parking reconfiguration measures are subject to a separate design, planning and delivery process, outside the scope of the draft s94A Plan 2015.

 

It is important to note that the draft s94A Plan 2015 does not authorise the construction of capital works projects. Rather, it sets aside funds, which are utilised (along with other sources of funding) towards the construction of capital works projects to meet expected demands of new development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14

D02283084

Bike East

Support for $1 million allocation towards mobility improvements including bike plan implementation. It is requested that the following amendments be made:

·    Item 2.11 (Heffron Park Indoor Sport Centre) - include bike parking facilities and adjust funding.

·    Items 3.1, 3.2, 3.3. 3.4 and 3.5 (public domain strategies and town centre improvements) – include cycle access facilities, separated cycleway, crossing facilities and adjust funding accordingly.

·    Map reference (re town centre improvements to support light rail)- include bike parking rings on all smart poles and adjust funding.

·    Light Rail Support Measures (traffic and parking) – include bicycle parking and end of trip facilities (similar to those provided at the Gold Coast Light Rail).

The suggested cycle facilities relate to the detailed design of infrastructure/capital works and are therefore beyond the scope of the draft s94A Plan 2015.

 

It should be noted that the function of the s94A Plan is to provide the framework for levying of contributions to assist in the funding of capital works projects to meet expected demands of new development. A s94A Plan is not intended to contain detailed information on capital works, which are otherwise subject to separate design, planning and delivery processes.

The suggested cycle facilities could be considered on a case by case basis as part of the detailed design process.

 

15

D02306231

UNSW

Exemption

It is requested that UNSW be exempt from paying development contributions on the basis that it is a charitable/non for profit organisation, is an internationally recognised education provider (and not developer) and provides a range of facilities and services available to the general public (e.g. access to the library, sporting facilities, venues, retail outlets, clinics (optometry, psychology), English courses, legal advice (Kingsford Legal Centre), outreach and holiday programs etc).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Schedule

It is requested that the draft s94A Plan 2015 Schedule of Works reinstate the $4 million expenditure for the University/Hospital Precinct (as contained in the s94A Plan 2012), on the grounds that the University has paid more than $3.5 million in levies, and no significant works have been undertaken to date.

Concerns are raised that the draft  s94A Plan 2015 utilises UNSW development contributions towards the funding of public amenities and services outside areas which can be attributed to the demand created by staff or students (e.g. laneway widening, La Perouse Museum etc).

It is noted that light rail interchanges are proposed at Randwick and Kingsford together with light rail support measures (traffic calming and parking reconfiguration) but no similar works have been proposed at the University/Hospital Precinct. Further there are no specific proposals in the draft Plan for footpath upgrades, bicycle paths, street trees and planting that would better connect the University with surrounding area. No specific works have been included that conform to the public domain principles for the Precinct articulated in the DCP.

Council Officers have indicated that $1 million has been allocated for works in the Specialised Centre in the 2014/2015 budget which together with the draft s94A Plan 2015 $1 million allocation leaves around $1.5 million in unspent funds, contrary to the 9 February 2010 Council resolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References to the Specialised Centre

It is requested that all references to the ‘Specialised Centre’ be replaced with ‘Randwick Education and Health Strategic Centre’ to ensure consistency with the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy: A Plan for Growing Sydney. Similarly, the DCP should be amended to reflect the same terminology, with 1.2 Planning Context (section E2) reflect the purpose of strategic centres as described in the Metropolitan Strategy.

 

 

Exemption

The request to exempt UNSW from paying s94A levies is not supported.

 

It is acknowledged that the University is a major economic driver for our City, and provides public benefits via access to its facilities and services, as well as student accommodation. Nevertheless, campus development generally falls outside the parameters of a small scale charity, established by the exemption criteria in both the current and draft s94A Plans.

 

Clause 13.2(2) Exemptions to the Levy clearly states that exemptions may only be considered for small scale charities/ non for profit organisations, and only where these do not increase infrastructure demands.

 

The University is a business providing education on a fee for service basis. Further, campus development (and the increase in staff, students and residents it brings) generates additional demands on Randwick City’s public domain and infrastructure, which needs to be accounted for.

 

On this basis, campus development

does not meet the criteria for an exemption in accordance with the draft s94A Plan 2015. S94A contributions are therefore considered reasonable and applicable to UNSW campus development (where relevant) to address demands on Council’s public domain and infrastructure.

 

 

Works Schedule

The request to reinstate $4 million in s94A funding towards works in the Specialised Centre is not supported. This is on the basis that expenditure has already been committed in part within the scope of the current s94A Plan 2012, with remaining funding rolled over into the draft s94A Plan 2015. It should be also noted that the $4 million allocation in the current s94A Plan 2012, is not a fixed amount to be rolled over in perpetuity to successive Plans. 

 

The draft s94A Plan 2015 Schedule of Works allocates $1 million dollars towards the Specialised Centre (see Item 3.5). This is a departure from the current 2012 Plan which assigns $4 million towards works in the same precinct.

 

The funding allocation has been reduced/ redistributed, as $2 million (of the original $4 million) has been already committed in the 2012/2013 and 2014/2015 budgets respectively (i.e. $1 million per financial year, rolled over) for works specifically around the University. As this budget allocation occurred within the scope of the current s94A Plan 2012 and has already been committed, it is unnecessary to roll this over to the new draft Plan.

 

The draft s94A Plan 2015 allocates $1 million in funding towards light rail related public domain works in the Specialised Centre (e.g. smart poles, street trees and street furniture) (Item 3.5). 

 

The remaining $1 million (of the original $4 million) has been redistributed towards public domain improvements in town centres in proximity to the University (and within the Specialised Centre catchment) i.e. Kingsford and Kensington town centres (Items 3.4 and 3.3). These works will benefit the University, as students and workers are frequent users of these centres.

 

The allocation for spending in the draft s94A Plan 2015 for the Specialised Centre (and adjoining town centres) is consistent with the Council resolution of 9 February 2010 which states:

 

“That the Council note and endorse this report as a basis for responding to the University’s request to amend the S94A Plan, with a suggested approach of amending the S94A Plan works schedule in the next S94A Plan review to specifically include public domain works around the University and linking to the nearby town centres”.

 

The draft s94A Plan 2015 also contains funding items for City wide mobility improvements such as bike plan implementation and pedestrian improvements, which could also benefit the University (see Item 4.3).

 

The $2 million in committed funding (2012/2013 and 2014/2015 budget) will be expended following the conceptualisation, design and planning of specific works around the University.  Council officers will continue to liaise with the University on the priority of works and design detail/timing within the Specialised Centre.

 

 

References to the Specialised Centre

Supported.  It should be noted that at the time of drafting the draft s94A Plan 2015, the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy: A Plan for Growing Sydney had not formally come into effect.

 

Now that the Strategy has been adopted, it is recommended that all references to the Specialised Centre be replaced with ‘Randwick Education and Health Strategic Centre’ in both the draft s94A Plan 2015 and DCP, which will ensure terminology consistency in these documents.

 


Draft s94A Plan 2015

Attachment 2

 

 





















Draft DCP Amendments

Attachment 3

 

 

Attachment 3: Draft DCP

Undergrounding Overhead Power Lines

 

 

 

 

 

 


1    Introduction

This section provides objectives and controls to facilitate the undergrounding of overhead power lines and associated infrastructure across Randwick City.

The undergrounding of overhead power lines and associated infrastructure can significantly improve the urban environment by reducing clutter and enhancing the visual amenity of the public domain. It can also provide an opportunity for street trees to grow to their natural height, enrich business and commercial activity by facilitating a pleasant pedestrian experience, and reduce potential safety hazards associated with exposure to uninsulated wires.

This section of the DCP should be read in conjunction with:

 

·      Part A – Introduction, Part B - General Controls and Part D – Commercial Centre Controls of this DCP.

·    Other sections of the DCP for specific development types, locations or sites, if relevant to the application.

 

1.1     Objectives

 

·      To improve the visual amenity of the public domain and provide a pleasant pedestrian and transport user experience.

·      To enhance the appearance and amenity of the development.

·      To reduce potential safety hazards and tree pruning maintenance costs.

·      To facilitate revitalisation of the urban environment.

 

 

2    Light Rail Alignment Route

Explanation

The City to South East Light Rail project presents a significant opportunity to improve the visual amenity of the public domain by placing overhead power lines underground along the alignment route on Anzac Parade.

Kingsford Town Centre’s fine grain development pattern and high concentration of overhead infrastructure makes it a suitable precinct to commence a program of undergrounding overhead power lines as part of the public domain mitigation works associated with the light rail roll out.

 

Controls

Note:

Undergrounding of overhead power lines and associated infrastructure on Anzac Parade in Kingsford Town Centre is to be undertaken by Randwick City Council as part of the light rail capital works program aligned with the Randwick Section 94A Plan 2015.

 
 


i)          All existing overhead service cables, including   power lines, telecommunications cables and associated infrastructure along Anzac Parade in Kingsford Town Centre must be placed underground in accordance with the requirements of the relevant power supply authority.

 

 

 

 

Note:

 

Applicants are advised to discuss with Council all such proposed works for the undergrounding of overhead power lines at the Pre-Development Application stage.

 

 

 
3    Other Areas

Explanation

The undergrounding of overhead power lines and associated infrastructure across Randwick City offers an improved urban environment for local communities, businesses and visitors.

Requirements for the undergrounding of overhead power lines and     associated infrastructure applies to DAs for new mixed use and medium density residential development containing 40 or more apartments and other substantial non-residential development.

Controls

 

i)          All overhead service cables, including power lines, telecommunications cables and associated infrastructure on the development site and in the street/s immediately adjacent to the development are to be placed underground in accordance with the requirements of the relevant power supply authority, at the applicant’s cost where:

-     the development comprises the erection of a new mixed use or medium density residential building containing 40 or more apartments or is a substantial non- residential development; and

-     there is at least one full span located immediately adjacent to the development, with no responsibility for other property connections.

 

ii)         A letter/ correspondence from the relevant power supplying authority confirming that the applicant has consulted and made prior arrangements with the authority to underground existing overhead power lines must be submitted with DA documentation.

 

iii)        If the applicant considers that the undergrounding of the power lines will not achieve the objectives set out in 1.1, the applicant must submit written and detailed justification with its DA documentation for consideration by Council.

 

Note:

For the purposes of clause 2(1), a ‘span’ refers to one section of overhead transmission lines connected by two power poles. It does not include cross spans (transmission lines that traverse across to the opposite side of the road).

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Ordinary Council                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP11/15

 

 

Subject:                  Report variation to Develpment Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 to 28 February, 2015

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 December 2014 and 31 January 2015 – three (3) were approved during this period, two (2) by delegated authority and one (1) by Planning Committee 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.

Clause 4.6 between 1 to 28 February, 2015

 

 

 

 


Clause 4.6 between 1 to 28 February, 2015

Attachment 1

 

 

SEPP 1 AND CLAUSE 4.6 REGISTER FROM 1 TO 28 FEBRUARY 2015

Council DA reference number

 

Lot  no.

DP no

Apt/

Unit No.

Street no

Street name

Suburb/ Town

Post code

Category of development

Environmental planning instrument

Zoning of land

Development standard to be varied

Justification of variation

Extent of variation

Concurring authority

DA determined

Approved by

DA/772/2014

 

39111

 

752015

 

 

166

 

Holmes Street

 

MAROUBRA

 

2035

1: Residential - Alterations & additions

 

RLEP 2012

 

R2 - Low Density Residential

 

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.5:1

 

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

 

FSR = 0.525:1 increased by 5% or 15.7m2

 

NSW DOPE

 

17-Feb-15

 

 

Del. Authority

 

DA/373/2014,

 

100

 

1171423

 

18

Randwick Street

 

RANDWICK

 

2031

1: Residential - Alterations & additions

 

RLEP 2012

 

R2 - Low Density Residential

 

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.

 

Existing Builing height is 11 and proposal for 11m or 15.8%.

 

NSW DOPE

 

10-Feb-15

 

 

 

PCM

 

DA/748/2014

 

D

 

925174

 

 

59

Robey Street

 

MAROUBRA

 

2035

1: Residential - Alterations & additions

 

RLEP 2012

 

R3 - Medium Density
 Residential

 

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

 

Consistent with the urban character of the locality and predominant subdivision pattern.

 

Lot 1 (fronting Robey Street) Lot size 327.96m2  - complies, and Lot 2 (fronting Ferguson Ave) Lot Size 300.67m2 or 8.49% (24.33m2)  shortfall

 

NSW DOPE

 

05-Mar-15

 

Del. Authority

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP12/15

 

 

Subject:                  Randwick Environment Park Draft Plan of Management Peer Review

Folder No:               F2010/00407

Author:                    Bronwyn Englaro, Senior Sustainability Officer      

 

Introduction

On 18 February 2015 Council received a final peer review report on the draft Plan of Management (PoM) for Randwick Environment Park from Mr Douglas Benson. This report (Attachment 1) provided twelve recommendations for the draft plan and was subject to a Councillor briefing which was held on 3 March 2015.

 

Background

On 25 February 2015 Council resolved (Matson/Shurey) to defer the consideration of the draft PoM for the Randwick Environment Park subject to a peer review of the draft Plan by a recognised environmental scientist, with the choice of the scientist to be worked out by the Mayor, three (3) ward Councillors and liaison with the Moverly Precinct Committee.

 

Following consultations with the ward Councillors on a suitable candidate in June 2014, the Mayor approved the selection of Mr Benson for the peer review of the draft PoM.

 

Expert Profile

Mr Benson is Plant Ecologist, Scientific Editor and Honorary Research Associate at the Royal Botanic Gardens. He has had over 40 years’ experience as a professional botanist and plant ecologist with the NSW Government, through employment at the Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney, and is currently an Honorary Research Associate. Some of his work is related to the Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub Endangered Ecological Community, which makes up a major component of the native vegetation at Randwick Environment Park

 

He has carried out scientific research, surveys and mapping of native vegetation in the Sydney area, as well as writing books communicating the importance of bushland and its management.

 

Scope of the Peer review

The scope of work included the following tasks:

§ Review and evaluate the draft PoM.

§ Provide comments and suggestions on the adequacy of the plan

§ Evaluate whether all relevant statutory requirements for the plan have been met

 

This review has involved:

§ Inspecting the Park with Council staff,

§ Meeting with environmental/planning staff to discuss issues of park and bushland management,

 

Chronology

§ In May 2014 consultations with the ward Councillors were held to discuss the expert selection

§ On 16 June 2014 the Mayor approved the selection of Mr Douglas Benson for the peer review of the Plan of Management

§ A brief for the review was issued on 14 August 2014

§ Mr Benson provided a response to project brief on 25 August 2014

§ On 10 November 2014 Mr Benson commenced work on the review

§ A draft Peer Review Report was provided to Council on 28 January 2015;

§ A final Peer Review Report was received from Dr Benson on 18 February 2015

 

Issues

 

The Peer Review report identified 12 recommendations which are discussed in some detail.

 

Amendment to the Vision Statement

 

Recommendation 1 : that the vision statement in the draft plan which currently reads, “The Randwick Environment Park offers unique environmental experiences, educational resources and informal recreational activities for the local and wider community”, be  amended to read “The Randwick Environment Park is an area of significant natural environments that will be maintained and enhanced, and offers unique environmental experiences, educational resources and informal recreational activities for the local and wider community” with the inclusion of the words in bold.

 

Response:  It is recommended that Council incorporate the additional wording recommended by Mr Benson into the Vision Statement of the draft plan.

 

Amendment to the Aim

 

Recommendation 2 : that the first aim of the draft PoM which reads “Define the purpose of the park for both natural heritage conservation and passive recreational uses”,  be deleted as the Randwick LEP zoning already defines the purpose of the Park for environment conservation.

 

Response: It is recommended that the first aim of the draft PoM should be retained as the purpose of this aim is to provide for heritage conservation in conjunction with passive recreation without diminishing underlying environmental values.

 

Management Zone Name Change

 

Recommendation 3: that the “Passive Recreation Area” within the Randwick Environment Park be renamed the “Passive Recreation - Environmental Interaction Management Zone”, to recognise its importance in connecting visitors with the natural environment.

 

Response: It is recommended that Council amend the zone name to “Passive Recreation Environmental Interaction Management Zone”.

 

Park Name

 

Recommendations 4 and 5: these recommendations seek to change the current name of the Randwick Environment Park, to “Randwick Bushland Environment Park” to reflect its Environment Conservation values and role.

 

Response: It is recommended that the existing name is well known and adequately reflects the values of the park. It is recommended the existing name be retained.

 

 

 

Plantings within the Passive Recreation Areas

 

Recommendations 6 and 7: these recommendations seek to introduce plantings from the Eastern Suburbs Banksia scrub community and Acacia terminalis subspecies terminalis vegetation into the Passive Recreation Areas of the Randwick Environment Park to provide bushland habitat connectivity and provide some islands and corridors of shrubby vegetation in these areas.

 

Response: Council to amend the draft PoM to incorporate provisions for planting with complementary Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub heath/scrub and Acacia terminalis subspecies terminalis in designated planting areas of the Passive Recreation areas of the Randwick Environment Park as shown in the Concept Plan (Attachment 3).

 

Signage

 

Recommendation 8: that signage is used as major media to enhance the visitor knowledge and appreciation of the Randwick Environment Park and its environmental significance.

 

Response: No action required as there is an existing high priority action in the draft PoM which, among other things, aims to “Develop a comprehensive signage strategy, including community input to the strategy”.

 

Connections with the Randwick Community Centre (RCC)

 

Recommendation 9: suggests improved signage for both the Randwick Environment Park and Randwick Community Centre to enhance connections between the two facilities.

 

Response: No action is required as this matter is already addressed in the draft PoM as a high priority.

 

Toilets

 

Recommendation 10: that the proposed construction of toilet facilities as indicated in the draft PoM is unnecessary and should be deleted. Visitors to the Randwick Environment Park should be encouraged (by appropriate signage) to use existing toilet facilities in the adjacent RCC. Any future action relating to the provision of toilets will be subject to future budget and community consultation as part of this process.

 

Response: The inclusion of toilet facilities within the draft PoM was in response to a Council resolution endorsed by Councillors at the Ordinary Council meeting on 13 December 2011. Accordingly, the draft PoM has an action providing for toilets in the Randwick Environment Park in the moderate term. It is recommended that this action be retained.

 

RCC Staff training

 

Recommendation 11: that Council recognises that the environmental work in the Randwick Environment Park needs to be carried out by trained and supported staff.

 

Response: This recommendation goes beyond the scope of the draft PoM review. However, it should be noted that Council has adequate recruitment, training and contractor engagement measures in place for bushland care within the Local Government Area. Accordingly, no action is required.

 

Resident Interaction with the Park

 

Recommendation 12: that Council provide interaction/ knowledge to the Randwick Environment Park users and local residents, and that Council publicise the valuable conservation work which it is doing.

 

Response: No action is required as the recommended actions are already identified in the draft PoM including a strategy for Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub interpretation and appreciation.

 

Mr Benson also identified the following draft PoM actions already included in the draft document that were supported and/or commended as part of the peer review report:

 

·      Retain existing fence around bushland areas as part of site management

·      Proposed interpretative signage strategy

·      Revegetate open space areas with local provenance indigenous species

·      Undertake wetland strategy to inform future management

·      Modify lookout (western wetland)  for improved usability and site integration

·      Relocate WIRES facility closer to the Randwick Community Centre fence line

·      Utilise existing concrete path along the western side of the Randwick Community Centre as part of loop trail

·      Investigate low impact new unsealed path on western side of wetland as part of loop trail

·      Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub demonstration sites near the Randwick Community Centre.

·      Proposed Weed fence to prevent weed seed migration downslope into valuable Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub  areas

·      Proposed installation of Gate for Asset Protection Zone Access.

 

Conclusion

The Peer Review has recommended a number of changes to the draft PoM as discussed at the Councillors briefing on 3 March 2015. In recognition of the relevant recommendations made in the Peer Review report, a number of changes have been included in the draft PoM document (as shown in the track changes made to the draft PoM shown in Attachment 4).

 

In summary, in response to the peer review report, the draft PoM has now be amended to reflect the following:

 

•      Amendment to vision statement to reflect the environmental significance of the site

•      Amendment to management zone name to Passive Recreation - Environmental Interaction Management Zone

·          Amendments to introduce plantings within Passive Recreation Areas to be taken from Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub ecological community and Acacia terminalis subspecies terminalis

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship to the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 10:     A Healthy Environment.

Direction 10c:           Land use planning and management enhances and protects biodiversity and natural heritage.

 

Financial impact statement

The majority of the works proposed in the draft PoM are subject to funding through existing maintenance budget.

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     endorse the Randwick Environment Park draft Plan of Management with relevant changes arising from recommendations made in the Peer Review Report; and

 

b)     agree that the Director City Planning may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors as required in finalising the Plan of Management.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Final signed draft REP PoM Peer Review Mr D Benson Feb 2015

Link to Attachment 1

2.

REP Draft PoM Peer Review Response to Recommendations Table

Link to Attachment 2

3.

A3 Concept Plan for REP draft PoM with proposed changes

Link to Attachment 3

4.

Draft final Plan of Management with proposed changes

Link to Attachment 4

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP13/15

 

 

Subject:                  Proposed Randwick Community Centre Plan of Management 

Folder No:               F2004/06764

Author:                    Teresa Mok, Manager Community Planning & Development      

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s endorsement to the making of the Plan of Management (PoM) for Randwick Community Centre.

 

At its November 26 2013 Ordinary Meeting, when the Council resolved to defer consideration of the draft PoM for the Randwick Environmental Park until after an on-site meeting is held for Councillors to meet with interested parties and residents to discuss the draft PoM of the Randwick Environmental Park, it also applied the same resolution to this draft PoM for Randwick Community Centre.

 

In response to its resolution, council officers held an onsite meeting at 6pm on Wednesday 5 February at the Randwick Environment Park. The site visit was attended by 26 residents, 4 staff, Councillors Roberts, Neilson and Shurey and was facilitated by Council’s specialist ESBS consultant Glenn Berrill from Thompson Berrill Landscape Design. 

 

The two reports relating to the making of the draft Randwick Community Centre PoM and the draft Randwick Environment Park POM were brought back to Council for its consideration at its meeting of 25 February 2014. At this meeting, the Council resolved to deferred the matter to the next Council meeting for a peer review of the Randwick Environment Park draft Plan of Management by a recognised environmental scientist, with the choice of the scientist to be worked out by the Mayor, three (3) ward Councillors and liaison with the Moverly Precinct Committee.

 

The Council also applied the same resolution to the draft PoM for the adjoining Randwick Community Centre site. 

 

The peer review of the Randwick Environment Park has since been completed by Mr Douglas Benson, a highly respected specialist plant ecology consultant.

 

It should be noted that the draft Randwick Community Centre POM was not included as part of the peer review process because the site was not defined as a natural area of high environmental values. 

 

Issues

 

The draft PoM for Randwick Community Centre (Attachment 1) has twice been put to Council for its endorsement, on 26 November 2013, and 25 February 2014.

 

At these same meetings, the Council considered a separate report on the draft PoM for Randwick Environment Park which adjoins the site of the Randwick Community Centre.  The two reports were put to the Council at the same time because they are managed by the Council, have shared boundaries and a common purpose of providing recreational opportunities to the general community. However, each of these draft PoMs covers issues that are distinct from each other.

The site occupied by the Randwick Community Centre and its surrounding out-buildings and open space does not possess environmental values of regional significance, unlike the adjoining Environmental Park site, for which a different draft PoM has been prepared.

 

In response to the Council’s resolution of 26 November 2013, a site meeting was held with local residents on 5 February 2014.  No issues relating to the draft PoM for the Community Centre site were raised or discussed.

 

In response to the Council’s resolution of 25 February 2014, a specialist consultant was commissioned to undertake a peer review on the Draft Randwick Environmental Park PoM.  This process, which did not involve the draft PoM for the Randwick Community Centre site, was carried out by ecologist consultant Mr Douglas Benson. 

 

Accordingly, it is now in order for the Council to consider the Randwick Community Centre Draft PoM, as described in Attachment 2- Copy of Director City Planning Report to Council Ordinary Meeting of 26 November 2013.  Attachment 3 contains a summary of key issues from public submissions received after the draft Plan’s 6 weeks exhibition period (in 9 July to 26 August 2013).  Attachment 4 contains the Report on the joint Public Hearing held on 29 August 2013 in relation to both the draft Plans of Management for Environment Park and the Randwick Community Centre.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction2A:      New and updated community facilities that are multi-purpose and in accessible locations.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The PoM has been prepared in-house, in consultation with the Strategic Planning and Sustainability Departments.  A small budget of $2,000 has been allocated in the budget to cover the costs of graphics and printing of the Plan.

 

Conclusion

 

The draft PoM for Randwick Community Centre provides clear guidelines, requirements and strategies for the utilization and management of the Centre.  Implementation of the plan will ensure that this valuable asset continues to be maintained to a high standard and retains its importance as a multi-functional community centre building and recreational space. 

 

The PoM is now proposed to be finalized after consideration of the community’ comments received during the public consultation period in 2013, following the on-site meeting held on 5 February 2014, which did not identify any issues of concern.

 

The peer review undertaken on the draft Environment Park PoM did not identify any adverse impacts on the wetland environment as a consequence of activities being conducted on the adjoining Randwick Community Centre site.  Recommendation 9 of Mr Benson’s report suggests that the connections between the Community Centre site and the Environment Park site be enhanced through improved signage, which is already provided for in both the draft PoMs.  

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     endorse the draft Randwick Community Centre Plan of Management; and

 

b)     agree that the Director City Planning may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors as required in finalising the Plan of Management.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Draft Plan of Management Randwick Community Centre

Link to Attachment 1

2.View

Director City Planning Report No.CP93/13 26 November 2013

 

3.View

Summary of key issues from public submissions received during exhibition period 9 July to 26 August 2013 

 

4.View

Report on joint Public Hearing held 29 August 2013 on Draft Plans of Management fo Environment Park and for Community Centre 

 

 

 

 


Director City Planning Report No.CP93/13 26 November 2013

Attachment 2

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP93/13

 

 

Subject:                  Randwick Community Centre Draft Final Plan of Management

Folder No:               F2004/06764

Author:                    Teresa Mok, Manager Community Planning & Development      

 


Introduction

 

On 25 June 2013 Council resolved as follows:

 

‘(Moore/Smith) that Council:

 

a)     endorse the attached draft Randwick Community Centre Plan of Management for public exhibition and a public hearing, to be held in conjunction with the Draft Plan of Management for the Randwick Environment Park which adjoins the subject site;

 

b)     Agree that the Director City Planning may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors as required in preparing the Plan of Management for public exhibition/presentation.’

 

The draft Plan was exhibited for approximately 6 weeks from 9 July 2013 to 26 August 2013.  As part of the public consultation process, council officers held two open days at the Centre to give residents and interested parties the opportunity to gather information about the draft Plan.  In accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act, 1993 (LG Act), the public hearing was held on 28th August 2013 at the Randwick Community Centre.

 

This report recommends Council adopt the Plan of Management for Randwick Community Centre, which has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the LG Act.

 

Background

 

The Centre is located at 21-29 Munda Street, Randwick. Currently, the vehicular entry point to the Centre is via a right of way extension of Munda Street. Although Munda Street is a gazetted road, the section leading to the Centre has yet to be constructed.  The community centre complex with its surrounding park has a site area of 1.424 hectares. The site is zoned RE1 Public Recreation under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP 2012). The Centre was constructed and dedicated to the Council by the Department of Defence as part of a major residential development undertaken on an excised portion of Randwick Barracks declared as surplus land.  Officially opened to the public in June 2006, the Centre has been operating for 7 years, providing a wide range of community activities on site

 

The Centre is divided into three main buildings.  Building 1 and 2 are leased to three community organisations – South Eastern Area Health Services (Annabel House), Randwick South Sydney Family Care, and SOS Pre-school. Building 3 provides office accommodation for the Council’s Sustainability and Environmental Unit and offers a variety of venues (e.g. hall, a meeting room, shaded outdoor playground, permaculture demonstration garden area, and a large grassed open space area) to support a range of community and environmental sustainability uses.

The Draft Plan of Management

The draft Plan recognises the role of the Centre in facilitating our residents’ cultural and community needs. It will provide a practical framework for council staff to manage and maintain the Centre for the benefit of our residents. The draft Plan aims to achieve the following objectives:

 

§ to assist the community in understanding the role of the Centre, and describe the facilities and amenities provided for the use and enjoyment of the City’s residents;

§ to meet the Council’s obligations under Chapter 6 of the LG Act in respect to public land management;

§ to enable the Council to renegotiate or enter into contracts, leases, licences and hire agreements for the Centre in relation to the provision of services and utilities; and

§ to provide for an effective program of asset management, maintenance and improvements to the Centre.

 

As required under the LG Act, the draft Plan contains a detailed description of the land and building, authorises the current and future uses of the Centre, specifies the scale and intensity of any permitted use/development and categorises the land as “general community use”.

 

The draft Plan covers a variety of key operational issues, including access, asset management, environmental sustainability, operational management, safety/security and waste management. Management strategies and performance measures have been developed in terms of these issues to:

 

§ maintain the asset condition of the building to acceptable industry standards;

§ promote the Centre’s role as a demonstration building for retrofit environmental products;

§ manage, coordinate and promote events/activities, and enhance social interaction with the community;

§ provide an accessible environment with clear signage, improving convenience for people with disabilities and secure emergency access; and

§ provide a safe environment for staff, visitors and all users of the Centre.

 

Consultation

 

The draft PoM was on exhibition for public comment for approximately 6 weeks from 9 July 2013 to 26 August 2013. The public exhibition and consultation process for the draft plan included: 

 

§ notices in the local newspaper and on Council’s website

§ exhibition of the draft at Council’s Administration Building and Bowen, Randwick and Malabar Libraries

§ direct notification to:

1.  adjoining residents and land owners;

2.  interest groups, e.g. community groups;

3.  precinct committees; and

4.  Chamber of Commerce.

 

§ 2 x community open days in conjunction with the Plan of Management for the Randwick Environment Park.

Submissions

A total of 54 submissions were received during the joint exhibition period with the draft Plan for Randwick Environment Park. Of this total, 5 submissions related to the Randwick Community Centre, while 49 were relevant to the Randwick Environment Park.

 

Key issues raised, that are relevant to the draft Plan for Randwick Community Centre, were:

 

1.  The need to amend the statement in the draft plan to clarify that vehicular access to the Centre is not via a public road, but via a ‘right-of-way” on Defence land; and to correct a reference in the plan about the future use of the adjoining land west of the Centre for housing as the future use is still under consideration by Defence Department.

2.  Provision of additional bbqs and picnic facilities in the large open space area adjacent to the Community Centre.

3.  Perception of under utilisation of the Centre, in that more infrastructure and activities should be provided such as basketball court, gym, and a range of recreational/leisure/hobby related classes.

4.  Perception that the fee are too high, which could prevent greater use of the Centre.

5.  Provision of public toilets outside the Centre for park users.

6.  Improve linkage between the Park and the Community Centre.

 

The Council’s response to the key issues raised is detailed in Attachment 3 – Summary of Key Issues from Public Submissions.  In terms of points 3 and 4 above, it is worth noting that in the last financial year (2012/13), the Centre took a total of 539 bookings, of which only 14 bookings paid a commercial rate for the use of the premises. During the day, the Centre, also serves as a sustainability education hub, hosting site visits for groups of local school children. These visits are not counted as ‘bookings’.

 

In terms of the perception that the hall rental fees are too high, the charge for hiring the hall with a seating capacity of over 200 people is $64 per hour (Monday – Friday to 5pm) and $92 per hour after 5pm, during weekends and public holidays.  There is also the option for not for profit organisations to rent half the hall (147 square metres) for half the full fees.  In determining the amount of fees to be charged for goods and services provided by the Council, the following factors had to taken into account:

 

·             The cost of providing the service

·             The importance of the service to the community

·             Prices fixed by the relevant industry body or bodies

·             Any factors specified in the Local Government regulations

·             Equity factors

·             User-pays principle

·             Financial objectives

·             Customer objectives

·             Resource use objectives

·             Goods and Services Tax (GST)

·             Market prices

·             Cross-subsidisation objectives

 

 

Public hearing

A public hearing under section 40A of the Local Government Act Council was held on Thursday 29 August at the Randwick Community Centre to categorise the community land for the first time, as a “community facility” under section 36I of the Act.

 

A report on the outcomes of the public hearing is provided as Attachment 2 of this report.  This report concluded that:

 

There have been no significant concerns raised with the draft PoM, but rather suggestions for additional activities and additional facilities.  Many of the activities suggested in submissions are already possible and are specifically nominated within the draft PoM.  Some of the works suggested also already exist, such as BBQ facilities.

 

It will be a matter for the Council to determine whether additional capital works, outlined above in Section 5.1.3 are included in the PoM. (Page 20)

 

These additional capital works refers to the provision of additional bbq and picnic facilities, a basketball court, toilets within the grounds of the Community Centre, and accessible outdoor tap for drinking water, improved linkage between the neighbouring Environment Park and the Community Centre premises.

 

Amendments

Following the public exhibition and consultation, a number of minor changes have been made to the PoM to address valid issues raised. These changes are summarised below:

 

1.  Rewording of a paragraph in 2.3 Site Context (Page 6) to emphasise the Community Centre and adjoining open space as focal point for leisure, recreation and education pursuits for residents in potential future neighbouring development.

2.  Including the accommodation of the sensory walking trails in the principles for the management of and use of the community centre. (Page 11).

3.  Expanding the vehicular access details to explain that: access to the centre is via Munda Street, a gazetted public road; Munda Street is yet to be extended past the community centre and, until it is constructed, vehicular access to the community centre is provided by a right of way extension to Munda Street (Page 11).

 

In relation to the additional capital works referred to in the public hearing report, the construction of outdoor toilets within the grounds of the Centre has commenced and will be completed before year end. The PoM has also indicated the provision of a walking and cycling trail connection between the Centre and the Environment Park.

 

In relation to the remaining capital works, it would be more practical for Council to consider, review, and (if appropriate) deliver these items, such as the provision of a basketball court, an outside tap for drinking water, and additional bbq and picnic facilities, via the Council’s 2014/15 annual capital works program.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2a:     New and updated community facilities that are multi purpose and in accessible locations.

 

 


Financial impact statement

 

The PoM has been prepared in-house, in consultation with the Strategic Planning and Sustainability Teams.  A small budget of $2,000 was allocated to cover the costs for exhibition, and finalisation/printing of the Plan.

 

Conclusion

 

The PoM provides clear guidelines, requirements and strategies for utilising and managing the Centre. The implementation of the PoM will ensure that this valuable asset continues to be maintained to a high standard and retains its importance as a vibrant and active space, to meet the cultural and community needs of our residents across the City.

 

The PoM is now proposed to be finalised after consideration of the community feedback received during the consultation period. This report recommends that the Council adopt the attached Plan of Management for Randwick Community Centre, as amended.

 


 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

a)     endorses the Draft Randwick Community Centre Plan of Management with the minor amendments listed in this report.

 

b)     agree that the Director City Planning may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors as required in finalising the Plan of Management

 


 

 


Summary of key issues from public submissions received during exhibition period 9 July to 26 August 2013

Attachment 3

 

 

ATTACHMENT 3

Summary of Key Issues from Public Submissions  relating to draft PoM Randwick Community Centre (exhibited for 6 weeks 9th July to 26th August 2013)

 

 

Key Issues

Council response

1

The need to amend the statement in the draft plan to clarify that vehicular access to the Centre is not via a public road, but via a ‘right-of-way” on Defence land; and to correct a reference in the plan about the future use of the adjoining land west of the Centre for housing as the future use is still under consideration by Defence Department.

The Draft PoM has been amended to explain that access to the centre is via Munda Street, a gazetted public road.  Also that Munda Street is yet to be extended past the community centre.  Until it is constructed, vehicular access to the community centre is provided by a right of way extension to Munda Street.

2

Provision of additional bbqs and picnic facilities in the open space area/playground

 

BBQ facilities already exist in the area near the permaculture garden.  However it is recommended that Council review the need for additional picnic facilities in the open space area of the centre, for possible inclusion in the Council’s 2014/15 capital works program

 

3

The need to address under utilisation of the Centre, in that more infrastructure and activities should be provided such as basketball court, gym, and a range of recreational/leisure/hobby related classes

 

The Centre is already well utilised.  In the 2012/13 financial year, the Centre took a total of 538 bookings, of which 14 were for commercial purposes. This figure does not take into account school children visiting the Centre’s sustainability education facility.  The Council has no plans to provide a second indoor gym, since it has recently built one at the Des Renford Centre. The Council makes available affordable facilities that can be rented out to the community for a variety of recreational pursuits, activities and classes.

4

Fees are too high, preventing greater use of the Centre

 

The charge for hiring the hall with a seating capacity of over 200 people is $64 per hour (Monday – Friday to 5pm) and $92 per hour after 5pm, during weekends and public holidays.  There is also the option for not for profit organisations to rent half the hall (147 sq metres) for half the full fees. The fees are set to ensure that the Council recoup the cost of maintaining the building and its surrounds.

5

Provision of public toilets outside the Centre for park users

 

The Council has commenced construction of public toilets on the grounds of the Community Centre.

6

Improve linkage between the Park and the Community Centre

 

The PoM has, as one of its principals for the management of and use of the community centre and open space to accommodate the sensory walking and cycling trails at its peripheries that are linked into the existing footpath and cycle way networks.

 


Report on joint Public Hearing held 29 August 2013 on draft Plans of Management fo Environment Park and for Community Centre

Attachment 4

 

 


 






















Ordinary Council                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP14/15

 

 

Subject:                  Cultural and Community Grant Program March 2015 Round Assessment Report

Folder No:               F2009/00182

Author:                    Warren Ambrose, Senior Social Planner      

 

Introduction

 

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

 

This report requests the allocation of funds from the Grants Program for the March 2015 Round. In September 2014 Council allocated funds of $40,316.30.  The March 2015 Round is the final funding round for the 2014/15 financial year and so funds of $64,718.00 are available for allocation.

 

Council has received a total of 17 applications seeking a total of $89.743.36 (in-kind and cash). The applications were assessed by an assessment panel comprising of Council staff, including Council’s Internal Auditor. Applications were assessed against the Cultural and Community Grants Guidelines.

 

One application has not provided a full End of Project Report which is a requirement of funding condition upon receipt of a previous grant. The application was therefore not eligible for assessment.

 

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

 

This report ultimately recommends twelve (12) applications, totaling $64,630.76, to receive funding under the current March 2015 Round. 

 

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

 

Issues

 

Cultural and Community Grants Program Background

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

 

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

       

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

 

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

 

March Round 2014/15 Assessment

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

 

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

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

·         Priority C: Does not meet the eligibility criteria.

 

Through this assessment process, a total of twelve (12) applications fully met the funding criteria and have been recommended to receive funding totalling $64,630.76 comprising of $38,550.00 in cash and $26,080.76 in-kind (fee waiver). The grant applicants and a brief description of their proposed projects recommended for funding are summarised below:

·         Coogee Island Challenge (Coogee Surf Life Savings Club.) In-kind funds to use Coogee Beach to hold an ocean swim.

·         Randwick Plaques Walking App (Dictionary of Sydney) Cash funds towards creating a ‘free’ walking mobile phone/tablet application to highlight the bicentennial plaques, historical highlights, and landmarks in Randwick.

·         NAIDOC Community BBQ and Fun Day (The Duffy’s and Lexo Koori Residents’ Group) Cash funds towards catering at their NAIDOC BBQ and Fun Day for the community; which will include painting activities, Aboriginal dancers and music.

·         Blak Market Cultural Performances (First Hand Solutions Aboriginal Corporation) Cash funds towards Aboriginal performers to perform at the monthly Blak Markets held at Bare Island, La Perouse.

·         Twilight Concert and Supper at Prince Henry (Holdsworth Community) In-kind funds to use Prince Henry Centre’s Cawood Room to hold a Christmas in July themed event for seniors, their carers, service providers and interested Randwick residents. Cash funds towards catering for the event.

·         Jarrah House Celebrate NAIDOC Week (Jarrah House) Cash funds towards an opening ceremony for NAIDOC Week including a BBQ lunch, drumbeat and Aboriginal dance/rhythm, cultural workshops, talks and cultural education.

·         Amateur Bodyboarding Competitions (Maroubra Bodyboarders) In-kind funds to use Maroubra Beach for seven (7) days to hold amateur body boarding competitions to develop skills for regional, state, national and international competitions.

·         MSA Surfing Contests (Maroubra Surfers Association) In-kind funds to use Maroubra Beach for eight (8) days for club contests and community building activities.

·         We will remember them: Coast Hospital trained nurses on WW1 active Service (Randwick and District Historical Society Inc.) In-kind funds to use Prince Henry Centre’s Cawood room to hold a morning tea to remember the contribution made by the nurses trained at the Coast Hospital and cared for soldiers who fought in WWI.

Cash funds towards the development and design of multimedia and exhibition material.

·         Randwick Art Society Annual Art Craft Exhibition (Randwick Art Society Inc.) In-kind funds to use Prince Henry Centre for the Society to hold the 6th Annual Art and Craft Exhibition, and to display a banner promoting the exhibition.

Cash funds towards the cost of: hanging and dismantling of the exhibition pieces, prize money, printing, advertising, catering and entertainment for the opening night.

·         Monthly Surfing Competitions (Southend Boardriders Maroubra) In-kind funds to use Maroubra Beach for eight (8) days to hold their monthly surfing competitions open to local residents of all ages to attend.

·         NAIDOC Week Celebrations (Souths Cares PBI Ltd) In-kind funds for the booking fee to use Hefron Park.

Cash fund towards catering; marquee, table and chair hire; a dance group; workshops; and basket weaving.

 

Funding acquittal requirements

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

 

The Council has received one application in this funding round from an organisation that had not provided an End of Project Report for previous funding in time for the grant assessment.

 

The grants assessment panel’s recommendation is to not fund this application as required by grants program guidelines. 

 

Applicants were reminded that funding applications will not be accepted by Council unless all end of project reporting and acquittal documentation for projects previously funded under the same grants program (Cultural and Community Grants Program) are satisfactorily completed and submitted.  

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  5:     Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

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

 

Conclusion

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program plays an important role in supporting cultural and community activities that contribute to the vibrancy of the City of Randwick. The Program plays an important part in fostering the Council’s vision of building a “sense of Community”.

 

The assessment panel was in a position to recommend twelve (12) applications to receive funding totalling $64,630.76 in cash and in-kind contribution under the current funding round. 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council approves Cultural and Community Program funds totalling $64,630.76 to be allocated to the recommended grant applicants listed in Attachment One.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Cultural and Community Grants Program March 2015 Attachment One

 

 

 

 


Cultural and Community Grants Program March 2015 Attachment One

Attachment 1

 

 

Attachment One

 

2014/2015 CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM

 

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING – March 2015 ASSESSMENT

 

No.

Organisation

Name of Project & Description

Amount

Requested

Rank

In-Kind Recommended

Cash

Recommended

In kind

Cash

2

Coogee Surf Life Saving Club

Coogee Island Challenge

In-kind funds to use Coogee Beach to hold an ocean swim.

$ 1,849.00

$ 0.00

B

$ 1,849.00

$ 0.00

4

Dictionary of Sydney

Randwick plaques walking app

Cash funds towards creating a ‘free’ walking mobile phone/tablet application to highlight the bicentennial plaques, historical highlights, and landmarks in Randwick.

$ 0.00

$  9,700.00

 

A

$ 0.00

$6,600.00

5

Duffys and Lexo Koori Residents’ Group (The)

NAIDOC Community BBQ and fun day

Cash funds towards catering at their NAIDOC BBQ and Fun Day for the community; which will include painting activities, Aboriginal dancers and music.

$0.00

$ 900.00

A

$ 0.00

$ 900.00

6

First Hand Solutions Aboriginal Corporation

Blak Market Cultural Performances

Cash funds towards Aboriginal performers to perform at the monthly Blak Markets held at Bare Island, La Perouse.

$ 0.00

$6,000.00

A

$ 0.00

$ 6,000.00

7

Holdsworth Community

Twilight Concert and Supper at Prince Henry

In-kind funds to use Prince Henry Centre’s Cawood Room to hold a Christmas in July themed event for seniors, their carers, service providers and interested Randwick residents.

Cash funds towards catering for the event.

 $ 2,135.76

 $ 3,650.00

B

 $ 2,135.76

 $ 3,300.00

9

Jarrah House

Jarrah House Celebrate NAIDOC Week

Cash funds towards an opening ceremony for NAIDOC Week including a BBQ lunch, drumbeat and Aboriginal dance/rhythm, cultural workshops, talks and cultural education.

$ 0.00

$ 5,500.00

A

$ 0.00

$ 5,000.00

10

Maroubra Bodyboarders

Amateur Bodyboarding Competitions

In-kind funds to use Maroubra Beach for seven (7) days to hold amateur body boarding competitions to develop skills for regional, state, national and international competitions.

$3,537.00

$ 0.00

B

$3,537.00

$ 0.00

11

Maroubra Surfers Association

MSA Surfing Contests

In-kind funds to use Maroubra Beach for eight (8) days for club contests and community building activities.

$ 4,042.40

$ 0.00

B

$ 4,042.40

$ 0.00

14

Randwick and District Historical Society Inc.

We will remember them: Coast Hospital trained nurses on WW1 active service

In-kind funds to use Prince Henry Centre’s Cawood room to hold a morning tea to remember the contribution made by the nurses trained at the Coast Hospital and cared for soldiers who fought in WWI.

Cash funds towards the development and design of multimedia and exhibition material.

 $ 700.00

 $ 7,800.00

B

$1,483.00

$6,500.00

15

Randwick Art Society Inc.

Randwick Art Society Annual Art Craft Exhibition

In-kind funds to use Prince Henry Centre for the Society to hold the 6th Annual Art and Craft Exhibition, and to display a banner promoting the exhibition.

Cash funds towards the cost of: hanging and dismantling of the exhibition pieces, prize money, printing, advertising, catering and entertainment for the opening night.

 $ 8,826.20

 $ 4,750.00

A

$ 8,826.20

$ 4,750.00

16

Southend Boardriders Maroubra

Monthly Surfing Competitions

In-kind funds to use Maroubra Beach for eight (8) days to hold their monthly surfing competitions open to local residents of all ages to attend.

$ 4,042.40

$ 0.00

B

$ 4,042.40

$ 0.00

17

Souths Cares PBI Ltd

NAIDOC Week Celebrations

In-kind funds for the booking fee to use Hefron Park.

Cash fund towards catering; marquee, table and chair hire; a dance group; workshops; and basket weaving.

 $ 165.00

 $ 10,163.00

A

 $ 165.00

 $ 5,000.00

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 $26,080.76  

$38,550.00

 

 

 

 

 

Total

$   64,630.76

 


2014/2015 CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM

 

APPLICATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING – MARCH 2015 ASSESSMENT

 

No.

Organisation

Name of Project

Amount Requested

Rank

Reason for not recommending - future action

In kind

Cash

1

Care Connect Ltd

Flavours from around the world 2015

Requested in-kind funds to use the Randwick Town Hall to hold an event targeting older persons and people with a disability and their carers from CALD backgrounds living in Randwick. Requested cash funds food, entertainment, and transport.

$ 915.20

$ 3,100.00

C

Not able to assess the application because Council didn’t receive End of Project report for previous funding before the Cultural and Community Grant Program Assessment Committee convened 26 February 2015.

3

Coogee Surf Life Saving Club

Coogee Carnival

Requested in-kind funds to use the Coogee Beach for an ocean swim 7 February 2015 run by the Club.

$   1,849.00

 

$ 0.00

C

Not assessed because the event was held before the closing date (16 February 2015) of Grant’s March 2015 round.

8

Indonesian Welfare Association Inc.

Participate and connect to a healthy life

Requested in-kind funds for the use of the Maroubra Senior Citizens Centre for their weekly meetings

Requested cash funds to hire a bus for an excursion, and a physical activity instructor for exercise classes.

 $ 3,500.00

 $  1,925.00

C

The application is more suited to the Community Partnerships Funding Program. The Indonesian Welfare Association will be invited to lodge a Community Partnerships Funding Program application in the 2015 Round which is currently open. 

12

North Maroubra Surf Riders - North Maroubra Surf Riders

North Maroubra Surf Riders

Request in-kind funds to use of Maroubra Beach for club contests and community building activities.

 $ 4,042.40

 $ 0.00  

C

The applicant is not eligible for funding because is not incorporated and has requested funds exceeding $1,000.

13

Raiders Sports Club Inc. (UNSW Raiders)

Purchase of safety equipment for youth Gridiron. 

Requested cash funds to purchase 50 sets of safety equipment for youth Gridiron.

$ 0.00

$ 2,500.00

C

Not eligible because event is to be held outside Randwick LGA and the project is for equipment only which is outside the Grant Guidelines.

 

 

Total

 $10,306.60

 $7,525.00

 

 

 

 

Total

$ 17,831.60

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM5/15

 

 

Subject:                  Development of a community pride campaign

Folder No:               F2004/06281

Author:                    Joshua Hay, Communications Manager     

 

Introduction

 

On 28 October 2014, Council resolved that:

 

1.        Council supports, in principle, the development of a local community pride campaign; and

 

2.        Council staff bring a report back to Council on concepts and how this campaign may be developed

 

This report responds to this resolution.

 

Issues

 

Prior to this resolution Council had earlier  endorsed a project that promoted a similar theme along the lines of being a proud resident of Randwick City. This project has now evolved into a trial community pride campaign called I Am Local.

 

I Am Local aims to celebrate living, working and studying in Randwick City. It celebrates Randwick’s diversity and the everyday residents who make Randwick City a cohesive community.

 

The concept behind I Am Local is to use Randwick Council’s 151 street banner poles to celebrate our everyday heroes, who are happy to publicly declare they are proud to be associated with Randwick City by having their photos up in banners.

 

In December 2014, Council called for expressions of interest from those residents, workers and students interested in taking part in the campaign. People were encouraged to register on www.yoursayrandwick.com.au/iamlocal. This project was coordinated by the Community Project Office (Multicultural and Youth).

 

In February 2015 a number of photographic sessions were held were registered participants could attend and have their portrait taken for consideration for inclusion on a street banner.

 

In late February 2015 an independent committee met to review the 190 photographs and to choose 151 portraits to fly on street banners. The Committee consisted of three resident representatives, Councillor Lindsay Shurey, and Council’s Manager Communication.

 

The 151 chosen portraits will be printed on 4m x 1.2m street banners and flown on street banner poles located in Clovelly, Coogee, Randwick, Kensington, Kingsford, Maroubra and Matraville.

 

The banners will fly from 26 April 2015 to 7 June 2015.

 

Participants will have to locate their ‘face’ which will be randomly placed on one of the 151 banner poles. Information about each participant will also be available on Council’s website.

 

Once the banners are removed they will be gifted to each of the participants to keep as a momento. It is also considered appropriate that Council consider holding a small reception and invite the participants to attend as a thank you and to receive their banner.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  2. A vibrant and diverse community

Direction:  2f. Our cultural diversity is appreciated and respected

 

Financial impact statement

 

Costs for the I Am Local campaign have already been allocated in the 2014-15 Budget. It is proposed that an additional amount of $3,000 be allocated from the contingency fund to host a small reception for I Am Local participants and family and friends.

 

Conclusion

 

I Am Local celebrates living, working and studying in Randwick City. It celebrates the diversity of people within Randwick City and helps develop a sense of pride and ownership of place. It is hoped that campaign will help build a sense of community and community pride by engaging the thousands of family, friends and extended network of those 151 everyday residents appearing on the banners. I Am Local is a powerful and expressive way for residents, students and the workforce to demonstrate their sense of belonging and association with Randwick City.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

1.  note the development of the trial community pride campaign I Am Local

2.  host a small reception for the 151 participants

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

DCP0164 I am local  Digital Mockup

 

 

 

 


DCP0164 I am local  Digital Mockup

Attachment 1

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF8/15

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - February 2015

Folder No:               F2015/06527

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 – February 2015” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of February 2015. All investments have been made in accordance with the Act, Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Investment Commentary

 

The size of the investment portfolio may vary significantly from month to month as a result of cash flows for the period. Cash outflows (expenditure) are typically relatively stable from one month to another. Cash inflows (income) are cyclical and are largely dependent on the rates instalment due dates and the timing of grant payments including receipts of the Financial Assistance Grants.

 

Expenditure during the period was incurred for capital works, payroll and miscellaneous expenses. Main income sources were rates income, grants and miscellaneous fees and charges.

 

The investment portfolio increased by $4.286 million during February 2015. The increase is representative of a positive cash flow for the month reflecting the net effect of revenue receipts offset by capital works expenditure and other operational payments.

 

The graph below illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from February 2012 to February 2015. 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 February 2015.

 

 

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 AusBond Bank Bill Index and the official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate for the period February 2012 to February 2015.

 

 

Investment performance for the financial year to date is above the industry benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index with an average return after fees of 3.77% compared with the benchmark index of 2.84%.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate was reduced to a 60 year low of 2.25% at the February meeting. Money markets are factoring in at least one more cut later this year.

 

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%

3%

97%

AA

100%

32%

68%

A

75%

65%

10%

 

 

 

 

 

The graph below shows the actual percentage of funds held by Individual Institutions V the Maximum Limits allowable under Council policy as at 28 February 2015.

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 $16.115 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 $2 thousand as at the end of February.

 

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 AusBond 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 28 February 2015 amounted to $1,632,144.77.

 

Certification – Responsible Accounting Officer

 

I hereby certify that all investments as at 28 February 2015 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 28 February 2015 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Recommendation

 

That the investment report for February 2015 be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF9/15

 

 

Subject:                  Mayoral Aviation Council - 2015 Conference

Folder No:               F2004/07899

Author:                    Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

The 33rd Annual Conference of the Australian Mayoral Aviation Council (AMAC) will be held in Melbourne from 6 to 8 May 2015.

 

Issues

 

Council has been a member of the AMAC since August 2008. The decision to become a member of AMAC was on the basis that it is the most appropriate forum in which Council can have its say on issues of major regional concern associated with the Sydney international airport.

 

Through this body, Council will continue to challenge the Government’s plans to greatly expand the Airport’s operating capacity, as well as the suitability of retail and commercial development proposals for the Airport site and the potential impacts this form of development will have on the local area and the wider Sydney region.

 

The Australian Mayoral Aviation Council was initiated through consensus by a number of local authorities in December 1982. Membership is open to the Mayor (or an appropriate nominee) of local authorities throughout Australia affected, or potentially affected, by airport operations or aircraft noise.

 

The AMAC convenes a conference on an annual basis to provide delegates with the opportunity to meet and discuss issues, to hear speakers on a wide variety of subjects and to determine the future of the organisation through the forum of an Annual General Meeting.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability.

Direction 2c:     Strong partnerships between Council, community groups and government agencies in order to champion our community’s needs to other service providers and government agencies to advocate on our community’s behalf.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of attending this conference has been allowed for in the 2014-15 budget.

 

Conclusion

 

Given Council’s membership of the AMAC and the impact of the Sydney international airport on the Randwick City Council area, it is recommended that the Mayor and General Manager be authorised to attend the 2015 AMAC conference.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Mayor be authorised to attend the 33rd Annual Conference of the Australian Mayoral Aviation Council to be held in Melbourne from 6 to 8 May 2015.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF10/15

 

 

Subject:                  2015 National General Assembly of Local Government

Folder No:               F2004/07432

Author:                    Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

The 2015 National General Assembly (NGA) of Local Government will be held at the National Convention Centre in Canberra from 14-17 June.  The NGA is the principal conference of the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) and the theme of this year’s conference is ‘Closest to the Community: Local Government in the Federation’.  

 

This year’s theme reflects current issues being debated nationally and priority issues facing Local Government.

 

Issues

 

The President of the ALGA has written to Councils indicating that “the NGA is your opportunity to contribute to the development of national local government policy and receive updates on the major policy issues facing local government nationally.”

 

The ALGA is calling for motions for the 2015 NGA. To be eligible for inclusion in the NGA Business Papers, motions must follow the following principles:

 

1.     fall under the NGA theme

2.     be relevant to the work of local government nationally; and

3.     Complement or build on the policies of state and territory local government associations.

 

A Discussion Paper has been prepared to assist councils to identify motions that address the theme of the NGA – see attached. Motions are required to be submitted no later than 17 April 2015. All motions, however, are required to be endorsed by Council prior to submission. This means that proposed motions for Randwick City Council will need to be submitted to the relevant April Committee Meeting, in order to make the 17 April deadline.

 

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 and operational activities.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Councillors’ attendance at conferences has been allowed for in the 2014-15 budget.

 

 

Conclusion

 

This is an important conference for Local Government throughout Australia as it is the only conference where the States come together to discuss Local Government specific issues.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     any Councillors interested in attending 2015 National General Assembly of Local Government advise the General Manager as soon as possible for registration purposes.

 

b)     any proposed motions for the conference be submitted to the General Manager as soon as possible for inclusion on the agenda of the relevant April Committee Meeting for Council endorsement.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

National General Assembly of Local Government - call for motions/discussion paper

 

 

 

 


National General Assembly of Local Government - call for motions/discussion paper

Attachment 1

 

 














Ordinary Council                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF11/15

 

 

Subject:                  2015 Asia Pacific Cities Summit and Mayor's Forum

Folder No:               F2005/00646

Author:                    Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

The 2015 Asia Pacific Cities Summit and Mayor’s Forum will be held in Brisbane from 5-8 July 2015.

 

Issues

 

The Asia Pacific Cities Summit and Mayor’s Forum “is where the world meets urban leaders of business and government from across the Asia Pacific.” The overarching program theme of this global gathering is ‘business and leadership in the Asia Pacific’.

 

International government and industry experts will address the critical issues affecting modern cities including the following program themes:

 

-       Cultivating cities of talent, creativity and innovation

-       The science and technology behind cities

-       Developing cities and smart communities

-       Clean, green, accessible and inclusive cities.

 

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 and operational activities.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Councillors’ attendance at conferences will be allowed for in the 2015-16 budget.

 

Conclusion

 

In the current climate of change in NSW Local Government, it is important to keep abreast of international trends and best practice initiatives. This Forum will address the critical issues affecting modern cities and will be attended by Mayors from across the Asia Pacific.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Mayor be authorised to attend the 2015 Asia Pacific Cities Summit and Mayor’s Forum to be held in Brisbane from 5-8 July 2015.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM11/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Proposing a new community volunteer program "the casserole club"

Folder No:               F2004/06275

Submitted by:         Councillor D'Souza, South Ward      

 

 

Given the success of the Victorian based community volunteering program called 'The Casserole Club' which connects people who would like to share extra portions of home-cooked food with older neighbours who might not be able to cook for themselves, that Council calls for a report on the feasibility and costs associated with the introducing of a similar styled initiative to help connect our lonely hungry residents with their neighbours and help foster connections between generations, tackle social isolation and offer flexible volunteering opportunities for our residents.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM12/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Business Rates Relief during CSELR Construction

Folder No:               F2004/08175

Submitted by:         Councillor Moore, West Ward     

 

That Council, in acknowledging the potential disruption to trade, custom and good-will businesses are likely to face during the CSELR construction phase and already identified a need to develop Business Continuity Plans targeted at supporting the Town Centres immediately impacted;

 

a)     investigate the feasibility to provide rate relief for local business in Kensington, Kingsford and Randwick directly affected by the construction activities;

 

b)     give consideration for State Government contributions required of the CSELR project; and

 

c)     report the findings and recommendations as just one measure of potential mitigations as part the Business Continuity Plans.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM13/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos -  Australian Organ Donor Registry

Folder No:               F2012/00260

Submitted by:         Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward      

 

 

That Council through social media and other means of communication encourage Randwick City residents to sign up to the Australian Organ Donor Registry.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       24 March 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM14/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Obtaining legal advice on using section 18 of the Noxious Weeds Act with reference to the Botany Cemetery Trust

Folder No:               F2005/00756

Submitted by:         Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council seeks legal advice on the possibility of using section 18 of the Noxious Weeds Act to require the Botany Cemetery Trust to control noxious weeds on lot 1079 of the Chinese Market Gardens site.