Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 28 April 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 1300 722 542

Fax: 02 9319 1510

 council@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 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, 28 April 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 March 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.

 

CP15/15    37 Park Street, Clovelly (DA/819/2014)................................. 1

CP16/15    352 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/674/2014).......................... 29

 

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

 

CP17/15    Report variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 to 31 March 2015............................................... 49

CP18/15    Affordable Housing Dwelling at Lot 126 SP 90266, 26 Harvey Street Little Bay - Classification of land under the Local Government Act 1993......................................................... 53

General Manager's Reports

GM6/15     Continuation of Community Partnership with Randwick District Rugby Football Club in 2015 & Request for Waiving of Banner Fees.................................................................................. 57

GM7/15     Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan and Budget 2015-16..................................................................................... 61

Director City Services Report

CS5/15     Randwick City Sporting Walk of Fame.................................. 67

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF12/15   Access to Council information (under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009................................... 69

GF13/15   Investment Report - March 2015......................................... 77  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM15/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - Access to Centennial Park for PSSA (Primary Schools Sports Association) ......................... 85

NM16/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Proposing  a series of moonlight cinema screenings ............................................. 87

NM17/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Parking demands generated by Boarding Houses............................................ 89

NM18/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Light Rail Businesses - Proposed Concession on utility bills...................................... 91

NM19/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Kingsford & Kensington Town Centres - Business Survey.......................................... 93

NM20/15   Notice of Motion from C'Douza - Council Policy on Drugs in Sport........................................................................................ 95

NM21/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Assessing support for a Resident Preferred Parking Scheme in Nelson Street, Randwick......................................................................................... 97

NM22/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Application of Tree Management Process under Sydney Light Rail Project Development Agreement.................................................... 99  

 

Closed Session (record of voting required)

 

GM8/15     Tender T2015-06 Mailbox Distribution Service

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

 

Closed Session (record of voting NOT required)

 

GF14/15   Ongoing Engagement of Niche Suppliers

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

 

GF15/15   Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan and Budget 2015-16: Confidential Fees and Charges

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                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP15/15

 

 

Subject:                  37 Park Street, Clovelly (DA/819/2014)

Folder No:               DA/819/2014

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                   Demolition of existing structures and erection of a 2 storey dwelling house and pool

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               ABC Planning Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Mr D W Duckworth &  Mr N L Duckworth

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for consideration by the call up of Councillors Neilson, Shurey, Bowen and Matson.

 


Proposal

 

Demolition of existing structures and erection of a 2 storey dwelling house and pool.

Note: It is noted that the basement level is defined as a storey based on the definition under the RLEP 2012 which requires a basements floor level above (ground level) to be no more than 1m above ground level (existing). As the ground level is greater than 1m above ground level (existing), this area is therefore defined and referred to as a lower ground floor level and is subject to the applicable side setback controls for ground level structures.

 

Amended plans:

 

Amended plans received by Council on 17 February 2015 indicate the following modifications:

 

·      Increased rear setback of upper level from 8m to 10m

·      Increased southern side setback for rear half of development from 900mm to 1200mm

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Park Street between Park Lane to the north and Surfside Avenue to the South in Clovelly. The subject site is occupied by a dilapidated single dwelling.  The site has a frontage width of 9.145m, a side boundary depths of35.795m and 35.9m and has an overall site area of 327.8m².  Neighbouring the property to the north is a residential flat building containing four apartments, to the south is a part two part three storey dwelling with parking garage off the rear lane (Campbell Lane). The surrounding area is low and medium density residential in character and consists predominantly of dwellings and some residential flat buildings. An aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area is provided on the page 1 of this report. A street view photo of the subject site and adjoining developments is shown further below.

 

Subject Site


Submissions

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

 

33 Park Street

Issue

Comment

The proposed rear setback is less than the majority of rear setbacks for other buildings along this side of Park Street and will result in adverse impacts relating to overshadowing and privacy impacts.

See key issues sections relating to rear setbacks, privacy and overshadowing. In general, the proposed rear setback as amended has been increased to 10m and is considered to satisfy the DCP controls. Whilst the rear setback is less than that of the majority of buildings in the street, it is considered appropriate having regard to the objectives under the DCP for privacy, solar access and overshadowing.

The proposed development is effectively a three storey development as opposed to a two storey development.

 

The proposed development is assessed as a three storey development at the front half of the development whereby the applicable side setbacks under the DCP have been applied.

Solar access and overshadowing due to the overall height, bulk, rear setback and location of the proposed development.

The proposed development will not result in less than three hours of solar access to their rear yard.

Having regard to the other matters such as height, bulk and scale, rear setback these matters have been assessed against the relevant controls and associated objectives and considered to be satisfactory.

Privacy impact from proposed balcony and rear terrace

The proposed ground level terrace is sited 3800mm from the southern side boundary and further separated from the subject site by the width of the neighbouring site in between which is considered adequate separation for the purposes of privacy protection from the rear terrace.

 

The proposed balcony is 2300mm from the southern side boundary and also separated by the neighbouring site to the south. The verticality of the balcony provides further separation from the objector’s site.

 

See key issues section relating to privacy of neighbouring properties.

Loss of views

See key issues section relating to rear setbacks and view sharing assessment. The proposed development does not result in the loss of high value views from the objector’s property.

Ask that council view our property and neighbouring properties before a decision is made

A site visit has been conducted and where required other inspections have been conducted in other properties. An inspection at No. 33 Park Street was not required as an appreciation of the impact was gained from the site visit and that of the immediately southern neighbour’s property at No. 35 Park Street.

Like the measurements and levels checked for accuracy

The survey submitted with the application is drawn to AHD and therefore considered to be an accurate representation of the levels on site and therefore the proposed development. It is further noted that height poles erected on site have been installed accurately and verified by a surveyor.

 

35 Park Street

Issue

Comment

A large building in close proximity to the southern side boundary will result in considerable overshadowing and loss of natural light to north facing living room windows and open spaces.

See key issues section under Solar access and overshadowing. It is noted that the overshadowing is largely unavoidable and not a direct result of any excessive non-compliance with the DCP controls or RLEP standards. A side setback of between 900mm and 1200mm is provided from the southern side boundary which will ensure adequate access to natural light. The proposed development will result in loss of solar access to the rear deck which is located a substantial distance from the rear boundary.

The side setback and height of the building at the rear is excessive and results in privacy impacts.

The rear part of the development is 1200mm from the southern side boundary which is greater than the 900mm minimum DCP control. Whilst the wall height is greater at the rear most section of the site, it is a consequence of the inordinate drop in ground level in this part of the site. With an interpolated ground level from north to south and from east to west there would be a gradual fall in land across the site and  the proposed development would present a wall that is below the allowable 8m maximum under the DCP at the low end of an interpolated site.

The west corner closest to my house appears closer than 900mm and will result in significant overshadowing and complete loss of sun from north throughout the day.

The front part of the 2nd storey is setback 900mm from the southern side boundary and does not meet with the 1500mm minimum required under the DCP. Despite the encroachment, it is not considered that even with a compliant development that this would result in any appreciable benefits of solar access to the neighbour’s northern elevation which is in large part due to the configuration of the site on this east-west axis. In this respect, the degree to which the development at this part of the site exceeds the 8m maximum wall height control is considered to be relatively minor.

Privacy from windows: WG13, WG14, WG15 ( south facing stairwell windows) should be obscure glazing

These windows are directly opposite the neighbours habitable room windows and therefore are conditioned to be obscurely glazed

Privacy impact from windows:

·      WG11 & W12 (south facing ground level living room window)

 

 

 

 

 

 

·      W115 & W116 (South facing upstairs bedroom windows) should be obscure glazing

These windows will have an outlook onto a transient area that connects the rear deck closest to the neighbours living area to the lower level terrace over garage and not worthy of protection. See also key issues section of this report addressing visual privacy impacts.

 

These windows service a low use room and are not considered an area which will result in any significant adverse privacy impacts on the neighbouring property’s private open space or habitable room windows. Therefore, additional treatment for the purposes of privacy protection is not required.

The proposed trees alongside our garage may impact on the efficient functioning of our drain cells and pipes

A condition is included requiring details of landscaping surrounding the rear and side boundaries to be submitted to Council for approval with the aim of ensuring the protection of views and minimising overshadowing. IN relation to the ag-line on the neighbour’s site it is not considered that this is a relevant matter for consideration.

 

39 Park Street

Issue

Comment

Unacceptable loss of views

See key issues section relating to rear setbacks and view sharing assessment

Information submitted with the DA fails to include an adequate analysis and evaluation of the design in terms of its impact (view sharing) on the apartments within the property at 39 Park Street.

Access was provided to the rear upper level apartment directly adjacent to the proposed development. Height poles were installed on site and an assessment carried out against the Randwick Development Control Plan for view sharing and the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle. See key issues section relating to rear setback and view sharing assessment.

The DA does not include sufficient details to determine what if any fencing treatment is proposed along the common boundary between 37 & 39 Park Street.

A dividing fence would be subject to the exempt and complying development provisions of the SEPP and if it does not satisfy the relevant criteria a separate DA will be required. The ground level generally follows the natural ground level of the adjoining site. The dividing fence is also ultimately a matter between the respective neighbours under the Dividing Fences Act, after any necessary development approvals have been issued.

Unacceptable increase in height compared to existing ground levels and resultant loss of privacy and views. The ground level 39.04 is maintained to the rear and extends much further to the rear than the adjoining.

See key issues section under External wall height. The ground level steps down to the rear from 39.04 to 37.56 (which is only 12cm higher than the rear yard level of the neighbour’s yard level 37.44). The proposal therefore steps down with the natural (interpolated) fall of land from front to rear.

It is noted that the proposed ground level terrace contains a semi open wall along its northern side which extends further to the rear and will impact on views obtained from the neighbour’s rear yard. In order to limit the impact on views from the neighbour’s ground level a condition is included requiring deletion of the northern wall and planter along the rear terrace and replaced with clear balustrade.

See also key issues section under rear setbacks and assessment of view sharing.

Loss of value

Whilst the proposed development will result in the loss of views it is not considered that the loss of views is unreasonable as assessed under the key issues section of this report relating to rear setbacks.

105 Park Street

Issue

Comment

The proposed development is overdeveloped for the site and surrounds

The proposed development satisfies the relevant controls relating to site coverage, maximum height and floor space ratio which are key indicators for the appropriate development of a site.

The proposed rear setback inappropriately uses the rear setback of a large block of flats, it causes significant overshadowing and may set a precedent for the rear setback of other developments and therefore impacts from developments along this side of Park Street.

The proposed rear setback as amended has been increased to 10m and is considered to satisfy the DCP controls. Whilst the rear setback is less than that of the majority of buildings in the street, it is considered appropriate having regard to the objectives under the DCP for privacy, solar access, overshadowing and views.

 

See key issues section under rear setbacks

Question the land to building ratio as per regulations

The Floor space ratio of the original proposal exceeded the LEP maximum permissible for the site. The applicant has since amended their application reducing the floor area so that it is compliant.

Balconies and windows north facing create privacy issues for my house and other houses along boundary street.

The proposed windows and balcony are at least 18m from the rear boundary of properties along Boundary Street which is considered to be adequate separation for the purposes of privacy. Notwithstanding, it is noted that the balconies and terraces at the rear of dwellings along this side of boundary Street overlook the rear yards of properties along this side of Park Street and the wider area, which is largely a consequence of the topography of the site. Requiring additional privacy measures than those provided to the proposed development is not considered necessary given these conditions and the potential for the loss of views which may be at the expense of only a minor improvement to privacy.

I would appreciate feedback on these concerns

A site visit was conducted and some feedback was given having regard to the DCP guidelines for privacy and Land and Environment Court principles for view sharing.

 

107 Park Street

Issue

Comment

Encroaching rear setback beyond the two adjoining dwellings resulting in overshadowing, view loss and general feeling of overcrowding.

Noted, however it is considered an acceptable outcome. See key issues section under rear setbacks

Should the proposal be approved it may set a precedent for neighbouring properties to be overdeveloped.

Each application is assessed on merit and the potential for view loss from this development has been assessed accordingly.

Questions the land to building ratio.

Noted, the proposed development as amended complies with the FSR standard under the RLEP 2012

Concern with privacy impact from north facing windows and balconies.

The proposed development is over 18m from the rear boundary of the objector’s property which is considered to be sufficient separation for the purposes of privacy protection. Noted also see key issues section relating to visual privacy protection.

 

Key Issues

 

External wall height

The proposed wall height exceeds the 8m maximum wall height along the majority of the proposed development except for the rear northern elevation which is within the allowable maximum. The main parts of the development that exceed the 8m maximum wall height control for sloping sites include:

 

·             Front elevation

·             Northern side elevation (higher side of the site) and

·             Southern side elevation (lower side of the site)

 

An assessment of these two parts of the development is carried out against the objectives for wall heights under the DCP which read as follows:

 

1.  To ensure development height establishes a suitable scale to the street and contributes to its character.

2.  To ensure development height does not cause unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy and visual amenity.

3.  To ensure the form and massing of development respect the topography of the site.

4.  To ensure development height establishes a suitable scale to the street and contributes to its character.

 

Front elevation

 

The main aspect of the proposed development relating to this objective is the front elevation which is located on the high side of the site (running down from north to south or left to right as shown in the photo below).

Street view of subject site in middle (behind Palm tree) and adjoining properties to the north (at left – 39 Park Avenue – a residential flat building) and to the south (at right – 35 Park Street – a part two part three part four storey dwelling)

 

The proposed development at the front has a wall height that varies between 7.83m and 8.56m from the higher northern side of the site to the lower southern side of the site. The proposed wall heights are largely a consequence of accommodating parking at the front of the site within a lower ground floor level (identified as a basement on the submitted documentation). The provision of parking at the front is considered an appropriate response to the site conditions as parking is not able to be provided at the rear of the site due to the rear of the site abutting a set of public pedestrian stairs thus restricting access from Campbell Lane, which is the main location of parking structures for other properties along this side of Park Street (see photo below).

Photo showing the rear stairs that lead from Park Lane to the north to Campbell Lane. Subject site is identified by the red line and southern neighbour’s garage with terrace above (beige render).

 

Notwithstanding, on balance the degree to which the front of the proposed development exceeds the maximum wall height control is considered relatively minor given that the two adjoining developments are older types of developments with floor to ceiling heights that are relatively low compared to the 2.7m minimum control required under the DCP. In addition, the proposed development in terms of its mass uses of a mix of materials, across its front elevation ensures good levels of articulation and visual interest. As a consequence, the proposed development presents a suitable scale to the street that will contribute to the streetscape character as is exhibited in other recent developments in the surrounding area.

 

Figure 1: Front elevation of proposed development: Showing a superimposed hipped roof section over the proposed flat roof.

 

1.  To ensure development height does not cause unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy and visual amenity.

 

The main parts of the proposed development requiring an assessment against this objective include the wall heights along the northern and southern side elevations.

 

Northern elevation:

The proposed development along the northern elevation has a wall height that varies between 7.83m at the front to less than 7m at the rear. As indicated earlier, the front part of the northern elevation is previously assessed as being an acceptable scale having regard to the site conditions and its presentation within the streetscape. In relation to the remaining parts of the northern elevation, the proposal steps down from front to rear where the proposed development exhibits a complying wall height. The potential for impacts on the neighbouring property at No. 39 Park Street largely relate to view loss, privacy and visual amenity.

 

In relation to view loss the external wall height is not directly responsible for the loss of views from the northern neighbour’s rear first floor flat at No. 39 Park Avenue. The building design element of most relevance to the retention of views from these neighbours flat is the developments rear setback which is discussed in a part of this section further below. 

 

In relation to visual amenity, the proposed development contains complying side setbacks from the northern side boundary shared with the residential flat building and is well articulated that it will not present an obtrusive element when viewed from within these flats.

 

In relation to visual privacy, the proposed development contains windows and openings that are suitably screened or have suitable sill heights to ensure no unreasonable overlooking into habitable rooms of the flats opposite. In relation to overlooking of rear yard areas, the proposed ground level deck and balcony will have an outlook into their rear yards of neighbouring properties; however the level of overlooking is an acceptable outcome as dwellings along this side of Park Street and within the wider area mostly overlook each other’s rear yard areas due to:

 

·      the site topography which falls from north to south and

·      There exists a greater priority for obtaining expansive views as opposed to the protection of privacy.

 

It is also noted that the upper level balcony is attached to a low use room which lessens the degree to which overlooking would occur.

 

Southern elevation:

The proposed external wall height of the southern elevation varies between 8.56m at the front up to a height of 9.11m at the rear exceeding the 8m maximum permitted under the DCP for sloping sites. For the purposes of clarity the southern elevation is assessed in two parts due to the front part defined as a three storey structure and the rear part defined as a two storey structure.

 

Front part of the southern elevation

 

This part of the development will satisfy this objective and will not result in any unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy and visual amenity for the following reasons:

·       Overshadowing to the northern neighbours northern elevation is unavoidable due to site conditions indicated earlier and further the proposed development maintains complying levels of solar access to the roof of the southern neighbours dwelling at No. 35 Park Street. Any requirement for a greater side setback would not result in any appreciable benefits of solar access to this neighbour’s northern elevation.

 

·       The front part of this southern elevation does not result in any unreasonable loss of views from neighbouring properties, privacy or visual amenity.

 

Rear part of the southern elevation

 

The remaining parts of the southern elevation from middle to the rear have a wall height that sits below 8m except for a small section at the rear where the wall height measures 9.11m above the existing ground level (RL34.79). This small section of wall at the rear is due to the inordinate drop in ground level at this part of the site, compared with the general fall in land level across neighbouring properties. In reference to the relationship between the subject site and that of the southern neighbour’s ground level, the subject site should in theory have a higher land level than that of the southern neighbours; however this inordinate drop in ground level means that the subject site actually sits 1.77m below the southern neighbours adjacent land level. The proposed development raises the ground level in this part of the site so that it is generally consistent with that of the neighbouring site thus resolving the inordinate drop in ground level. In this respect, the proposed wall height measured from the nearest adjacent ground level on the southern neighbours site would have an effective wall height of only 7.325m which is well below the 8m permitted for sloping sites under the DCP.

 

The applicant has also submitted overshadowing diagrams showing the level of overshadowing to the north facing windows, roof plane and rear yard of the site to the south. These aspects are discussed in more detail under the solar access and overshadowing part of this section. Notwithstanding, the overshadowing to the neighbouring property has been improved by a larger rear boundary setback being provided by the applicant.

 

Solar access and overshadowing

The proposed external wall height at the rear part of the southern elevation (as amended) will result in less than three hours of solar access to the southern neighbours rear ground level deck and their north facing living room windows. However, it is generally considered that the overshadowing caused by this part of the proposed development is unavoidable in the context of the existing site conditions and the permissibility of development under the DCP for the following reasons:

 

·       The neighbour’s rear deck is located between 12.4m and 16m from the rear boundary which is a substantial distance from the rear boundary and located more towards the middle of the site which make it extremely difficult to protect solar access to this area without undermining a permissible form of development under the DCP

·       The urban pattern of development is configured on an east-west axis and with the subject site being on the higher side, it means that the southern neighbours property is particularly vulnerable to overshadowing

·       The amended development provides a 10m rear setback (as amended) that is greater than the 8m minimum required under the DCP

·       The proposal also provides a 1200mm side setback for this part of the development which is greater than the 900mm minimum required under the DCP

 

Visual amenity

The rear part of the proposed southern elevation is setback 1200mm from the southern side boundary which is greater than the 900mm minimum side setback DCP control for a site of this width. The proposal also contains suitable levels of articulation along this part of the development ensuring visual amenity is being maintained.

 

View loss

The proposed rear part of the southern elevations wall height will not result in any high value views being lost. A view sharing assessment is carried out further below under the rear setback part of this section.

 

3.  To ensure the form and massing of development respect the topography of the site.

 

Despite the external wall height of the proposed development not meeting the maximum allowed for under the DCP it is considered that the proposed developments form and massing is well articulated containing a mix of materials and varying setbacks along all elevations. The building steps also down to the rear following the topography of the site. Whilst certain elements of the external wall height exceed the maximum permitted under the DCP such as at the front and at the rear, it is generally considered that the reasons for doing so are well founded on reasonable planning outcomes in response to the prevailing site conditions, site constraints and the likely future development under the current RLEP and RDCP 2013.

 

In this respect, it is considered that the proposed developments external wall heights will continue to satisfy the objectives for external wall height under the DCP and will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties or the street scape.

 

Side setbacks:

The DCP controls are that for sites with a width of between 9m and 12 the following minimum side setbacks apply:

 

·      Ground floor = 900mm

·      First floor = 900mm

·      Upper levels above = 1500mm

 

The subject site has a width of 9.145m which is at the lower end of the DCP scale for minimum side setbacks. The proposed development is a part two part/three storey building with the front part identified as three storey’s and the rear part identified as a two storey’s – see section below. The front half of development has a basement level that is defined as a ground level, as the floor level above (labelled ground level) is more than 1m above natural ground level. This means that the first two levels within the front part of the development are required to have a side setback of 900mm and the upper most level is required to have a side setback of 1500mm.

 

Rear part

 

Front part

 

Figure 2: Section of development identified as upper level (third level).

 

The proposed upper level is only setback 900mm from the side boundaries, in line with the floor levels below, and does not meet the 1500mm minimum DCP side setback. An assessment is therefore carried out against the objectives for setbacks under the DCP as follows:

 

·       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.

 

Having regard to these objectives, the proposed front part of the development is considered to be adequately setback from the respective northern and southern side boundaries for the following reasons:

 

o   The external wall height at this part of the site (southern elevation) is only marginally over the 8m allowed under the RDCP 2013 for sloping sites which is indicative of a two storey scale on a sloping site. Further, Additional overshadowing is not significant and the required level of solar access is retained to the southern neighbour’s roof (see solar access and overshadowing further below) and there would be no difference in overshadowing or levels of solar access to the southern neighbour’s northern elevation.

o   The subject sites has a width of only 9.145m, which is at the lower end of the DCP scale, whereby the preceding scale for sites less than 9m in width would only require a 900mm side setback from the side boundary

o   Requiring a greater side setback along the front part of the development would present disjointedness with the ground level without any appreciable benefits to neighbouring sites amenity

o   Requiring a complying setback along this section would result in an inordinate nexus between the added building cost of requiring a complying setback, and reduced functionality of a narrow first floor level without any appreciable material benefit to the neighbouring properties having particular regard to solar access, natural ventilation, view loss or visual amenity.

 

Overall, it is considered that mere compliance with the numerical control would not result in any public or planning benefit and the proposed upper storey side setbacks at the front part of the proposed development is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

Rear setback

The original development had varying rear setbacks from ground and first floor level between 9.875m and 8.15m respectively. The amended application increases the rear boundary setback of the dwelling to 10m at both ground and first floor level and complies with the 8m minimum required under the DCP.

 

The proposed 10m rear setback is greater than the minimum 8m rear setback control under the DCP which complies with the DCP control requiring greater rear setbacks be provided above the 8m minimum having regard to the following matters:

 

·      Existing predominant rear setback line in the subject urban block

·      The need to achieve reasonable view sharing with the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain

·      The need to adequately protect the privacy and solar access to the neighbouring dwellings

 

The salient question therefore is whether the 10m provided is sufficient for the purposes of the matters required to be considered under this section of the DCP.

 

·      Existing predominant rear setback line in the subject urban block

As shown in the aerial photo below there is varying rear setbacks of dwellings and buildings along this side of Park Street. Notwithstanding the salient aspects of the rear setbacks are that the two properties adjoining at No. 35 Park Street to the south has a rear setback of 13.7m and the adjoining flat building to the north at No. 39 Park Street has a 12.7m rear setback. The other salient aspect is that single detached dwellings are mostly located further from the rear boundary and that the flat buildings at No. 21 and 27 Park Street which have smaller rear setbacks of approximately 7.5m and 8.8m respectively.

Aerial photo of subject site and rear setback lines of buildings within the urban block The block contains a mixture of residential flat buildings (21, 27, and 39 Park Street), single detached residential dwellings comprising part one/two storey dwellings (25, 29, 31 and 33 Park Street) and part two/three storey dwellings (23 and 35 Park Street).

 

Whilst the proposed rear setback is less than the majority of rear setbacks observed by the single dwellings along this side of Park Street as well as those on the two adjoining properties, this does not preclude the fair and reasonable development of the site having regard to the DCP controls and objectives for rear setbacks. Having regard to this essential aspect of the development assessment process, it is considered necessary to have regard to an assessment against the objectives under the DCP for setbacks such as the need to achieve reasonable view sharing and to adequately protect privacy and solar access to the neighbouring properties.

 

·      The need to achieve reasonable view sharing with the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain

 

View sharing assessment

In relation to reasonable sharing of views, the most impacted neighbour is that of the rear upper level flat within No. 39 Park Street (northern neighbouring site). Notwithstanding, loss of views were raised by the following objectors:

 

No. 105 Boundary Street – from rear patio

No 107 Boundary Street – from rear patio

No. 39 Park Street: affected area being the rear upper level flat building directly adjacent to the development

 

105 & 107 Boundary Street, Clovelly

 

The views from the rear of properties fronting Boundary Street will only be marginally impacted by the development whereby the vast majority of high value views showing both the interface between land and bay/ocean and Wedding Cake Island will not be impacted by the proposed development – see photo 1 below.

 

Photo 1: shows the view looking south from rear ground level deck area at No. 105 Boundary Street in a seated position (This is the most impacted property on Boundary Street). The red line identifies the original location of the first floor addition (by height pole) and the yellow line identifies (approximate) the increased setback from the rear boundary by 1.9m up to 10m setback in the amended scheme. The shorter blue line (by height pole) shows the rear extent of the ground level terrace and BBQ area.

 

It is not considered any further assessment of view loss is required for these properties.

 


39 Park Street, Clovelly

The most affected views will be from the upper level rear flat in the residential flat building at No. 39 Park Street and their rear yard area located north of the development (see photo 2).

 

Living room and Bedroom

 

 

Photo 2: upper level rear flat at No. 39 Park Street

 

To assess whether the extent of view loss that would result from the proposal is reasonable, an analysis has been undertaken with reference to the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle established in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140:

 

1.     Quality of Views:

The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. 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, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

Upper level flat

 

A site visit conducted to the rear first floor flat observed the existing views from the following areas of this flat:

 

o     South facing living room window,

o     South facing bedroom window and

o     East facing window form the same bedroom above

 

South facing living room window,

 

Photo 1: standing view of ocean from living room The view from the living room window shown in the photo 1 below is a standing view of the ocean. The building in the background is the part two part three storey dwelling at No. 35 Park Street.

 

South facing bedroom window

Photo 2: Sitting view of ocean and eastern part of Wedding Cake Island shown (Close up view): The views from the south facing bedroom window is a sitting views of the ocean and an eastern aspect of Wedding Cake Island sitting at the eastern end of the bed.

 

 

 

Photo 3: Standing view of ocean/land interface and Wedding Cake Island (Close up view) from bedroom window at side elevation: The views from the south facing bedroom window is a standing view of the ocean and more of the Wedding Cake Island standing at the eastern end of the window.

 


East facing window from the same bedroom above

Photo 4: View of ocean/land interface and Wedding Cake Island (Close up view) from east rear facing bedroom window: The views from the east facing bedroom window is an oblique view of the ocean.

 

2.   Reasonable Expectation of View Retention:

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

 

Planner’s Assessment:

The views obtained across the rear boundary are generally considered worthy of preservation however it is noted that the views from the living room and one bedroom window are located along a side elevation which are difficult to preserve. Further, these windows are located between 14m and 15.75m from the rear boundary which is significantly greater than the minimum rear setback DCP controls. The rear facing bedroom window is from a bedroom and only affords an oblique view of the ocean as shown in photo 4. A view loss assessment is carried against the planning principle having due regard to the extent of impact and the reasonableness of the proposed development.

 

3.   Extent of Impact:

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

 

South facing Living room windows

The views from the living room window will be totally lost as a result of this development (as amended with an increased rear setback). It is also noted that even if the development observed a 12.4m rear setback in line with the adjoining buildings, the views of the ocean would be lost. Notwithstanding, the view is not considered to be worthy of retention given that it is a standing view and from the hall of this living room, which is an area of the living room that does not hold much amenity in terms of its use from this part of the living room.

 


South facing bedroom window

The standing view from the south facing bedroom window (as shown in the photo below) shows the following three aspects:

 

·       8m rear setback (original development – red lines)

·       10m rear setback (amended development – green lines show approximate location)

·       13.25m rear setback (average of adjoining rear setbacks of 12.75m and 13.75m – red lines show approximate location in line with the rear of the existing higher corrugated roof)

 

Essentially even with the best case scenario which is with a setback that was the average of the two adjoining there would be no benefit of views retained from this window. Notwithstanding, as indicated earlier, requiring a rear setback in line with the two adjoining is not considered reasonable in so far as it would be substantially greater than the current DCP controls for rear setbacks and this view is from a low use room and across a side boundary.

 

Photo 5: View from south facing bedroom window

 

East facing bedroom window

The view from east facing bedroom window is an oblique view of the ocean (as shown in photo 4 above). This view would likely be retained if the development were setback in line with the average of the two adjoining buildings rear setbacks. Assessed quantitatively whilst the extent of impact is a total loss of view, qualitatively this view loss is considered minor given the obliqueness substantially limits its value and the fact that it is a from low use bedroom window.

 

4.   Reasonableness of Proposed Development:

The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skillful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbors. 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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

The application complies with the applicable planning controls in respect of maximum floor space ratio, height and setback controls. Although it is setback less than the two adjoining developments it is considered that requiring a rear setback in line with the two adjoining would not provide the applicant with the same development potential that is afforded by the majority of the DCP controls.

 

The fundamental question is whether a rear setback in line with the average of the two adjoining should be insisted upon given the value and quality of the view retained, the extent of the view and the context of the view.

 

One must also have regard to the extent and orientation to the view and the visibility or prominence of the view and from where it is obtained. Although the ocean view and that of Wedding Cake Island is of high value and interest, it is primarily experienced from inferior areas of the upper level flat within No. 39 Park Street such as:

 

·      A sitting view from internal entrance of the primary living room set well within the site and across the side boundary (some 19.5m from the rear boundary),

·      A low use bedroom south facing bedroom window across a side boundary which is also set well within the site (approximately 14.5m from the rear boundary)

·      A low use east facing bedroom window with an oblique view of the ocean

 

The views that would be retained include those from the rear yard – common open space for use by the occupants of all four units within the flat building at No. 39 Park Street. The views of the ocean and wedding Cake Island will be retained from a substantial portion of this rear yard area – the photo below shows the rear extent of the development at ground level and the views that would be retained would be those behind the plants left of the blue line. 

 

Photo 6: View of Wedding Cake Island will be retained from rear yard of 39 Park Street standing and sitting beyond the rear of the proposed development at ground level.

 

The proposal is compliant with the maximum wall height control along the northern elevation and is a reasonable design response that is consistent with the planning objectives for the site. The proposed development provides good levels of articulation within the building by virtue of the distribution of the building envelope responding well to both the streetscape and minimizes impacts of visual bulk and scale upon neighboring properties and is supported on the basis of good planning principles of urban design. Furthermore, the design has minimised impacts upon adjacent properties by the careful distribution of its massing across the site demonstrated by increasing the upper level rear setback to 10m which is greater than the 8m minimum required by the DCP. In addition, in order to minimise the loss of view from the rear yard of No. 39 park Street a condition is included requiring the planter and wall along the northern side of the ground level rear terrace area to be deleted and replaced with clear balustrade.

 

Having regard to the above assessment, it is considered that the degree to which the development would have to be setback from the rear boundary would be significantly greater than those envisaged by the DCP controls and RLEP standards. Moreover, if the development were setback in line with the average of the two adjoining buildings it is not considered that there would be any high value views that would be retained from this upper level rear apartment. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development is reasonable and the resultant view loss is acceptable in the circumstances.

 

•    The need to adequately protect the privacy and solar access to the neighbouring dwellings

 

Visual Privacy

The DCP objective for visual privacy is to ensure development minimise overlooking or cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.

 

The proposed rear terrace and first floor balcony will have a direct outlook into the rear yards of adjoining properties rear yard areas. There are no major concerns with the overlooking into habitable room windows of adjoining properties due to the separation between the terrace and balcony from the habitable room windows within neighbouring dwellings. In relation to the overlooking into the rear yards of neighbouring properties, it is not considered that additional privacy measures such as screens are warranted for the following reasons:

 

·      The ground level terrace whilst elevated follows an interpolated ground level between the rear yard levels of neighbouring properties to the north and south

·      The upper level balcony is attached to a low use room and it is similarly designed having regard to the first floor balcony at the rear of No. 35 Park Street which does not have a privacy screen

·      The generally topography of the site and surrounding sites means that some overlooking into each other’s rear yards is accepted particularly where the provision of privacy screens which would add bulk and may obstruct views of the ocean to the south. This generally means that privacy is of less importance than the need to ensure view retention from neighbouring properties

 

Solar Access and Overshadowing

 

Section 5.1 of the DCP describes solar access as a major determinant of personal environmental comfort. As such, new development must recognise that existing adjacent buildings require reasonable access to sunlight for living spaces, and private and public open spaces.

 

The relevant objectives of are:

 

·      To ensure new dwellings and alterations and additions are sited and designed to maximise solar access to the living areas and private open space.

·      To ensure development retains reasonable levels of solar access to the neighbouring dwellings and their private open space.

·      To provide adequate ambient daylight to dwellings and minimise the need for artificial lighting.

 

The site is oriented east-west and therefore poses most significant solar access impact upon the adjoining property to the south at No. 35 Park Street which also extends to the property further south at No. 3 Park Street. These two (2) properties adjoin to the south, at contain single residential dwellings.

 

33 Park Street: The proposed development will result in additional shadow to the neighbour’s rear yard at 8am however it is very minor and it will not result in less than three hours of solar access to their rear yard area. In effect, the proposed development overshadowing to this neighbours rear yard will comply with the solar access controls under the DCP. Therefore the shadow impact posed upon this site is considered to be acceptable and it is not addressed further.

 

35 Park Street: The proposal will have most notable impact upon solar access to the southern neighbours at 35 Park Street including their north facing windows towards the rear and a rear deck area sited between 12.4m and 15.95m from the rear boundary (see photo below)

 

Photo of southern neighbours rear deck and north facing windows

 

 

Photo of southern neighbour’s terrace over garage

 

The impact of shadow on this neighbour is shown in figure 3: elevation shadow diagrams received by Council on 20 February 2015 showing the impact on their north facing windows and rear deck directly connected to their glass enclosure housing a breakfast table. Further below, figures 4.1 to 4.5 show in plan form the shadow impact on this neighbour’s rear deck, rear terrace over garage and roof plane. An explanation of the shadow impact follows.

 

East facing living room

 

Terrace over garage

 

North facing window

 

Rear deck

 

Glass enclosure

 

Figure 3: Elevation shadow plan showing the additional shadow at 8am and 9am cast onto the north and east elevation of dwelling at No. 35 Park Street.

 

North facing windows and rear deck directly connected to their glass enclosure containing a breakfast table:

 

The elevation shadow diagrams show that the north facing windows and deck area of No. 35 Park Street will only receive solar access to a portion of their areas at 8am and at 9am they will be overshadowed representing less than one hour of solar access to these areas which is substantially short of the minimum three hours required under the DCP.

Figure 4.1: 8am shadow shows partial solar access to rear deck (red square). Solar access retained to terrace over garage (green square) and roof of 35 Park Street.

 

Figure 4.2: 9am shadow shows no solar access to rear deck. Solar access retained to terrace over garage and roof.

 

Figure 4.3 10am shadow shows no solar access to rear deck. Solar access retained to terrace over garage and roof.

 

 

Figure 4.4: 11am shadow shows no solar access to rear deck. Solar access retained to terrace over garage and roof.

 

 

Figure 4.5: 12 noon shadow shows No solar access to rear deck. Solar access retained to terrace over garage and roof.

 

1pm to 4pm: At 1 pm there is little solar access retained to the rear most section of the terrace over garage. Beyond approximately 1:15pm there will be no solar access to the rear terrace over garage and overshadowing to the rear of No. 33 Park Street is largely caused by the existing dwelling at No. 35 Park Street.

 

The shadow diagrams in plan (from Figure 4.1 to 4.5) show the proposed development will retain solar access to the neighbours terrace over garage (green box) and roof plane for at least three hours. They also show that no solar access will be obtained to their north facing windows or their rear deck area connected to their glass enclosure from at least 9am onwards which does not meet the minimum three hours required under the DCP controls. An assessment is carried out against the following objectives:

 

·        To ensure new dwellings and alterations and additions are sited and designed to maximise solar access to the living areas and private open space.

·        To ensure development retains reasonable levels of solar access to the neighbouring dwellings and their private open space.

·        To provide adequate ambient daylight to dwellings and minimise the need for artificial lighting.

 

It is considered that solar access objectives are satisfied in so far as despite the non-compliance with the DCP numerical controls it is considered that reasonable levels of solar access are being provided and that the high degree of overshadowing is largely unavoidable and inevitable in the context of the site, such that any reasonable development outcome in relation to the rear setback, height and side setbacks of the development and the likely future development in the vicinity would incur similar impacts to their southern neighbours properties. The proposal is therefore considered satisfactory in relation to the objectives of the DCP, as they relate to solar access and overshadowing for the following reasons:

 

-    The north facing ground level windows and rear deck configured on a site with an east-west axis and are a substantial distance from the rear boundary located more towards the middle of the site means that overshadowing is largely unavoidable and inevitable

-    The proposed 10m rear setback is above the minimum 8m required under the DCP

-    The east facing living room window will retain solar access

-    The rear terrace over garage will retain solar access

-    The roof plan will retain solar access

 

Overall, whilst it is clear that if the proposed development were setback in line with the average of the rear of the adjoining buildings that there would be an improvement to solar access to the southern neighbour’s principal area of POS, it is however not considered that requiring such a large rear setback would represent a reasonable restriction on the applicant.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

The proposed development has been the subject of an amendment to increase the rear setback and appropriate conditions that address key issues relating to privacy, view sharing and solar access. Certain impacts such as overshadowing to north facing windows and an area of the rear yard at No. 35 Park Street are considered to be largely an unavoidable consequence of the site conditions rather than non-compliance with any building design criteria such as wall heights, rear setbacks or side setbacks. The proposed development as amended is considered to be suitable for the site and will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties and will enhance the streetscape character.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the attached conditions of consent.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/819/2014 for demolition of existing structures and erection of a 2 storey dwelling house and pool, at No. 37 Park Street, Clovelly, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     The stairwell windows must contain either translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing

 

b.     The wall and planter along the northern side of the rear terrace must be deleted and replaced with clear balustrades

 

c.     The balustrade to the upper level rear balcony must contain clear glazing

 

d.     No consent is granted for fencing to the side or rear boundaries. Any new fencing shall be subject to a separate development application unless the fence design as meets the exempt and complying development criteria specified under the SEPP Exempt and Complying Codes 2008.

 

e.     The pool plant and equipment must be located away from the neighbouring properties habitable room windows, housed within a sound absorbing enclosure and comply with the operational conditions of this consent.

 

f.      The rainwater tank must be located away from habitable room windows of the neighbouring properties, any pump or associated equipment must be located within a sound absorbing enclosure and comply with the operational conditions of this consent.

 

          Landscaping

38.     Landscaping shall be provided to the site to enhance its amenity and reduce the impact of the development upon both the streetscape and neighbouring properties, with the PCA to ensure that site landscaping complies with the following requirements:

 

a.     A high quality selection and arrangement of decorative species are to be installed throughout the front setback so as to assist with presentation of the development to the streetscape;

 

b.     A predominance of native coastal species that can withstand poor quality sandy soils, salt laden winds and are not reliant on high quantities of moisture and fertilizer for survival must be used throughout the site;

 

c.     At least 1 x 25 litre (pot size at the time of planting) feature tree within the rear yard, selecting a native coastal species which will attain a minimum height of between 4-7 metres at maturity.

 

d.     The plant species along the north, south and eastern boundaries shall be selected on the basis of maintaining view lines from the rear yard of the northern neighbour’s property and minimising overshadowing to the southern neighbor’s property.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 37 Park Street, Clovelly

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP16/15

 

 

Subject:                  352 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/674/2014)

Folder No:               DA/674/2014

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new 3 storey residential flat building comprising of 3x3 bedroom dwellings, roof terrace, a basement carpark for 6 vehicles, associated site and landscaped works

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mr Z Volf

Owner:                    Mr G B Newhouse and Mr Z Volf and Ms V Ivanetc and Mr M I Moses

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview36301.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the cost of works exceeds $2 million dollars. The application is also the subject of a deemed refusal appeal to the Land & Environment Court. As the Statement of Facts and Contentions must be filed with the Court setting out Council’s position, the application should be determined so that Council’s lawyers may be instructed accordingly and a decision is made whether to defend the appeal.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new 3 storey residential flat building comprising basement level parking with one apartment contained within each floor of the three levels above.

 

Specifically, the proposal includes:

·      Demolition of existing residential dwelling.

·      Basement parking for 6 vehicles including storage, pump room, lift access, pedestrian entry. The basement level is set

·      Ground floor unit;

·      Level 1 unit

·      Level 2 unit

 

Whilst a roof terrace was proposed in the original application the applicant has agreed to the deletion of the roof terrace and a reduction in the overall height of the development by 300mm.

 

Site

 

The subject site has an area of 424.5sqm with irregular tapered frontage to Clovelly Road and a skewed rear boundary to properties elevated above the subject site– see aerial photo on previous page. The site is currently occupied by a dual occupancy– with a garage on the front boundary adjoining the neighbouring property to the west at No. 344-350 Clovelly Road. The existing building is not heritage listed, it is however one of the early buildings along this section of Clovelly Road, and identified in the Statement of Heritage Impact as being of historical and aesthetic significance at a local level. The main dwelling and front yard are elevated above street level rising in level towards the rear with a total variance of 2.19m above street level. The site also falls down in level from east to west with a variance of 1.35m. The subject site is neighboured to the east by a part-two part-three storey flat building and to the west by a part-one part-two storey building containing a shop premises fronting Clovelly Road with residential above and a single storey to the rear. The photo below shows the subject site and parts of the neighbouring properties. Opposite the subject site is the Clovelly Hotel - a Heritage Item. To the rear, several multi storey flat buildings are elevated above the subject site by around 2.3m (not including fencing).

Photo: Subject site (middle) and adjoining properties: At left (east) is 354 Clovelly Road containing a residential flat building and to the right (west) is a part one part two storey shop with residence above and at rear.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      350 Clovelly Road

·      1/26-28 Melrose Parade

·      2 & 12/26-28 Melrose Parade

·      3/26-28 Melrose Parade

·      4/26-28 Melrose Parade

·      6/26-28 Melrose Parade

·      8/26-28 Melrose Parade

·      1/30-32 Melrose Parade

·      5/30-32 Melrose Parade

·      10/30-32 Melrose Parade

·      13/30-32 Melrose Parade

·      5/34 Melrose Parade

·      36 Melrose Parade

 

The issues raised in the submission are addressed as follows:

 

·      Loss of water views

 

Comment: A view loss assessment from neighbouring properties has been undertaken as part of the assessment of this application. The proposed development is an appropriate form of development for the site and whilst the loss of views is a negative aspect, it is acceptable in the circumstance when assessed against the view loss planning controls.

 

·      Loss of federation home and proposed development will detract from the historical appearance of the area including the shops adjoining and the Clovelly Hotel

 

Comment: The subject dwelling and adjoining shops are not heritage items. The Clovelly Hotel is a heritage item and Councils consultant heritage planner has considered the impact of the development on the significance of the heritage item opposite and considers that the proposed development will not detract from its heritage significance. In relation to the property itself and its significance at a local level a condition is included requiring an archival recording of the property to be prepared in accordance with standard guidelines provided for by the NSW Heritage Office.

 

·      The proposed development is too high for the narrow frontage, is an overdevelopment of the site and will not fit in with the scale of the adjoining developments or the streetscape.

 

Comment: The proposed development complies with the overall height standard under the RLEP 2012. The proposed development exceeds the external wall height control along the low parts of the site. For the majority of the site will be well within the maximum wall height control. Notwithstanding, the deletion of the roof terrace and a further reduction in the overall height of the development by 400mm as conditioned will further reduce the degree of non-compliance with the maximum external wall height control under the DCP.

 

The proposed development as amended is considered to be of an appropriate scale responding well to the topography of the site and the land form of neighbouring properties. In this respect the adjoining site to the west sits on a similar ground level along the front western side of the subject site and a 10.5m wall height within this site would present a similar scale and massing to that being sought under this application and responds well to the site conditions. The proposed development is of a contemporary architectural expression exhibiting a sculptural presentation to street level and will thus contribute to the future streetscape character.

 

·      The close proximity of the development from the rear and the loss of privacy

 

Comment: The proposed development is setback 5m from the rear boundary and in compliance with the DCP controls. The rooms within the rear part of the development are occupied by bedrooms which would contain their own privacy measures and would not pose any significant privacy impacts. The distance from the rear elevation to the rear elevation of neighbouring units at the rear will be over 12m ensuring reasonable separation for the purposes of privacy protection.

 

·      The roof top terrace will result in adverse privacy and noise impacts

 

Comment: The applicant has deleted the roof terrace and a condition is included to that effect including associated structures (see key issues).

 

·      Very little landscaping in front

 

Comment: The terraced landscaping in front of the site is considered appropriate for the purposes of satisfying the objectives under the DCP.

 

·      Loss of sunlight and shadow

 

Comment: The overshadowing from the proposed development will be shared across neighbouring properties with those to the west and east most affected. Notwithstanding, the additional overshadowing is largely an unavoidable consequence of the medium density zoning of the site rather than as a result of minor non-compliances with the side setback and external wall height control.

 

·      The proposed development does not retain the front setback

 

Comment: The proposed development responds well to the existing site conditions and the irregular shape of its frontage. The front setbacks provided from ground to the upper levels will ensure a good transition between front setbacks of the buildings to the west which sit on the front boundary and the setback of the building to the east.

 

·      There is no acknowledgement anywhere on the application of the front setback dimensions at the north-western corner of the frontage, which is approximately 9 metres

 

Comment: The front setback minimum is three metres. As indicated in the key issues section of this report, the proposed front setback provided satisfies the objectives under the DCP. It is further noted that the proposed screens along the western side of the balconies that are located 1.9m from the front are open lightweight elements allowing for retention of views from any future development of the site to the west.

 

·      The area is not in transition and therefore a merit assessment should not be undertaken in relation to the front setback

 

Comment: Notwithstanding, whether the area is in transition, if a 3m minimum is not complied with Council is still required to assess the merit of the proposal and its consistency with the objective of the control. The adjoining properties to the west have nil setbacks and it is considered that the proposed development represents a good transition between this setback and larger setback from the north eastern corner of the property. Without prejudice, it is considered that the properties to the west are largely underdeveloped both in the context of the medium density development as well as existing use rights that may or may not be enjoyed by these properties. In both respect, it is considered that the area or at least the subject property and the adjoining property to the west can be construed as being an area in transition.

 

·      Is there any reason why the car parking could not be excavated further below ground

 

Comment: The site is restricted by its width in being able to provide any additional parking at basement level in so far as the ramping down to a lower basement level is not achievable due to access and maneuverability requirements.

 

·      Increased traffic on Clovelly Road

 

Comment: It is not anticipated that three extra units with complying on-site parking provided will result in any unreasonable traffic or demand for on street parking.

 

Key Issues

 

Front setbacks

 

The ground level deck is setback between 1m and 4m from the front boundary and rises more than 1m above the street level. In addition the proposed balconies are setback between 1.9m and 5.2m from the front boundary. The elements of these components do not meet the 3m minimum setback control. Therefore an assessment of these components is required against the following setback objectives under the DCP:

 

·       To define the street edge and establish or maintain consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the local character.

·       To ensure adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views.

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

 

Despite the non-compliances with the front setback control of the abovementioned parts of the proposed development, it is considered that the proposed front setbacks provided as part of this development will satisfy the above objectives for the following reasons:

 

Ground level deck and planters

 

·      The deck and planter boxes sit on similar land levels to the existing elevated patio and landscaped area on the site maintaining the elevated site conditions in the front yard. The planters and deep soil areas at the front of the site will be similar in size and scale to the existing height of the front boundary fence. The planter and deep soil areas will generally provide a fencing form along the street

 

·      In addition, the stepping of these landscape elements will soften the appearance of these elevated elements from street level and as a whole it is considered that the proposed ground level deck and landscaping distributes bulk more efficiently across the front of the site than the existing situation. The proposed development also provides contiguous areas for the retention of open space inclusive of deep soil planting throughout.

 

Balconies

 

·      The parts of the balconies that are within 3m of the front boundary is limited to a small area located closest to the building at No. 344-350 Clovelly Road which has a nil setback at both the adjoining western side boundary and the front Clovelly Road boundary. The balconies have been designed to return back towards the eastern side of the site where it generally aligns with the front setback of the flat building at No. 354 Clovelly Road. The balconies front setbacks are a good transition between the differing front setbacks of the adjoining buildings.

 

Within the visual catchment of the site there are buildings of various architectural styles. The contemporary architecture of the building inclusive of the front deck and balcony elements exhibits a fluid architectural form with relatively open structures between the front building line and front boundary creating a sense of depth and lightness in its expression. The proposed front setbacks are appropriate to the redevelopment of the subject site and respond well to the immediate built environment as well as the context of the broader neighbourhood, particularly given the mix of architectural character in the surrounding area.

 

Side setbacks

 

The components that don’t meet the minimum 2m side setback control under the DCP include the living rooms and lift and stairs from the western side boundary. An assessment is therefore required against the following objectives for setbacks under the DCP:

 

·      To define the street edge and establish or maintain consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the local character.

·      To ensure adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views.

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

 

The proposed side setbacks of the abovementioned parts of the proposed development will satisfy the relevant objectives for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed side setbacks are greater than the side setbacks of the neighbouring buildings at No. 350 and 354 Clovelly Road and will not detract from the established side setbacks of neighbouring buildings.

 

·      The proposed development exhibits greater side setbacks between neighbouring buildings than the existing and the setbacks provided will continue to ensure reasonable visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, and air circulation between properties. In particular, the configuration of the site on a north south axis means that overshadowing will be shared across two adjoining sites and it is considered that even if the development were made to satisfy the numerical side setback control for these elements there would be no appreciable benefits of solar access to the neighbouring properties. The length of walls associated with the living room and lift are relatively small elements which will not be obtrusive when viewed from neighbouring properties. The stair well is an open structure associated with only three apartments and will not be a significant source for visual or acoustic privacy impacts.

 

·      The site retains contiguous areas for open space and deep soil planting throughout the site

 

·      The proposed development also exceeds the minimum side setback controls in along parts of the development and the building mass is considered to have been adequately distributed to ensure a better planning outcome (see excerpt below)

 

Site plan excerpt showing in red arrows the non-complying side setbacks and in green arrows the greater than minimum side setbacks provided throughout the development. 

 

External wall height

 

The following parts of the proposed development that exceed the 10.5m maximum wall height control include:

 

•    Lift wall 11.04m (RL36.70 – RL25.66) and

•    The front portion of the western side elevation containing the living room, whose wall height varies between 10.68m (RL35.90 – RL25.42) and 10.78m (RL36.20 – RL25.52) (all shown in the plan excerpt below).

 

Western elevation excerpt showing the non-complying parts of the development – section of living room wall and lift wall.

 

The above wall heights are as indicated previously, based on the applicant agreeing to both the deletion of the roof terrace inclusive of balustrade and a 300mm height reduction across the development.

 

An assessment of the non-complying parts of the development is therefore required against the following objectives under the DCP:

 

An assessment is therefore required against the relevant external wall height objectives under the DCP:

 

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

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

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

 

The proposed development will satisfy the abovementioned objectives for the following reasons:

 

·      The parts of the proposed development that exceed the maximum wall height control occur along only small portions of the western elevation and the degree to which they exceed the maximum wall height control is relatively minor. and they will not result in any significant overshadowing impacts on the neighbouring properties amenity.

 

·      The variation in height largely stems from the slope of the site where these walls are located along the low western end of the site. The degree to which the proposed development exceeds the maximum wall height control is also minor particularly given that the walls at the eastern part of the site measures between 8.99m and 10.25m, and are below the 10.5m maximum external wall height control under the DCP. Nonetheless, the proposed development has 3.2m floor-to-floor heights, which are larger than the 3m minimum considered necessary for 2.7m minimum floor to ceiling heights considered to provide good internal amenity. This means that the 300mm reduction agreed to by the applicant could be further reduced by at least 100mm thereby reducing the external wall heights down to between 10.58m and 10.68m and the lift overrun down to 10.94m.

 

·      The massing of these walls are well articulated achieved by using a mix in materials, openings and varying side setbacks that serve to both break up the expanses of wall across this elevations creating visual interest when viewed from neighbouring properties;

 

·      The scale of the proposed development will be consistent with the likely future scale in the locality with particular reference made to the neighbouring property to the west have a similar land level to the subject site along this western side boundary.

 

Overall, having regarded the slope of the site and the minor levels of non-compliance it is considered that the proposed developments external wall heights will satisfy the objectives for external wall heights under the DCP.

 

Visual and acoustic privacy

 

The objectives for visual privacy under the DCP seek:

 

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

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

 

The objectives for acoustic privacy under the DCP seek:

 

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

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

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

 

An assessment of visual and acoustic privacy associated with the proposed developments windows and private open spaces is carried out as follows:

 

o        Windows

 

Visual and acoustic privacy from windows is ensured by the following measures:

 

§  Obscured glazing where it is considered necessary

§  Window openings to upper levels are to low use bedrooms only which will contain their own privacy measures

§  A reasonable offsetting of windows is incorporated between existing and proposed developments.

 

o    Private open space:

 

The proposed development contains the following areas of private open space:

 

§  Ground level deck

§  Upper level balconies

§  Roof terrace

 

Ground level deck

 

The ground level deck is elevated above existing ground by up to 600mm. The proposed deck includes planter box along the sides and screens providing reasonable levels of privacy to the adjoining dwellings habitable windows.

 

Upper level balconies

 

The proposed upper level balconies are suitably configured such that there will be no overlooking into habitable room windows of the neighbouring flat building to the east. The outlook to the east will be towards an advertising structure and over the top of the neighbouring building to the east. It is noted that the proposed screens along the sides of the balconies are designed so that they increase in transparency towards the front and will therefore not necessarily provide any substantial privacy protection. Whilst these more open screens aren’t considered necessary for the purposes of privacy protection they are nonetheless considered to integrate and contribute to the overall appearance of the development from street level and contain visual interest without contributing to any substantial massing.

 

Visual and acoustic privacy to adjoining property to the west is a key concern with the development on the subject site and it is not considered that the proposed development satisfies the relevant objectives for visual and acoustic privacy in that it does not maintain existing or ensure a high level of amenity by providing for reasonable level of visual and acoustic privacy for neighbouring properties.

 

Roof terrace

 

The application seeks a roof terrace used by the second floor apartment. This element is deleted from the application due to its proximity to neighbouring properties and will afford an outlook across to neighbouring properties habitable room windows and is also capable of being used for entertaining purposes resulting in potentially adverse acoustic (noise) nuisance. It is considered that the size and location of the roof terrace relative to the neighbouring properties cannot be improved by requiring additional screening as it would in turn may make it more noticeable from street level as well as further exceed the external wall height controls potentially compromising views from properties in the area.

 

View sharing

 

Loss of ocean views were raised by several objectors from the balconies within apartment’s 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 of the building located at No. 26-28 Melrose Parade and units 3 & 13 of No. 30-32 Melrose Parade located south-west of the site.

 

An assessment is required against the following view sharing objectives under the DCP:

 

·      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 developments are sensitively and skillfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

To assess whether the extent of view loss which would result from the proposal is reasonable, an analysis has been undertaken with reference to the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle established in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140:

 

1.  Quality of Views:

The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. 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.

 

Planner’s assessment:

 

Units 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 in the flat building at No. 26-28 Melrose Parade and units 3, 8 & 13 of No. 30-32 Melrose Parade, have raised concerns with view loss from the proposed development. The location of the balconies to each of these units is shown in the aerial image immediately below relative to the subject site. A aerial image further below shows the direction and expanse of views from these units. Photos following show the views from these apartments

 

Aerial view of affected units at No. 26-28 Melrose Parade and their view lines of water over the subject site (bounded in green). Unit 1 is identified by the colour red, unit 2 by pink, unit 3 by light blue and unit 4 by dark blue, unit 8 by green line (left of blue on roof of subject site). Balconies within units 3 and 13 of No. 30-32 Melrose Parade are behind the site and their views are across the rear of the site towards

 

Larger aerial photo of subject site (bounded in green – left of the image) and the affected apartments across the site. The yellow lines show the limited views from units 1 and 2 and the blue lines show the views obtained from units 3 and 4. The water views are some 700mm away from these apartments. No view of Clovelly bay is obtained from these apartments. The views obtained from units 3, 8 and 13 of No. 30-32 Melrose Parade are identified by orange line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unit 1 – 26-28 Melrose Parade

Unit 1 (lower level of unit block): The view from unit 1 is partial water views over across a small section of the subject sites existing roof line. This unit (as well as the other) sits at least 700m from the coastline in this direction. There is no interface with landscape elements and it is not an iconic view. The views are considered to be of minor quality.

 

Unit 2 – 26-28 Melrose Parade

Unit 2 (lower level of unit block): The view from unit 2 is also a partial water view across a small section of the subject sites existing roof line. There is no interface with landscape elements and it is not an iconic view. The views are considered to be of minor quality.

 

Unit 3 - 26-28 Melrose Parade

Unit 3 (middle level of unit block): This standing water view is expansive across the full length of the subject site, except for a tree located within No. 30-32 Melrose Parade obscuring the water and interfacing rocky shore (as will be seen in photos taken from units within No. 30-32 Melrose Parade). The water views are considered to be of moderate quality

 

 

Unit 4 – 26-28 Melrose Parade

Unit 4 (middle level of unit block): Water views are obtained across the subject site (The view across the rear of the site is not shown however as it is not affected by the proposed development and it will continue to be retained). Notwithstanding the view across the subject site is partial in so far as it is obscured more by the tree located within the rear of No. 30-32 Melrose Parade.  This view is therefore considered to be of minor quality. The view shows less water than that shown in photo 3 due to the higher angle of photo taken from unit 3.

 

Unit 8 – 26-28 Melrose Parade

Unit 8 has expansive ocean views across the top of the subject site which interfaces with the coast. This view is also obstructed by an existing tree in the rear of the subject site at No. 30-32 Melrose Parade.

 

 

 

Unit 3 – 30-32 Melrose Parade

Water views behind the building line at No. 354 Clovelly Road and obscured by existing palm tree in the distance. This view is of relatively low-moderate value as it is largely of distant ocean.

 

Unit 8 – 30-32 Melrose Parade

Water views over the rear of buildings at 354 and 356 Clovelly Road up to the Palm tree identified earlier. The view is of moderate value as it is of ocean interfacing with the grass top northern headland of Clovelly Bay.

 

Unit 13 – 30-32 Melrose Parade

Unit 13 sits on higher level than units 3 and 8. This unit has a high quality water view of the northern side of Clovelly Bay inlet and northern side rocky outcrop.

 

2.   Reasonable Expectation of View Retention:

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

 

Planner’s Assessment:

 

The views are obtained from balconies off living rooms which are high use areas and there would be reasonable expectation of view retention from these areas. However as shown in the aerial photos above the water views from the apartment building in No. 26-28 Melrose Parade are obtained diagonally across the side boundary, where the planning principle asserts that these sideways views are more difficult to retain than if the views were directly from the front or rear of the site. The unit balconies sit on varying levels within the buildings. The views from balconies within No. 30-32 Melrose Parade are across the rear of the subject site.

 

All these matters are considered in the assessment of the view loss having due regard to the extent of impact, the quality of the view, the location of the affected units within the building and the reasonableness of the development.

 

3.   Extent of Impact:

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

 

Planner’s Assessment:

 

The proposed development will have a maximum height (RL36.20) which is larger than the overall height of the adjoining developments at No. 350 and 354 Clovelly Road. The neighbouring site to the west is undeveloped as it remains a part one part two storey building and the building to the east is a part two part three storey development with the three storey component at the front housing storage area with a relatively low floor to ceiling height.

 

The photos above show a blue and red broken line identifying above the existing ground level a 10.5m maximum wall height control under the DCP and a 12m maximum overall height standard under the RLEP 2012. It is considered that these lines are overstated in so far as the existing ground level provided by the applicant is higher than that taken by Council. This means that the proposed development will be lower than that which would be construed from the lines shown in the photo. Further, it is also noted that the development is the subject of amendments by condition requiring a further reduction in the height of the development by 400mm and by the deletion of the roof terrace and associated balustrades. Mathematically, the lift overrun (RL36.60) is 2.14m above the existing ridge and the main elevations (RL36.20 & RL35.80) will be between 1.34m and 1.64m above the existing roof ridge.

 

26-28 Melrose Parade

 

Unit 1 and 2

 

The proposed development will result in the total loss of the water views (left of the existing roof) from these units. Units 1 and 2 balconies are located at the lower levels with balcony floor level (RL32.93) sitting 1.51m below the existing buildings ridge line (RL34.46). The proposed development, as conditioned to be amended, will sit at least  2.87m (RL35.80-RL32.93) above the lowest balcony floor level.

 

Units 3 and 4

 

Units 3 and 4 have a balcony level (RL35.55) that is 1.09m higher than the existing ridge line however as a result of the proposed development this balcony will sit between 250mm and 1.05m above the balcony level resulting at best a standing view being retained.

 

Unit 8

 

Unit 8 has a floor level (RL38.43) that sits at least 1.83m above the highest point of the development (RL36.60 for lift overrun).

 

30-32 Melrose Parade

 

Unit 3, 8 and 13 of 30-32 Melrose Parade

 

The proposed development will be maintaining the predominant rear setback line by other buildings along this side of Clovelly Road as observed in the above photos of views from units 3, 8 and 13. Notwithstanding, the proposed development will result in some view loss however it will be relatively minor in so far as the development will largely be located behind an existing tree within the objector’s site. In essence, the extent of impact from these units will be minor.

 

4.   Reasonableness of Proposed Development:

The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skillful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbors. 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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

 

The fundamental question is whether a complying building in terms of external wall height should be insisted upon given the value and quality of the view that would be retained, the extent of the view lost and the context of the view. One must also have regard to the extent and distance to the view and the visibility or prominence of the view and from where it is obtained.

 

The proposed development achieves the view sharing objectives of the DCP and the level of view loss identified above is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The degree to which the proposed development exceeds the maximum external wall height control under the DCP is minor. The degree to which the proposed development exceeds the external wall height standard can largely be attributed to the sloping nature of the site rather than any unreasonable design elements. Further if the development were made to comply there would not be any appreciable view benefits.

 

·      The view from units 1 and 2 at 26-28 Melrose Parade are clearly unavoidable as these units sit on very low level when compared with the existing building, further the quality of view obtained from these units is of a lesser value and these views are obtained across a side boundary.

 

·      The views from units 3 and 4 at 26-28 Melrose Parade whilst taking a more expansive view of water remains distant, of only moderate quality and also across a side boundary which make it difficult to protect. Further, the subject site sits on relatively similar levels to those properties west of the site between the affected units and the water views. This means that the development of these properties would likely result in a similar loss of view to the affected units.

 

·      The view lost from units 3, 8 and 13 at 30-32 Melrose Parade are considered acceptable and there will be reasonable views retained from their balconies. Notwithstanding, the proposed development at the rear satisfies the rear setback controls in so far as it is sited in line with the predominant rear setback line.

 

Overall, it is considered that there is a reasonable development expectation for the proposed built form and as conditioned to be amended, the proposed development satisfies the objectives under the DCP.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development has been assessed against relevant RLEP 2012 standards and Randwick DCP 2013 controls and is considered to be acceptable. Approval of the development is considered acceptable as it will be in line with the objectives of the abovementioned documents and will not result in any significant or unreasonable environmental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, views, site planning and privacy (as conditioned).

 

The variations from the maximum wall height control and setback requirements of the RDCP have been adequately justified in the Key Issues section of this report. The variations from the maximum external wall height and setback controls are minor occurring over small elements of the development.  It is considered that the built form, use of largely open elements and a mix of materials provides a good response both to the existing site conditions which rise above street level, the irregular frontage line and the siting of neighbouring buildings along the street.

 

The proposed development is therefore, recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 674/2014 for demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new 3 storey residential flat building comprising of 3x3 bedroom dwellings, roof terrace, a basement carpark for 6 vehicles, associated site and landscaped works, at No., subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate:

 

a.       The roof terrace and associated structures shall be deleted from the development.

 

Details to be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

b.       The maximum height of the proposed building must be reduced by a minimum of 400mm, with the corresponding height reduction occurring at the lift overrun and each roof plane.

 

          Details to be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development

 

c.       Any air conditioning plant and equipment must be located in the basement and comply with the operational conditions of this consent that limit noise.

 

          Heritage requirements

5.       An archival recording of the property shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. This recording shall be in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office 2006 Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Items using Film or Digital Capture. Two copies of the endorsed archival recording shall be presented to Council, one of which shall be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library and forwarded to the Randwick History Society.

 

6.       A salvage plan shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  The salvage plan is required to ensure that materials including fireplaces, architraves, skirtings, windows, doors and remnant components of significant heritage fabric are carefully removed and sold or donated to a heritage salvaging yard to facilitate the conservation of other buildings of a similar period. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 352 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP17/15

 

 

Subject:                  Report variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 to 31 March 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 to 31 March 2015 – four (4) were approved during this period, two (2) by delegated authority and two (2) 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.View

SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 Register from 1 to 31 March 2015

 

 

 

 


SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 Register from 1 to 31 March 2015

Attachment 1

 

 

SEPP 1 AND CLAUSE 4.6 REGISTER FROM 1MARCH 2015 TO 31 MARCH 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/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. Site contains existing pair of semi-detached dwellings

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

05/03/15

Delegated Authority

DA/19/2015

4133

752015

 

103-105

Donovan Street

MAROUBRA

2035

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

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

Consistent with the urban character of the locality and predominant subdivision pattern. Site contains existing pair of semi-detached dwellings

Lot 1 Lot size 326.9m2  or 18% (73.1m2)  shortfall, and Lot 2 Lot Size 276.9m2 or 30% (123.1m2)  shortfall

NSW DOPE

10/03/15

PCM

DA/870/2014

4

311650

 

22

Canberra Street

RANDWICK

2031

 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 =0.985:1 increase of 87.81m2 above  FSR Controls , Existing FSR is 0.86:1, 23.31m2 above current floor space

NSW DOPE

10/03/15

PCM

DA/755/2014

1

15555

 

279

Storey 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.

Building height is 10.2m (0.7m over height limit) or 7.37% excess

NSW Dept of Planning

26-Mar-15

Delegated Authority

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP18/15

 

 

Subject:                  Affordable Housing Dwelling at Lot 126 SP 90266, 26 Harvey Street Little Bay - Classification of land under the Local Government Act 1993.

Folder No:               F2004/07991

Author:                    Warren Ambrose, Senior Social Planner      

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to seek Council resolution to classify its affordable housing unit, being Lot 126 in Strata Plan (SP) 90266 at 26 Harvey Street, Little Bay, as ‘operational’ under the Local Government Act 1993, for the purposes of Council’s affordable rental housing program. The proposal to classify the subject property to operational land has been publicly advertised for 29 days, as required by the Local Government Act 1993. No submissions were received.

 

The report recommends that Council classify the affordable housing unit at Lot 126 in Strata Plan (SP) 90266, 26 Harvey Street, Little Bay, ‘operational’ under the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Background

 

On 4 March 2005 Council successfully negotiated, via a Deed of Agreement with Landcom, to receive a total of eight affordable housing units for its affordable rental housing program. To date, the Council has received title deeds and completed the operational classification process for four of these eight units.

 

The Council has also received one additional (ninth) affordable housing unit in the same neighbourhood from a different developer through the voluntary planning agreement provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. It too was also classified by the Council as ‘operational’ in February 2015.

 

On 10 February 2015 the Council accepted ownership of the fifth affordable housing unit negotiated via the Deed of Agreement with Landcom.  Lot 126 in SP 90266 at 26 Harvey St, Little Bay is being tenanted under the Council’s Affordable Rental Housing Program.

 

The Council can expect to receive ownership of the eighth and final affordable housing units, negotiated under the terms of the Deed of Agreement with Landcom, before the end of the year.

 

Issues

 

The Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) requires that all public land be classified as either operational or community, which includes the affordable housing properties acquired by Council. The Act further provides should a decision not be taken by Council to classify the acquired land within 3 months after transfer, the unit will automatically default to a ‘community’ land classification.

 

A ‘community’ classification will limit Council’s capacity to cost effectively manage its affordable housing stock under the Affordable Rental Housing Program. Council’s Solicitor has confirmed that an ‘operational’ classification is appropriate for Council’s affordable housing properties.

 

The decision to classify all affordable housing units as ‘operational’ land was made by Council at its Health, Building & Community Meeting of 13 June 2006.  The report entitled “Affordable Rental Housing Program + Procedures” discussed the relative merits of an operational land classification. This classification will not change the status of the properties for use as affordable housing accommodation but will enable Council to make timely decisions relating to maintenance liabilities, as well as ensuring its affordable housing stock continues to match the target group’s needs.

 

Methods of classification

The Local Government Act provides for two methods for classifying public land:

 

1)  By local environmental plan (LEP)

 

2)  By resolution of the Council (for land acquired after 1 July 1993) – Any acquired land, if not classified via a Council resolution within 3 months from the acquisition date, is taken to have been classified under a LEP as community land.

 

Classifying the property via a Council resolution (Method 2) is considered more time and resource efficient and is the purpose of this report.

 

Public notice

Section 34 of the Act requires Council to give public notice of its proposal to classify land. A period of not less than 28 days must be specified for the receipt of public submissions.

 

Public notice of Council’s proposal to classify the subject property as operational land was included in the Southern Courier. The general public was invited to make submissions during the advertised period from 24 February 2015 to 25 March 2015. Information was also displayed at Council’s customer service centre, libraries and on its website.

 

No submissions were received in response to the public notification process.

 

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.

Direction  6c:    Housing diversity, accessibility and adaptability to support our diverse community is enhanced.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact associated with the proposed resolution. However, should Council not adopt the proposed resolution, it will affect the ease with which the affordable housing unit may be sold or leased. This will have long term financial implications for Council’s asset management, as well as the success of its Affordable Rental Housing Program.

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

An ‘operational’ land classification for Council’s affordable housing properties is consistent with the objectives set out in Council’s Affordable Rental Housing Program and Procedures (endorsed on 13 June 2006).

 

The proposal to classify the subject property to operational was publicly notified in accordance with the requirements of the Act, and no submissions were received.

 

The process of achieving the ‘operational’ land classification via a Council resolution needs to be completed within a three month timeframe to avoid a default to ‘community’ classification.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council resolve to classify the affordable housing unit Lot 126 in Strata Plan 90266 at 26 Harvey Street Little Bay as ‘operational’ land in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM6/15

 

 

Subject:                  Continuation of Community Partnership with Randwick District Rugby Football Club in 2015 & Request for Waiving of Banner Fees

Folder No:               F2013/00155

Author:                    David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services     

 

Introduction

 

At its ordinary meeting held 28 February 2012 Council resolved:

 

“That Council establishes a ‘community partnership’ with the Randwick District Rugby Football Club and enters into a number of initiatives with the Club to assist local schools and youth and improve the general health of the Randwick Council area and that the $10,000.00 be funded from the 2011-12 Contingency Fund.”

 

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s support to continue with this most worthwhile community partnership for a fourth year.

 

Issues

 

Council’s Manager Administrative Services and the Director of Randwick Rugby, Nick Ryan have worked together to further enhance the two main components of the proposed community partnership. Both of these initiatives were a great success last year.

 

1)    Youth Engagement Initiative

After its success last year, it is proposed that the Rugby Club will again be running the 'Week with the Wicks' program which will be coinciding with Randwick Juniors Days. The program will again be targeting students from disadvantaged/poor socio economic areas. The club engages them in a full week of training and on match day which involves:

·      Monday: skills/video review/weights

·      Tuesday: skills/fitness.

·      Thursday: team structure and unit skills

·      Saturday: match day meeting, sitting on the bench, in the dressing room with players.

 

Last year the Club targeted a number of Randwick High School boys and this has translated into 15 students now being part of the Randwick Colts program in 2015, which is a great result.

 

2)    Participation Program

After the tremendous success of both events last year it is again proposed that all primary schools within the Council area be invited to participate in two separate Randwick Council Rugby 7’s tournaments (for years 3/4 and years 5/6) to be held on separate days at Latham Park. Council may also place a banner or advertise in other forms at these tournaments.

 

The Rugby Club will assist with a coaching clinic for identified schools and other groups who are participating in the event. In addition, the Club proposed free admission to Coogee Oval for participants.

 

In addition, the Rugby Club will once again provide six free tickets to Super 15 matches upon request for Council to hand out via the proposed youth engagement program. Last year these tickets went to the Kooloora Soldier Settlement Community Centre for their volunteers.

 

As part of the proposed sponsorship agreement, the Club will again provide Council with a signed Galloping Greens jumper for use as Council sees fit and to provide a link between our websites.

 

The Club is also launching a wonderful new initiative whereby the Club is hoping to appoint a suitable person to be an Indigenous Ambassador and assist in the recruiting of indigenous players for the club as well as mentoring current players in the senior and junior clubs.

 

In addition the Club is looking to continue its foray into the field of Women’s and Community coaching. In 2014, the Randwick Rugby Club assisted voluntarily with the coaching of the Maroubra Missiles Women 7’s team, as well as the NSW Women’s and Men’s 7’s National champions in the form of free coaches and playing assistance.

 

Request for Waiving of Banner Fees

As in previous years a request has been received to assist with the fees for the hire of street banners. It is considered that, as in previous years, Council should assist in the promotion of Randwick Rugby home games by waiving the hire fees to hang 12 street banners on banner poles on Arden Street, Coogee during the rugby season subject to availability.

 

It is considered appropriate that Council waive the hiring fee of $85.00 per banner per week for the banners and contribute half the installation and dismantling costs. Council will liaise with Randwick Rugby Club to determine suitable dates to fly the street banners during the rugby season subject to availability. Council also agrees to store these banners in our contractor’s warehouse over the summer months.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2c:             Strong partnerships between the Council, community groups and government agencies.

 

Financial impact statement

 

It is recommended that Council make a contribution of $10,000.00 to assist with this very worthwhile partnership program and that the contribution be funded from the 2014-15 Contingency Fund.

 

The exact cost to Council for the banners will depend on the total number of weeks the banners fly and the number of times the banners are installed and dismantled. But as a guide, should the banners fly for a total of four weeks over two separate periods, the waived hire cost would be $3709.09 +GST and the installation and dismantling charges would be $1,056 +GST, of which Randwick Rugby would contribute $528 +GST. Note this cost would vary should the banners fly for longer periods or be installed and dismantled more frequently.

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The Randwick District Rugby Football Club’s ‘community partnership’ with Council is based on the joint objective of both organisations to assist local schools and youth (particularly disadvantaged youth) and to improve the general health and wellbeing or residents of the Randwick Council area. The partnership was a great success last year and there is no reason why it can’t be even better this year.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     continues with the ‘community partnership’ with the Randwick District Rugby Football Club and the tremendous initiatives with the Club to assist local schools and youth and improve the general health of the Randwick Council area and that the $10,000.00 be funded from the 2014-15 Contingency Fund;

 

b)     waive the street banner hiring charges for Randwick Rugby to use 12 street banner poles on Arden Street, Coogee subject to availability;

 

c)     contribute half the installation and dismantling costs of the street banners with the remaining half to be paid by the Randwick Rugby Club;

 

d)     authorise the General Manager to negotiate suitable dates for the banners with Randwick Rugby; and

 

e)     this arrangement apply to future seasons.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM7/15

 

 

Subject:                  Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan and Budget 2015-16

Folder No:               F2015/03004

Author:                    Karen Hawkett, Coordinator Integrated Planning & Reporting     

 

Introduction

 

The pinnacle of Council’s Integrated Planning and Reporting framework is the 20-year Randwick City Plan. This Plan is the overarching document underpinned by the Resourcing Strategy and a suite of medium term plans such as An Inclusive Randwick and the Recreational Needs Study.

 

The Resourcing Strategy outlines how we will meet our obligations now and in the future, taking into account our workforce, our finances and our assets. The Strategy enables the delivery of services and projects to the community in a cohesive and sustainable way, and includes:

 

·          a Long Term Financial Plan

·          an Asset Management Strategy

·          a Workforce Plan.

 

The 20-year Randwick City Plan and Resourcing Strategy were reviewed and adopted in 2012 in line with legislation and the local government electoral cycle. We undertake a major review within each four-year electoral cycle, to measure the Plan’s progress and consider the changes in the community’s priorities, demographic information, technological advances and ongoing studies, and modify the planning documents accordingly.

 

As part of the most recent review and to align with the 2012 Local Government Election, the new Delivery Program 2013-17 was prepared. The Program was developed in consultation with our community and will be implemented through four one-year Operational Plans.

 

Each Operational Plan outlines the activities for the forthcoming year and includes key budget information. This year’s Operational Plan 2015-16 is the third plan to be derived from the current Delivery Program.

 

Towards the end of 2014, and in the preparation of the Operational Plan 2015-16, Council engaged the City’s precinct committees in a series of conversations about their funding priorities. The priorities identified through these and other consultation activities were incorporated into our planning and budget deliberations.

 

The Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2015-16 meets the requirements of s.404 and s.405 of the Local Government Act 1993 which specify the information that is to be included in a Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

 

All actions in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan are further detailed in internal departmental plans, project plans, service standards and individual work plans. The Delivery Program and Operational Plan are supported by integrated planning software which includes a clear assignment of responsibility, timeframe of projects and key performance indicators for services. All actions are reported on and accountability is observed through quarterly reporting.

 

Issues

 

The Draft Operational Plan 2015-16 is aligned to The Draft Randwick City Council Budget 2015-16, which is a detailed draft estimate of income and expenditure and the draft Statement of Fees, Charges and Pricing Policy. Each of these three documents are provided under separate cover.

 

 

The first two sections of the Draft Operational Plan explain how our planning process works and how it is translated into action. The outcomes and directions from the City Plan and the actions from the Delivery Program are used to develop our one-year operational actions.

 

This is followed by the Key Activities section, which is organised according to our six themes. As in previous years, we have outlined our long and medium-term plans related to each theme to give readers a better sense of how we implement our planning and illustrate our long-term planning in action.

 

Our Themes:

 

Responsible management

A sense of community

Places for people

A prospering City

Moving around

Looking after our environment

 

The final section ‘Our Budget 2015-16’, contains all of the statutory information required in the Local Government Act, including Council’s 2015-16 Revenue Policy.

 

We include accountability for the Buildings for our Community Program by providing budget estimates for all projects across the program. We have also provided budget estimates for all projects under the proposed ongoing Sustaining our City Program.

 

Changes in Delivery Program

The four-year 2013-17 Delivery Program is presented in each one-year Operational Plan. Each year the Delivery Program is reviewed to ensure its currency with changing circumstances. Following a review, it is recommended that three Delivery Programs be removed. These are:

 

4 Year Delivery Program Removed

Why

6a.4 Complete the construction of the Des Renford Leisure Centre.

This Project was completed in 2014-15.

Our activity is now focused on implementing programs at the centre which is addressed under Delivery Program 5b. Introduce and maintain a diverse range of programs to increase attendances at Des Renford Leisure Centre (DRLC) from year to year.

6c.5 Conduct minor reactive maintenance management in accordance with adopted service levels.

Council has worked hard to increase its scheduled maintenance of Council owned buildings, roads and open space assets. As a consequence more effort is now spent proactively maintaining assets than in reacting to issues.

We continue to plan and account for our asset maintenance through Delivery Program 6a.2 Conduct programmed infrastructure and asset maintenance management in accordance with adopted service levels.

 

9c.1 Continue to advocate for a rail system to service Randwick City.

The NSW State Government has committed to the re-introduction of light rail service to Randwick City.

 

Council’s efforts in advocating for the best outcomes from the light rail service will continue to be planned and reported under the Delivery Program 9c.2 Work closely with the State government as planning and implementation of rail systems evolve.

 

 

With the proposed removal of the Delivery Program 9c.1 Continue to advocate for a rail system to service Randwick City, Delivery Program 9c.2 (Work closely with the State government as planning and implementation of rail systems evolve) has been renumbered to maintain consistency in the sequence of the plan.

 

Public exhibition

The draft Plan is required to undergo public exhibition for a period of at least 28 days.

 

We are planning to advertise this ‘exhibition period’ in the Southern Courier, as a subject of the Mayoral column, as a media release, and online, with a click through link to Council’s webpage; on priority local bus shelters as a timetable poster; through our website; e-news and social media such as the Your Say Randwick specialised consultation website www.yoursayrandwick.com.au/budget2016, the myRANDWICK smart phone app, twitter and facebook.

 

In addition, hard copies of the Draft Budget and Operational Plan will be displayed at our local libraries, the Des Renford Leisure Centre and customer service desk.

 

Budget 2015-16

The Draft 2015-16 Budget has been compiled in accordance with the Council’s adopted Resourcing Strategy (Asset Management Plans, Workforce Strategy and Long Term Financial Plan).

 

We have adhered to the allocation of overheads to functions and activities in accordance with the NSW Office of Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting (June 2013) Note 2(a). Furthermore, we have detailed the expenses that are directly attributable to each function.

 

The following tables summarise the use of funds and the source of funds.

 

Table 1: Use of funds

 

Expenditure type

Amount ($)

Employee costs

57,704,096

Materials and contracts

33,944,164

Net capital expenditure

32,719,162

 

Other operating expenses

14,312,831

 

Net savings for future years

1,434,643

Total

140,114,896

 

Table 2: Source of funds

 

Revenue type

Amount ($)

Rates and annual charges

102,133,938

User fees and charges

16,194,761

Grants and contributions

11,010,157

Other revenues

8,285,545

Interest

2,509,637

Total

140,114,896

 

The proposed Budget for 2015-16 is balanced and sustainable, with a surplus of $19,142.

 

The major source of revenue for Randwick City Council is rates and annual charges.

 

 

 

 

Rates

The Council’s rating policy is structured on an ‘ad valorem’ basis and all properties within Randwick City are categorised as either residential or business. For each category, a minimum rate applies.

 

In June 2013, IPART approved a Special Variation to General Income for Randwick City of 3.59 per cent, per year, for four years, aligning with the 2013-17 Delivery Program. In line with this pre-approved variation, rates will increase by 3.59 per cent in 2015-16.

 

Environmental Levy

In 2004-05 the Minister for Local Government approved a five-year Environment Levy calculated at 6 per cent of the Council’s overall rates income. In July 2009 and again in June 2014 the Levy was re-approved for a further five years. The continuation of the levy allows Council to continue the environment program for another five years and fund a comprehensive range of environmental programs and initiatives aimed at achieving a substantial enhancement of Randwick’s environment.

 

Buildings for Our Community

In 2010, the Minister for Local Government approved a three-year s.508A Special Variation to General Income to provide funding for a seven-year capital, upgrade and replacement building program - Buildings for our Community Program. 2012-13 was the final year of rates increases relating to the Buildings for our Community Program. While there has been no increase in rates in relation to this program since 2012-13, works on our community buildings have been ongoing and will continue.

 

Domestic Waste Management Charge

Under s.496 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council must make and levy an annual charge for providing domestic waste management services. Under s.504 of the Act, income from the charge must not exceed the reasonable cost to the Council of providing those services.

 

The domestic waste management charge is proposed to increase from $510.72 to $529.05 for each residential occupancy in 2015-16.

 

A one-off rebate of $5.10 will be granted for the component of Carbon Pricing that was factored into the 2014-15 Domestic Waste Management charge.

 

The increased Domestic Waste Management Charge will provide for existing services, charges for tipping to landfill, the ongoing operation of the Perry Street Recycling Centre, continuation of Council’s Contaminated Site Remediation Program and Council’s commitment to Alternate Waste Technologies, in an effort to increase the amount of rubbish diverted from landfill.

 

Stormwater Management Service Charge

The Stormwater Management Service Charge was introduced in the 2008-09 financial year to establish a sustainable funding source for providing improved stormwater management across Randwick City. The amount chargeable has been prescribed under the Local Government Act at:

 

·          Residential property: $25 per annum (approximately 48 cents per week)

·          Residential strata property: $12.50 per annum (approximately 24 cents per week)

·          Business property: $25 per annum plus an additional $25 for each 350m or part thereof by which the parcel of land exceeds 350m

·          Business strata property: calculated as per a Business property and apportioned by unit entitlement for business strata lot with a minimum charge of $5.

 

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The Council is in a strong financial position with a sustainable and balanced budget, sufficient unrestricted cash and available working capital, strong liquidity, sufficient cash reserves, a good debt collection ratio and continues to be debt free.

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan and Budget 2015-16 have been prepared as the third subset of the current Delivery Program and outline the activities of the forthcoming year.

 

Following Council’s consideration of the Draft Operational Plan, it will be placed on public exhibition over the period from 4 to 31 May 2015, providing the community with time and information to consider the proposed activities.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)       the Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2015-16, which includes the 2015-16 Budget and associated Fees and Charges, and attachments as outlined below, be placed on public exhibition for not less than 28 days, from 4 to 31 May, inviting submissions from the public;

 

b)       at the conclusion of the period of public exhibition a meeting of the Council is held to consider any submissions made concerning the Draft Plan and consider the final Operational Plan;

 

c)       in accordance with the NSW Office of Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting (June 2013) Note 2(b), in respect to each broad function of council, expenses that can be reliably attributed have been allocated to that function; and

 

d)       the General Manager be authorised to make any minor changes if required.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2015-16

 

2.

Draft Randwick City Council Budget 2015-16

 

3.

Draft Randwick City Council Pricing Policy and Schedule of Fees and Charges 2015-16

 

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS5/15

 

 

Subject:                  Randwick City Sporting Walk of Fame

Folder No:               F2014/00516

Author:                    Jorde Frangoples, Director City Services      

 

Introduction

 

Council resolved at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 March 2015:

 

“(Mayor, Cr T Seng) that Council staff prepare and bring back a report, in consultation with the local Precinct Committees, into the possible establishment of a Sporting Walk of Fame in the Randwick City area, such report to include possible locations for the Walk and the formulation of a strict set of rules and guidelines around the process for selecting the inductees into the Walk of Fame.”

 

This report provides the location for the proposed Sporting Walk of Fame in Coogee.

 

Issues

 

It is proposed to create the Sporting Walk of Fame in Coogee Oval.  The oval is the City’s premier sporting facility and has been the venue of some of our greatest sports people.

 

Councillors nominate to be included in a working group to formulate the guidelines for inclusion into the Sporting Walking of Fame.

 

Council officers have consulted to Coogee Precinct Committee, the Randwick Rugby Club, the Randwick-Petersham Cricket Club and South Sydney Juniors Rugby League.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunity.

Direction 5a:     Maximise Opportunities for residents and visitors to enjoy both active and passive open spaces uses.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Coogee Oval is the City of Randwick premier sporting venue.  It would be the ideal site for the Sporting Walk of Fame. 

 

The new community facility (Coogee Senior Citizens Hall) currently being constructed onsite, would be the ideal venue for induction events.

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Councillors nominate to be on the working group to set up the guidelines for induction.

 

b)     Coogee Oval be the site for the Sporting Walk of Fame.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF12/15

 

 

Subject:                  Access to Council information (under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

Folder No:               F2010/00082

Author:                    Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

The Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act), which commenced operation on 1 July 2010, makes clear its objective to open government information to the public by:

 

a)     authorising and encouraging the proactive public release of government information

b)    giving members of the public an enforceable right to access government information; and

c)     providing that access to government information is restricted only when there is an overriding public interest against disclosure (similar to section 12(6) of the Local Government Act – which will be repealed with the proclamation of the new Act).

 

Issues

 

Council’s Access to Information Policy was adopted at the Council Meeting of 22 June 2010 to ensure that Council was in a position to implement the (then new) GIPA Act on 1 July 2010. The Access to Information Policy is supported by a suite of documents that assist in ensuring that Council’s obligations under the GIPA Act are met and that the public is informed of Council’s processes with respect to information access.

 

Council Access to Information Policy has recently been reviewed and minor amendments have been made to the policy.

 

The following documents (which support our Access to Information policy) have also been reviewed to ensure Council continues to meet its information access obligations with a best practice approach:

 

·       Access to Information Guidelines (this document is based on guidelines prepared by the NSW Governance Network (a sub-group of LG Professionals)

·       Access to Information Frequently Asked Questions (this document is based on guidelines prepared by the NSW Governance Network (a sub-group of LG Professionals)

·       GIPA Information Guide (the legislation requires that Council publishes this document on an annual basis. It contains information in relation to Council’s structure and functions and lists the type of information that is publicly available

·       Table of ‘Open Access’ information (available, as required, on our website)

·       GIPA Proactive Release Program (Council is required to annually review the documents and information that it holds and regularly releases under the GIPA Act).

 

Access to Information statistics   
Randwick City Council regularly analyses the information that it releases both informally (via its Access to Information request process) and formally under the GIPA Act. This analysis does not include information and documents that are accessed via our website (ie. Only includes documents for which an access to information request or formal GIPA application are submitted).

 

The 2013 and 2014 statistics (below) indicate a consistent trend in the type of information that is released regularly via Council’s access to information process. The statistics show that:

 

·       25.2% of requests – relate to copies of DA plans

·       21.75% of requests – relate to requests to see complete copies of files (primarily development application and property files)

·       13.3% of requests – relate to copies of DA submission letters

·       5.75% of requests – relate to DA consents

·       5% of requests – relate to copies of delegated staff reports in relation to DAs

 

The above document categories cover over 70% of the documents released or approximately 700 of 1,000 requests processed annually.

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:     Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 


Conclusion

 

Council has a suite of documents that support its information access obligations. The Access to Information Policy is required to be adopted by Council and both the current policy and the amended (draft) policy are attached.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the amended Access to Information Policy (April 2015) be adopted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Amended Access to Information Policy - April 2015

 

2.View

Current Access to Information Policy - July 2010

 

 

 

 


Amended Access to Information Policy - April 2015

Attachment 1

 

 



Current Access to Information Policy - July 2010

Attachment 2

 

 



Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF13/15

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - March 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 – March 2015” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of March 2015. All investments have been made in accordance with the Act, Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Investment Commentary

 

As at 31 March 2015, Council held investments with a market value of $68.4 million. The portfolio value increased marginally during March by ~$8k. The increase is representative of a positive cash flow for the month reflecting the net effect of revenue receipts (rates, grants & miscellaneous) offset by capital works expenditure and other operational payments.

 

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.

 

 

The following graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from July 2012 to March 2015. Peaks are representative of the rates instalment periods.

 

Council’s Portfolio

 

The portfolio has high levels of liquidity with 6% of investments available at call and a further 25% of assets maturing within 3 months. Council also currently has a number of senior FRNs as additional cover for liquidity requirements (access to funds within 3 business days)

 

The investment portfolio is diversified across a number of investment types and is spread across the higher rated ADIs. 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 March 2015. The portfolio is dominated by term deposits with the higher rated ADI’s. Credit assets (FRNs) are around 23% of the portfolio.

 

 

The entire investment portfolio is diversified across the higher rated ADI’s (A- or higher).

 

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.

 

 

Credit Quality

 

The portfolio is of very high quality from a ratings perspective. Credit quality is entirely directed amongst the higher rated ADI’s (A- or higher), in compliance with Council’s Investment Policy.

 

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.

 

 

 

^ Under the Financial Claims Scheme (FCS), the first $250,000 is guaranteed by the Federal Government (rated AAA by S&P), per investor, per ADI

 

All of these are within Policy limits.

 

Counterparty

 

The table below shows the individual counterparty exposures against Council’s current investment policy. All limits comply with the Policy.

 

 

 

Performance

 

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 March 2012 to March 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 3.73% compared with the benchmark index of 2.73%.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate remained at 2.25% at the March meeting. Money markets are factoring in at least one more cut later this year.

Term Deposits

 

At month end, deposits accounted for 72% of the total investment portfolio.

Five new deposits were placed in March – three deposits matured and were recalled.

 

Floating Rate Notes (FRNs)

 

The portfolio includes $15.6 million in floating rate notes.

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 FRNs increased by ~$13k as at the end of March.

 

During the month, Council sold its $2M holding in the AMP FRN at +62bp trading margin. It realised capital gains of ~$21k. Part of the proceeds ($1.5M) was switched into the newly issued 5 year Macquarie Bank FRN at +110bp.

 

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.

 

Investment Register

 

The investment register is maintained with details of each individual investment including; financial institution; amount invested; date invested; maturity date and the applicable interest rate.

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 31 March 2015 amounted to $1,838,929.18.

 

Certification – Responsible Accounting Officer

 

I hereby certify that all investments as at 31 March 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 March 2015 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the investment report for March 2015 be received and noted.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM15/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - Access to Centennial Park for PSSA (Primary Schools Sports Association)

Folder No:               F2005/00501

Submitted by:         Councillor  Shurey, North Ward      

 

 

1.     That Council notes:

 

a)     Centennial Parklands are raising fees on their sporting grounds to a rate that will make it unaffordable for public schools to use these facilities the way they currently do, most notably for the region’s weekly inter-school sports activities through the PSSA-Primary Schools Sports Association;

 

b)     in 2014, the Centennial Parklands charged the Sydney Coastal branch of the Primary Schools Association Sports Association (SCPSSA) $15,040 for one season of ground hire of Queens Park, Centennial Park and Moore Park fields and courts and the total bill for the year was nearly $23,000;

 

c)     by comparison, in 2013 Centennial Parklands charged $3,481 for all ground and carnival hire and in 2001 the total cost for the hire of park grounds was just $75;

 

d)     the Sydney Coastal PSSA organises weekly inter-school tournaments in Centennial, Queens and Moore parks between the region’s 17 public schools;

 

e)     if affordable fees are not restored for 2015, public school parents will have to bear the increased costs to be able to continue current arrangements for PSSA in the Eastern Suburbs;

 

2.     That Council supports parents, schools and members of the community and the recently formed community action group “Save PSSA in Centennial Park” in their efforts to lobby the State government to ensure affordable access for public schools for the use of sporting fields at Centennial Park; and

 

3.     That Council writes to the NSW Education Minister and the Minister responsible for the Parklands, calling on them to commit to ensuring that the SCPSSA and public school students are guaranteed access to the Centennial Park playing fields now and into the future at a fair and affordable rate.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM16/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Proposing  a series of moonlight cinema screenings

Folder No:               F2012/00260

Submitted by:         Councillor Garcia, South Ward      

 

 

That Council consider and report back on the possibility of holding a series of moonlight cinema screenings in suitable outdoor public spaces in the Randwick LGA in Summer 2015-16. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM17/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Parking demands generated by Boarding Houses

Folder No:               F2004/07992

Submitted by:         Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward      

 

 

That Council bring back a report and conduct a survey on all boarding houses approved under the State Affordable Housing Policy that are currently operating, to determine the parking demand generated by these developments.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM18/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Light Rail Businesses - Proposed Concession on utility bills.

Folder No:               F2015/00095

Submitted by:         Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward      

 

 

That Council write to the NSW Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, the Hon. Andrew Constance requesting that businesses affected by the light-rail construction in Randwick City, be given concessions or subsidies on their Utility Bills (ie. electricity, gas and water) during the time, when the construction process takes place in proximity to their business.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM19/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Kingsford & Kensington Town Centres - Business Survey

Folder No:               F2004/08054

Submitted by:         Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward     

 

That:

 

a)     Council conduct a survey on all businesses in the Kingsford and Kensington         Town Centres, to determine how many people drive and how many people         walk to these town centres        and;

 

b)     the information collated, be used as part of any parking strategy to alleviate         loses of parking caused by the light-rail.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM20/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Council Policy on Drugs in Sport

Folder No:               F2004/07111

Submitted by:         Councillor D'Souza, South Ward     

 

 

That to assist in the education of sporting clubs and their members about the destructive effect of doping in all sport, Council request a report to look at Council adopting a policy position that all sporting clubs in Randwick LGA that receive support from Randwick City Council agree to a protocol whereby they will inform and educate sporting participants (particularly junior sporting participants) of the dangers associated of using performance enhancing drugs and how such practices are contrary to the important messages of fair play and positive encouragement that are so much a part of sporting participation in Randwick.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM21/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Assessing support for a Resident Preferred Parking Scheme in Nelson Street, Randwick.

Folder No:               F2004/07237

Submitted by:         Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council conducts a survey of residents in Nelson Street, Randwick to assess support for the implementation or extension of a Resident Preferred Parking Scheme.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         28 April 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM22/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Application of Tree Management Process under Sydney Light Rail Project Development Agreement

Folder No:               F2014/00452

Submitted by:         Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That, in order to reduce tree losses under the CSELR construction, meetings of the Greening Randwick Committee be held to allow community involvement in Council’s application of the ‘tree management process’ to be developed by TfNSW under clause 1.19.1 of the signed Development Agreement for the Sydney Light Rail Project.