Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 28 July 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 July 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 July 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 - 23 June 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 Minute

MM35/15   Preferred location of new council administration offices.............................. 1   

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.

 

CP23/15    54A Bream Street, Coogee (DA/94/2015)................................................ 3

CP24/15    135 Avoca Street Randwick (DA/366/2015)............................................ 11

CP25/15    14 Bruce Street, Kingsford (DA/121/2015)............................................. 15

CP26/15    Report variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy NO.1 (SEPP1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 June to 30 June.......................... 29

CP27/15    Planning Proposal: 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington (application for LEP Amendment)...................................................................................................... 33

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP28/15    Botany Cemetery Expansion Proposal.................................................... 47

CP29/15    2015-16 Community Partnerships Funding Program - Recommended Allocations 59

CP30/15    Fallen Life Savers Memorial, Coogee..................................................... 67

General Manager's Report

Nil

Director City Services Report

CS7/15      Council Operated Swim Club - Randwick City Swim Club............................ 73

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF23/15    Update to Precinct Committee Boundaries, Rules & Procedures................... 79

GF24/15    Investment Report - June 2015............................................................ 99

GF25/15    2014-15 Draft Financial Statements..................................................... 107

GF26/15    Cancellation of October 2015 Committee Meetings.................................. 113

GF27/15    Coronial Inquest into Rock Fishermen Deaths - Deputy State Coroner's Findings and Recommendations............................................................................ 115  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM27/15   Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Proposed Matraville Community Centre 119

NM28/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposed shopping trolley management system 121

NM29/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposed feasibility study regarding the heavy-rail network......................................................................................... 123

NM30/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - ALGA Campaign to Restore Adequacy to FAG Funding.................................................................................................... 125

NM31/15   Notice of Motion from Crs Neilson and Shurey - Proposed Bi-Annual Multi Cultural Fair.................................................................................................... 127

NM32/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson – Motion for the 2015 LG NSW Conference to ban smoking on all beaches in NSW .......................................................... 129

NM33/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Relocating the 1917 Anzac Memorial...... 131

NM34/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Location of Council Administration Building in any merged council entity ....................................................................... 133

NM35/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson – Community concern over prolonged Dolphin Street closure........................................................................................... 134

 

 

 

  

Closed Session

MM36/15   Performance Review of General Manager 2015

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (a) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

 

CS8/15      T2015-15 - Heffron Park Synthetic Fields Construction

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.

 

 

CS9/15      T2015-20 - Heffron Park Stage B – Western Car Park Construction

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.

 

GF28/15    T2015-21 - Licence & Operation of Coffee Cart in Foyer of Bowen Library & Community Centre

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

  

Notice of Rescission Motion

NR4/15     Rescission Motion submitted by Crs D'Souza, Matson, Neilson and Shurey - Development Application report - 315 Maroubra Rd, Maroubra (DA/884/2014)............... 135  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM35/15

 

 

Subject:                  Preferred location of new council administration offices

Folder No:                   F2014/00600

Author:                   The Mayor, Ted Seng      

 

Introduction

 

Following Council’s resolution of 26 May 2015, Randwick Council submitted a Template 1 merger proposal with Waverley Council to IPART on 29 June 2015 to form a new eastern suburbs council as part of the NSW Government’s Fit for the Future program.

 

IPART is expected to make a recommendation to the NSW Government in October 2015 and the Government will make a decision after this time about council amalgamations.

 

Issues

 

As we work towards a new eastern suburbs council, I anticipate there will be a number of issues we’ll need to collectively address, discuss and resolve. Each merger partner will have their own priorities and values that they will bring to the table and each of these issues will need to be considered in regards to community and staff benefit.

 

It’s unlikely that we will be able to completely resolve every issue at this early stage. But I think it’s important that as a council we articulate our position on our key issues so that we can discuss these matters with our merger partner going forward.

 

One of these important issues is the location of the new council’s main administration building.

 

While our proposal made no reference to a preferred office location for the new council, I am aware there have been recent media reports of the possibility of the main council administration centre being located in Bondi Junction.

 

Should the Government decide to proceed with its reform process and form a new eastern suburbs council, I believe the council’s main administration centre should be within the City of Randwick.

 

As the geographic centre of a combined new eastern suburbs council would likely be within the Randwick Local Government Area, I think residents would be best served by having the main council administration centre centrally located. 

 

This would help ensure that residents in the southern part of Randwick City have easier access to conduct face-to-face transactions and it would make it quicker and more efficient for staff to attend site inspections and to respond to service requests across a larger geographic area.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Should the Government decide to proceed with its reform process and form a new eastern suburbs council, I believe the council’s main administration centre should be within the City of Randwick.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council resolves that the main administration centre for any new eastern suburbs council emerging out of the Fit for the Future process be located within the City of Randwick unless there be compelling reasons, financial or otherwise, that would make such a decision disadvantageous for residents and staff.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP23/15

 

 

Subject:                  54A Bream Street, Coogee (DA/94/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/94/2015

Author:                   City Plan Services, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Conversion of the subfloor space of the existing residential flat building into a new one bedroom dwelling (variation to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Mr P Perrie

Owner:                        The Owners - Strata Plan No. 63221

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview32727.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application was assessed by external consultant and referred to Council for determination as an objector is related to one of the Councillors.

 

Proposal

 

No. 54A Bream Street supports a 3 storey residential flat building containing 8 apartments, sub-floor garage and storage spaces. The proposal seeks consent to create a new one bedroom apartment entirely inside the envelope of the existing building. 

 

The proposed works consist of the following:

 

·      Demolition of part of the subfloor structure within common property, being the subfloor void space (Lot 1 in the Strata Plan applying to the building);

·      Excavation works  and minor underpinning;

·      Various construction works within the altered subfloor to create a 1 bedroom apartment; and

·      Excavation within the building line setback to Mount Street to create private open space (a courtyard) to serve the new apartment, including associated works comprising a new retaining wall and modifications to the existing boundary fence.  

 

The proposal was subject to a pre-DA review by Council's Design Review Panel in February 2015.

 

Site

 

The site is of a regular shape with a frontage of 12.48m to Bream Street, 30.4m to Mount Street and an area of 381.1m2.  The site falls away from Beam Street south to the rear boundary with a change in level of about 6m. The existing 3 storey residential flat building was refurbished and strata subdivided in 2000.

 

Figures 1: Subject site

 

 


                                       Figure 2: Site as seen from Bream Street

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·           Strata Plan No. 63221;

·           3/54A  and also Secretary of Strata Committee; 

·           2/54A Bream Street.

 

Issues

Recommendation

Lack of consultation and consent - the DA indicates that the other owners have provided their consent to this development.  However, this is contested by the Strata Committee

The applicant has subsequently provided evidence of owners consent from the owners of Strata Plan 63221, including the common seal of Strata Plan 63221. 

Extent and potential impact of works - the Strata Committee is concerned about the scope of works involved in the proposal.

Any consent would include conditions requiring the preparation of dilapidation reports prior to works commencing, and for all works to be completed to satisfy the Building Code of Australia and relevant Australian Standards

Construction - the scope of the proposed construction would have impacts on other owners and tenants living in the building.  The Strata Committee is concerned that no details on how these works would be carried out have been provided

 As above.

Compliance - the proposal does not comply with the FSR The proposal does not comply with the Private Open Space requirements Parking space is limited in the surrounding streets

These matters are discussed elsewhere in the report.

Pre-DA assessment

 

A Randwick and Waverley Design Review Panel meeting was held on 3 February 2015 in order to discuss the subject application. The Panel’s comments are as follows:

 

“Detailed Comments;

 

·            The location is highly suitable for this type of accommodation.

·            The additional FSR is of no concern to the Panel, as it obviously does not change the bulk of the building.

·            The Panel supports no car parking for such a dwelling, especially given the excellent public transport and nearby facilities in the area.

 

The following environmental requirements need to be incorporated:

·           doors and windows should have weather protection, appropriate to orientation

·           door and window operation should consider privacy and security, and maximise air flow

·           additional/enlarged openings should be made on the western side to aid cross ventilation

·           ceiling fans provided for all living and bedroom spaces and clearly marked on the plans

 

The internal planning is inadequately shown. The method of supporting the walls to be removed should be clearly shown in plan and section. The Panel is concerned that adequate head height is achieved – the floor level may need to be slightly lowered, and structural design better considered as 2.1m ceilings in main habitable spaces are not desirable.

 

Landscaping on the nature strip should be discussed with Council’s landscape architect – there is clearly scope to improve on the existing situation.

 

BCA advice should be sought and incorporated for the following;

·      fire separation between floors

·      ceiling heights (RFDC heights a better standard)

·      acoustic separation requirements for the ceiling

·      protection of openings and spandrel separation

·      any upgrade required to the building

 

The proposal currently lacks constructive and aesthetic intent;

·      relationship to sandstone base, and how openings would be made and trimmed

·      street (east) elevation, including fencing and privacy measures

·      a west elevation needs to be provided

·      effective methods for dealing with damp, waterproofing and drainage of the walls

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The current proposal lacks sufficient design detail to make an informed assessment. The Panel looks forward to seeing the proposal again when the issues in this report have been properly addressed.”

 

Key Issues

 

Variation to the Floor Space Ratio control

RLEP 2012 prescribes a 0.9:1 Floor Space Ratio control for the site. The development proposes a FSR of 0.98:1. The applicant has therefore submitted a written request, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP, which seeks to justify the contravention of that standard.

The request has been assessed relative to the terms of clause 4.6 of the Plan, and the 'test' established by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. Although the Wehbe case was decided in relation to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards (“SEPP 1”) and not clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 it remains of assistance in relation to these matters.

 

In summary it is concluded that:

 

-      The applicant has not demonstrated a variation to the FSR control is able to satisfy relevant zone objectives, and

-      A merit evaluation of the proposal confirms the proposed apartment would have a sub-optimal level of amenity for future residents, such that a variation to the FSR control is not in the public interest.

 

A more detailed evaluation is provided in the accompanying Compliance report.

 

Poor amenity for the proposed apartment

The proposed unit will have a sub-optimal level of amenity for the following reasons:

 

-      The unit itself will have no solar access of worth, limited cross ventilation, inadequate storage, greatly restricted daylight and a lack of any outlook; and

 

-      The courtyard will not contribute to the amenity of the unit as it has a poor amenity of its own due to a lack of solar access, compromised usability due to its limited depth, a lack of any outlook or aspect, and a strong sense of enclosure due to the overbearing presence of the boundary fence which is between 2.2m-2.6m above much of the courtyard space.

 

A more detailed evaluation is provided in the accompanying Compliance report.

 

Car parking

The 1 bedroom unit generated the need for an additional parking space, however no further parking is proposed.

 

Council's Development Engineer advises that failure to provide required parking is generally not supported, and that if approval is granted, a condition is to be imposed stating the unit may not qualify for a residential parking permit should Council implement a residential parking scheme for this area.

 

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

 

A comprehensive assessment of the proposed development has been undertaken and

all supporting information has been reviewed against the applicable environmental planning provisions.

 

While the scope of works is minor and generally unlikely to have any adverse impacts outside of the site itself, the proposed apartment will, for a number of reasons, have sub-optimal amenity. Such an outcome is contrary to the intent of the relevant planning controls. 

 

It is therefore recommended that the application be refused for the reasons set out below.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council reject the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to floor space ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development does not comply with the objectives of the clause, and the additional floor space is only for the purpose of creating a new apartment which will have a poor level of amenity; and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly;

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 94/2015 for conversion of part of the subfloor void of an existing residential flat building into a new one bedroom dwelling at No. 54A Bream Street Coogee for the follwoing reasons:

 

(1)   The proposal is not satisfactory for the purposes of clause 50 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation as the application is not accompanied by a Design Verification Statement from a qualified designer.

 

(2)   The application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as proposed dwelling is not satisfactory for the purposes of clause 30(2)(b) and (c) of State Environmental Planning Policy 65 (Design Quality of Residential Flat Development).

 

(3)   The proposal is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the submission pursuant to clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 fails to demonstrate the variation of the floor space ratio control is able to meet all of the zone objectives for the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone.

 

(4)   The application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as it is not in the public interest to vary the floor space ratio control in Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 for the purpose of creating a dwelling which has sub-optimal amenity for future residents when evaluated against the Residential Flat Design Code and Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

 

(5)   The proposal does not comply with relevant objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 under:

 

·    Clause3 of Part B7, and of Part C2:

·    Clause 2.3 private open space,

·    Clause 3.4 front setback,

·    Clause 4.4 ceiling height,

·    Clause 4.7 Apartment layout,

·    Clause 4.8 balconies,

·    Clause 4.12 retaining walls,

·    Clause 5.1 solar access,

·    Clause 5.2 natural ventilation, and

·    Clause 7.6 storage

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 54A Bream Street, Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP24/15

 

 

Subject:                  135 Avoca Street Randwick (DA/366/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/366/2015

Author:                   Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Fit out and change of use of the premise to a day spa and Thai massage shop

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Miss Massage Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mr A Milios

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the proposed use involves a massage shop and in accordance with Council’s Resolution on 27 June 2006, the application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination.

 

Proposal

 

the proposal involves the change of use and fit out of the premises as a massage premises (Miss Massage). Existing under awning signage is proposed to be replaced to reflect the name of the new business as well as new window signage.

 

It is considered that the proposed use is legitimate and that the premises are not intended to be used for the purposes of providing sexual services. Miss Massage is a franchise operation with identical businesses currently operating in Liverpool and Double Bay.

 

The proposed use of the subject premises as a day spa and Thai massage shop is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

Site

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Avoca Street, Randwick and consists of a commercial tenancy at ground floor level with shop top housing above. Business premises are located to the north and south of the subject site and shop top housing is common throughout the locality. The area is primarily commercial in nature. The site is identified under the RLEP 2012 as a heritage listed item ‘Victorian Shop front with residences above, c1880s and located within the Randwick Junction heritage conservation area.

 

Figure 1:  The subject site as viewed from Avoca Street. Existing under awning signage is proposed to be replaced with the name of the new business as well as a window graphic.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

Nature of the Use:

Massage will be carried out in the four treatment rooms as well as foot massages carried out in the front reception area by a maximum of 3 staff. The treatment rooms are fitted with solid doors, no sinks and only the rear room which has been identified as being used for facial and body scrub has a shower. As stated previously the premise is to be occupied by Miss Massage, there are currently 2 other businesses under the same name owned by the same operator which are located in Liverpool and Double Bay, it is considered that the use of the premise is legitimate. However, notwithstanding the above, appropriate conditions are recommended to ensure that no services of a sexual nature are provided within the premises. Also a condition of consent has been recommended requiring relevant remedial and therapeutic massage qualifications of all staff are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning prior to the commencement of the use. Council will then keep a record of the employees and their relevant qualifications

 

In addition to the above the proposal includes a Tea Bar, which will serve hot tea and water for the patrons, the applicant has clarified that no food will be served within the premise (TRIM D02404320).

 

Hours of Operation:

The proposed hours of operation are Monday to Sunday: 10:00am – 9:00pm. It is considered that the scale of the proposal including the proposed hours of operation will not result in any significant impacts on nearby residential properties with regard to noise generation. The proposed trading hours will be consistent with other nearby commercial/retail uses within the locality and consistent with the relevant controls and objectives of the RDCP 2013.

 

Randwick Junction Town Centre - Heritage

The proposal is located within Randwick Junction heritage conservation area and the subject site has been identified under the RLEP 2012 as a heritage item. There are no heritage objections to the proposed signage comprising of adhesive vinyl film to the face of the northern glazed panel and the contents of the existing under awning signage. It is considered that the proposal is generally consistent with other shop front signage within the Randwick Junction Town Centre.  The proposal will not result in any adverse impacts on the heritage value of the area or the heritage listed items, the proposal meets the relevant objectives and controls of the RDCP 2013.

 

Signage

The applicant has indicated that existing business identification signage will be replaced with new graphics to reflect the new business name.

 

Signage will be installed to an existing under awning sign as well as to the northern shop front window. The scale and type of the business identification signage alerts potential clients to the exact nature of the services to be provided and is displayed at the entrance to the premises. The proposed signage is not dissimilar to other businesses along Avoca Street and located within the Randwick Junction Town Centre. Notwithstanding, appropriate conditions are recommended to ensure details of signage to the front window and under awning sign are submitted and approved by council.

 

Parking

The proposed change of use of the subject site from a commercial shop to a massage shop will not change/alter the parking requirements on site. The site still provides parking at the rear and as previously stated is within close proximity to several high-use bus routes. The proposal is considered acceptable with regards to parking and meets the relevant objectives in the RDCP 2013.

 

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 change of use, fit out and signage, will comply with the relevant assessment criteria outlined in the RLEP 2012 and the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013. The proposed use is considered to be consistent with surrounding small business uses and subject to conditions to restrict the type of massage service provided, will not result in any unreasonable adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

 

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/366/2015 for Fit out and change of use of the premise to a day spa and Thai massage shop, at No. 135 Avoca Street, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-standard conditions

2.       No approval is granted for any alterations to the façade of the premises (other than signage changes).

 

3.       Details of signage to the shop front window and existing under awning sign must be submitted to Council’s Manager of Development Assessment for approval prior to the commencement of the use.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Report - Compliance Report - 135 Avoca Street, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP25/15

 

 

Subject:                  14 Bruce Street, Kingsford (DA/121/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/121/2015

Author:                   Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new part 2/part 3 storey boarding house in two buildings comprising 20 rooms and 4 car spaces

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                H K Archidraft

Owner:                        Mr S and Mrs S Widjaja

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview27684.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

 

 

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is for demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new part 2/part 3 storey boarding house in two buildings comprising 20 rooms and 4 car spaces including a boarding room for an onsite manager.

 

The proposed development comprises 2 pavilions to Bruce Street and Mary Hammer Lane containing 12 and 8 boarding rooms respectively. The front pavilion also contains communal area including a kitchen and laundry with access to a central lanscaped courtyard.

 

Parking is provided for 4 vehicles with 1 accessible space and 4 motorcycles spaces off Bruce Street and 3 spaces directly off the laneway.

 

Site

 

The site is a regular shaped allotment having a frontage to Bruce Street of 11.125m, a frontage to Mary Hammer Lane of 11.185m, side boundary depths of approximately 49m and a total site area of 551m2.

 

The site currently contains a weatherboard residence and brick garage which will be demolished by way of the proposal.

 

Adjoining the site to the north is a 2 storey dual occupancy developments. The locality comprises predominantly low to medium density residential development including single and 2 storey dwelling houses and interspersed with some 2 storey residential flat development.

 

The site is in close proximity to St. Spyridon School and church grounds and within 400m of the Kingsford Centre.

Figure 1: Subject site showing 2 storey dual occupancy developments

Figure 2: Rear of subject site showing existing garage structure sited in part to the street alignment

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      1 Bruce Street, Kingsford

·      Unit 1, 4 Bruce Street, Kingsford

·      6A Bruce Street, Kingsford

·      7 Bruce Street, Kingsford

·      8 Bruce Street, Kingsford

·      9 Bruce Street, Kingsford

·      10 Bruce Street, Kingsford

·      12 Bruce Street, Kingsford

·      11 Bruce Street, Kingsford

·      13 Bruce Street, Kingsford

·      Unit 1, 15 -17 Bruce Street, Kingsford

·      Unit 4, 15 – 17 Bruce Street, Kingsford

·      16A Bruce Street, Kingsford

·      16B Bruce Street, Kingsford

 

Issues

Comment

The proposed development is not consistent with the residential culture of Bruce Street.

The proposed development is permissible within the zone subject to the consent of Council.

Noise concerns from the proposed development.

See Acoustic Amenity in Boarding Houses section of Key Issues.

Increased danger of theft and drugs.

This claim has not been substantiated.

The proposed development is the first of its kind. Lack of community consultation.

Boarding houses have been permissible in the zone for well over a decade. The proposal has been advertised in accordance with the Council’s DCP.

Deprivation of privacy to adjoining properties.

The design incorporates high set windows to boarding rooms and privacy screens to balconies which should provide for an adequate visual privacy interface between properties. See also Acoustic Amenity in Boarding Houses section of Key Issues.

Inadequate parking and unacceptable traffic in the locality.

The Development Engineer has assessed the development as satisfactory in this regard.

Non-compliance with setback to the laneway.

See Design Issues (SEPP 65 - Quality of Residential Flat Development) in Key Issues section of this report.

The proposed development would devalue surrounding properties.

This matter is outside the ambit of the EP and A Act, 1979.

Kitchen facilities within the development are inadequate.

Any approved development would be conditioned to comply with the requirements of the BCA for this type of development.

The proposed development does not comply with the accessible area requirements as the site is more than 600m form a light rail station.

The site is within the required distance from bus stops with the required level of service.

Safety issues given location of the St Spyridon church and school grounds.

The proposed development is not expected to generate unacceptable safety impacts.

Overshadowing impacts are unacceptable.

See Design Issues in Key Issues section of this report.

There is potential for the conversion of the boarding rooms into self-contained strata apartments.

Any application in this regard would be considered on its merits.

There is already an excess of this type of accommodation in the locality.

The identified need for this type of accommodation is manifest by virtue of the SEPP for affordable housing which highlights the need.

Excessive FSR and bulk and scale of the proposed development.

The proposed development in terms of bulk and scale is well with that allowable under the SEPP.

Questionable as to whether the proposed development will not provide “affordable housing”.

A boarding house provides a form of low cost rental accommodation for a wide range of tenants and is a type of development consistent with the aims of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 with the intention to increase the supply and diversity of affordable rental and social housing throughout NSW.

 

Background:

The application was the subject of a pre-DA application (PL/55/2014) wherein the design advocated a single building envelope. The pre-DA advice recommended a dual pavilion approach to development of the site and made a number of recommendations in order to achieve an optimal design of development on the site. Certain recommendations have been incorporated, however there continue to be concerns in relation to design and other issues including:

 

·      The bulk and massing of the building so as to provide 2 more compact building envelopes with a greater separation.

·      Treatment of the streetscape to Bruce Street so as to contribute to the existing character of the immediate locality.

·      The provision of plans at a scale that would allow for ready calculation and verification of submitted boarding room areas.

·      Demonstration of a functional bicycle storage area within the development.

 

A meeting was convened with the applicant on 26 May 2015 to discuss the above issues, at which time the applicant asserted the position that the application was compliant, had been changed to accommodate the requirements of the DRP and Council’s planning section and was not prepared to make any further adjustments. The request was made to have the application determined as soon as possible.

 

It is with this background that the current report has been prepared.

 

Key Issues

 

Design issues with the proposed development (SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development)

For boarding houses of 3 or more storeys which contain 4 or more self-contained boarding rooms (with private kitchen and bathroom facilities), Council’s consistent interpretation has been that boarding rooms of this nature each constitute a “dwelling” as defined within the Standard Planning Instrument including the RLEP as:

 

dwelling means a room or suite of rooms occupied or used or so constructed or adapted as to be capable of being occupied or used as a separate domicile.

 

As such, applications of this nature have been referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) for comment.

 

The applicant has asserted that the SEPP does not apply to a Boarding House development. Furthermore L and E Court cases have been submitted with the application detailing several cases where the Court has excluded the inclusion of a boarding room with no “built in” cooking facilities from constituting a “dwelling” as defined. On this basis, the applicant maintains that any comments provided by the panel are not applicable to the development.

 

Whilst the above argument is not conclusive in that no planning principle has been established by the Court as to the application or not of SEPP 65 (such as in the current circumstance), the simple non-application of constructive design comments by arbitrary exclusion is not conducive to a desirable planning outcome. It is considered that regardless of the strict application or not of SEPP 65 in this instance, the incorporation of desirable design improvements to ensure an optimal form of development on the site should be pursued.

 

The application was referred to the DRP on 3 April, 2015. The following comments were received:

 

PANEL COMMENTS

This is a now a DA and the second Panel meeting with the applicant for this site.

The Applicant seeks approval to demolish an existing single storey dwelling and construct a three storey boarding house comprising 20 boarding rooms, a common room and laundry facilities.  Parking for four cars and four motorbikes is provided.

 

Panel members have visited the site and are familiar with the context.

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal 

This area just north of Gardeners Road is a good location for housing options such as student housing, boarding houses, serviced apartments and affordable housing.  It is close to the UNSW Kensington Campus and Prince of Wales Hospital and has access to frequent public transport, Kensington shops, and parks. The area currently has a mix of one and two storey houses and units of undistinguished character.  The area is in the process of change and increased density.

2.       The Scale of the Proposal

The Panel previously noted that although the building sits within the roof height controls for the site the Panel has concerns about the length of the building and lack of response to the central open space that is predominant in the area.  This pattern would be easily adopted for the site as it has two street frontages and would easily accommodate two buildings each facing the respective streets and a central courtyard with deep soil area creating the opportunity for quality communal outdoor space.

The proposal now has a small central space which the Panel recommends be increased in size and amenity to create a truly useful garden courtyard.

3.       The Built Form of the Proposal

Two separate buildings are proposed as previously suggested by the Panel however the planning needs to be improved as follows to better align with SEPP 65 standards and objectives:

•      the eastern building should be a compact three-storey building with each floor consisting of 4 units except for the ground floor which could have two units.  A well landscaped entry path could lead to the stair - this area should not be an undercroft nor feature electrical cabinets but should be a good quality residential entry.  The ground floor units could enjoy small courtyards to the boundary.

•      the common room would move east increasing the courtyard area.  It could be single story and enjoy more winter sun, or a rooftop outdoor area could be considered over the common room.  This could serve as the managers private outdoor space if the managers room was moved to the second floor of the east wing. The kitchenette could be within the common room and the laundry has some method of sound separation.  The kitchenette and laundry areas should have windows.

•      The path should extend to the eastern wing and straight through to Hamer Lane as a clear through site link. The garbage should not be adjacent this path.  The central corridor in the west building is unnecessary and more space can be given to the rooms when deleted.

•      The western building should also be a compact three-storey building with two floors of four units over the ground floor of two units and parking.

•      The courtyard should be increased in size as noted above and the managers POS should not impinge upon it.

•      Each room would be able to enjoy windows on two facades.

•      Overlooking of neighbouring outdoor private space needs to be considered and appropriate screening provided.

•      Ceiling heights of 2700mm and good acoustic attenuation between rooms will be required.

•      The roof design could be articulated to assist ventilation through stack effect or provide more light without creating privacy issues.

The proposed reduction in setbacks needs to be discussed with Council.

5.       The Proposed Density

The Panel understands that the Affordable Housing SEPP allows a floor space bonus.  It is the Panels opinion that the LEP density plus the SEPP Affordable Housing bonus should be suitable in this evolving urban context, which is well served by public transport and is very convenient to the University, the hospital and a wide range of public places, facilities and shopping.

However any argument for additional density should be supported by design quality, and good amenity for all dwellings. The current design does not meet this criterion.

6.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

Good passive solar design and environmental principles should inform the design.  The apartments need to perform well without the need for air conditioning - at present this is not adequately addressed.

Good cross ventilation to all units should be provided by the plan.  Awning windows with super screens will have very restricted air flow and better window options should be investigated.

An improved roof design with clerestory windows could be used to capture winter sun and provide added light and ventilation.  Drawings should indicate roof thicknesses for falls and insulation.

Provision needs to be made for water collection and reuse.

Ceiling fans should be provided throughout and clearly marked on the plans.  Fans are an effective and inexpensive way to increase amenity.  They need to be shown clearly on the plans and sections.

Ventilation should be able to be maintained at night without compromising security. Consideration needs to be given to fanlights, windows or other ventilation options.

Clothes lines should be provided.  These could be discrete and low on the small balconies but not overly visible from outside of the site.

Sunshading appropriate to orientation should be provided.

7.       The Proposed Landscape

A qualified landscape architect should prepare the landscape design, despite the limited opportunities for planting.

Trees planted in deep soil would be highly beneficial in a central courtyard.  A tree to the lane would be an improvement.

The entry path and through site link should be of high quality landscape design.

8.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

Concerns about amenity and lack of quality common space have already been raised in this report.

9.       The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

BCA advice should be sought with regard to fire separation.

10.     Social issues

The Panel strongly supports new affordable housing on well-located sites in Randwick, such as in and around Kensington and Kingsford. The construction should allow for future interconnection of rooms so that larger apartments are possible if required in the future.  This needs to be demonstrated by notation of some post and beam construction appropriate to the adjoining room layouts.

11.     The Aesthetics of the Proposal

Currently the elevations reflect a design that is unacceptable due to the proposed length and bulk.  The reduced number of opening windows is of major concern and the balcony design should be more simply integrated with the main built form.  The elevations also lack good proportion and scale with window placement and vertical treatments.  The roofs are overly complicated and for no good reason - they have potential box gutter areas and will need a plethora of downpipes.  They do not have clerestory windows or ventilation.    More simple and effective roof forms should be considered.

The Panel is concerned with the finished quality of affordable housing schemes in Kingsford and nearby suburbs, and requires that 1:50 part elevations and sections need to be provided, to adequately describe the materials, details and construction to allow proper assessment of the design quality, and to tie in those qualities to any consent.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Although there has been some improvement the proposal currently does not meet requirements for good design and particularly in relation to context, scale, amenity, environmental design, landscape and aesthetics. Drawing conventions such as north at the top of the page should be observed when preparing for submission.

The Panel looks forward to seeing this application again, when it has been developed into an improved proposal, with an appropriate level of design resolution. If not, the Panel recommends that it be rejected.

 

Officer’s comment:

The comments provided by the DRP suggest a number of important changes be made that will have the effect of substantially improving the design. The recommended changes are not necessarily punitive in nature in terms of potential yield and could readily be incorporated to facilitate a better planning outcome on the site, particularly given that the proposed development is the first of its kind in this locality.

 

From a design perspective, the proposal is therefore not supported in its current form.

 

SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARH SEPP)

A comprehensive assessment of the provisions of the ARH SEPP is detailed in the compliance report which is attached to this report. The following is a summary of the non-compliances with the relevant provisions under clause 29 of the ARH SEPP.

 

Clause 29 of the ARH SEPP outlines standards which if complied with cannot be used as reasons for refusal.

 

Clause 29

(b)  landscaped area

if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located,

 

Comment

The proposal includes a proposed hardstand space, 4 motorcycle parking spaces and a small portion of landscaped area in the south eastern corner creating an extensive hard surfaced area within the front setback.

Due to the rear lane access to properties on both sides of the Bruce Street, apart from several driveways to the north towards Borrodale Road, the front setback areas of existing developments within the streetscape are devoid of car parking and suitably landscaped.

 

The proposed arrangement is in stark contrast to the established practice and as a result incompatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.

 

(c)  solar access

where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter,

 

Comment

From the information submitted with the application, it would appear that the communal room will receive little if any sunlight access during the winter solstice.

 

This situation could be improved by a greater physical separation between pavilions which is also part of the recommendations by the DRP.

 

 (f)  accommodation size

if each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least:

 

(i)  12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or

(ii)  16 square metres in any other case.

 

Comment

Insufficient dimensions have been shown and/or the plans submitted do not allow for ready scaling of the indicated areas. An accurate calculation of compliance with the minimum required floor areas is therefore not reliable.

 

Clause 30 provides that Council cannot consent to an application unless the following standards are complied with:

 

Clause 30

(h)  at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.

 

Comment

The plans make no provision for bicycle parking and given the constricted layout on the ground floor, it is difficult to establish where such provision might be made without compromising other designated areas.

 

Clause 30A of the ARH SEPP states the following:

 

30A   Character of local area

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

 

The character principle relevant to the proposal continues to be provided in Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191. In this case SC Roseth provides the following guidance in respect of establishing whether a proposed development is compatible with surrounding development or the character of an area.

 

Planning principle: compatibility in the urban environment

22 There are many dictionary definitions of compatible. The most apposite meaning in an urban design context is capable of existing together in harmony. Compatibility is thus different from sameness. It is generally accepted that buildings can exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale or appearance, though as the difference in these attributes increases, harmony is harder to achieve.

 

Comment:

It is clear that the proposed development will be the first of its kind in the locality. Moreover the intention of the planning controls to permit this type of development in the locality is well established and has been for at least a decade. Whilst no objection is raised to the height and scale of the proposed development for the reasons outlined in this report, important changes in design need to occur to ensure that the proposed development remains in harmony with surrounding developments.

 

23 It should be noted that compatibility between proposed and existing is not always desirable. There are situations where extreme differences in scale and appearance produce great urban design involving landmark buildings. There are situations where the planning controls envisage a change of character, in which case compatibility with the future character is more appropriate than with the existing. Finally, there are urban environments that are so unattractive that it is best not to reproduce them.

 

Comment:

The planning controls for the area envisage medium density residential development including boarding houses. The area is not unattractive such that respect for the existing character and a harmonious integration of new with existing development is undesirable in this instance. Nonetheless, the area is clearly undergoing transition and it is important that new development contribute to the desired future character.

The proposed development does not achieve this intention.

 

24 Where compatibility between a building and its surroundings is desirable, its two major aspects are physical impact and visual impact. In order to test whether a proposal is compatible with its context, two questions should be asked.

 

o     Are the proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable? The physical impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites.

Comment:

The physical impacts on surrounding properties are considered unacceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The absence of any landscaped area within the front setback does not provide adequate screening or softening of the streetscape or in relation to surrounding properties.

·      The extended building envelopes of front and rear pavilion shows shadow impacts to the southern neighbour over and above those that might be achieved in a more compact design of both pavilions as recommended in the Design Issues section. 

·      Is the proposal’s appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?

 

Comment

For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development in its current form is not considered to appear in harmony with buildings around it or the character of the street.

 

25 The physical impacts, such as noise, overlooking, overshadowing and constraining development potential, can be assessed with relative objectivity. In contrast, to decide whether or not a new building appears to be in harmony with its surroundings is a more subjective task. Analysing the existing context and then testing the proposal against it can, however, reduce the degree of subjectivity.

 

Comment:

Noted.

 

26 For a new development to be visually compatible with its context, it should contain, or at least respond to, the essential elements that make up the character of the surrounding urban environment. In some areas, planning instruments or urban design studies have already described the urban character. In others (the majority of cases), the character needs to be defined as part of a proposal’s assessment. The most important contributor to urban character is the relationship of built form to surrounding space, a relationship that is created by building height, setbacks and landscaping. In special areas, such as conservation areas, architectural style and materials are also contributors to character.

 

Comment:

Whilst a photomontage has been provided, a streetscape elevation would also assist in appreciating the visual compatibility with the surrounding context. As mentioned elsewhere the provision of 2 more compacted building envelopes would enable a redistribution of facilities at ground floor level allowing for improved landscaping of the front setback, a larger and more functional communal area within the development and a better presentation of the development both internally and to the respective streetscape.

 

27 Buildings do not have to be the same height to be compatible. Where there are significant differences in height, it is easier to achieve compatibility when the change is gradual rather than abrupt. The extent to which height differences are acceptable depends also on the consistency of height in the existing streetscape.

 

Comment:

The height relationship between the proposed development and existing adjoining developments is considered acceptable.

 

28 Front setbacks and the way they are treated are an important element of urban character. Where there is a uniform building line, even small differences can destroy the unity. Setbacks from side boundaries determine the rhythm of building and void. While it may not be possible to reproduce the rhythm exactly, new development should strive to reflect it in some way.

 

Comment:

Whilst the setbacks to Bruce Street and the laneway are reasonably consistent with the surrounding built form, the treatment of the front setback is at odds with the existing and desired future character of the locality.

 

29 Landscaping is also an important contributor to urban character. In some areas landscape dominates buildings, in others buildings dominate the landscape. Where canopy trees define the character, new developments must provide opportunities for planting canopy trees.

 

Comment:

The proposal in its current form provides for an inadequate landscaped treatment of the Bruce Street frontage. The provision of the motorcycle parking (at least) elsewhere on the site would compromise the efficiency of other designated areas on the plan.

 

30 Conservation areas are usually selected because they exhibit consistency of scale, style or material. In conservation areas, a higher level of similarity between the proposed and the existing is expected than elsewhere. The similarity may extend to architectural style expressed through roof form, fenestration and materials.

 

Comment:

There are no considered issues in this regard. Whilst the St Spyridon Church is identified as a heritage item of local significance the proposed development will have a negligible impact in this regard.

 

31 It should be remembered that most people are not trained planners or urban designers and experience the urban environment without applying the kind of analysis described above. As people move through the city, they respond intuitively to what they see around them. A photomontage of a proposed development in its context provides the opportunity to test the above analysis by viewing the proposal in the same way that a member of the public would.

 

Comment:

The proposed development includes a number of deficiencies which could be improved upon as outlined in this report. The photomontage provided with the application illustrates the incompatibility in this regard.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2013

The objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone are as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

•      To protect the amenity of residents.

•      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposal, for reasons outlined elsewhere in this section of the report is considered inconsistent with the above highlighted objectives. Amendments to achieve compliance with the stated objectives are considered important in this case.

Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

Part C4 Boarding Houses applies to the proposed development and supplements the controls contained within the ARH SEPP and the RLEP. A complete assessment of the proposed development against the DCP provisions is detailed in the Compliance Report which is attached to this report.

 

A number of issues in relation to the DCP controls are addressed as follows:

 

Boarding Rooms

The private balconies for boarding rooms 9-12 and 14-20 are less than the minimum 4m2 required under the DCP. Whilst this is a minor issue it is indicative of the less than optimal design content inherent in the proposal as submitted.

 

 

 

Outdoor Communal Open Space

The DCP requires a minimum outdoor open space provision of 20m2 with a minimum dimension of 3m. Whilst the submitted proposal satisfies the numerical requirements of the DCP, due to the unnecessarily elongated design of both pavilions, the area provided in this regard is constrained and will provide less than optimal amenity. More importantly this aspect could be easily improved as suggested elsewhere in this report.

 

Indoor Communal Facilities

The DCP requires 20m2 with a minimum dimension of 3m and or 1.2m2 per occupant, whichever is the greater. However the ARH SEPP simply requires provision for a communal room for boarding houses with 5 or more rooms which overrides the local provision. Notwithstanding, due to the minimal separation between pavilions and the orientation of the site, it is evident that the communal room will receive little or no direct sunlight during the winter solstice. This is undesirable and correctable and therefore should be incorporated into the design.

 

Acoustic Privacy

The DCP requires submission of an acoustic report detailing likely sources of noise and amelioration measures to curtail any adverse impacts.

 

Despite mention to the contrary in the SEE, no acoustic report has been submitted with the application and it is difficult to determine acceptable impacts in this regard.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal in its current form, due to the deficiencies outlined in this report is not supported.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Sections 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 121/2014 for Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new part 2/part 3 storey boarding house in two buildings comprising 20 rooms and 4 car spaces at No. 14 Bruce Street, Kingsford, for the following reasons:

 

1)       The proposal does not satisfy certain zone objectives of the R3 Medium Density Zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as the development in does not provide for an acceptable presentation to the streetscape or adequately protect the amenity of residents.

 

2)       The proposal does not satisfy the relevant requirements of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in that:

 

a)   The development does not provide for adequate landscaping of the frontage of the development to Bruce Street and the resultant presentation is not compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.

b)   Inadequate information has been submitted to establish that adequate solar access will be available to the communal area within the development.

c)         Inadequate detail has been submitted to establish compliance with the minimum floor areas recommended under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

d)   No bicycle parking is provided within the development.

e)   The proposed development in its current form is not compatible with the character of the local area in terms of the presentation of the development to the streetscape.

 

3)       The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of the DCP in regard to internal and communal facilities, outdoor communal facilities and acoustic amenity.

 

4)       The proposal does not provide for an adequate design and the resultant internal and external amenity within the development is unacceptable.

 

5)       The granting of consent to the proposal is not in the public interest.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 14 Bruce Street, Kingsford

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP26/15

 

 

Subject:                  Report variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy NO.1 (SEPP1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 June to 30 June

Folder No:                   F2008/00122

Author:                   Frank Ko, Coordinator Fast Track      

 

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 June to 30 June 2015 – three (3) were approved during this period 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

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 Register  June 2015

 

 

 

 


SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 Register  June 2015

Attachment 1

 

 

 

SEPP 1 AND CLAUSE 4.6 REGISTER BETWEEN 1 JUNE AND 30 JUNE 2015

Council DA reference No.

Lot No.

DP No.

Apartment/Unit No.

Street No.

Street name

Suburb Town

Post code

Category of development

Environmen-tal plan-ning instrument

Zoning of land

Development standard to be varied

Justification of variation

Extent of variation

Concurring authority

Date DA determined
 

Authority

 

 

DA/835/2014

 

 

 

16

 

 

 

5397

 

 

 

 

14

 

 

 

Beach Street

 

 

 

CLOVELLY

 

 

 

2031

 

 

 

1: Residential - Alterations & additions

 

 

 

RLEP 2012

 

 

R3 - Medium Density
 Residential

 

 

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.75:1

 

 

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

 

FSR  existing: 1.14: 1, proposed increase to 1.28:1, which is 53% above FSR Controls.

 

 

NSW Dept of Planning

 

 

09-Jun-15

 

 

PCM

 

DA/127/2015

 

1

 

1081

 

 

79

 

Denning Street

 

SOUTH COOGEE

 

2034

 

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 12.043m (2.543m over height limit) or 26.77% excess

 

NSW Dept of Planning

 

09-Jun-15

 

PCM

 

DA/134/2015

 

43

 

70446

 

A401

 

106

 

Brook Street

 

COOGEE

 

2034

 

1: Residential - Alterations & additions

 

RLEP 2012

 

R3 - Medium Density
 Residential

 

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 12m

 


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

 

Building height is 15m (3m over height limit) or 25% excess

 

NSW Dept of Planning

 

09-Jun-15

 

PCM

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP27/15

 

 

Subject:                  Planning Proposal: 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington (application for LEP Amendment)

Folder No:                   RZ/1/2015

Author:                   Stella Agagiotis, Co-ordinator, Strategic Planning     

 

Introduction

 

This report assesses the merits of a planning proposal (spot rezoning) received by Council, which proposes an increase in permissible building height and floor area for land at 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington, located within the Kensington Town Centre. The rezoning application was submitted by Luxcon 8 Pty Ltd, supported by an Anzac Parade residential study prepared by SGS Economics and Planning and an urban design report prepared by GMU Urban Design and Architecture.

 

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

The Planning Proposal is not seeking consent for development on the site.  It is seeking Council’s support to commence a planning process for an amendment to Randwick LEP 2012.  Should Council support the Planning Proposal, the applicant will be required to lodge a separate development application to be assessed through a development consent process.

 

Background

 

On 27 March 2014, the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) granted consent to DA/320/2013 for “demolition of existing structures and construction of a part six (6), part seven (7) storey mixed use development, comprising three (3) basement levels with 257 car spaces, ground floor supermarket with loading dock and 100 residential units above, including associated excavation, dewatering and landscaping works”.

 

In December 2014 and April 2015, two subsequent modifications were approved by the JRPP. As a result of the approved modifications, the proposed development comprises 121 units, 200 car spaces and 4 retail tenancies at the ground level replacing the supermarket, with a total reduction of 117m2 in approved gross floor area but an overall increase of 21 units (compared to the original consent for DA/320/2013). 

 

The construction as per the DA approval (DA/320/2013) and two approved S96 modifications (DA/320/2013/A and DA/320/2013/B) is currently underway with the site being excavated and prepared for the approved development. 

 

Planning Proposal (Rezoning) - LEP Process

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

 

In June 2015, the applicant, Luxcon 88 Pty Ltd submitted a planning proposal accompanied by an Anzac Parade Residential Study and an urban design report.  Council as the relevant planning authority is required to formally consider the application and if supported, the planning proposal is to be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking a ‘Gateway Determination’ in accordance with the Department’s criteria contained in “A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals”.  The purpose of the ‘Gateway Determination’ is to ensure there is sufficient justification early in the planning process to proceed with the rezoning.  The ‘Gateway Determination’ will stipulate whether the planning proposal should proceed, whether it needs to be resubmitted, the timeframe for its completion (usually nine months from the date of the gateway determination), the community consultation and State/Commonwealth agency requirements and whether a public hearing is needed. 

 

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

 

The final LEP and accompanying maps which amend the Council’s principle planning instrument – Randwick LEP 2012 are made by the Minister for Planning (and notified on the NSW legislation web site) in accordance with the Act.  Certain LEPs which are of local significance can be finalised by Council via delegation from the Minister (this is determined at the gateway stage).

 

Pre-gateway reviews

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

Subject Site

Located towards the northern end of the Kensington Town Centre, the site has frontages to Anzac Parade and Goodwood Street and contains 9 lots with a total area of 3,785m2.

 

The site was previously used for a variety of retail and business purposes. The original buildings on site have been recently demolished and the site is being excavated in preparation for the approved development (DA/320/2013).

 


 

Figure 1- Location of Subject Site

 

The Proposal

The Planning Proposal seeks to increase the maximum building height under the Randwick LEP 2012 from 25m to part 34m and part 41.5m to accommodate a proposed mixed use development with retail uses on the ground floor and residential uses on upper levels. The proposal will allow an additional 50-60 dwellings on the site, totaling approximately 170-180 units.

 

As noted in the submitted documents, the proposal was largely informed by the State Government’s former Randwick Urban Activation Precinct process and two background studies:

 

·      Randwick Urban Activation Precinct (UAP). The subject site is located within the State Government’s previously proposed Randwick Urban Activation Precinct, a program undertaken to review the current planning controls and investigate the development potential at local centres and around the proposed light rail stops.

 

The applicant notes that although the Randwick UAP process is on hold the new Metropolitan Strategy (Planning for the Growing Sydney) identifies the Anzac Pde corridor as: “local renewal opportunities yet to be identified”. The State Government will work with the Council and the local community to investigate and identify the area’s potential for local renewal and revitalisation of local neighborhoods.

 

·      Urban Design Study (May 2015). The urban design study was undertaken to inform the proposal in terms of potential heights and massing achievable on the site. The study examined two built form strategies with an emphasis on exploring different approaches to increased heights.  In general, both strategies proposed a tower of a maximum height of 11 storeys above ground level to the south-western corner, maximum 8 storeys above ground level to the main part of the building and a street wall height of 5 storeys above ground floor along Anzac Parade. The difference between the two strategies is that Strategy 1 explores a second tower form of 9 storeys above ground floor placed towards the northern end of the site.

Height limit of 25m (indicative)

 
       

Figure 2 Applicant’s preferred scenario – single tower option on corner of Goodwood Street

 

·      Economic and Residential Study (June 2015). The study undertook assessment of the impact of the light rail on redevelopment prospects in Kensington and the potential development capacity (in terms of additional GFA) under the current and the proposed controls. It also analysed the demographic, housing and employment profile of Kensington to identify the characteristics of likely residents and their needs. The study suggests that with the light rail and rapid buses, the future public transport capacity will be 45% more than the current level of services. It further concludes that the proposed height controls in the study area will result in a net additional residential floor space potential of 112,204m2 (or 1,200 dwellings), compared to 58,124m2 GFA under the current planning controls. The study notes that the likely residents of the proposed development are students and young professionals, who are likely to utilise public and active transport and have low rates of car ownership.

 

Description of surrounding area

The site is in close proximity to major open space and institutional sites, including Moore Park and Centennial Park to its north, Randwick Racecourse to the east,  UNSW and the Randwick Hospitals Campus to the southeast and Sydney CBD.

 

The site is surrounded by a mix of built form types, including semi-detached dwelling houses, old style walk-up flats and more recent residential flat buildings up to 6 storeys.

 

The subject site comprising 9 lots makes up about 36% of the block bounded by Anzac Parade, Carlton Street, Elsmere Street and Goodwood Street. Directly to the north of the site is a six-storey mixed use development with ground floor retail and upper level residential. Further to the north along Anzac Parade are a detached dwelling house, 2 walk-up flats and a residential tower (old stock) of 12 storeys.

 

Immediately south, on the other side of Goodwood Street is a ‘7 Eleven’ Service Station, a 4 storey walk-up flat and a development currently under construction for a part 4/5 storey mixed use building. Immediately to the south of the service station is a part 6/7 mixed use building fronting both Anzac Parade and Ascot Street. Kokoda Memorial Park, located near the intersection of Elsmere Street and Goodwood Street is around 100m from the subject site.

 

A variety of land uses are located on the western side of Anzac Parade opposite the subject site, including dwelling houses (mostly semi-detached), walk-up residential flat buildings and shop top housing (up to two storeys).

 

The site is about 100m from the proposed light rail stop at Carlton Street and 400m from the proposed Todman Ave stop. 


Relevant Planning documents

Randwick LEP 2012

As part of the preparation of the Randwick LEP 2012, the DCP building envelope controls which have applied to the Town Centre since 2002 were adopted as a basis for the zoning and height controls.

 

The land to which this Planning Proposal applies is zoned B2 Local Centre under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012. The town centre is predominantly surrounded by zone R3 Medium Density Residential, with the exception of the Kokoda Park (zoned RE1 Public Recreation) and Kensington Public School (zoned SP2 Educational Establishment).

 

The maximum height control for the site is 25m, which is the predominant height limit for the town centre. Other height controls applying to the centre are 21m and 31m (the 31m height limit reflects the height of existing buildings at the southern part of the town centre).  The height control for the R3 zoned residential area surrounding the town centre is 12m.

 

The Kensington Town Centre is subject to building envelope controls as set out in the DCP and there is no FSR control applying to the area (and the subject site). A maximum FSR of 0.9:1 applies to the R3 zoned land immediately adjoining the town centre.

 

The site does not contain any heritage items. However, a heritage listed Federation house is found within the block, located at 2-4 Carlton Street. There are large heritage conservation areas to the north and east of the site, being the North Randwick and Racecourse conservation areas.  

 

Randwick DCP 2013

The subject land is located within “Block 1 – Carlton Street to Goodwood Street” of the Randwick DCP Chapter D1 Kensington Centre.

 

The DCP notes the importance of the blocks between Carlton and Darling Streets in creating synergies with the Randwick Racecourse. It also requires that any new development along Goodwood Street should encourage pedestrian movement between the centre and the Racecourse and between the centre and regional cycleway along Doncaster Ave, Alison Road and the Centennial Parklands. The existing planning controls for the Kensington Town Centre were developed through a robust urban design analysis on a block-by-block basis during 2001-2002 and informed by extensive community consultation.

 

The key building envelope controls for Block 1 set out in the DCP are as follows:

·      street wall height of 4 storeys;

·      6 storeys to the main part of the building, with the 5th and 6th storeys setback 4m (min) from Anzac Parade and side boundaries; and

·      continuous street frontage awnings along Carlton Street, Anzac Parade and Goodwood Street.

Metropolitan Plan for Sydney

Released in 2014, the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney A Plan for Growing Sydney is a 20 year strategic plan that sets the NSW Government’s vision for housing and economic growth, the environment and infrastructure. The Metropolitan Strategy notes the Anzac Parade corridor as a potential urban renewal area which is yet to be investigated. Subregional plans will guide the delivery of the Metropolitan Plan across the six new subregions to provide an additional 664,000 homes and 689,000 jobs by 2031. The subregional plans are to address: the distribution of housing and employment at the LGA level and the infrastructure required to support housing and employment growth within the subregion. To date, the Department has set up technical working groups for each subregion and councils within the Central Subregion (including Randwick) along with state agencies have attended a number of working groups to provide input into key planning issues to be addressed in the Subregional Plan.

 

The Department’s timetable is for the Central Subregional Plan to be drafted for public exhibition by September/October 2015.

 

Other State Plans and Policies

The Planning Proposal is consistent with relevant State Planning Policies and Section 117 Directions.  SEPP 65 (Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development) and the Apartment Design Guide which formally commenced on 17 July 2015, will apply to development on the site and be assessed at the development application stage.

 

Department of Planning – A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals

Part 1: Objectives or intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal

 

The applicant has stated that the purpose of the Planning Proposal is to establish a case for providing increased housing on the site to support the Kensington Town Centre and the wider Health and Education Precinct; support infrastructure; and add architectural interest by introducing a gateway building into the Precinct.

 

Part 2: Explanation of Provisions

The purpose of the planning proposal is to alter the current height control of 25m under the Randwick LEP 2012 to permit maximum 34m for most of the site and 41.5m on the southern end of the site. The proposal is to maintain the B2 Local Centre zone which applies to the site and the remainder of the Kensington Town Centre. The mixed use development (as approved) comprising retail at ground level and residential on the upper levels is permissible within the zone.

 

Part 3: Justification

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

 

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

The DoP guideline states that to respond to this question, consideration should be given to the rationale behind the Planning Proposal in order to explain its context e.g. whether it is a result of strategic studies or reports. The applicant notes that the Planning Proposal is within the directions of the current Metropolitan Strategy and previous strategic analysis undertaken of the area which focus residential densities at locations with improved public transport.  In support of the Planning Proposal, the applicant’s Urban Design Report and a SGS residential study provide further justification for increased building height/dwelling density on the site in the context of the wider Kensington Town Centre.

              


SGS Study

The assessment carried out by SGS has found that under the current controls (6-7 storeys) there is capacity for approximately 58,000m2 of residential floor space within the Kensington Town Centre taking into account constraints and sites already developed.  This equates to approximately 640 dwellings.  Under a revised scenario allowing 12 storeys at key intersections in the town centre (as suggested in the GMU report), the capacity increases to 112,000 m2 which equates to approximately 1,200 dwellings. The study considers population forecasts over a 30 year period from 2011-2041 (taken from the Bureau of Transport Statistics forecasts) which estimates that an increase of approximately 3,700 dwellings will be needed in the wider Kensington precinct or 700 dwellings per year. The report states that the area will need to accommodate much higher densities than currently planned for and higher than the 1,200 dwellings under the revised scenario. Other key points raised in the Study are that:

 

·      the Anzac Parade corridor will be the focus of this growth

·      planning controls will need to be able to provide for future growth

·      up to a third of future residents within the proposed development are likely to be students attending nearby educational institutions, who are likely to walk, cycle or use public transport

·      car ownership is expected to be very low amongst residents living within the development given the site’s Anzac Parade frontage

·      the additional public transport capacity along the light rail corridor will support residential development intensity

 

GMU Report

The urban design study prepared by GMU responds to the SGS study which concludes that the current controls are insufficient to meet forecasted residential growth demand to 2041.  In the context of the NSW Government’s Metropolitan Strategy which identifies the Anzac Parade corridor for urban renewal activities (housing, jobs and improved services and infrastructure), the GMU report suggests that the an increase in height to 6-8 storeys above ground floor throughout the centre, with higher development at key nodes up to 11 storeys above the ground floor.

 

An increase in development density within the Kensington Town Centre is justified in the GMU report on the basis that:

 

·      the town centre is well connected to major employment hubs including Sydney CBD and University/Hospitals and in close proximity to regional parks and recreational facilities

·      the town centre is identified as a local centre in the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy

·      the state government has investment in the light rail to Randwick to improve connections

·      the town centre is ideally placed to play a significant role in the Council’s strategy for growth which has been focused along the Anzac Parade corridor while preserving lower scale development.

·      The viability of the town centre will be enhanced which will have broader social and economic benefits

 

Reference is also made in the urban design report to the NSW Government’s proposed Urban Activation Precinct (UAP) process commenced in 2013 which considered growth of housing and employment opportunities within the precinct.

 

The study states that:

“… taking into consideration the renewal opportunity for the Anzac Parade corridor, the site has great potential to reinforce the emerging identity of the local centre of Kensington and to provide greater benefit to the local community”.

 

The Study concludes that:

“…the current zoning and height controls result in a monotonous, singular approach to the corridor and with no opportunity for uplift to strengthen the identity of the centre and support the future growth.”

 

The Planning Proposal draws on these studies to demonstrate the need for increased height limits for the site and suggests that:

 

·      The Proposal is also in response to the State Government’s previous Urban Activation Precinct process whereby planning controls were reviewed by the NSW Planning and Environment and presented to a community forum in 2013 indicating height limits of up to 34m (10 storeys) and FSR of 3:1.

·      The Sydney East Light Rail proposal to Kingsford will be a catalyst for redevelopment in the area.

·      The proposal is consistent with various other studies including the Randwick Economic Activity Study (2008) prepared by SGS for Council which identified the need for affordable housing for student and key workers in proximity to the Education and Health Precinct.

 

Consideration of applicant’s case

It is agreed that Kensington Town Centre’s strategic location close to the CBD, access to public transport and institutions offers opportunities for continued mixed-use development. Council’s planning and policy approach in terms of current and future housing needs is to focus the majority of new dwellings in and around town centres (within walking distance to public transport, services, jobs and shops) as well as master planned sites.  This approach provides for an efficient use of existing services and infrastructure whilst maintaining the established character of surrounding existing low-scale residential neighbourhoods.

 

It is also agreed that residential growth in the town centre can bring long term economic and social benefits by promoting a broader range of business, health and retail services in close proximity to the local community and by supporting the health and education precinct. In relation to economic opportunities, the town centre benefits from its good access to the CBD, good public transport linkages to other parts of Sydney (including Pagewood, Mascot, Botany, Burwood and Leichhardt) and location on an arterial road.  The expected growth in health and education employment and floor space, increased expenditure in the town centre from students and workers and increasing demand for student housing will provide ongoing benefits to the town centre.

 

In relation to the State Government’s Randwick Urban Activation Precinct (UAP), it should be noted this process has been abandoned and the planning changes were contained in working papers and not publically exhibited for broad community feedback.  As noted previously the NSW Policy A Plan for Growing Sydney notes that the Anzac Parade corridor may be able to provide some renewal opportunity. However, the document notes that the “local renewal opportunities yet to be identified”. The State Government will work with the Council and the local community to investigate and identify the area’s potential for local renewal and revitalisation.

 

It is important that Council considers the strategic vision for the area within the context of the Metropolitan Strategy and community consultation process. While the planning proposal may have some merit it should be realised within the overall context of the metropolitan and subregional analysis which yet to take place.

 

Urban design

The Proposal suggests that the proposed development will mark the entry or arrival into the town centre, providing visual and architectural interest to the streetscape. While recognising that this might be one potential option for the site, it is however difficult to justify whether this is the best urban design outcome without exploring other options as part of a holistic review of the broader town centre. The DCP adopted in 2002 which is based on a detailed planning and design study, guides the maximum heights in the Centre on a block by block basis and this enables every site to be designed individually taking into account its specific locational context and desired future character.

 

It is considered that the proposed uplift in height will create an inconsistent streetscape and potential adverse urban design outcomes for Anzac Parade. The subject site is not a “gateway” to the town centre and is not an appropriate location for a 12-storey building to emphasise the entry.  It is better to consider a more strategic/holistic and consistent approach to the entire Centre rather than isolated sites. The approach contained in the DCP is not intended to create a monotonous built form, rather to create harmony and good urban design and to encourage articulation of the roof forms so as to add visual interest. The proposed development has not included sufficient interface treatments in terms of height transitions to the development on the southern side of Goodwood Street and those along Elsmere Street.

 

Overshadowing

Mid-winter Shadow diagrams attached to the urban design report indicate that the proposed uplift will cause additional overshadowing on the eastern façade of Peters of Kensington (potential redevelopment site) in the morning and minor shadow impacts on Kokoda Park and the landscaped area of several properties on both sides of Elsmere Street in the afternoon. However, it is considered that the proposed development, in particular, the 12-storey component is likely to generate greater shadow impacts to the north-facing windows on the upper levels of development along Goodwood Street, including:

 

·      8-10 Goodwood Street Kensington;

·      2-6 Goodwood Street Kensington (currently under construction); and

·      any future development at the service station site (corner of Anzac Parade and Goodwood Street).

 

It is to be noted that elevational shadow diagrams have not been submitted with the Planning Proposal, which will be required and assessed with any future development application should this Planning Proposal proceed.

 

Parking

The approved DA includes 200 basement parking spaces, which complies with Council’s DCP parking rates. The proposal does not incorporate additional parking associated with the proposed extra 50-60 dwellings, largely based on the assumption that future residents of the proposed development will benefit from the high level of public transport serviceability along Anzac Parade. The Planning Proposal notes that a detailed traffic and parking assessment report will be submitted with any future DA.

 

Any new DA relating to this proposal would be assessed under SEPP 65 and RMS Parking Requirements, and is likely to require an additional 48-100 parking spaces (based on the RMS parking rates).

 

Existing planning controls for Kensington

Through the comprehensive LEP process, the town centre was rezoned from 3B Local Business (equivalent to B1 Neighbourhood Centre) to B2 Local Centre, with a general height limit of 25m. In contrast to the applicant’s suggestion that certain key nodes and corner sites are suitable for increased height, Council’s approach is for a consistent building height throughout the town centre to create harmony whilst providing for visual interest and encouraging building articulation (including roof forms).

 

Originally adopted by Council in 2002 and translated into the current DCP 2013, the DCP controls for the Kensington Town Centre are based on a vision to create a town centre that is dynamic, well presented, enjoyable and highly accessible. The LEP controls (updated in 2012) were amended to better reflect the size and changing nature of this town centre. Council’s Business Centres Discussion Paper (2011) which preceded the Comprehensive DCP recognised that Kensington had surpassed its role in providing basic neighbourhood centre services and offers a greater range of retailing and business activities for a wider population catchment. The existing controls for the town centre (as provided in DCP 2013 Chapter D1) were established following a major planning/design review in 2001/02 with extensive community consultation which determined the appropriate architectural character of the town centre, articulation requirements and building heights.  Specific quality design outcomes contained in the DCP aim to improve the function of the town centre, its image and amenity.  The DCP encourages site amalgamation through bonuses in the building envelopes.

 

The current DCP controls allow 6-8 storeys with upper levels set backs from front and side boundaries.  The DCP controls have generally been consistently applied across the town centre and this allows the desired objectives of taller buildings along the main road transitioning to lower scale residential to be achieved. The existing controls were established therefore to respond to the specific context of the town centre highlighting the need for well-proportioned buildings, maintaining desired view corridors, managing overshadowing impacts, access to sunlight and privacy. These controls provide a balance between the need to ensure that the town centre provides capacity for mixed use development whilst minimising adverse impacts.

 

The existing DA approval for the site generally complies with the maximum 25m height control in Council’s LEP. Whilst the final approved development does not comply with the maximum number of storeys permissible under the DCP, the JRPP considered that the overall design had merit and provided a satisfactory response to the streetscape. 

 

Town Centre Review

To better understand the specific needs of the community, identify gaps and market opportunities, Council will be undertaking surveys of users in Kensington (similar to the recently completed surveys in Kingsford) that will provide input into a future town centre review (see below).

 

Given that the existing objectives and planning controls currently applying to the town centre are in response to the specific context of the locality and have resulted in appropriate urban design forms, it is considered that any changes to the height and other development controls should be based on a comprehensive town centre strategy with extensive community engagement that considers and examines:

 

·      Subregional planning context

·      Commercial land use characteristics and trends (including shopper and business surveys)

·      Social infrastructure needs

·      Feasibility analysis

·      Precinct wide transport and parking strategy

·      public domain landscape and urban design analysis

 

Council’s 2013-17 Operational Plan includes a planning and design review for the Kingsford Centre as well as an analysis of the Anzac Parade streetscape for public domain improvements (Outcome 4 Excellence in Urban Design and Development) for 2015/16. 

 

Council officers are currently undertaking investigations within the Kensington and Kingsford Town Centres as background work to the future town centre reviews within the context of the Metropolitan Strategy’s proposed Central Sub-Regional Plan to determine current residential capacity using a range of options and scenarios. 

 

Council’s preliminary desktop dwelling capacity analysis indicates that under the current controls the two centres combined can potentially provide between 2,000 – 2,600 dwellings taking into account a range of constraints (eg. strata buildings, recently completed developments, civic buildings). In Kensington the analysis shows that dwelling capacity is greater than estimates provided by the applicant at between 940 and 1,176 additional dwellings under the current planning controls. It is however noted that it is not likely that this capacity will be fully utlilised primarily due to fragmented ownership. These estimates are based on smaller average dwelling sizes (consistent with more recent development) and use a range of scenarios for site coverage and number of residential storeys.

 

It is also noted that dwelling housing and employment targets have not been provided by the State government on an LGA basis.

 

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

The Department’s Guidelines state that a Planning Proposal should demonstrate that it is the best means of achieving the objectives/outcomes or if there is a better way (section 2.3(a)).  The Planning Proposal states that an LEP amendment is the best way to achieve the objectives of increased building height on the land.

 

Consideration of applicant’s case

It is considered that a spot rezoning (as proposed) is not the most efficient or most effective means of achieving a review of the planning controls that currently apply to the site and the remainder of the town centre.  As stated earlier, a comprehensive town centre strategy is more appropriate to enable consideration of a wide range of factors influencing the town centre and this should be informed by a community engagement strategy.

 

Q3 - Is there a net community benefit?

The NSW Government’s Draft Centres Policy states that “a net community benefit arises where the sum of all the benefits of a development or rezoning outweigh the sum of all costs”.

 

The Planning Proposal states that an increase in the permissible building height of the site would enable an additional 50-60 dwellings that will provide for additional density and housing diversity to make more efficient use of existing infrastructure.

 

The applicant has also advised that they are willing to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with Council for the provision of community benefits on the site. The details of the agreement would need to be clarified with the proponent and considered in the context of local needs if Council resolves to proceed to the next planning stage of ‘gateway determination’. As also noted in the Planning Proposal, there is high demand for housing in the precinct to serve the needs of the institutions. Therefore, supply of affordable housing will continue to be the priority for the area. A VPA may provide for public amenities/services, affordable housing and infrastructure and must be publically exhibited (usually concurrently with a planning proposal).

 


Consideration of applicant’s case

As detailed in this report, the proposal to increase the height and density in this location will create “costs” to the community given the excessive bulk and scale of the proposed development and associated adverse impacts in the form of streetscape inconsistency, potential overshadowing on adjoining properties and parking generation.

 

It is therefore considered that the benefits of an additional 50-60 apartments on the site do not outweigh these costs to the community.

 

It is noted that there is a need for affordable and key workers housing in this location. However, as noted above the Council needs to consider its strategic vision for the town centre within the context of the State Government policies and consultation with the community.

 

Part 4: Details of Community Consultation

Community consultation will be carried out as required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (the Act) if the proposal proceeds to the next planning stage being the ‘gateway determination’ (the terms of which are issued by the Department if supported).

 

The following agencies should be consulted as part of the consultation process:

-    Transport for NSW in relation to the light rail along Anzac Pde

-    NSW Roads and Maritime Services (as Anzac Pde is an arterial road)

-    Sydney Buses (patronage, timetables and routes servicing the development)

-    Office of Water (in relation to groundwater conditions and further advice would be sought from Council’s Development Engineers. It is noted that the DA consent conditions include requirements for managing flood risk).

-    Department of Education in relation to local schools capacity (Kensington Public School)

-    Sydney Airport Corporation in relation to the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) under the Commonwealth Airports Act 1996.

-    NSW Police Service (Eastern Beaches Area Command)

-    Energy Australia

 

Technical studies

If the Planning Proposal were to proceed to the next stage of the rezoning process a detailed traffic and transport report would be required to consider the proposal in relation to the proposed light rail along Anzac Parade.

 

Additional studies may be specified by the Department of Planning and Environment as part of the gateway determination.

 

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship to the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome

4

Excellence in urban design and development.

Directions

4a:

Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

4b:

New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

Outcome

8:

A strong local economy.

Directions

8c:

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

Outcome

9:

Integrated and accessible Transport.

Directions

9a:

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

 

9b:

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

 

9d:

Residential amenity is protected by appropriate traffic Management.

 

9e:

Parking is managed to balance convenience against reduced car reliance.


Financial Impact Statement

 

The applicable fee for the preliminary assessment of the proposal was paid by the applicant as per Council’s Fees and Charges Policy ($7960) and further fees will be required should the rezoning progress to the next stage (to cover public consultation and further assessment).

 

Conclusion

 

The Planning Proposal submitted to Council for the land at 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington is seeking Council’s support to commence a planning process for an amendment to Randwick LEP 2012 and is not seeking consent for development on the site.  A future development application will need to be submitted for the proposed development if the LEP amendment to increase the permissible building height is supported by Council.

 

The Planning Proposal is based on comprehensive residential and urban design analysis to support an increase in permissible building height from 25m (under the current LEP 2012) to 34m (for the majority of the site) and 41.5m (southern part of the site).  The reports submitted suggest that this increase in building height is appropriate for the subject land as well as other key nodes along Anzac Parade so as to mark the entry to the town centre and articulate the skyline.  The Proposal is consistent with the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy ‘A Plan for Growing Sydney’ to provide new housing close to transport and employment. The applicant’s case for seeking an amendment is that it will provide increased housing opportunities and other community benefits for residents. The applicant has offered to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement with Council for the provision of community benefits should the Proposal proceed to the next stage of the rezoning process.

 

Should the Council agree with the Proposal to amend the controls for the subject site, the Height of Buildings Map would provide for a split height control of 34m over the majority of the site and 41.5m at the southern end. The Planning Proposal would then be referred to the NSW Planning and Environment and following the gateway determination would be exhibited for public comment. Details of the proposed building form, design and layout of apartments have been provided in the Planning Proposal and would form part of the exhibited documents. A future development application would be submitted by the proponent following gazettal of the LEP amendments and the determining authority will be the JRPP as it will be classified as regional development (exceeding $20m in capital investment).

 

It is difficult to justify the Planning Proposal put forward by the applicant as an isolated site. Consideration needs to be given to a strategic review of town centres along Anzac Parade. Whilst a town centre review of Kensington has yet to be commenced, a planning proposal for one location is pre-emptive. Sub-Regional work under the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney is underway by the Department of Planning and Environment and Council officers will participate in this process.  It is also noted that Council will be provided with revised housing and employment targets for our area.

 

The Planning Proposal is therefore not supported on the basis that:

 

·      a spot rezoning is not the best, most efficient or most effective means of achieving a review of the planning controls that currently apply to the site;

·      the need for the planning proposal has not been adequately demonstrated and the costs to community associated with the additional housing outweighs the community benefits;

·      rezoning would create a significant inconsistency in the planning controls that apply to the wider Kensington Town Centre;

·      With excessive bulk and scale, the proposal would be out of keeping with the character of the town centre and create adverse urban design outcome for Anzac Parade;

·      the proposal will have adverse amenity impacts on adjoining properties; and

·      the proposal will create additional parking requirements.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

1.     not forward the Planning Proposal prepared by LJB Urban Planning dated 4 June 2015 to amend the Height of buildings Map on the land located at 84-108 Anzac Parade Kensington to the Minister for Planning for a gateway determination in accordance with s.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

2.     Advise the applicant of Council’s decision.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP28/15

 

 

Subject:                  Botany Cemetery Expansion Proposal

Folder No:                   F2004/07905

Author:                   Bronwyn Englaro, Senior Sustainability Officer     

 

Introduction

 

On 16 June 2015, Cemeteries and Crematoria NSW provided a briefing to Councillors on the Botany Cemetery (Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park) expansion proposal. This proposal primarily involved the Cemetery relinquishing its licenses and interests in the Chinese Market Gardens; Randwick Council gaining management control of the market gardens site; and Randwick Council assisting the Cemetery to secure land for its cemetery use from the adjacent Bumborah Point area, parts of Military Road and unformed Crown Road land.

 

Background

 

Since 2010, the Southern Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (SMCT) which was created as a result of the amalgamation of the former Botany and Woronora Cemeteries Trust, has held a license over the western lot of the Chinese Market Gardens land (Lot 1079 in DP 752015) “to investigate the feasibility of expanding the cemetery into the market gardens sites”

 

In June 2014, Council at its meeting resolved to call on the State Government to return Lot 1079 to Market Garden use, consistent with its RU4 Land Use Zoning. Consequently, in June 2015, the SMCT advised Council in a letter and briefing document that it had reviewed the Cemetery’s proposal to expand onto the Market Gardens site and resolved to no longer pursue this proposal subject to “Randwick Council’s cooperation to assist to gain an equivalent amount of land for cemetery use by the SMCT”.

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal to Council as outlined in the attached briefing document (Attachment 1) involves:

 

§  The transfer of the management of the Chinese Market Gardens to Randwick Council and commitment to cease future cemetery expansions onto this land.

§  The closure of the unformed Crown road on the southern boundary of Botany Cemetery and add part of this land to the Cemetery.

§  The closure of the unformed Council road that adjoins the Cemetery on the western side and add this land to the Cemetery. Council’s agreement will be required as to the extent of road to be closed for addition to the Cemetery.

§  The addition of Crown land comprising part of Lot 4858 to the Cemetery and setting aside part of this land for public access along Botany Bay

 

Issues

 

Crown land part of Lot 4858 at Bumborah Point

The portion of Crown land at Bumborah Point proposed for expansion comprises part of Lot 4858 and is under Council care and control. It is approximately 3.47 hectares in area and forms part of the Yarra Bay Bicentennial Park. The issues that need to be addressed as part of any cemetery expansion include the following:

 

·      The land is zoned Public Recreation (RE1) in which cemetery use is prohibited. A planning proposal to rezone the land will be required in future if the cemetery expansion proposal is to proceed.

 

·      The land is covered by the Botany Bay National Park Heritage Conservation Area, which is significant in terms of coastline, remnant bushland and early Aboriginal and European contact. Additionally, the proposed expansion area contains two sites of Aboriginal significance, recorded as containing shelters, middens and rock engravings under the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Aboriginal Heritage Inventory management System (AHIMS). A heritage impact assessment will be required to be undertaken in consultation with the OEH as part of any expansion proposal.

 

·      The land is subject to Aboriginal Lands Claims and appropriate negotiations with the Local Aboriginal Land Council will need to be undertaken prior to any expansion proposal proceeding.

 

·      The land contains remnant coastal heathland vegetation site and is being managed by Council under contract in conjunction with a local Bushcare Group that meets regularly to assist in the maintenance of this vegetation. Any expansion proposal for cemetery use will require appropriate impact assessment of this vegetation and any potential endangered community/species will need to be validated and assessed.

 

·      The subject land contains a number of infrastructure easements which transverse the site (see Attachment 4) including the following:

 

§ Easement for circulating water tunnels, manholes and inlets (BK1784 NO979)

§ Easement for sewerage (Q822546)

§ Easement for services (Q949422)

§ Easement for saltwater intake (Q949422)

 

An investigation of the relevance and operation of these easements, and the possibility of extinguishing them, to accommodate the expansion proposal must be undertaken with the relevant agencies that are party to the easements.

 

·      Crown Lands will be required to grant a licence to SMCT to investigate the expansion proposal over Lot 4858 including commencement of  full site investigations and work that will form part of a future Planning Proposal application.

Military Road road reserve

This parcel of land to the west of the cemetery is approximately 0.9 hectares and is currently allocated as a road reserve within Military Road. The issues that need to be addressed as part of any cemetery expansion involving this road reserve include the following:

 

·      The parcel of land is currently owned by Council and zoned for public recreation (RE1). A planning proposal to rezone the land will be required in future if the cemetery expansion proposal is to proceed.

 

·      The extent of Council road that can be closed between the western side of the Cemetery and Lot 4858 and along sections of Military Road is unclear at this stage and will involve Council negotiating with SMCT. Once agreement has been reached, SMCT will be in a position to lodge a road closing application with a view to adding this land to the cemetery.

 

·      The subject parcel (see Figure in Attachment 5) adjoins an existing car park associated with a section of the coastal walkway constructed in 2007 as part of the Bicentennial Park works. A traffic, parking and infrastructure assessment will be required to assess the impact on public access, circulation and traffic and parking as part of any cemetery expansion proposal.

 

·      The subject land may be affected by soil and groundwater contamination depending on the history of land use over the site. A soil and groundwater investigation having regard to this history will be required as part of any cemetery expansion proposal.

 

Chinese Market Gardens

If Council was to take on the management and/or ownership of the market gardens site a number of issues will need to be addressed including the following:

 

·      Currently the three market garden lots are held under three separate licences from the Crown. Two of the three lots continue to be leased by Chinese families and used for market garden purposes. The third lot, Lot 1079, the most westerly lot, is licensed to SMCT for future cemetery expansion and is currently overgrown with weeds and the subject of some reports of illegal dumping. Security of tenure and better land management outcome including WH&S may be achieved by a single long term lease over the three lots. Options include reserving or dedicating the land and appointing Council as Trust manager or vesting the land in Council. Council will need to consult with Crown Land on the merits of a single long term lease over the three lots to be held by Council and the best option for doing this.

 

·      The heritage listing dictates that the land needs to continue to be used for Chinese Market Gardens. As part of Council’s responsibility for protecting the State Heritage Significance of the Chinese Market Gardens, the market garden use of all the three lots will need to be preserved. This will involve the rehabilitation of Lot 1079, and then reinstatement and resumption of market garden use on this lot. SCMT’s responsibilities in this regard needs to be clarified. Consultation with OEH on the necessary approvals as well as advice on changes in management, tenure arrangements or onsite works will be required prior to any formal takeover of the site.

 

·      The Market Gardens land has a high water table and is susceptible to flooding. Council will need to undertake a flood assessment to guide the future management of the subject site prior to any formal takeover of the subject site. Furthermore, increased drainage from the industrial development to the north, and draining through the Cemetery, as well as water from upstream residential developments and blockage of the outlet into Botany Bay that contribute to the periodic destruction of planted crops after a storm event, will need to be included in any assessment. Council will need to investigate these drainage issues, discuss with the market gardeners, SMCT and Crown Lands as to the best way forward to deal with this issue.

 

·      The Chinese Market Gardens land is subject to Aboriginal Lands Claims and appropriate negotiations with the Local Aboriginal Land Council will need to be undertaken prior to any changes in ownership.

 

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5: Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities

Direction 5c: Create new open space as opportunities arise.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this particular stage of the subject proposal.

 

Conclusion

 

The expansion proposal seeks to address the need for additional burial space for the Cemetery while recognising the heritage significance and strong community support for the market gardens. SMCT are seeking Council’s in principle approval to the Cemetery expansion proposal as detailed above so that it can commence with the all necessary site investigations and a Planning Proposal Application. It is noted that there is merit in Council taking on the management and ownership of the Chinese Market Gardens site, and thereby preserving its operation and heritage significance. However, it is important, beforehand, to determine the merit and feasibility of the Cemetery’s expansion into Bumborah Point and Military Road given all of the issues identified above. A major initial component of this exercise is to clarify the position of all stakeholders on the expansion proposal. Accordingly, it is considered prudent, as a first step, to hold discussions with all stakeholders including Crown Land, OEH, LALC, utility agencies, service providers and SMCT prior to any in-principle approval being given to SMCT.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

A.   Council commence discussions with all stakeholders including Crown Land, OEH, LALC, utility agencies, service providers and SMCT to identify all issues affecting the proposed Botany Cemetery expansion into Lot 4858, Military Road and the unformed Crown Road and the feasibility of addressing these issues.

 

B.   Council commences consultations with Crown Lands Department on the future operation and ownership of the Chinese Market Gardens site and the proposed transfer of the unformed Crown road on the southern side of Botany Cemetery to form part of the Cemetery.

 

C.   the findings on the discussions/consultations with the stakeholders and agencies be reported to Council for Council to consider its in-principle support for the Botany Cemetery expansion proposal as detailed in the SMCT Briefing Document.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Briefing Randwick Council- Market gardens and Botany Cemetery addition

 

2.View

Draft Development Areas - Acquisition Plan

 

3.View

Alternative/Possible Addition Proposals - Botany Cemetery

 

4.View

Bumborah Point Easements Plan

 

5.View

Aerial of Military Road road reserve and Coastal Walkway

 

 

 


Briefing Randwick Council- Market gardens and Botany Cemetery addition

Attachment 1

 

 

Briefing Randwick Council

Matraville Chinese Market Gardens &

 Botany Cemetery (Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park) expansion proposal

Objective

To confirm an arrangement between Randwick Council and the Southern Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (SMCT) for the SMCT to relinquish its licenses and interests in the market gardens and for Randwick Council to confirm its willingness to assist the SMCT to gain access to Crown land and roads to enable the SMCT to secure an equivalent amount of land for its cemetery use.

These two aims are intrinsically aligned and both are required to settle once and for all the market gardens dilemma with a written agreement between all parties to work cooperatively to achieve those goals.

Background

The first phase of the NSW Government Cemetery Reforms was the amalgamation of the Crown Cemeteries Trust in Sydney. The former Botany and Woronora Cemeteries Trust were dissolved. A new Trust was established that controls both Woronora and Botany Cemeteries, the Southern Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (SMCT).

The second phase of the reforms was the passing of the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2013 which commenced on 1 November 2014 with the establishment of the Cemeteries and Crematoria NSW (CCNSW). CCNSW aims to ensure that NSW cemetery and crematorium operators provide sustainable, innovative and culturally appropriate services in a consistent, transparent and accountable manner. CCNSW is led by an independent board which is supported by a business unit.

One of the key projects for CCNSW will be to address the shortage of burial space in the greater Sydney Metropolitan Area. The latest understanding is without new burial space Sydney will run out of burial space by about 2040-2050.

Botany Cemetery proposal

The SMCT has reviewed the former Botany Cemetery Trust’s proposal to expand onto the Market Gardens and has resolved to no longer pursue this proposal. However as already discussed and approved in principle it requires Randwick Council’s cooperation to assist to gain an equivalent  amount of land for cemetery use by the SMCT.

See the attached diagrams. It is intended to

-     Close  the unformed Crown road on the southern boundary of Botany Cemetery and add part of this land to the Cemetery.

-     Close the unformed Council roads that adjoins the Cemetery on the west and add this land to the Cemetery. Council’s agreement will be required as to the extent of road to be closed for addition to the Cemetery.

-     Add Crown land, part of Lot 4858 to the Cemetery and set aside part of this land for public access along Botany Bay. 

The additions of these lands will require the appropriate rezoning by a Planning Proposal from the SMCT. Council will need to consider this proposal in due course.

Council’s Interest in the Chinese Market Gardens land.

It is understood Council as part of its consideration of an approval in principle to the Botany Cemetery addition proposal wishes to secure the management of the Chinese Market Gardens to prevent future cemetery expansions onto this land. See attached letter from Crown Lands 18 February 2015.The letter states that  “Crown Lands will work with Council to investigate options to achieve that outcome.”

Matters that require consideration and resolution to transfer the Market Gardens

1           Aboriginal Land Claims
All Crown lands in the area are subject to Aboriginal Lands Claims. Including the three Market Garden lots, the Botany Cemetery and Lot 4858.
Action Proposed: that Council, CCNSW and SMCT commence a negotiation with the Aboriginal Lands Council with a view to removing all claims.

2           Future leasing of Market Gardens
Currently the three market garden lots are held under three separate licences from the Crown. Security of tenure and better land management outcome may be achieved by a single long term lease over the three lots.
Proposed Action: Crown Lands in consultation with Council review the current arrangements and consider a tender for a long term lease to a market gardener.

3           Options to transfer the land to Council
Options include reserving or dedicating the land and appointing Council as Trust manager or vesting the land in Council.
Proposed Action:  after resolution of the land claims and leasing review Council and Crown Lands determine the best options.

4           Heritage Listing
The heritage listing dictates that the land needs to continue to be used for Chinese Market Gardens.  OEH needs to be consulted on any changes in management, tenure arrangements or onsite works.
Proposed Action Consult directly with OEH, about proposed actions and once the proposals for tenure arrangements, site management and onsite works are finalised.   

5           Site management issues
A. Rehabilitation of Lot 1079
SMCT has a report from the NSW Soil Conservation Service on how best to remove the weeds. A copy of this report has been provided to Council. The report suggest that approvals will be required from Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) before works can commence. See attached letter from OEH providing exemption to that requirement.
Proposed Action. Once SMCT relinquishes its current licence for rehabilitation its liabilities for this site will cease, on transfer to Council. Until then the SMCT will abide by its exiting licence to rehabilitate the site and consider the engagement of NSW Soil Conservation Service, or other contractors, to undertake works under the agreement, supervision and assistance of Council.
B. Management of existing Market Gardens
The existing gardens are poorly managed. The buildings are generally in a dilapidated state and weeds are present outside of the cultivated areas. There is also concerns with WHS practices.
Proposed Action: Council and Crown Lands as part of the future leasing arrangement consult with the current market gardeners to establish appropriate management and WHS standards for inclusion in future leasing requirements.


C. Drainage issues

Increased drainage from the industrial development above the cemetery and draining through the cemetery, water from upstream residential developments and blockage of the outlet into Botany Bay all contribute to the periodic destruction of planted crops after a storm event
Proposed Action Council to investigate the drainage issues, discuss with the market gardeners, SMCT and Crown Lands the best way forward to deal with this issue.

Other matters for cemetery addition

A.   Extent of Council road for closure
The SMCT needs to reach agreement with Council about the extent of Council road that can be closed between the western side of the Cemetery and Lot 4858 and along sections of Military Road.
 Proposed Action: Council to negotiate the extent of road to be closed with SMCT.  Once agreement has been reached SMCT is in a position to lodge a road closing application with a view to adding this land to the cemetery.

B.   Licence for Investigation over Lot 4858
SMCT to seek licence from the Crown to investigate the expansion proposal over Lot 4858.  Once Council has provided its in principle agreement to the overall proposal SMCT will commence full site investigations and work on a Planning Proposal application.
Proposed Action:
(a) Crown Lands grant a licence for investigations purposes.
(b) Council provide in principle agreement to the addition proposal to allow the trust to commence its site investigations.

Conclusion

In order for the SMCT to commence work on investigations and expend significant funds on the Cemetery addition proposal, Council’s in principle agreement to the proposal is required.

Crown Lands is supportive of Council gaining management control of the Chinese Market Gardens site. For Council to gain management control over the land a number matters needs to be resolved which will require Council to work cooperatively with Crown Lands, CCNSW, SMCT and others to resolve.

Council should consider a resolution to provide in principle agreement to the Cemetery addition proposal and work cooperatively to seek the best way to transfer the Market Gardens lands to its control.

 


Draft Development Areas - Acquisition Plan

Attachment 2

 

 

 

 



Alternative/Possible Addition Proposals - Botany Cemetery

Attachment 3

 

 

 

 



Bumborah Point Easements Plan

Attachment 4

 

 

 

 



Aerial of Military Road road reserve and Coastal Walkway

Attachment 5

 

 

 

 



Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP29/15

 

 

Subject:                  2015-16 Community Partnerships Funding Program - Recommended Allocations

Folder No:                   F2008/00139

Author:                   Warren Ambrose, Senior Social Planner      

 

Introduction

 

The Community Partnerships Funding Program is now in its seventh year and offers not-for-profit social service providers the opportunity to apply for financial assistance to fund programs and projects that address the needs of disadvantaged Randwick local residents. Allocated annually, this Program allows social services organisations to apply for a maximum of $20,000.00 per year over three years.

 

An annual budget of $155,000.00 is allocated to this program. However, a total of $101,211.00 is available for allocation under the current 2015-16 financial year funding round. This is because two (2) organisations will receive their second year and two (2) organisations their third year funding, totalling $53,789.00. Funds allocated under the 2015-16 program budget ($155,000.00) will fund those recurrent projects and for projects recommended to be funded under the 2015-16 budget.

 

This year the Council received 13 applications seeking a total of $207,843.40 for 2015-16. Programs and projects prioritised for funding have been assessed in accordance with the program’s funding guidelines. The applications recommended for funding are summarised in the body of this report. Attachment One (1) contains details of applications recommended and not recommended for funding.

 

This report recommends eight (8) organisations to receive funding totalling $101,144.00 under the 2015-16 Community Partnerships Funding Program.

 

Issues

 

Randwick City Council provides an extensive range of community and social welfare services to its residents, in keeping with the Department of Local Government’s social planning requirements. In addition to its advocacy, community development and information provision functions, the Council provides financial assistance to community organisations to improve their capacity to deliver much needed services to residents in need. The Council provides financial assistance is three ways, through its:

1.  Community Partnerships Funding Program, (one funding round per year) the subject of this report, which has an annual budget of about $ 155,000.00.

2.  Rental Subsidy Program, currently valued at $1.23 million per year, whereby service providers renting the Council’s premises pay substantially discounted market rents.  The value of the rent discounts enable savings to be directed towards provision of core service.

3.  Cultural Community Grants Program which allocates about $110,000.00 annually (2 funding rounds per year).  The aim of this program is to assist resident groups and not for profit organisations implement a range of cultural activities and events that encourage participation or promote social inclusion.

The total value of the Council’s annual social/community development program expenditure described above is $1.50million.

 

Community Partnerships Funding Program 2015-16

The 2015-16 funding round opened on 10 March 2015 and closed on 25 May 2015. The Program was promoted in the local media, on the Council’s website and through local community networks. The maximum annual grant available per project is $20,000.00 with organisations allowed to apply for three years recurrent funding to a maximum of $60,000.00. Organisations in receipt of recurrent funding are not eligible to apply for new funding until their funded project is completed (or in the year 3rd year of funding).

 

The Program requires and expects a high level of accountability from funding recipients. This is achieved by undertaking a robust annual reporting process for organisations receiving more than $5,000.00. If an organisation receiving recurrent funding is unable to meet its annual progress reporting requirements, funding for subsequent years will not be allocated, and returned to the budget.

 

Funds allocated under the new financial year 2015-16 ($155,000.00) will fund two (2) organisations that are due to receive their third year recurrent funds totalling $22,289.00 approved in the 2013-14 Round and two (2) organisations ($31,500.00) approved in the 2014-15 round.  Thus, the total amount available for allocation under the 2015-16 financial year is $101,211.00, as shown below:

 

Recurrent funding commitments                  $22,289.00 (2013-14 funding round)                                                                 $31,500.00 (2014-15 funding round)

Subtotal     $53,789.00

 

Allocated budget 2015-16                                   $155,000.00

Less recurrent funding commitments              $53,789.00

Total budget available for allocation     $101,211.00

 

Assessment of Applications

The assessment process was undertaken by a panel consisting of Council Officers with expertise in community services, governance and grants administration. All applications were placed on a grants program assessment broadsheet. They were assessed and given scores reflecting their compliance with the program’s funding priorities and guidelines and the organisation’s capacity to deliver the funded services. These scores were totalled and priority ranking based on those scores. The Council’s current priorities were identified through the Council’s social inclusion plan, An Inclusive Randwick City. These were projects, programs, or activities that met one or more of the following descriptions:

 

§  Address the needs of disadvantaged people and families through direct service provision

§  Be consistent with the Council’s identified funding priorities or An Inclusive Randwick City priorities/ actions

§  Support education, employment and training initiatives aimed at building life skills and capacity of young people

§  Involves working with disadvantaged children (including their carers) or with young people who are at risk, to develop an alternative path

§  Address social isolation issues and improve access to home support services for elderly and/or disabled residents

 

It is recommended that funding be provided to eight (8) projects being:

 

·      Early Intervention and Building for the Future (Beaches Outreach Project) Funds for staff to provide a night time early intervention and harm prevention service to young people in Randwick, and to skill up new workers to ensure ongoing project sustainability. Amount recommended: $19,875.00 Year one, $18,775.00 Year two and $19,000.00 Year three

 

·      Aboriginal Carer Support, Respite Service and Employment Strategy (Eastern Respite and Recreation) Funds to expand services to Aboriginal families that care for a child with a disability by: establishing an Aboriginal Carer Support Group, providing additional Aboriginal specific places on ER&R services. Amount recommended: $15,000.00 per year for three years

 

·      Brighter future – bringing communities together (Ethnic Community Services Cooperative) Funds to hold monthly events for CALD persons. Funding to cover wages, materials, bus trip hire, and their Cultural Bridges event. Amount recommended: $15,000.00 per year for three years

 

·      My Meet-Ups (Holdsworth Community) Funds for people with intellectual disabilities to participate in activities that build independent living skills. Funds will enable program to be expanded, with a base in Randwick to service local residents. Amount recommended: $8,654.00 for one year

 

·      Reading for Life (Learning Links) Funds for skilled staff to: identify the most appropriate 20 children (from two schools) with reading difficulties; identify, train, and support volunteer ’Reading Buddies’ to work one-on-one with children at their school to improve their reading, self-esteem, and confidence. Amount recommended: $10,000.00 for one year

 

·      ‘Pick Me Up’ Free medical transport (Sir Roden & Lady Cutler Foundation) Funds to maintain its 5 car fleet used to provide local residents with free accessible transport to and from critical medical appointments complementing, existing community transport services. Amount recommended: $10,000.00 for one year

 

·      Taking it to the people - DV Outreach Service (The Deli Women and Children’s Centre) Funds to establish a Domestic Violence outreach service involving counselling/casework and group work services for people who find it difficult to attend the organisation’s Eastlakes premises. Amount recommended: $20,000.00 per year for three years

 

·      Safe Summer Survival (WAYS Youth Services) Funds to support a youth run peer education program providing harm prevention education about risks associated with alcohol and other drugs and safe sex practices.  Amount recommended: $4,490.00 for one year

 

Altogether, eight (8) new applications have been assessed as being eligible to receive funding under the 2015-16 funding round totalling $101,144.00.  Of these, four (4) projects have been recommended to receive recurrent funding over the three (3) financial years 2015-16 to 2017-18.

 

All applicants will be advised of the outcomes of their application whether they are successful or not. Upon request, feedback will be provided to unsuccessful organisations and they will be encouraged to apply next year, if appropriate.

 

Applications from Service Providers based outside of Randwick City

Under the Program’s funding guidelines, community organisations and service providers based outside of the Randwick Local Government Area (LGA) are eligible to apply for funding if they provide assistance to residents of Randwick City. It is noted that six (6) organisations recommended for funding assistance this year are based outside the LGA.  These are: Beaches Outreach Project (Waverley), Ethnic Community Services Cooperative (Botany Bay), Holdsworth Community (Woollahra), Sir Roden & Lady Cutler Foundation (Canada Bay), The Deli Women and Children’s Centre (Botany Bay), and Waverley Action Youth Services (Waverley). These organisations provide important and much needed services to Randwick City’s vulnerable and disadvantaged residents. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome: 2:      Vibrant and diverse community.

Direction: 2b:    Support the provision of services and facilities to meet the needs of our target groups and encourage and seek opportunities to expand appropriate community services.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter. The recommended expenditure is within the allocated budget for this purpose.

 

Conclusion

 

The Community Partnerships Funding Program plays an important role in providing support services to vulnerable and at risk target groups living in our City. It does so by allocating funds to social service providers to help increase their capacity to deliver much needed services to disadvantaged residents in the Randwick area.

 

This report recommends eight (8) organisations to receive funding totalling $101,144.00 under the 2015-16 funding round.

 

Programs and projects prioritised for funding have been assessed in accordance with the program’s funding guidelines and the Council’s social inclusion plan, An Inclusive Randwick City.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council approve funds totalling $101,144.00 to be allocated to the organisations listed in the table attached to the report.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

2015-16 Community Partnerships Funding Program - Attachment One - Applications Recommended and Not Recommended

 

 

 

 


2015-16 Community Partnerships Funding Program - Attachment One - Applications Recommended and Not Recommended

Attachment 1

 

 

2015/2016 COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FUNDING PROGRAM

 

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING

No.

Organisation

Name of Project & Description

Target

Group

Amount Requested

Amount Recommended

Years of

Funding

2

Beaches Outreach Project

Early Intervention and Building for the Future

Funds for staff to provide a night time early intervention and harm prevention service to young people in Randwick, and to skill up new workers to ensure ongoing project sustainability

Young People

$19,875.00

Year one

$18,775

Year two

$19,000

Year three

 $18,000.00

Three years

3

Eastern Respite and Recreation

Aboriginal Carer Support, Respite Service and Employment Strategy

Funds to expand services to Aboriginal families that care for a child with a disability by: establishing an Aboriginal Carer Support Group, providing additional Aboriginal specific places on ER&R services.

Aboriginal Children with disabilities

$20,000.00 per year for three years

 $15,000.00

Three years

5

Ethnic Community Services Cooperative 

Brighter future – bringing communities together Funds to hold monthly events for CALD persons. Funding to cover wages, materials, bus trip hire, and their Cultural Bridges event.

HACC & CALD persons living in Randwick

$20,000.00 per year for three years

 $15,000.00

Three years

6

Holdsworth Community

My Meet-Ups

Funds for people with intellectual disabilities to participate in activities that build independent living skills. Funds will enable program to be expanded, with a base in Randwick to service local residents.

People living with a mild to moderate disability over 18 years

$8,654.00

One year

 $ 8,654.00

One year

8

Learning Links

Reading for Life

Funds for skilled staff to: identify the most appropriate 20 children (from two schools) with reading difficulties; identify, train, and support volunteer ’Reading Buddies’ to work one-on-one with children at their school to improve their reading, self-esteem, and confidence.

Primary school children with reading disorders including dyslexia

$14,910.00One year

 

 $10,000.00

One year

10

Sir Roden & Lady Cutler Foundation

‘Pick Me Up’ Free medical transport

Funds to maintain its 5 car fleet used to provide local residents with free accessible transport to and from critical medical appointments, complementing existing community transport services.

People who are disadvantaged either physically or economically, or have a mental health illness

$20,000.00 One year

 

 $10,000.00

One year

11

The Deli Women and Children’s Centre

Taking it to the people (DV Outreach Service)

Funds to establish a Domestic Violence outreach service involving counselling/casework and group work services for people who find it difficult to attend the organisation’s Eastlakes premises.

Women and children living  in Randwick who experience domestic violence

$22,039.00per year for three years

 $20,000.00

Three years

12

Waverley Action Youth Services

Safe Summer Survival

Funds to support a youth run peer education program providing harm prevention education about risks associated with alcohol and other drugs and safe sex practices. 

Young people

$4,490.00

One year

 $ 4,490.00

One year


2015/2016 COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FUNDING PROGRAM

 

APPLICATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING

No.

Organisation

Name of Project

Amount Requested

Reason for not recommending funding

1

Australian Children’s Music Foundation

Enriching and enhancing life through music

Funds towards wages of two music teachers to visit weekly Soldiers Settlement school to run performance and music lessons.

$20,000.00

One year

Applicant is not a service provider should apply under the Cultural Grants.

 

4

Eastern Suburbs Aftercare

ESA cooking group

Funds for wages to assist staff to conduct weekly cooking and yoga activities for people with mental illness living in the Eastern Suburbs.

$4,991.40

One year

Cannot be assessed incomplete application.

 

7

Indonesian Welfare Association

Community Service and Partnership Project 

Funds for staff to: organise weekly social gatherings and music therapy sessions for children with special needs; link with other service providers to provide information sessions and conduct bimonthly seminars.

$18,770.00

Year one

$18,335.00

Year two

$18,900

Year three

The intent of the project is unclear with respect to the target groups to be assisted and supported. The application implies that the proposed services will be conducted, on a one day per week basis,  from the Council’s Senior Citizens Centre at Alma St. There is insufficient information to complete an assessment of the proposed project.

9

Manos Healing Centre Inc

Manos Healing Group

Funding for a counsellor and therapist for fortnightly mediation-sound-healing-dance, and study groups.

$14,060.00

One year

Applicant did not demonstrate that project was an identified service gap or need.

13

YWCA NSW

Paths to Potential Transition

Funds to provide a four day program supporting young people in Years 5 & 6, residing in Randwick LGA, to make a successful transition to high school. Proposed program to include: team building, confidence, self-identity, problem solving, and coping strategies.

$20,000.00

One year

Applicant did not demonstrate that project was an identified service gap or need.

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP30/15

 

 

Subject:                  Fallen Life Savers Memorial, Coogee

Folder No:                   F2012/00305

Author:                   Gigi Lombardi, Landscape Architect     

 

Introduction

 

This report provides a project update for the Fallen Lifesavers Memorial and lists the issues associated with the completion of stage 2 which is the construction of the Memorial Wall listing the names of the fallen life savers killed in action.

 

Background

 

The first stage construction of the memorial was completed and officially opened in April 2014.  This stage comprised terrace sitting walls, placement of sculptures, flag pole, lighting and landscape improvements.

 

The second construction stage, being the memorial wall listing the names of the lifesavers killed in action was delayed as Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA) was still in the process of collecting and validating the names. 

 

This report outlines the status of the project and the current issues for the completion of stage 2 construction.

 

Issues

 

1.  Process for validating the names

 

This task in the project is being managed by Surf Life Saving Australia and has involved a complex and lengthy process involving several stages outlined below.

 

·      SLSA made contact with Surf Life Saving Clubs across the nation to gather names of surf life savers and additional information as required

·      Establishment and endorsement of criteria for a surf life saver by the SLSA Board

·      Adoption of criteria set by the Australian War Memorial for a soldier killed in action

·      Correlation and checking of names listed in the records of SLSA and the Australian War Memorial.

 

In line with this process, at the Trust meeting held on Monday 28 October 2013 the Trust members resolved that:

 

1.     a Board resolution from SLSA National Council is required regarding what the criteria for eligibility is for a surf lifesaver,

2.     the final list of fallen lifesavers be validated by SLSA and then issued to Council by the Board.,

 

Council has now received a final draft list of names which is still to be endorsed and issued by SLSA.  Upon receipt of the final list Council will be conducting its own validation process.

 

2.  Number of names received

 

At the beginning of this project it was envisaged that the number of surf life savers killed in action was above 3,000 (figure provided by SLSA), the design for the memorial wall catered for this number.  In March this year Council received the final draft list of names being in the order of 800.   The discrepancy in numbers is due the number of surf life savers enrolled to go to war and those that were killed in action.

 

Considering the reduction in number of names, the Trust decided to approach the original designers to prepare preliminary concept design options for integrating the names into the memorial without compromising the original design intention for the site, with minimal impacts in relation to site usage.  Options comprised:

 

a)  metal plaques being integrated in the existing terracing walls

b)  plinths to terracing landscaped areas

c)  curved wall blades to terracing landscaped areas

d)  retrofitting of the current design memorial wall with a reduction in height and length to better accommodate the reduced number of names. 

 

Option d) being the preferred design which was adopted by a resolution at the Trust meeting held on 30 March 2015 and is being pursued to detail design stage.  (Refer to attachment 1 which shows a comparison between the approved design for the memorial wall and the preferred design option by the Trust).

Once the validated names are received, the exact design layout of the memorial wall will be completed.

 

3.  Construction Timeframe

 

With the changes to the design for the memorial wall the designers and sub consultants will need to allocate 4-5 weeks to prepare the construction drawings and technical specifications to issue as a package for construction.   The construction contractor Hargraves Landscapes Pty Ltd has been engaged as part of the original project tender to build stages 1 and 2. Their construction program for the memorial wall is of 13-15 weeks.

 

The construction timeframe for the memorial wall is dependent upon receiving the validated names from SLSA.  The SLSA Board will meet in early August and it is anticipated that the names will be endorsed at this meeting for issuing to Council.

 

There is the risk identified in relation to the proximity to the end of the year.  Considering the site being at a predominant location and highly used throughout the summer, the construction work will not be during December and January.

 

4.  Funding

 

Late last year Council was successful in receiving funding assistance from the ‘Saluting Their Service Commemorations Grants Program’ from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs specifically for the construction of the memorial wall. 

 

The grant assistance is for the total amount of $200,000 (inc. GST) which to date Council has received half of this amount.

 

One of the conditions of the grant agreement was for the project to be completed and invoiced before the end of the 2014-2015 financial year.  In consideration of the design changes with the reduction of the number of names received, Council wrote to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs requesting an extension to allow for a redesign to take place.  This was granted though the Department has requested a completion date be provided which Council is dependent on SLSA issuing the validated names.

 

The grant assistance amount will cover the costs associated with the consultancy services for the preparation of construction drawings and technical specifications required by the redesign of the wall and construction works. 

 

5.  Councillors Briefing Session

 

At the Councillors Briefing session held on the 16 June 2015, Councillors were given a project update on the construction of the memorial wall which covered the issues listed throughout this report.

 

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 Council, community groups and

    government agencies.

 

Outcome 5:         Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

Direction 5a:        Maximise opportunities for residents and visitors to enjoy both active

and passive open space uses.

 

Outcome 7:         Heritage that is protected and celebrated

Direction 7a:     Our heritage is recognised, protected and celebrated.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The exact cost breakdown of the memorial will not be known until detail design stage is completed and ready to be costed for construction.  However, it is anticipated that the grant funding amount available from the ‘Saluting Their Service Commemorations Grants Program’ from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for the total amount of $200,000 (inc. GST) should cover the fees for design and construct.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has received a final draft list of names which is still to be endorsed and issued by SLSA.  The list shows a reduction of names from 3,000 from the initial stage of the project down to 800 approx.  This has resulted in a redesign of the memorial wall with a reduction of the memorial wall length and height.

 

Construction of the memorial wall is dependent on receiving the validated names from SLSA, this is anticipated to be in August 2015.  No construction is recommended during the months of December and January.  The period for completion of the redesign and construction of the wall is up to 20 weeks weather permitting.

 

There is concern that unless the final validated names are received, the project cannot progress to detail design stage for the memorial wall.  In addition, unless the names are received, the grant funding cannot be spent in a reasonable timeframe.  This presents a risk in regard to Council losing the grant funding assistance from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

a)  Endorse the preferred design option for the memorial wall as per resolution from the Trust meeting held on 30 March 2015.   Design option (d) retrofitting of the current design memorial wall with a reduction in height and length to better accommodate the reduced number of names. 

 

b)  Agree to a validation process by the Council.

 

c)    Support the completion of the project comprising the construction of the memorial wall within the budget allocated from the grant funds for the total amount of $200,000 (inc GST) available from Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Fallen Life Savers Memorial_Memorial Wall Design Comparison

 

 

 

 


Fallen Life Savers Memorial_Memorial Wall Design Comparison

Attachment 1

 

 

 


  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS7/15

 

 

Subject:                  Council Operated Swim Club - Randwick City Swim Club

Folder No:                   F2006/00408

Author:                   Reece Heddle, Manager Aquatic Services     

 

Introduction

 

The Des Renford Leisure Centre (DRLC) currently accommodates seven (7) swimming clubs with the majority being social in nature.  The two (2) major competitive swim clubs are Maroubra Swim Club and Bayside Swim Club.

 

DRLC wishes to commence its own operated Swim Club whilst maintaining all current agreements with current Swim Clubs.

 

Background

 

In 2002 Bayside Swim the Club was formed from a splitter group from Maroubra Swim Club.  Since this time, DRLC has struggled to work with either Club for the benefit of the swimmers due to trying to maintain a neutral stance.

 

This results in the facility being unable to recommend the most appropriate swim club for patrons without fear of being accused of bias and consistently doing activities twice, once for each Club, to be seen to be fair.    

 

Council and NSW Swimming have attempted to broker a merger of the two clubs on a number of occasions (2007, 2009, 2011, and 2014) to reduce the pressure on management, staff, patrons and members of both clubs, all without success.

 

Issues

 

DRLC coaching staff train all swimmers from all clubs under the DRLC banner with all participants having an individual swimming plan to achieve their individual goals.

For a swimmer who wishes to make it a competitive or social sport, they need to join a swim club.  Notwithstanding that DRCL swim coaches train participants.  The centre has no input into the Swim Clubs operations resulting in a lack of correlation between the DRLC training program and the Swim Clubs focus.

 

Forming and operating a Council operated Swim Club will provide a number of NSW Swimming Best Practice benefits to participants; the best Swim Club model is one Swim Coach to one club.  This ensures the Professional Swim Coach has regular informed input into the Clubs schedules ensuring the Club’s focus is in line with the training program and creates a team environment.  This is particularly relevant at events, where DRLC trained participants are spread between a variety of Swim Clubs with the DRLC swim coach forced to separate themselves from their swimmers to ensure they remain neutral and are not perceived to favor one club over another.   

 

Creating a new club will enable the facility to provide a single club which will meet the needs of all DRLC participants. Currently the two main options being Maroubra Swim Club and Bayside Swim Club have very different priorities; one being predominantly social with a very small competitive stream and the other being highly focused on competition with a minimal social sport aspect.  The new Randwick City formed club can focus on being both a Social and Competitive Club with equal priorities. This is critical in ensuring a strong Club foundation and will ensure that all participants can be catered for at the one club.

 

In July 2006, Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Maroubra Swimming Club.  Copy attached.  It is proposed to continue with the provisions of the MOU.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities

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

Key Action:       Recognise and promote opportunities for residents and visitors to engage in sports and other cultural pursuits.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The financial impact of commencing a Randwick City Swim Club would be $1,765.  This includes purchasing software and NSW Swimming affiliation fees.  After the initial setup stage, there would be no negative financial impact, with participant’s annual membership fees covering all ongoing costs.

 

Conclusion

 

Providing a Randwick City Swim Club will provide total integration between our swim coaches and a club.  The new Club will not affect the day to day operations of any club currently operating from the facility, with all current arrangements and agreements able to be honoured.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council form a new Swim Club affiliated with NSW Swimming.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Memorandum of Understanding with Maroubra Swimming Club

 

 

 

 


Memorandum of Understanding with Maroubra Swimming Club

Attachment 1

 

 




 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF23/15

 

 

Subject:                  Update to Precinct Committee Boundaries, Rules & Procedures

Folder No:                   F2012/00372

Author:                   David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services     

 

Introduction

 

The various Precinct Committees operating in Randwick City have performed a wonderful and important community service for over twenty years now and are a highly valued part of the communication process between Council and its residents. However, in response to a number of complaints received from members of the community in recent times concerning the running of Precinct Committees, it was considered a good opportunity to review the Precinct Rules & Procedures and to look at how we could improve the communication flow for Precinct Committees and their members.

 

In the course of this exercise it became apparent, and was confirmed by legal advice, that members of Precinct Executives are council officials and are bound by Council’s Code of Conduct. These provisions have also been incorporated into the review of the Precinct Rules & Procedures.

 

Issues

 

Council received complaints from a number of concerned residents who attended Precinct Committees and were of the view that not all interested residents were receiving the same documentation, that the minutes taken were not an accurate reflection of what occurred at the meeting, the inappropriate conduct of those present at some of the meetings, the accuracy of correspondence being disseminated by some Precinct Committees and the use of personal information collected by some Precinct Committees.

 

It is considered that the best way to address the concerns raised was to update the existing Precinct Rules & Procedures in order to provide greater clarification on many of these related issues and to update the templates to assist the Executives in conducting their affairs. In addition, Council will provide more support for the Executives in the form of a section for Precinct agendas, minutes and Council responses on Council’s website and the provision of an independent minute taker, upon request, to attend the next few meetings as a way of instilling confidence for Precinct minute takers and to assist with the recording of issues.

 

Council has held discussions with individual Precincts regarding personal comments, incorrect information and potentially defamatory statements that are being recorded in precinct correspondence. The concern for Council is that should Council publish this information in any format, it will be viewed that Council has endorsed these comments and statements. To mitigate this potential risk to Council a new Council policy of publishing minutes, that contain only the resolutions of the precincts, on Council’s website is being implemented. This policy will be incorporated into the new Precinct Rules & Procedures. It should be pointed out that the vast majority of Precincts continue to represent their area and engage with Council productively so having to take this step is disappointing for Council.

 

The attached new Rules and Procedures has also been amended to address privacy concerns raised by residents as well as the hijacking of Precinct Committee meetings in recent times by residents who live outside of the Precinct area.

 

During the course of this update to the Precinct Rules and Procedures, legal advice was sought as to whether Executives on Council's Precinct Committees are "members of Council Committees" and are covered by Council's Code of Conduct. The attached legal advice from Marsdens Solicitors was very clear in that Part 1 of the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council under section 440 of Local Government Act 1993 (effective from 1 March 2013) relevantly states:

 

"Councillors, administrators, members of staff of council, independent conduct reviewers, members of council committees including the conduct review committee and delegates of the council must comply with the applicable provisions of council's code of conduct in carrying out their functions as council officials."

 

In the definitions section of the Council's Code of Conduct the expression "council committee member" includes any person other than a councillor or member of staff of a council who is a member of a council committee which was established by resolution of council. Precinct Committees were established by a resolution passed by the Council on 30 August 1994.

 

Accordingly it follows that members of Precinct Committees are bound by Council’s Code of Conduct and again the Rules & Procedures have been updated to reflect this. Council will only be enforcing the provisions of the Code of Conduct with Precinct Executives from this time forward and a briefing session on how the Code of Conduct applies to Precinct Executives is being organised in the very near future.

 

It has also become necessary to amend the boundaries of the Precincts as The Spot Precinct is in temporary abeyance due to personal reasons. The attached Precinct boundary map shows The Spot Precinct has been temporarily redistributed amongst the Coogee and Randwick Precincts. Council's website will be updated to reflect this.

 

A request has also been received from the Moverley Precinct, due to poor attendance, to keep possession of the mailing list for the Precinct and only meet as required. Council is not supportive of this arrangement so discussions are in progress to absorb the Moverley Precinct into the adjoining Precincts with their agreement, until such time as the Moverley Precinct is re-established. The Moverley Precinct contact list will be handed over to these Precincts. The attached Precinct boundary map will soon be updated to show the planned redistribution of the Moverley Precinct and Council's website will be updated at the appropriate time to reflect this, subject to agreement of adjoining Precincts.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 3:       An informed and engaged community.

Direction 3c:      A community involved in shaping and enhancing our City.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The financial impact for Council would be staff time taken to update the website on an ongoing basis and the cost of providing an independent minute taker for the Executives for the next few meetings.

 

 


Conclusion

 

The proposed updates to the Precinct Rules & Procedures are highlighted in blue on the attached document. The appendices include a guide on how voting should take place, a template for the reporting of the allocation of funds by the executive through the year, a template for minute taking and an attendance sheet with an appropriate privacy statement. Precinct Executives should be reminded that they are not to use the personal details of anyone who has provided them other than for Precinct Committee contact purposes.

 

It must be stated here that Council has been disappointed to receive complaints that certain residents who have requested to be included on email distribution lists have allegedly been ignored. It is only fair and equitable that all interested residents receive the same information in order for the Precincts to function efficiently and equitably.

 

Whilst the new dedicated Precinct section on Council’s website should address the majority of these issues, as documents such as business papers and minutes are now available online, Precinct Executives are reminded of their obligation to treat people in a fair manner. Ongoing complaints of this nature may result in an investigation into the running of non complying Precincts.

 

Council is certainly of the view that the vast majority of Precinct Committees are being run in a very professional manner. Council also acknowledges the dedication of all Precinct Executives who volunteer their valuable time for the benefit of their local community.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     all Precinct Executives be advised that they are bound by Council’s Code of Conduct moving forward and that a briefing session on how the Code of Conduct applies to be provided in the near future to all Precinct Executives;

b)     the updated Precinct Rules & Procedures be adopted;

c)     a section be included on Council’s website for the provision of all Precinct agendas, minutes containing Precinct resolutions and Council responses;

d)     an independent minute taker be provided, at Council’s expense and upon request, at an upcoming meeting of each Precinct to improve the accuracy and consistency of minutes being taken by all the Precinct Committees;

e)     Council endorse the revised Precinct boundary maps and update such maps as required to reflect the absorption of the Moverley Precinct into adjoining Precincts upon their agreement; and

e)     all Precinct Executives and complainants be advised of Council’s above resolution.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Precinct Rules & Procedures

 

2.View

Randwick Map

 

3.View

Coogee Map

 

4.View

New Precinct Map

 

5.View

Legal Advice – Precinct Executives

 

 

 

 


Precinct Rules & Procedures

Attachment 1

 

 

Text Box: OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGERText Box: Effective Date:	23 June 2015 
Contact Officer:	Precinct Coordinator
TRIM Document Number:	D02047460

Text Box: Precinct Rules and Procedures
1. Introduction

Randwick City Council, in pursuing its commitment to community engagement, has established Precinct meetings throughout the City.

 


Precinct meetings are convened by residents and supported by Council. They play a vital role in ensuring that future changes in the City of Randwick take residents’ views into account.

 

Precincts have been established to increase the flow of information between the Council and the community and to provide residents with an opportunity to be more active in the decision-making process.

 

Precincts are not decision-making bodies, but act as a conduit moving issues and opinions between the community and Council.

 

Council’s Precinct Coordinator assists Precincts seeking the information necessary to make informed decisions and recommendations on matters referred to them by Council.

 

In order to be effective, Precincts rely on the goodwill of all who attend meetings. Precincts are not to function as resident action groups and attempts by an action group or political party to dominate a Precinct meeting will ultimately reduce the effectiveness and credibility of that Precinct.

 

Precinct Executive Committee members are members of a committee which has been established by a resolution of Council and are therefore required to comply with the applicable provisions of Council’s Code of Conduct in carrying out their functions as Council officials.

 

Breaches of the Code of Conduct by a member of the Precinct Executive may lead to disciplinary action, depending on the seriousness of the breach. Sanctions would range from a written warning through to disqualification from  the Executive.

2. Precinct Objectives

The objectives of the Precinct system are:

§ to encourage community engagement by developing a sense of community between the Council, community and the local environment

§ to facilitate continuous, clear two-way communication between Randwick City Council and the community

§ to provide a formal system of information transfer between residents, property owners, tenants and Council, and

§ to encourage residents’ and property owners’ contribution to Council's decision-making process.

3. Precinct Membership

Only residents, tenants and property owners within the designated Precinct area are eligible to attend their local Precinct meeting. Residents, tenants and property owners from outside of the designated Precinct area are prohibited from attending.

 

At least 20 members representing 20 different family groups must indicate their interest in establishing a Precinct in their area.

 

Each Precinct must annually elect an Executive, comprising a Chairperson and a Secretary. Executive Officers are elected at the initial Precinct meeting. All residents, tenants and property owners within the designated Precinct area are eligible to be office bearers, however the nominees cannot be from the same family or household.

 

Maps showing the current Precinct boundaries accompany these Precinct Rules and Procedures. Residents, tenants and property owners who live in or own property on the border of two or more Precincts may attend any of the adjoining Precinct meetings.

 

Councillors are eligible to be members of the Precinct in which they reside. They are also entitled to attend other Precinct meetings as observers. Councillors cannot accept nomination for Executive roles within any Precinct.

4. Precinct Meetings

Each Precinct should aim to hold a public meeting once per month.  It is preferable that meetings are held a minimum of six times per year in different months.

 

It is the responsibility of the Precinct Executive to inform residents of the time, date and agenda for the next meeting. This may be done by way of a letterbox drop, posters and/or email.

 

Each Precinct meeting requires a quorum of 10 people. The number of people set for a quorum is to ensure that meetings remain as representative as possible. If a quorum is not reached, the meeting may still proceed, however the Council will note the vote count and take this into consideration when responding to the recommendations.

 

No resident, property owner or tenant is to be excluded from their local Precinct meeting.

 

It is necessary for each Precinct to establish specific meeting procedures for the smooth running of their meetings, in line with these Rules and Procedures. The procedures must demonstrate respect for fellow attendees.

 

The Chairperson is responsible for guiding and controlling the meeting and ensuring that debate is conducted in accordance with standard meeting practice. It may be necessary to limit the number and length of time a particular person can discuss a matter, to ensure that no one individual dominates the meeting.

 

Matters to be discussed and voted on should be formulated as a motion. When sufficient discussion has occurred, members should be asked to vote on the motion and the number of people voting for, against and abstaining, will be recorded in the minutes.

 

5. Voting at a Precinct Meeting

Only residents, tenants and property owners within the designated Precinct area are eligible to vote at their local Precinct meeting. Each precinct member is eligible to receive one vote each, regardless of the number of properties they own in the Precinct area. Further clarification regarding voting is contained within appendix 1.

 

The Chairperson is permitted to vote and will also exercise a casting vote in the event that a vote is tied.

 

The Secretary is permitted to vote.

 

Visitors and guest speakers are NOT eligible to vote.

6. The Precinct Executive

The Executive of a Precinct comprises the Chairperson and Secretary.

 

Precincts may elect additional members to assist the Executive.  For example the Precinct meeting may wish to elect a Treasurer or an Assistant Secretary.

 

The Executive is to ensure that residents, tenants and property owners are given at least five days advance notice of a scheduled meeting.

 

The Executive is to send the agenda, associated documents, minutes, Council responses and any other relevant documents to those residents in the precinct who have requested they receive them. Council will assist the precincts by publishing, on its website, the minutes of the Precinct Committee meetings.

 

The Executive may need to call a Special Meeting if a decision on a matter is needed before the next scheduled meeting is to be held. For example this may occur when comments are required for a Development Application (DA) submission.

 

In exceptional circumstances, when an issue affects more than one Precinct, the respective Precinct Executives may facilitate the calling of a combined meeting.

 

All Precinct correspondence or requests to Council are to be directed to the Precinct Coordinator at Randwick City Council and can only be lodged by the Precinct Executive.

 

Precincts must keep accurate financial records, which are to be prepared for the Annual General Meeting (AGM). The role of Treasurer may be performed by either the Secretary or the Chairperson.

 

Should a new Executive be appointed at the AGM, the outgoing Executive is to ensure a smooth handover of all financial records and mailing lists to the incoming Executive. The Executive is to bear in mind that they are custodians of this information only and there are strict privacy restrictions on the release of such information.

 

The AGM for each Precinct will be held in November of each year when the Executive office bearers are elected.

 

Appointment to the position of a Chairperson and Secretary will commence upon election and become vacant on the day of the next AGM in November of the following year. If a vacancy should occur for any of the Executive positions during the year, an election shall be held to fill such a vacancy at the next Ordinary Meeting.

 

A person may not hold an executive position (i.e. chair and/or secretary) on the Precinct for more than two consecutive years. Any extension beyond this time must be through a formal request in writing to the General Manager of Randwick City Council giving reasons for the request.

 

The General Manager, in approving a request for an extension of term will consider whether:

§ the Precinct has held a properly constituted AGM, with the opportunity for anyone to stand for an Executive position

§ the Precinct has provided the Council with a copy of the AGM minutes

§ the General Manager is satisfied that the Precinct is operating within the Rules and Procedures of Precincts, in particular by regularly sending the Precinct meeting minutes to the Council

7. The Chairperson

The Chairperson is responsible for preparing an Agenda for each meeting. The Chairperson should follow this Agenda, however if the meeting wishes to bring forward special items such as a guest speaker, the order of items can be voted on to be adjusted accordingly.

 

The Chairperson is responsible for guiding and controlling the meeting and ensuring that decisions made, are achieved after fair and reasonable debate has taken place.

 

The Chairperson's role is to focus the meeting on the issues, ensure that everyone gets a chance to speak and be heard, discourage repetition and irrelevance and guide the meeting to consensus if necessary.

 

The Chairperson’s role is to ensure that only residents, tenants and property owners within the designated Precinct area are in attendance and to not allow participation in the meeting by persons from outside the designated Precinct area.

 

The Chairperson's role is to ensure that all those in attendance are treated with courtesy and respect.

 

It is the role of the Chairperson to ensure that the meeting is conducted within a two hour period.

 

It is appropriate to allow some discussion on each item prior to moving a motion and voting. However, if the discussion takes too long, it may lead to a particular item dominating at the expense of other agenda items or the length of the meeting will be extended.

8. The Secretary

The Secretary is responsible for:

§ administration of the Precinct

§ assisting the Chairperson with the preparation of the Agenda for the meeting including the setting of meeting dates

§ taking the minutes and ensuring any proposed resolution is clearly articulated to the meeting before it is voted upon

§ attending to incoming and outgoing correspondence

§ the management, maintenance and monitoring of the attendance book

§ preparing and forwarding the Minutes to the Precinct Coordinator electronically, no later than 10 working days after the meeting, and

§ notifying the Precinct Coordinator of any changes to meeting dates or events as soon as they are known, or at least 10 working days prior. This is essential to meet advertising deadlines.

9. The Agenda

The Chairperson, in consultation with the Secretary, should prepare an Agenda for each meeting. The Agenda sets out the order of business for the Chairperson to follow and should be circulated prior to the meeting.

 

The attendance register is to be signed on arrival and verified by the Secretary prior to the end of the meeting.

 

The order of business is as follows:

§ Welcome by the Chairperson

§ Apologies

§ Declaration of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interest

§ Ratification of previous minutes

§ Business arising from the minutes (any matter/s that were raised at the previous meeting which required action to be followed-up)

§ Address by local ward Councillors

§ Incoming and outgoing correspondence

§ Business arising from the correspondence

§ Treasurer's report

§ Other reports (sub-committees)

§ General business

§ Next meeting date

§ Meeting close.

10. The Minutes

Minutes of the Precinct meeting should be recorded on the template provided at Appendix 3 and contain the following information:

§ the number of attendees at the meeting, with the number of apologies

§ all correspondence to and from the Precinct is to be tabled and noted in the minutes

§ any declarations of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interest

§ any motions that have been passed, including the number of votes for and against the motion, as well as any abstentions, and

§ a copy of the minutes is to be sent to the Precinct Coordinator within 10 working days of the meeting.

 

Minutes are ratified at the following Precinct meeting by two people who can verify the accuracy of those minutes.  The minutes of a Precinct Meeting are a public record of a community meeting, and as such, are available to residents, property owners and tenants. Minutes containing resolutions only, in addition to the meeting agenda and Council’s response, will be posted on Council’s website.

 

The Chair or Secretary may request for the meeting to be audio recorded to assist with preparation of the minutes; this recording can also be used in the case of any disputes over the minutes whilst seeking ratification at the next meeting. Prior to the commencement of recording, the Chair is to inform the meeting of the intention to do so and seek unanimous approval. Voice recording cannot occur unless unanimous approval has been received from meeting attendees. Once the minutes are confirmed at the next meeting, the minutes will prevail over any audio recording.

 

Disputes as to the accuracy of the minutes are to be put to a vote and changed if agreed to by the majority of members in attendance.

 

The Secretary is to keep an attendance book which must include the date, name, address and signature of all attendees. The attendance book will include a privacy statement (see Attachment 1). This record will be presented to the AGM. The General Manager of Randwick City Council may request to see this record at any time during the year.

 

Persons attending a meeting who have an interest in a Development Application should declare that interest and abstain from voting. This includes the applicant, their relatives, architects and builders.

 

Urgent submissions to DAs should be forwarded directly to the Planning Department within the specified time. Confirmation of this submission will still need to be recorded in the minutes of that meeting.

 


Council would prefer Precincts to forward meeting minutes electronically. Timely receipt of the minutes will ensure that Council is given sufficient time to prepare an appropriately detailed response to the Committee.

 

Council needs to know if a Precinct has any objections to specific matters forwarded to the Precinct by Council. It is equally important that Council is notified if the Precinct meeting has no objections to, or in fact supports, a specific matter.

11. Matters Referred by Council to Precincts

The following matters are regularly forwarded, in electronic and/or in hard copy, to Precinct Committees for comment and recommendations back to Randwick City Council:

§ Council Business Papers

§ Major public works proposals

§ Traffic management proposals

§ Park and reserve improvement proposals

§ Community services activities and events

§ Zoning changes which affect a specific Precinct area

§ Major policies or policy changes which directly affect the whole community

§ A list of current development applications (DA)

§ Additional information on request.

 

Precinct Executives may also view the hard copy display DA files relevant to their Precinct at Council’s Customer Service Centre during business hours.

 

Randwick City Council also makes these display files available overnight, on request from a Precinct Executive member, with three working day’s prior notice to the Precinct Coordinator.

 

A file may be collected from Council only between 4.45pm and 5pm on the agreed date and must be returned at 8.30am the following working day.

 

Council provides this service to Precinct Executives in good faith and expect all due care and responsibility to be taken with these files.

 

Failure to comply with these conditions will result in permanent or temporary withdrawal of this borrowing privilege to Precincts.

 

12. Precinct Funding

Each year Council allocates an amount of money to Precincts to assist with offsetting costs associated with running each Precinct meeting. Such expenses may include the hiring of a Post Office Box, phone calls made for the purposes of Precinct business and other associated expenditure. Please note, receipts must be presented and minuted at each meeting before reimbursement can be made.

 

Funding is subject to compliance with Council’s Precinct Rules and Procedures. To receive funding precincts must provide Council with minutes of their AGM, an Executive Update Sheet showing the newly appointed executive, a financial statement which includes a summary of income and expenditure as tabled at the AGM, and current bank details.

 

Council also provides in-kind assistance to support the Precincts. This includes:

§ The Precinct Coordinator position and resources

§ A copy of all relevant Council documents including copies of all Council Business Papers and DA lists

§ The allocation of a ream of paper per month for each Precinct

§ Hall hiring fees

§ Advertising of meetings in the local newspaper

§ Reasonable printing volumes of flyers and posters promoting Precincts

 

A summary of how the funds were allocated throughout the year is to be tabled at the Annual General Meeting using the template provided at Appendix 2.

 

Council may elect not to provide funding to Precincts should they have in excess of one year’s funding in reserves from previous years or have not used their funds appropriately.  

13. Conflicts of Interest

What is a conflict of interest?

A conflict of interest occurs where a personal interest, such as a business interest, family relationship or friendship, could influence the way in which an individual forms an opinion on a matter being considered by a Precinct meeting.

 

Another way of considering whether a conflict of interest exists is where a person has difficulty in making a fair and impartial decision on some issue as a result of divided loyalties or of being likely to benefit personally if the issue is decided one way rather than another way.

 

A conflict of interest would also occur when a reasonable person might believe that an individual could be influenced by a personal interest.

 

What to do if there is a real or perceived conflict of interest?

In managing a conflict of interest, the first responsibility is to the Precinct meeting. 

It is important that if a conflict of interest exists or could be seen to exist, the situation is managed effectively. It is also important that both the community and Council are confident that conflicts of interest can be managed and resolved by Precincts.

 

In the cases of conflicts of interest, the proper procedure is for the person concerned to:

§ Declare any interest.

§ Make known the way in which those interests may conflict.

§ If the meeting considers that there is an actual conflict of interest, abstain from taking part in the decision making process.

§ If considered appropriate, leave the room while the issue is discussed.

§ Ensure that the declarations of a conflict or possible conflict or perceived conflict are recorded in the minutes of the Precinct Committee meeting.

 

In Precinct Committee meetings, the meeting may decide that it is appropriate for the person with the conflict of interest to speak on the issue before general discussion takes place.

 

Some examples where a conflict of interest may exist:

 

§ The Precinct meeting is considering a draft policy on alcohol free zones and an individual or their immediate family has shares in a liquor retail company that operates in the Randwick City Council area.

§ The Precinct is considering a development application lodged by a Precinct attendee or a close family member.

§ An attendee or a close family member’s property is directly impacted on by a development proposal.

§ A Precinct attendee is asked by the Precinct meeting to represent the Precinct’s views to Council on an issue where they have or could be reasonably perceived to have a conflict of interest on the matter.

 

In considering development applications, it is important to distinguish between direct impacts on a property or properties and broader community impact of a development.

 

Where people are not sure whether a conflict exists, they should seek guidance from the Precinct meeting or from Council. 

 

Examples of when individuals could seek guidance are:

§ Deciding whether a relative or a friend is close enough to create a conflict or the perception of a conflict of interest

§ Distinguishing between direct and broader community impacts of a development proposal.

 

When considering whether or not a conflict of interest or the perception of a conflict of interest exists, Precincts should always err on the side of caution.

14. Precincts and the Media

1. Recording and reporting of Precinct meetings

Precinct meetings are forums for residents to discuss local and Council related issues in a safe environment. While open to the public, they are not public meetings, as there are clear restrictions on who may attend and who may speak at meetings.

 

Recording and photographic devices can only be used at a Precinct meeting when prior written consent has been given by those being recorded or photographed, and the Precinct chair rules that such equipment can be used.

 

Members of the media are free to attend their local Precinct in their capacity as local residents.

 

When media representatives attend a Precinct meeting in a work or reporting capacity:

 

§ They must declare this at the beginning of the meeting.

§ The chair may determine whether or not the media representative can attend and report on the Precinct meeting.

 

Individuals speaking at a meeting can only be quoted with consent.

 

Council staff cannot provide a briefing or presentation to the Precinct when members of the media are present and reporting on the proceedings of the meeting.

 

2. Media comments by Precincts

From time to time, the media may contact Precinct members for information or comment.

 

If the Precinct meeting has determined a matter, individuals can speak on behalf of the Precinct, if authorised to do so by the Chair or the Precinct meeting.

 

If a matter has only been discussed and no resolution passed, individuals can only express personal views, but not the views of the Precinct unless the Precinct has resolved to permit comment on matters where the general view of the Precinct on the matter or related matters has been minuted within the term of the current Executive.

 


Precinct members cannot make statements to the media or at public events that would lead someone to believe that they are speaking on behalf of Council or expressing Council views or policies.

 

Media comments by Council are made through Council’s Communications Manager.

 

15. Precincts and their Correspondence

All Precinct correspondence must be a direct result of a resolution of the Precinct Committee and be advising of decisions made by a Precinct Committee. Any correspondence is to reflect the resolutions made at the meeting as they appear in the minutes and state whether a resolution was a majority decision or a unanimous decision.

 

Precinct correspondence advising of matters going before Council or Committees is to be factually correct and provide what is being recommended in the Council report, the time & date of the meeting, details of any previous recommendations made by the Precinct on that particular matter and a Council contact for more information.

 

Correspondence under Precinct letterhead is not to be used by the Executive for matters that were not the direct result of a Precinct resolution. Using such letterhead for correspondence detailing personal views or opinions is strictly prohibited and will be considered a breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

All Precinct correspondence is to be of a courteous and respectful nature.

16. Non-compliance by Precincts with these Rules and Procedures

Where a Precinct breaches the Rules and Procedures, the issue will be raised by the Council with the Precinct Executive, and Council staff will assist the Precinct in overcoming any problems that may be the cause of the breach.

 

Where there is persistent non-compliance with the Rules and Procedures and the attempts to rectify the problem do not succeed, a report will be provided to the Council on the matter for the Council to determine what action should be taken.

17. Precinct Coordination Committee

Randwick City Council’s Precinct Coordination Committee has been established with the following aims and objectives:

Aims

§ To establish an inclusive forum where broad community-wide and local issues can be discussed

§ To continue to improve the link between Council and the community and foster improved community engagement

§ To promote and engage the community early in Council’s planning and decision making processes.

Objectives

§ The efficient coordination of Randwick City Council’s Precincts

§ The establishment of a forum at which both City-wide issues and issues common to Precincts and Council can be raised

§ The improvement of Council’s consultation processes and the development of better community engagement practices

§ Support for accountable decision making

§ The creation of a catalyst to revitalise and improve the effectiveness of Precinct meetings.

18. Council’s Precinct Coordinator

Randwick City Council’s Precinct Coordinator assists Precincts and the Precinct system. The Precinct Coordinator is the prime point of contact for the Precincts.

 

The role of the Precinct Coordinator includes:

§ To co-ordinate and resource the Precinct Coordination Committee

§ To provide support to Precincts and to act as a conduit between Council, the Precincts and the community

§ To assist Precincts to obtain the necessary information to make informed decisions and recommendations on Council matters

§ To liaise with Council officers to ensure that all relevant Council matters are referred to the Precincts

§ To ensure that Precinct comments and recommendations are forwarded to the relevant Council officers

§ To collate information and respond to Precinct meeting minutes

§ To co-ordinate briefing sessions with Council officers and meetings as the need arises

§ To provide management guidelines for Randwick City Council’s Precincts

§ To assist the development of Precincts.

§ To receive any complaints about the running of Precinct Committees and facilitate a resolution or an investigation if required.

 


Precinct Rules & Procedures

Attachment 1

 

 

Appendix 1 – Voting Scenarios

 

Each precinct member is eligible to vote in line with the following scenarios:

 

CASE 1: A group household, consisting of four residents, attends the precinct meeting and would like to vote at the AGM. How many votes can they have?

 

Answer: Each person is entitled to one vote each

 

 

CASE 2: A mother and daughter attend the precinct meeting. They used to live in the precinct but have both moved to Waverley. They share ownership of the house they once lived in but now use this as a residential investment property. How many votes?

 

Answer: Only one person is entitled to vote, either the mother or the daughter.

 

 

CASE 3: A couple sign the attendance sheet and want to vote. They have two properties in the precinct, one residential investment property and one property they reside in. The two tenants who share the rent of the investment property are also in attendance. How many votes can the owners and tenants have?

 

Answer: Each person is entitled to one vote each.

 

 

CASE 4: A precinct meeting attendee, who lives in the precinct, is part owner of two residential properties and full owner of one commercial property in the precinct. How many votes can this person have?

 

Answer: This person is entitled to one vote.

 

 

CASE 5: The lessee of one of the local cafes has turned up at the meeting. He doesn’t own or rent residential property in the precinct. Does he/she get a vote?

 

Answer: This person is entitled to one vote.

 

 

CASE 6: Four people (two couples) individually own four houses in the precinct as residential investment properties. How many votes do they get?

 

Answer: They are entitled to one vote each (i.e. a total of four votes)

 

 

CASE 7: Two people own four residential investment properties in the precinct, how many votes do they receive?

 

Answer: Each person is entitled to one vote (i.e. a total of two votes)

 

 

CASE 8: Four people own four residential investment properties in the precinct. Each person has a 25% share in each property. How many votes do they receive?

 

Answer: Each person is entitled to one vote each (i.e. a total of 4 votes).

 

 

There are no circumstances where more than one vote can be given to a person.

 


Appendix 2 –Allocation of Funds Summary - Template

 

 

FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR {name of} PRECINCT COMMITTEE

 

FOR PERIOD {date from and date to}

 

 

OPENING BALANCE                                                                                        Amount                                                

 

INCOME

[List Income Items individually such as bank interest, funding received]

Item 1                                                                 Amount

Item 2                                                                 Amount

Item 3                                                                 Amount

Item 4                                                                 Amount

                        

Total Income                                                                                                       Amount

 

 

EXPENDITURE

[List Expenditure Items individually such as postage, PO Box fees etc,]

Item 1                                                                 Amount

Item 2                                                                 Amount

Item 3                                                                 Amount

Item 4                                                                Amount

 

Total Expenditure                                                                                               Amount

 

 

CLOSING BALANCE                                                                                        Amount

 

 

 

 

 

Signature of Treasurer                      ___________________      Date    _______________

 

 

 

 

Signature of Chair                 ___________________                   Date    _______________

 

 

 


Appendix 3 – Minutes Template

 

Precinct Committee Minutes

 

The minutes of precinct committee meetings are to be a record of what happened at the meeting, recording in particular:

·      issues discussed at the meeting (but not the detailed discussions)

·      resolutions passed and

·      actions participants undertook to carry out.

 

The following template provides an acceptable format for submitting precinct committee minutes to Council. Minutes are to be forwarded to Council’s Community Consultation Coordinator within ten working days of the meeting. Minutes are to be forwarded electronically as word documents unless prior arrangements are made.

 

Precinct Committees should note that the minutes of meetings are public documents.

 

Precinct

 

Date, meeting time and venue

 

Chair

 

Secretary

 

1. Attendance:

List number of attendees in the minutes.

A sign on list of attendees is to be kept with the minute book.

 

 

2. Apologies:

List

 

 

3. Declaration of interests:

Any declaration of a conflict of interest should be recorded. The Precinct Committee Rules and Procedures sets out an explanation of conflict of interest.

 

 

4. Finance:

Itemise any income and expenditure.

 

 

5. Confirmation of previous minutes:

Previous minutes are to be confirmed, subject to any amendments.

The mover and seconder of the resolution to accept the minutes should be recorded.

 

 

6. Correspondence:

Table all correspondence and list in the minutes, including all material supplied by Council. List the items in the minutes.

 

 

7. Business arising from previous minutes:

Council’s response to precinct minutes should be tabled and read to the meeting.

Note issues arising from previous minutes that require any further action. 

 

 

8. General business:

Please number the resolutions.

Issues referred to the precinct by Council should be listed even if there is no response by the precinct committee.

State clearly and concisely issues discussed which result in a resolution.  This will assist in identifying potential ways of resolving an issue.

Please include the mover and seconder of resolutions as well as the numbers voting for and against or abstaining. 

For Example

Item1. Postage Expense

Receipt received for $20.00 postage from Chair

RESOLUTION: – Chair be reimbursed.

Proposed: (name) Seconded: (name)

Carried unanimously OR 7 votes FOR, 5 votes AGAINST, 2 ABSTAIN

 

 

 

9. Meeting closed:

Time

 

 

10. Next meeting:

Date and Time

 


Precinct Rules & Procedures

Attachment 1

 

 

Attendance Sheet and Privacy Statement

 

Name of Precinct:                                                                        Date of meeting:

 

Name

Street and suburb

Signature

Email address* (optional)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Privacy statement:

Personal details requested on this form will only be used for the purpose of ensuring that participation in Precincts is by residents of the Precinct area. The supply of information by you is voluntary. If you cannot provide, or do not wish to provide the information sought, the Council may not be able to recognise your participation in the meeting to determine if a quorum is present at the Precinct meeting.  Access to the information is restricted to Council officers and the Precinct Chair and Secretary. You may make an application for access or amendment to the information held by Council. * In supplying your email address you consent to the Precinct Executive sending you Precinct related information by email. The use of your personal information for any other purpose, other than stated above, is prohibited. If you have concerns as to how your information is being used please contact Council’s Precinct Coordinator on 1300 722 542.


Randwick Map

Attachment 2

 

 


Coogee Map

Attachment 3

 

 


New Precinct Map

Attachment 4

 

 


Legal Advice – Precinct Executives

Attachment 5

 

 



Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF24/15

 

 

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

 

Investment Commentary

 

As at 30 June 2015, Council held investments with a market value of $64.3 million. The portfolio value decreased during June by ~$2.48 million. The decrease is representative of a negative 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 June 2015. Peaks are representative of the rates instalment periods.

 

Council’s Portfolio

 

The portfolio has high levels of liquidity with 5% of investments available at call and a further 16% 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 June 2015. The portfolio is dominated by term deposits with the higher rated ADI’s. Credit assets (FRNs) are around 30% 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. Individual counterparty exposures comply with the Policy, except NAB (marginally by $0.48M), due to portfolio shrinkage.

 

 

 

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 June 2012 to June 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 3.64% compared with the benchmark index of 2.25%.

 

For the financial year, Council’s total portfolio returned 3.70%p.a., outperforming its benchmark by +110bp. This is a solid return given the historic low interest rate environment.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate remained unchanged since the 5 May reduction to a historical low of 2.00%.

 

Term Deposits

 

At month end, deposits accounted for 65% of the total investment portfolio.

Four deposits matured and were withdrawn. New deposits totaling $10 million were established in June.

 

As at the end of June, the weighted average deposit yield stood at 3.43% or around +120bp over bank bills.

    

Floating Rate Notes (FRNs)

 

The portfolio includes $19.1 million in floating rate notes.

The FRN’s have been Council’s best performing asset for the financial year, returning +3.82%p.a.

 

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 decreased by ~$41k as at the end of June.

 

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 30 June 2015 amounted to $2,379,253.01.

 

Certification – Responsible Accounting Officer

 

I hereby certify that all investments as at 30 June 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 June 2015 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF25/15

 

 

Subject:                  2014-15 Draft Financial Statements

Folder No:                   F2015/00086

Author:                   Mitchel Woods, Manager Corporate and Financial Planning      

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to refer the 2014-15 Draft Financial Statements to Council’s Auditors. The Audited 2014-15 Financial Statements will be brought back to Council for adoption at a later Council Meeting.

 

As per Section 416 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993, a Council’s financial statements for the year must be prepared and audited within four months after the end of the year concerned.

 

 The statutory process that must be followed is:

 

1.     The financial statements must include statements made by resolution of the Council and signed by the Mayor and at least one other Councillor as well as the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer.

 

2.     The financial statements must then be referred to the Council’s Auditors and, once audited, they must be included in the Council’s Annual Report.

 

3.     Copies of the audited financial statements must be forwarded to the Division of Local Government by 31 October 2015.

 

4.     As soon as practicable after Council receives a copy of the Auditor’s report, the statements must be placed on public exhibition and notice given of a meeting at which Council proposes to present its audited financial statements together with the Auditor’s report. (Sec. 418 LGA).

 

Carry Over of Programmed Funds

 

It is proposed to carry over funds to the new financial year 2015-16, due to the following reasons:

 

·           Projects had already commenced and expenditure was committed;

·           Projects were incomplete as at 30 June 2015;

·           Grant funding has been received for projects spanning a timeframe beyond 30  June 2015;

·           The funds were voted towards the latter part of the 2014-15 financial year, and  the project had not yet commenced or been completed;

·           Funding for the project is to be raised over more than one financial year.

 

Council continues to be programmed and disciplined in regards to its financial planning and management. The majority of the funds being carried over form part of a financial plan, plan of management, or some other form of strategy where Council is purposefully accumulating funds.

 

A report, “Capital Works Financial Planning”, was received and noted by Council at the previous Ordinary Meeting of Council (23rd June 2015). That report detailed the large projects which are now contained within the Carry Over schedule. 

 

Issues

 

The 2014-15 Annual Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Regulations, the Australian Accounting Standards, and the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting. The unaudited Annual Financial Statements will be tabled by the Director of Governance and Financial Services at the meeting.

 

Section 413(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 requires the Council to form an opinion as to whether the Council’s Annual Financial Statements reflect a true and fair position and that they have been drawn up in accordance with the Local Government Act and associated codes and standards. Statements to this effect have been prepared (refer Attachments 2 and 3) and will be presented for signature.

 

Subsequent to these Statements being signed, the Annual Financial Statements will be referred to the Council’s Auditor, Hill Rogers Spencer Steer, for audit. On completion of the audit, further copies of the statements including the audit report will be circulated to Councillors.

 

It is proposed that the audited financial statements be presented at a Council meeting as soon as practicable after receipt of the final audit report.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

Council is in a strong and stable financial position.

 

Conclusion

 

The Manager Corporate and Financial Planning, as the Responsible Accounting Officer, advises that the financial position is satisfactory.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the Schedule of 2014-15 funds to be carried forward into 2015-16 be adopted as per Attachment 1

 

b)     in relation to the financial statements required in accordance with Section 413(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993:

 

i)        Council resolve that in its opinion the General Purpose Financial Statements, Special Purpose Financial Statements and Special Schedules for the year ended 30 June 2015:

 

a.  have been properly drawn up in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Regulations there under, the Australian Accounting Standards and professional pronouncements, and the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting;

 

b.  to the best of the Council’s knowledge and belief the statements present fairly the Council’s operating result and financial position for the year and accords with the Council’s accounting and other records; and

 

c.  the Council is unaware of any matter that would render the financial statements false or misleading in anyway.

 

ii)       The Statement by Councillors and Management for both the General Purpose Financial Statements and Special Purpose Financial Statements be signed by the Mayor, another Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer.

 

c)     the financial statements be referred to the Council’s Auditors for audit.

 

d)     arrangements be made to place copies of the audited financial statements on public exhibition and the necessary advertisements be published.

 

e)     a copy of the audited financial statements be forwarded to the NSW Office of Local Government.

 

f)     the audited financial statements be presented at a meeting of Council to be held in accordance with Section 418 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Link to the Schedule of Carry Over Funds 2014-15

 

2.View

General Purpose Financial Statements - Statement by Councillors and Management

 

3.View

Special Purpose Financial Statements - Statement by Councillors and Management

 

4.

Draft 2014-15 Financial Statements - to be tabled at the meeting by the Director Governance and Financial Services

 

 

 

 


General Purpose Financial Statements - Statement by Councillors and Management

Attachment 2

 

 


Special Purpose Financial Statements - Statement by Councillors and Management

Attachment 3

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF26/15

 

 

Subject:                  Cancellation of October 2015 Committee Meetings

Folder No:                   F2004/06645

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

As reported to the 23 June 2015 Council Meeting, the 2015 Conference of Local Government NSW will be held at Rosehill Gardens Racecourse from Sunday 11 to Tuesday 13 October 2015, with the main conference dinner scheduled to be held on Tuesday 13 October 2015.

 

Issues

 

To allow all Councillors the opportunity to attend this important conference, which is a pre-eminent industry event, it is proposed to cancel the October Committee Meetings which are scheduled to be held on Tuesday 13 October 2015.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The cancellation of the October 2015 Committee Meetings will allow all Councillors the opportunity to attend the 2015 Conference of Local Government NSW.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the Council Committee Meetings scheduled to be held on Tuesday 13 October 2015 be cancelled due to a conflict with the 2015 Conference of Local Government NSW.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF27/15

 

 

Subject:                  Coronial Inquest into Rock Fishermen Deaths - Deputy State Coroner's Findings and Recommendations

Folder No:                   F2006/00364

Author:                   Sharon Plunkett, Property Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

Council received notice in August 2014 of a Coronial Inquest into a number of deaths that occurred as a result of drowning from persons engaged in rock fishing. Tragically two of these deaths occurred within the Randwick City Local Government Area. This report provides a summary of Council’s approach to these risks and the results of the Coronial Inquest.

 

Issues

 

Rock fishing is one of the most dangerous sports in the world. Randwick City has 29km of coastline is home to some well-known and often dangerous rock fishing locations that have claimed a number of lives in recent years. Since September 2011, seven people have died while rock-fishing along the Randwick City coastline.

 

The Coronial Inquest examined a number of rock fishing deaths across the NSW coastline including two in Randwick City – a fatality at Cape Banks, La Perouse in July 2012 and a fatality at Little Bay in November 2012.

 

Randwick City Council has been proactive during the past few years in working with the rock fishing community to increase safety and increase awareness of the dangers of rock fishing.

 

Some of Council’s proactive initiatives include:

 

§ Rock Fishing in Randwick City Survey 2013. This survey was commissioned by Council in collaboration with local rock fishing associations and Surf Life Saving Australia. Teams of multi-lingual rock fishers were engaged to survey other rock fishers at known spots along the Randwick coast. One of the survey’s recommendations to consider installing ‘shock’ signage was adopted as a recommendation by the Coroner.

 

§ Advocacy. Council resolved on 17 September 2013 to support the compulsory wearing of life jackets for rock fishermen. Council lodged a submission to the State Government’s Discussion Paper on the Wearing of Life Jackets by Rock Fishers and has been liaising with the Ministry for Police and Emergency Services on the issue.

 

§ Daily Beach Reports. Randwick Lifeguards produce daily beach condition reports for patrolled beaches which are publicly available on Council’s website and myRandwick app.

 

§ Social and electronic media. Council has for some years been using its Facebook and Twitter social media channels and Randwick eNews letter to communicate dangerous beach conditions and to warn rock fishers.

 

§ Promotion. Council has issued a number of media releases and generated substantial local and metropolitan media coverage on the issue of rock fishing safety.

 

§ Website. Council’s website contains safety tips for rock fishers and links to swell forecasts, weather and safety alerts.

 

§ Support. Council has been working collaboratively with the rock fishing community through various means such as waving venue hire fees for rock fishing safety courses at the Prince Henry Centre, Little Bay.

 

§ Swimming and CPR classes. Council continues to offer learn-to-swim classes and free CPR classes inline with the recommendations of the Rock Fishing Survey 2013.

 

 

Coronial Inquest

 

The Coronial Inquest into Deaths relating to Rock Fishing Incidents commenced on Monday 1 June 2015 before the Deputy State Coroner Magistrate Forbes. Her Honour was assisted by Ms Kristina Stern SC.

 

Council has a vested interest in the outcome of the proceedings as we wished to provide comment advising what had been done by Council to address the risks posed by this recreational sport within our LGA boundaries. Accordingly, Council’s insurers were notified and legal representation for the Inquest was commissioned.

 

Ms Kristina Stern SC noted on several occasions that it was clear that Randwick Council was proactive in regards to rock fishing safety and suggested that it may be the case that the Coroner make a recommendation that all councils should adopt the approach (and attitude) which appeared to have been taken by Randwick Council in respect of rock fishing safety.

 

A Statement by Reece Heddle, Council’s Manager Aquatic Services on behalf Council was presented to the Inquest detailing;

 

a.     Issues in relation to the presence or safety of rock  fishers;

b.     The steps Council took in response to those issues;

c.     Current arrangements for the safety of rock fishers at the rock fishing platforms;and

d.     Matters Council wished to raise before her Honour as being relevant to the issue of recommendations, in particular, as to steps which her Honour could take to make rock fishing safer.

 

The final day of the Coronial Inquest into Deaths relating to Rock Fishing Incidents commenced on Friday 5 June 2015. Ms Stern’s closing submissions were brief and concluded with her making the proposed recommendations to the Coroner including the following relating to Randwick Council:

 

To Shoalhaven City Council, Warringah Council, Randwick City Council and National Parks and Wildlife Services:

 

1.     To review the size and location of current signage relating to rock fishing and to consider the erection of further appropriate signage at known rock fishing sites warning of the hazards of rock fishing and promoting the use of lifejackets.

2.     To consider the use of shock signage, indicating the number of deaths or serious injuries associated with rock fishing in a particular location, at identified locations of particular danger for rock fishing.

 

Deputy State Coroner Forbes delivered her decision in respect of the Inquest into the deaths of the rock fisherman on 2 July 2015.

 

Section 82 of the Coroners Act 2009 enables a Coroner to make recommendations in respect of public health and safety if same are considered necessary or desirable as a result of findings made under Section 81. The Coroner determined that it is appropriate and made the following recommendations:

 

To the Minister for Justice and Police

1.  I recommend the introduction of legislation requiring the mandatory use of life-jackets by those engaged in rock fishing including:

a)  A requirement that the life-jackets comply with the Australian Standards

b)  The  consideration of a twelve month grace period

c)  The legislation be introduced with a dedicated education campaign

d)  The consideration of accompanying the introduction of mandatory life-jackets with initiatives to facilitate the wearing of appropriate life-jackets such as coupons or gift vouchers for free or subsidised life-jackets or life jacket borrowing schemes for those engaged in rock fishing.

 

To the Minister for the NSW Department of Primary Industries

1.  I recommend that consideration be given to schemes that might increase the uptake of the wearing of life-jackets such as coupons or gift vouchers for free or subsidised life-jackets or life-jacket borrowing schemes for those engaged in rock fishing.

2.  I recommend that consideration be given to utilising the fishing fee collection process to offer an ‘opt in’ service that would provide alerts, education and other safety information regarding rock fishing.

 

To the Chief Executive Officers of Shoalhaven City Council, Warringah Council, Randwick City Council and National Parks and Wildlife Services

1.  I recommend a review of the size and location of current signage relating to rock fishing and to consider the erection of further appropriate signage at known rock fishing sites warning of the hazards of rock fishing and promoting the wearing of life-jackets.

2.  I recommend considering the use of shock signage, indicating the number of deaths or serious injuries associated with rock fishing in a particular location, at identified locations of particular danger for rock fishing.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A liveable city.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The estimated cost for implementing the Coroner’s recommendations is $10,000.00, which is allowed for in the 2015-16 Operational Capital Works budget.

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

Any death along the Randwick City Council coastline arising from somebody pursuing a sport like rock fishing is a tragedy. Council has taken a number of steps to increase safety for rock fishers and the Coronial findings reflect positively on Council’s proactive approach. The Coroner has accepted and agreed with Council’s submission that legislation mandating the compulsory wearing of life-jackets is required to further address the prevalence of rock fishing fatalities. Further, it is clear that the Coroner has considered Council’s inability to assist with enforcement as recommendations in respect of the legislative amendments are appropriately directed at Police and NSW DPI only.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That council, in accordance with the recommendations made by Coroner Forbes into deaths relating to rock fishing incidents:-

 

(a)    review the size and location of current signage relating to rock fishing and give consideration to the erection of further appropriate signage at known rock fishing sites warning of the hazards of rock fishing and promoting the wearing of life-jackets;

 

(b)    install shock signage, indicating the number of deaths or serious injuries associated with rock fishing in a particular location, at identified locations of particular danger for rock fishing; and

 

(c)    undertake the above actions in consultation with local rock fishing associations.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM27/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Proposed Matraville Community Centre

Folder No:                   F2010/00091

Submitted by:          Councillor D'Souza, South Ward      

 

 

That the first item on the agenda for the Councillor Workshop at the end of the year to review the Building for our Communities Program is to be a discussion on the development of a Matraville Community Centre on the site of the current Matraville Youth and Cultural Hall site at Knowles Avenue, Matraville. This agenda item will address the lack of a local community centre for use by the local Precinct Committee, seniors, young adults and our youth and discussion will also include the potential to build a half basketball court and a child care centre on this site which Council can consider leasing to cover building costs and overheads.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM28/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposed shopping trolley management system

Folder No:                   F2006/00393

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward      

 

 

That Council write to all shopping centres in the Randwick LGA requesting that a shopping trolley management system (wheel locking system) be implemented in their centres which prevent shopping trolleys being taken outside the perimeter of their shopping centres.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM29/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposed feasibility study regarding the heavy-rail network

Folder No:                   F2004/08175

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward      

 

 

That Council write to the NSW Minister for Transport & Infrastructure, the Hon. Andrew Constance requesting that the State Government conduct a feasibility study and cost-benefit analysis into the expansion of the heavy-rail network from Mascot Train Station to Port Botany and from Mascot Train Station to Maroubra Junction, in order to service residents in the Randwick LGA.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM30/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - ALGA Campaign to Restore Adequacy to FAG Funding

Folder No:                   F2014/00396

Submitted by:          Councillor Moore, West Ward      

 

 

That Council, regarding the Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grants (FAG) and the Federal Government’s decision in the 2014/15 Budget to freeze indexation and thereby not increase the FAG in line with CPI and population increases,

 

a)     having previously resolved on

 

i)     the 27 May 2014 to registered its opposition to the cuts to the FAG,

 

ii)    the 24 June 2014 to call on the Federal Government to immediately abandon its decision to freeze the indexation of FAG, and

 

iii)   the 22 July 2014 to forward its resolution from 24 June to the LGNSW Annual Conference 2014;

 

b)     acknowledges the importance of federal funding through the FAG program and other Federal Government funding for the continued delivery of local councils’ services and infrastructure across Australia;

 

c)     notes the estimated reduction to the Council’s income resulting from the freeze in 2014-15 was approximately $53,701 and for 2015-16 is $158,325;

 

d)     commits to continuing to identify funding received from the Commonwealth in Council publications including its budget, annual report and other appropriate reports;

 

e)     restates its opposition to the freeze and is supportive of the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) campaign to lobby the Federal Government to restore indexation and address adequacy to the FAG; and

 

f)     forwards this resolution to ALGA, copied LGNSW, in support of the campaign to redress FAG funding adequacy.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM31/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Crs Neilson and Shurey - Proposed Bi-Annual Multi Cultural Fair

Folder No:                   F2004/06281

Submitted by:          Councillor Neilson, North Ward; Councillor  Shurey, North Ward      

 

 

That Council

 

1.   consider and report back on the possibility of holding a Multicultural Fair to celebrate the cultural diversity in our community. Randwick is a culturally diverse area and it would be wonderful to be able to celebrate this and to note that;

2.   the Randwick Council Multicultural Committee is very supportive of the merits of such a venture.

3.   consider liaising with Botany City Council so that it is a bi-annual event.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM32/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson – Motion for the 2015 LG NSW Conference to ban smoking on all beaches in NSW

Folder No:                   F2004/07518

Submitted by:          Councillor Neilson, North Ward      

 

 

That:

 

1.     Randwick Council seek support from the LGC Conference to gain the support of the Premier to adopt legislation to ban smoking on all beaches in NSW in line with the No Smoking ban at outdoor restaurants and Bus Stops.

2.     the NSW government provide additional funding to improve the quality of filters attached to storm water drains in order to prevent items like cigarette butts washing into the sea and then back on to land/beaches.

3.     every effort be made to have this No Smoking on Beaches Ban in force ASAP on the beaches throughout NSW. Our beaches are healthy, fun places and we should do all in our power to keep them this way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM33/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Relocating the 1917 Anzac Memorial

Folder No:                   F2011/00199

Submitted by:          Councillor Bowen, East Ward     

 

 

Noting the controversy surrounding the removal of the 1917 ANZAC memorial to make way for the $40 million Albert “Tibby” Cotter Bridge across Anzac Parade, previously known as "Randwick Rd", that Randwick Council resolves:

 

1.     to offer for the memorial obelisk to be located on Anzac Parade at an appropriate location within Randwick LGA provided any such offer is supported by the RSL.

 

2.     that Randwick Council investigate the construction of an appropriate matching memorial to identify the historical significance Anzac Parade at the southern end of Anzac Parade at La Perouse, potentially with such memorial to be based on the concept of the Memorial obelisk but also reflecting the input of the local community of Randwick in the Southern part of our city and the local RSL sub branches.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM34/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Location of Council Administration Building in any merged council entity

Folder No:                   F2014/00600

Submitted by:          Councillor Bowen, East Ward      

 

 

On 23 June 2015, a motion for urgent business concerning, inter alia the location of council administration in any merged council entity was rejected by the Mayor.

That motion read at b):

 

Noting Recent media reports, that administration of council, meetings and city services must stay in Randwick LGA and not be re-located in Bondi Junction.

 

This motion was put forward before council had lodged its IPART submission (lodged 29 June 2015) supporting a merger with Waverley. The joint submission of both councils reads at page 27 under the heading Scope to undertake new functions and major projects:

 

A merger will enhance council’s enhance council’s existing capacity to undertake new functions and major projects…. Recent examples include:

 

“$60M Bondi Junction Civic heart project which proposes to better utilise Council’s property assets in the junction.”

 

On 2 July 2015  the Mayor has given notice of a Mayoral Minute regarding the preferred location of new council administration offices, however the there is no mention city services and the minute contemplates re location of administration if there be compelling reasons, financial or otherwise:

 

Accordingly this council resolves:

 

1.       administration of Council, council meetings and city services must stay within the existing Randwick local government area

2.       any proposal that would see existing local government administration, council meetings and centre of operations for city services located outside existing Randwick LGA boundary not be proceeded with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM35/15

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson – Community concern over prolonged Dolphin Street closure

Folder No:                   F2007/00634

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

 

That Council request Sydney Water to re-open Dolphin Street between Mount and Brook Street if no current work is now actually being carried out on the intended sewer upgrades due to the prolonging of the project from reported encountering of unexpected problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      28 July 2015

 

 

Notice of Rescission Motion No. NR4/15

 

 

Subject:                  Rescission Motion submitted by Crs D'Souza, Matson, Neilson and Shurey - Development Application report - 315 Maroubra Rd, Maroubra (DA/884/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/884/2014

Submitted by:          Councillor D'Souza, South Ward; Councillor Matson, East Ward; Councillor Neilson, North Ward; Councillor  Shurey, North Ward      

 

That the resolution passed at the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 14 July 2015, reading as follows:

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/884/2014 for the construction of a residential flat building consisting of a total of nine (9) units above basement car parking consisting of a total of 13 car spaces, at No. 315 Maroubra Road, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

2.       The following plans are to be amended to be inconsistent with the approved floor plans (DA-01 and DA-02):

·        ‘Unit Plan’ (DA-07 dated Feb 2014) at 1:50. The 1 bedroom plan in the top corner should be referenced as Units 1 and 2.  The 2 bedroom plan below should referenced Unit 5 and 8 and then Unit 4 and 7 Mirror Reverse.

·        Section A-A Plan (DA-04 dated Feb 2014), are inconsistent with the floor plans.  The above ground units closer towards Maroubra Road should be referenced Units 5 and 8 instead of Units 6 and 9.

·        Maroubra Rd Façade Detail Plan (DA-08 dated Feb 2014), are inconsistent with the floor plans.  Unit 6 and 9 should be marked Unit 5. and 8.

Details shall be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA on approved Construction Certificate plans.

 

3.       The angled side blade walls at second floor level (of Units 7 and 8) must have the same side setback as the angled blade walls at first floor level.  Details shall be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA prior to obtaining a Construction Certificate.

 

4.       The window of Bedroom 1 of both Units 1 and 2 must consist of double glazing.  Details of compliance must be included in the construction certificate application and written confirmation of compliance is to be provided to Council’s Director of City Planning and the Certifying Authority prior to the construction certificate being issued.

5.       The kitchen windows on the side elevations (i.e. of Units 4,5,7 and 8) are to consist of fixed and obscured glazing to the lower pane of the window. 

6.       The translucent glazing above the balustrades (indicated on the plans) on the rear elevation of Units 6 and 9 must be replaced with horizontal, fixed, 45 degree, angled louvres (i.e. angled upwards) that are spaced 10mm from each other.  The balustrade and louvres must have a combined height of a minimum of 1.6m measured from the finished floor level of each balcony.

7.       All screen planting must be maintained at all times to the satisfaction of Council’s Director of City Planning.  A Maintenance Plan must be prepared and submitted for the approval of Council’s Director of City Planning prior to a Construction Certificate being issued.  The Maintenance Plan must include arrangements for the following aspects (as a minimum):

 

§  Inspection and maintenance of waterproofing roof membrane.

§  Details of drainage and irrigation systems (preferably self-watering), including overflow provisions.

§  Details of the location, numbers and type of plant species.

§  Planting and maintenance procedures, including frequency and methodology of maintenance requirements.

§  Maintenance of irrigation.

 

All landscaping in the approved plan is to be completed prior to an Occupation Certificate being issued.  The maintenance plan must be complied with during occupation of the property.

 

The owner/strata body of the premises shall at all times comply with the ongoing maintenance requirements of the Maintenance Plan and shall promptly upon request produce a copy of the Plan to Council.

 

8.       The communal landscaped areas should include an area dedicated to onsite composting.  Details are to be provided on the landscape plans submitted with an application for a Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

9.       The screen planting along the rear boundary shall be mature size and height upon planting.  Details of the maturity of the screen planting are to be submitted for the approval of Council’s Director of City Planning prior to obtaining a construction certificate. 

10.     A specification or acoustic report must be submitted with an application for a Construction Certificate that verifies the frosted glazing around the common roof terrace consists of noise reducing qualities.

 

11.     The depth of the planter boxes on the private roof top terrace of Unit 9 shall be amended as follows:

·      The planter box along the western side of the terrace shall be increased to 2579mm (measured from the inner face of the parapet wall).

·      The planter box along the southern side of the terrace shall be increased to 1000mm (measured from the inner face of the parapet wall).

12.     The depth of the planter box along the western side of the private roof top terrace of unit 7 shall be increased to 2000mm (measured from the inner face of the parapet wall)

 

13.     New side fencing shall be erected to a height of 1.8m measured from the finished ground level around the building (inclusive of any retaining walls/(or portions of above the finished ground level) to the top of the fencing.  The fencing shall be erected adjacent to the common boundaries, be wholly on the subject site and step down the site in response to the terracing.  The cost of the fencing must be borne by the applicant. 

Details must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, prior to obtaining a construction certificate.

14.     A new 2.1m high hardwood timber post and rail paling fence shall be erected on the common boundary with the rear adjoining properties 68, 70 and 72 Haig Street, Maroubra measured from the finished ground level of the rear adjoining properties. The cost of the fencing must be borne by the applicant and the details must be submitted to and approved Council’s Director City Planning prior to obtaining a Construction Certificate.

 

USE OF COMMON AREAS AND FACILITIES

95.     Use of the roof top terraces must be limited to prevent disturbance to neighbouring residents:

 

·        8am to 10:00pm during weekdays and on Sundays.

·        7am to midnight on Saturdays and public holidays.

 

A strata subdivision certificate must not be issued in respect of a strata plan for the development unless it incorporates strata by-laws accordingly and an instrument under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 that includes a restriction on use of the terrace areas as set out above.  The instrument under Section 88B cannot be varied without the approval of Council.  In addition, the by-laws and instrument referred to above must be registered prior to the issue of any occupation certificate for the development.

 

Visitor Parking

99.     Car parking spaces shall be allocated according to the following requirement and marked accordingly.  Any future strata scheme must be consistent with this allocation.

 

·      At least 1 space per unit and 2 visitor spaces.  This must include two (2) adjacent spaces (preferably spaces 9 and 10) being altered into a combined accessible/visitor space and a motorcycle and marked accordingly.”

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

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

 

“That the application be deferred as the amended notification plans dated June 2015 were not forwarded to the adjoining residents and contain an additional sectional drawing of the basement carpark not shown in the original notification plan, which indicates that there is scope to lower the rear carpark level and height of the rear section of the building to considerably lessen the overall height of the rear of the building and its impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties in Haig Street.”