Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 22 September 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                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

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, 22 September 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 - 25 August 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.

Audio/video recording of meetings prohibited without permission;

A person may be expelled from a meeting for using, or having used, an audio/video recorder without the express authority of the Council.

Mayoral Minutes

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

Urgent Business

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting required)

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

CP37/15    327 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/396/2015)............................ 1

CP38/15    1528 Anzac Parade, La Perouse (DA/346/2015).................... 15

CP39/15    6 Palmer Street, South Coogee
(DA/496/2012/B)...............................................................
23

CP40/15    65 Howard Street, Randwick (DA/886/2014)........................ 35

CP41/15    14 Hillary Parade, Matraville (DA/913/2014/A)..................... 73

CP42/15    20 Bass Street, Kingsford (DA/362/2015)............................ 83

CP43/15    47 Anzac Parade, Kensington
(DA/414/2014/B)...............................................................
97

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP44/15    Cultural and Community Grant Program - Recommended Allocations - September 2015........................................... 109

General Manager's Report

GM14/15   2014-15 Annual Report and Financial Statements............... 123

Director City Services Report

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF35/15   Determination of number of Councillors.............................. 129

GF36/15   Investment Report - August 2015...................................... 131

GF37/15   Cancellation of Easement for Drainage affecting 83 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra.............................................................. 141

GF38/15   Withdrawal of Caveat and Affixing of the Council Seal - 46 White Avenue & 42 Manwaring Avenue, Maroubra............... 147

GF39/15   Application of Council's Code of Conduct - Precinct Committees ...................................................................................... 151

GF40/15   Renewal of Community Partnership with the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service................................................. 155  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM44/15   Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza -  Cyclist and pedestrian safety around Pioneer Park, Malabar................................... 157

NM45/15   Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - role of Trade Unions....... 159

NM46/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Compensation to residents in Doncaster Ave, Kensington ........................................... 161

NM47/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Stevenson - Domestic Violence Support Officer................................................................. 163

NM48/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Blak Markets - Improved Parking Arrangements...................................................... 165  

 

Closed Session (record of voting NOT required)

 

GM15/15   CBD and South East Light Rail Project: Alternative Randwick Terminus and Interchange.

                This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (e) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law.

GM16/15   Code of Conduct Review - Sinc Solutions

                This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (i) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with the report contains alleged contraventions of any code of conduct requirements  applicable under section 440.

Closed Session (record of voting required)

 

CS11/15   T2016-03 - Randwick City Council Building Trades Services Panel Contract - Extension of Building Management Services

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.

GF41/15   SSROC Tender - Supply and Delivery of Stationery and Associated Products

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

  

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_BLUE SPOT_RGB 

Director City Planning Report No. CP37/15

 

 

Subject:                  327 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/396/2015)

Folder No:               DA/396/2015

Author:                    Anthony Betros, Planning Consultant - ABC Planning Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and additions to the existing shop top housing including upper level addition

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mr W Angkhawut

Owner:                    Mr W Angkhawut & Mrs W Chalothorn

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview19245.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

The application is assessed by external consultant and referred to Council for determination as the applicant is a Council employee.

Proposal

 

The proposed development application is for alterations and additions to the existing shop top housing development, including minor alterations to the existing residential component located on the first floor, new roof to the existing first floor and a roof level attic conversion at the rear of the second floor.

 

The proposed development application also includes a new under awning sign for the existing restaurant and a new carport at the rear of the building.

 

This report is based on the amended plans which involve the removal of the carport roof at the rear of the site. 

 

2.     Site

 

The subject site is known as 327 Clovelly Road, Clovelly and is formally described as Lot A in DP 24203. The site is a rectangular shaped allotment with a 6.6m frontage to Clovelly Road in the south and a 6.5m frontage to an unnamed rear lane in the north.

 

The site has a depth of 21.5m and forms a total site area of 196m2.

 

The subject site currently comprises a ground floor restaurant fronting Clovelly Road with one (1) residential unit above.

 

Vehicle access to the site is via the rear lane.

 

The adjoining properties to the east and west of the subject site are developed in a similar manner (semi-detached and attached). Clovelly Road is one level lower than the rear, which results in a 2 storey frontage to Clovelly Road and a single storey built form at the rear. The adjoining properties all have commercial uses at the ground floor fronting Clovelly Road, as shown below.

 

DSC_0065

Figure 1: Subject and surrounding sites, as viewed from Clovelly Road (white building with pitched roof)

 

DSC_0069

Figure 2: Rear of subject site, illustrating the existing relationship and between the subject site and the western neighbour

 

3.     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012)

The DA requires consideration of the standards for building height, floor space ratio and heritage.

 

The following table considers the proposed development having regard to the development standards contained in RLEP 2012 that are of relevance to the subject development application:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Zoning:

The site is zoned B1 – Neighbourhood Centre. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone having regard to the relevant matters discussed throughout this report and compliance report.

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

1:1

0.99:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

10.32m

No*

*See exceptions to this development standard below.

 

3.1   Clause 4.6 Request to vary a Building Height development standard –         RLEP

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

 

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

 

3.1.2 Clause 4.3 Building Height of the RLEP 2012

The proposal contravenes the maximum height standard contained in Clause 4.3 (2A) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the proposed variation, as summarised in the below table and illustrated in the excerpt from the submitted plans:

Height

Development Standard

9.5m

Proposed Height

10.32m

Variation to the Standard

8.6%

Figure 3: Western elevation illustrating the extent of non-compliance with the apex of the roof having a height of 10.32m at the southern frontage of the building. The proposed development exceeds the 9.5m maximum height standard under Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012.

 

Request to vary development standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

The objectives of the height standard are set out in Clause 4.3 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

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

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

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

 

The applicant has provided the following arguments in support of the Clause 4.6 exception:

(a)      The proposed development is compatible with the character and form of the existing development in the neighbourhood

(b)     The proposed development is next door to a heritage listed building or item being No. 319 to 325 Clovelly Road, Clovelly.

 

The heritage listed item relates to the ornamented facade with its style being Italianate as shown below.

Figure 4: Heritage listed items at 319-325 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

 

As seen in the photo below the proposed work will not adversely affect the heritage listed item as the proposed work is to the rear of the site and there is no impact to the street frontage.

 

Figure 5: Partial separation between the heritage items and the subject site

 

To the rear of No. 319 to 325 Clovelly Road is not of heritage significance and the proposed development is compatible with the character and form of existing developments in the neighbourhood.

 

Figure 6: Rear of the subject site as viewed from Arden Street

 

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

 

(d) The proposal is to replace the existing roof. The ridge height does not change. The existing ridge height is over the 9.5m building height limit being 10.3m.

It is necessary to replace the roof with the same ridge RL’s as the existing roof so the scale and bulk of the building is maintained.

 

Note No. 335 is a mirror image of No. 327 and is of the same height and scale with conjoined buildings between No. 327 and 335.

 

Figure 7: Symmetry between the proposed roof and that at No. 335 Clovelly Road

 

Assessment Comments:

The proposed development will exceed the maximum permissible building height within the southern apex of the roof. The proposed variation is in relation to the replacement of an existing roof, with the new roof structure retaining the pitch and slope of the existing roof. It is therefore considered that the roof, whilst exceeding the 9.5m height limit by 820mm, will have a negligible impact upon the existing streetscape and character of the area, as illustrated in the excerpt of the western elevation in Figure 3 above. Furthermore, the proposed roof structure does not inhibit the development in achieving the overall objectives of the zone or of the standard and therefore the proposed variation is supported.

 

In the circumstances of the application, it would be unreasonable and unnecessary to require strict compliance for the following reasons:

 

·       The proposed bulk and scale represents a minor encroachment on the permissible height limit, with the proposal maintaining a similar bulk and scale to the surrounding development;

·       The predominant alterations and additions are contained well within the allowable height limit (with the rear attic extension having a maximum height of 5.93m);

·       The encroachment is in relation to the replacement of an existing roof structure and not associated with the proposed rear addition therefore the breach in the height limit does not contribute to any additional bulk or scale impacts;

·       The height of the existing roof is retain as it forms a symmetrical roof pattern for the ground of buildings between 327 and 335 Clovelly Road (as illustrated in Figure 7 above) and will not have a negative impact on the heritage item; and

·       The encroachment is minor and therefore the development will not result in a negative impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

The assessment above and the arguments provided in the applicant’s submission demonstrate that the proposal meets the objectives of Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012 and that the resultant environmental impacts of the proposed overall building height will be satisfactory. The variation will not have any significant or unreasonable impacts on the streetscape and will continue to achieve the relevant objectives of both the standard and the zone. In this case, strict compliance is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the height standard. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (B1 Neighbourhood Centre) are:

 

a)  To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

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

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

 

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

 

·      the subject site has an existing  small scale retail premises, which caters to the needs of people who live or work in the neighbourhood (objective a);

·      the proposal is adding more bedrooms and allowing for a more comfortable living environment for its occupants (objective b);

·      the proposed development is well-integrated with, and supports the primary business function of, the zone. The restaurant is already operating and the proposal is to ensure occupants of the residence have comfortable living areas (objective b); and

•    the proposed development protects the amenity of residents in the zone and in the adjoining and nearby residential zones with two outdoor areas to the rear of the site, one being a balcony of the bedroom and an enclosed outdoor area that is off the open plan living / kitchen areas. Privacy screens are added to the balcony to ensure the privacy of neighbouring properties (objective c).

 

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

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within the B2 Local centre zone.

 

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

4.     Submissions

 

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

 

·      325 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

Issues

Comments

Loss of privacy and overlooking to the western neighbour

The proposed rear deck has a depth of 1.47m and extends for a length of 2.35m. Given that there are 1.8m privacy screens along both the eastern and western sides of the deck, the only outlook would be to the north, across the lane. It is therefore unlikely that this will result in any adverse privacy impacts.

 

It is noted that there is no boundary fence dividing the subject site from the western neighbour and therefore, there is an existing degree of mutual overlooking.

 

The proposed alterations seek to rectify this by offsetting the location of the existing windows at the ground floor.

 

Exhaust fumes stack

The development application does not include modifications to the existing exhaust. This matter should be the subject of a separate referral to Council’s Environmental Health Team.

 

5.     Key Issues

 

Privacy

Given the nature of the subject and surrounding sites, mutual overlooking of neighbouring properties is inevitable. The proposed development has attempted to address this by offsetting the windows at the rear of the ground floor component whilst also setting back the upper level by an additional 1.2m along this western side.

 

Accordingly, the proposed placement of windows is considered reasonable and appropriate in this instance.

 

The rear 1st floor balcony is unlikely to create any unreasonable, visual or acoustic privacy given its limited size (3m2) and that it has 2 x 1.8m high side privacy screens. These screens will provide adequate privacy from the rear 1st floor bedroom to both adjoining properties. It is also noted that there is a degree of existing mutual overlooking from the side elevation of the 1st floor of the dwelling at 71 Arden Street.

 

DSC_0073

Figure 8: Northern neighbour at 71 Arden Street, as viewed from the laneway traversing the northern boundary of the subject site.

 

Garage

The original proposal included the provision of a transparent roof structure over the existing rear alfresco / carport area.

 

It is considered that the enclosure of this area would result in a built form that would extend across the majority of the site and would result in high walls on the side boundaries. The rear structure would overwhelm the limited size of the rear private open space areas either side and could potentially set an undesirable precedent. This is the 1st property being redeveloped at the rear and there are no garage or carport structures along this laneway, with each property limited to a roller door structure only. The enclosure of this area resulted in no private open space and therefore is not supported.

 

Since the application was originally lodged, the proposed garage roof has since been removed to retain the outdoor alfresco area at the rear of the dwelling. The amended design is considered appropriate for the subject site and reflects the built form of neighbouring properties. The amended carport / alfresco area is supported.

 

Parking

The proposed development seeks to increase the existing residential component of the development from 4 bedrooms to 5 bedrooms. Accordingly, the development would result in the requirement for 2 car parking spaces.

 

The proposed development is considered to comply with the car parking rates given that the rear alfresco area doubles as a carport, which is capable of accommodating 2 car spaces.

 

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 subject land is located within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposed development, being for alterations and additions to the existing shop top housing development including an attic level extension at the rear of the site, is permissible with consent in the zone.

 

One (1) submission was received during the exhibition period. The matters raised in the submission related to 1) privacy and 2) exhaust fume stack. These matters have been addressed in the report.

 

The application has been assessed having regard for Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, together with the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan and all relevant Council DCPs. Following detailed assessment it is considered that Development Application No. DA/396/2015 may be supported.

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/396/2015 for alterations and additions to the existing shop top housing including upper level addition at No. 327 Clovelly Road, Clovelly, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

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

 

§  The side boundary walls in the rear setback must be reduced to be no greater than 1.8 metres in height. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report- 327 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP38/15

 

Subject:                  1528 Anzac Parade, La Perouse (DA/346/2015)

Folder No:               DA/346/2015

Author:                    Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and additions to the existing clubhouse for the NSW Golf Club, construction of a single storey teaching facility and under cover driving range, alterations to the existing parking area to provide 15 additional car spaces and extending storage area below

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               E L Design Architects

Owner:                    NSW Dept of Lands

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview61366.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

The application is referred to Council based on a cost of works exceeding $2 million.

 

1.     Proposal

 

The proposal is for various alterations and additions to the clubhouse and surrounding area at the NSW Golf Club and includes the following works:

 

·      Internal alterations and additions to the existing clubhouse, including reconfiguration at both lower ground and ground floor level;

·      Construction of a new plant room and office at lower ground floor level;

·      Enclosing two parts of the ground floor eastern balcony to enlarge the dining room and main lounge room;

·      Construction of a new entry and associated porte-cochere to the western façade;

·      New roof parking deck located to the south of the existing clubhouse with new part-subfloor storage area for golf carts and bags with a maintenance workshop;

·      New single storey teaching facility and associated covered driving range to the south of the existing clubhouse to replace existing driving range;

·      New car parking spaces; and

·      Various site and landscape works.

 

Figure1: Proposed Site Plan

 

The works are concentrated in the clubhouse precinct which is located on the western boundary of the subject site, shown below in figure 2.

Figure 2: Subject Site with proposed works overlaid

 

3.     Site context

 

The subject site is the New South Wales Golf Club and is located at 1528 Anzac Parade, La Perouse, LOT 4 DP 1110408.

 

LOT 4 DP 1110408 is 58.78Ha in area and contains the New South Wales Golf Course and associated structures. The proposed works are located on the western edge of the site being contained within 8700 square meter area.

 

The site is irregular in shape as seen below in figure 3 and has the following approximate dimensions:

 

Maximum Dimensions

Approx. length

Site area

North to South

1100 m

58.78Ha

East to West

840 m

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview61366.png

 

Figure 3: Subject site

 

The site presently contains a series of building complexes associated with the golf course. These buildings consist of; the existing two level clubhouse; associated parking structures; and various storage and work sheds spread throughout the site.

 

The site is surrounded on the eastern, southern and western sides by Botany Bay National Park and to the north is located the St Michaels Golf Course.

 

The subject site does not have individual heritage significance within the provisions of RLEP 2012, although Botany Bay National Park is part of a heritage conservation area (See compliance Report for heritage comments).

 

Figure 4: Front entry of clubhouse

 

Figure 5: Location of driving range

 

4.     Submissions

 

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

 

Sydney Water – 41W Reservoir Street

Submission

Comment

Due to the proximity of the proposed development to a Sydney Water asset, we request that Council includes the following condition in the development consent to be met before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

Building Plan Approval

The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent to determine whether the development will affect any Sydney Water sewer or water main, stormwater drains and/or easement, and if further requirements need to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped.

 

For further assistance please telephone 13 20 92 or refer to Sydney Water’s website www.sydneywater.com.au for:

·      Quick Check agent details - see Plumbing, building and developing then Quick Check agents, and

·      Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney Water Assets - see Plumbing, building and developing then Building over or next to assets.

Conditions requested by Sydney Water have been recommended in the development consent for the subject application.

 

5.     Key Issues

 

5.1   Parking

Part B7 of the RDCP 2013 relates specifically to parking rates, the subject site is classified as an outdoor recreational facility, the RDCP 2013 states that for outdoor recreational facilities a Transport Assessment Study is required. The subject site currently provides 158 car parking spaces; the proposal will result in an increase in available parking spaces on site by 15, to a new total of 173 car parking spaces.

 

The proposal seeks to upgrade the existing facilities available to its members on site through various alterations and additions both internally and externally to the clubhouse, construction of a new storage facility and upgrading the existing driving range with the provision of a roofed area and teaching facility. It is considered that the proposed alterations and additions will not intensify the use of the site resulting in a drastic increase in parking demand.

 

The proposed increase in parking to 173 is considered acceptable in that it will satisfy the parking demands generated by the users of the NSW Golf Course.

 

The proposal is considered to meet the relevant objectives and controls with regards to parking rates in the RDCP 2013.

 

5.2   Excavation

As part of the proposal, excavation will be undertaken for both the storage facility (located beneath the podium parking area) and the training facilities. Excavation to a maximum depth of approximately 2m is required for the storage facilities and excavation to a maximum depth of approximately 3m for the training facilities will be required. The proposal responds adequately to the extreme changes in topography on the subject site.

 

It is considered that the amount of excavation is acceptable, in that the excavation seeks to minimise the visual bulk and protrusion of any structures when viewed from the surrounding environment and take advantage of the sloping topography. Both the training facility and the storage facility will be hidden at sub-floor level as a result of the topography when looking east across the site and will only be visual perceived as a ground level addition when looking west from the golf course.

 

It is considered that the excavation proposed is not excessive and is acceptable with regards to the responding to the topography on site. The proposal is considered consistent with the relevant controls and objectives in the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013.

 

5.3   Landscaping and Biodiversity

Part B4 of the RDCP 2013 relates to landscaping and biodiversity, in particular Clause 3.4 which relates specifically to outdoor car parks, the objective of this clause is to ensure outdoor ground level car parking areas are landscaped to provide shade for parked vehicles and improve the visual amenity of the car parks and adjacent area. Figure 6 below shows the proposed car parking areas with the proposed landscaping highlighted in green.

 

Figure 6: Car Park with landscaping shown in green

 

It should be noted that the existing car park in the same location is provided with low lying shrubs and does not comply with the relevant controls in the RDCP 2013 with regards to landscaping for outdoor car parks.

 

As shown above in figure 6, substantial landscaping has been incorporated into the proposed new car parking area although specific details with regards to types of plants have been omitted. It is acknowledged that the RDCP 2013 states that ‘as a guide 1 canopy tree should be provided per 4 adjoining car spaces’ however, the new car park is located on a podium structure and the provision of large canopy trees is unattainable.

 

It is considered that the proposed car park area provides sufficient landscaping to improve the visual amenity of the impervious surface area. The proposal is considered to satisfactorily provide landscaped area around the car park to improve the visual amenity of the area. The proposal 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 proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and does not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts upon the surrounding locality. The proposal remains within the bounds of the applicable State and Local planning framework.

 

The application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Compliance Report. 

 

 

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/346/2015 for alterations and additions to the existing clubhouse for the NSW Golf Club, construction of a single storey teaching facility and under cover driving range, alterations to the existing parking area to provide 15 additional car spaces and extending storage area below at No. 1528 Anzac Parade, La Perouse, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Report - Compliance Report  1528 Anzac Parade, LA PEROUSE

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP39/15

 

Subject:                  6 Palmer Street, South Coogee
(DA/496/2012/B)

Folder No:               DA/496/2012/B

Author:                    Olivia Yana, Development Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of the approved development for retrospective approval of rainwater tank relocation to the western side of the garage and the use of existing sub floor area on the western side of lower ground floor as store room

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Mr. R B Parsons

Owner:                    Mr. R B Parsons and Mrs. S M Parsons

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This section 96 modification application is referred to Council for its consideration, as the original application was determined by Council.

1.  Proposal

 

The current application seeks retrospective approval for rainwater tank relocation to the western side of the garage and the use of existing sub floor area on the western side of lower ground floor as store room.

 

2.  Site

 

The site is known as 6 Palmer Street, Lot 15 in DP 6772. The allotment is of a regular shape, with a street frontage of 15.24m and a depth of 39.98m giving a site area of 609.3m².

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Palmer Street and is presently occupied by newly constructed part 2/3 storey dwelling with double garage. Existing site topography falls from the street boundary to the north and slopes from west to east. The ground level on the western side has been raised to remediate the land slopes and allow further excavation on the eastern side of the lower ground level to accommodate habitable rooms.

 

The surrounding area is residential in character consisting predominantly of detached residential development in R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

3.  Submissions

 

The owners of the adjoining property on the western side 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:

4 Palmer Street, South Coogee

Issue

Comment

Storage room

Retrospective approval should not be granted as it is deliberate violation resulting in poor precedent. The sub floor area should be allocated for rainwater tank. Location of additional room on the boundary will cause future conflicts, which has been built with ceiling height of 2400mm. Approved FSR already does not comply and the sub floor room will result in over 50m² of additional floor area.

The EP&A Act allows the consent to be validly modified retrospectively provided that modifications are reasonable on both quantitative and qualitative grounds. Given that the proposed modification to the approved development satisfies the requirements under Section 96(2) of the EP&A Act in that the amendments will be substantially the same to that originally approved, the proposal could not be refused based on the grounds of retrospective works. The use of sub floor room is for storage area and condition of consent is to impose the use. The development will continue to be compliant with Council’s LEP development standard for floor space ratio. No additional perceptible bulk and scale will be resulted from the inclusion of sub floor area within the existing wall of the dwelling. Refer to Part 5.1.1 of this report for detailed assessment.    

Rainwater tank

Located on the boundary breaching 450mm setbacks requirement under SEPP Exempt and Complying Development Codes 2009. The location of tank will not allow for boundary fence to be erected and weight of tank will undermine structural integrity of retaining wall on the boundary and the garage wall. No drainage proposed for the tank, which will create water puddle. Noise produced from pump is extremely loud and can be heard from 5m away. The structure of the tank is unpleasant and does not blend with the surrounding structures. Reduction in height of tank will not reduce its visibility from the street due to the slope of the land.  

The Assessing Officer agrees that the rainwater tank will impact the boundary fence, retaining wall and garage wall of the adjoining property at 4 Palmer Street. Certification of structural integrity on the boundary and location of drainage for overflow are required to ensure that the adjoining land will not be adversely affected from the tank. Relevant conditions are imposed as part of the consent to address noise impacts as well as the matters raised above. Even though the visibility of tank could not be completely concealed, the reduction in height and proposed screening with fencing would minimise visual impact of the structure. Refer to Part 5.2 of this report for detailed assessment.  

 

4.  S.96 Assessment

 

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

 

4.1     Substantially the Same Development:

The modification to the approved development does not significantly alter the nature of the approved development and the proposed changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which consent was granted for the purposes of legislative requirements under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The modification consists of alterations to the approved dwelling house and no substantial changes are proposed in the built form and envelope of the approved development, thus the works remain consistent with the original consent. 

 

5.  S.79C Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

Zone R2 Low Density Residential 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

The proposal is consistent with the aims of the RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment and recognise the desirable elements of the existing built form that contribute to the desired character of the area whilst protecting the amenity of residents.

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

Nil.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Refer to Part 5.2 of this report for compliance.

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

5.1   Relevant Environment Planning Instruments:

 

5.1.1        Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

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

 

Zone R2 Low Density Residential 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The proposal is consistent with the aims of the RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment and recognise the desirable elements of the existing built form that contribute to the desired character of the area whilst protecting the amenity of residents.

 

Clause 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio

The proposed use of existing sub floor area on the western side as store room will result in 23.1m² of additional floor area. Floor space ratio (FSR) for the original development was assessed under the performance requirements of Randwick Development Control Plan (DCP) – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies 2002 and approved with ratio of 0.67:1.  The development however has FSR of 0.55:1 when calculated in accordance with the definition for “gross floor area” as defined by RLEP 2012. Pursuant to Clause 4.4(2A) of RLEP 2012, the maximum FSR for allotment that is more than 600m² is 0.6:1. The proposed use of existing sub floor area as store room will increase FSR to 0.58:1, which achieves compliance with this development standard. 

 

Clause 6.7 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

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

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

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

 

Proposed modification will not change the appearance of approved residential dwelling and it is considered satisfactory in terms of its contribution to the scenic quality of the foreshore area on the basis that screening is proposed around the water tank on the western boundary.

 

5.2           Development Control Plans:

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RCDCP) 2013

Earthworks

As part of condition 2(c) of the consent, further excavation of the lower ground floor area shall be undertaken to achieve 2.4m ceiling height for habitable rooms and the excavated material must be retained and reused on site for infilling for minor filling as shown on the architectural plans and within the sub floor area on the western side. Condition 2 (c) is no longer required as the works indicated in the condition have been completed. Excavation within the existing sub floor on the western side will continue to satisfy the objective of the DCP in that the works will not result in unreasonable structural and privacy impact to the adjoining dwelling.

 

Fencing and Ancillary Development

The modification proposes to relocate the rainwater tank to the western side of the garage and erect fencing along the western boundary with new timber gate on the south western side to the height of 1800mm above the ground level.

 

Council’s DCP general requirements for ancillary development stipulate that the structure should be of smaller in scale and visually compatible with the design of dwelling whilst positioned to minimise visual impact on the public domain. Further to that, DCP control for side fencing also states that the maximum height of side boundary fences is limited to 1800mm as measured from the existing ground level and for sloping sites, the fence must be stepped to follow topography of the land with each step not exceeding 2200mm above the existing ground level. The height of side boundary fence will exceed 1800mm and not be stepped, as the natural ground level on the western side has been approved with land increase to a maximum height of 1080mm to remediate the slopes of the land and allow further excavation on the eastern side of the lower ground level to accommodate habitable rooms.  Nonetheless, variation to the DCP controls is regarded as acceptable considering that non-compliance with fence height is localised behind the front building alignment and adjoins to outbuilding/garage of 4 Palmer Street. The proposed fence and gate will contribute to the improvement of visual impact from the rainwater tank that has been built on the western side of the garage. The proposed height of the fence is also considered to be compatible with the current topography of the land. Adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property will be minimised by mitigating direct overlooking from the side courtyard. Attenuation of noise impact from the rainwater tank will also be achieved by imposing relevant condition of consent relating to the provision of acoustic report.   

 

The proposal will continue to satisfy Council’s DCP objectives for fencing and ancillary development in that the proposed modification will not present as prominent features, nor detract from the streetscape character and will continue to allow ancillary development that enhances the liveability of dwellings and maintain reasonable level of amenity between the neighbouring properties.

 

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

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/496/2012/B for retrospective approval for the relocation of the rainwater tank to the western side of the garage and the use of the existing sub floor area as a storage area at 6 Palmer Street, South Coogee, in the following manner:

 

A.  Amend the following Conditions to read:

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

2/7 Issue B

Domus Homes

May 2012

26 October 2012

 3/7 Issue B

October 2012

26 October 2012

 4/7 Issue C

March 2013

18 March 2013

 5/7 Issue B

May 2012

26 October 2012

 6/7 Issue B

May 2012

26 October 2012

 7/7 Issue B

May 2012

26 October 2012

Landscape concept plan, Rev C

Formed Gardens Design and Construction Pty Ltd

1 July 2013

16 July 2013

 

 

 

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Single dwelling

433803S

26 June 2012

 

As amended by the Section 96 “A” plans and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA 4-7 Issue D

 

Domus Homes

November 2014

4 December 2014

DA 7-7 Issue C

DA 6-7 Issue D

December 2014

29 December 2014

 

As amended by the Section 96 “B” plans and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

DA 2-7 Issue D

 

Domus Homes

August 2015

DA 3-7 Issue D

DA 6-7 Issue C

DA 7-7 Issue C

 

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

 

Rainwater Tanks

70.     An Acoustic report is required to be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in Acoustics and be submitted to Council, prior to the issue of Occupation Certificate for the rainwater tank, which demonstrates that the noise and vibration from the plant and equipment satisfies the following criteria:

 

a)     The operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the operation of the plant and equipment shall not give rise to an LAeq, 15 min sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background LA90, 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A) in accordance with relevant NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Noise Control Guidelines.

 

b)     The operation of plant and equipment associated with the rainwater tank/s and greywater treatment systems are to be restricted to the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises:

 

·       before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on weekends or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

B.  Add the following Conditions

 

13.     (i)   Details of the design and construction of the overflow pipe from the rainwater tank must be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority. The overflow pipe must be connected to the stilling pit located adjacent to the Palmer Street site frontage. All works must be carried out in accordance with the approved design and construction details to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority, prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate for the rainwater tank.  

 

71.     The storage room in the lower ground level shall not be used as habitable space.

 

72.     The height of rainwater tank adjoining to the western boundary shall not exceed 1800mm, as measured from the existing ground level.

 

73.     The rainwater tank and associated structures adjacent to the western boundary must be located wholly within the boundary of subject property with sufficient area provided to construct footings, bracing, a retaining wall and boundary fence. Specific details of the location of the rainwater tank and associated structures should be provided to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority to demonstrate that the proposed building work will not encroach onto the adjoining property.

 

74.     A report from a qualified structural engineer which details the methods of support for the rainwater tank on the retaining wall must be submitted to the satisfaction of Certifying Authority, prior to the issue of Construction Certificate (or amended Construction Certificate) for the rainwater tank.

 

75.     The existing unauthorised rainwater tank is to be removed and the rainwater tank is to be installed in accordance with this consent within 60 days of the determination date of this modification to DA/496/2012/B. Failure to carry out these works within the specified timeframe may result in Council issuing a Notice/Order to comply with your development consent.

 

C.  Delete Condition 2(c)

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP40/15

 

Subject:                  65 Howard Street, Randwick (DA/886/2014)

Folder No:               DA/886/2014

Author:                    Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner; Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a 4 storey residential flat building comprising 3x3 bedroom dwellings, 4 car spaces, strata subdivision, associated site and landscaping works. (Variation to building height control)

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Mr J Ajaka

Owner:                    Mr J Ajaka

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview57157.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

The application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Matson, Shurey and Neilson.

Proposal

 

The proposal will consist of:

 

·      Demolition of the existing dwelling house on site;

·      Construction of a four storey residential flat building, consisting of three (3) x three (3) bedroom units; three (3) garages on Level 2 (street level from Howard Place); and a car stacker for Apartment 3; and

·      Strata subdivision, associated site and landscaping works.

 

All levels of the proposed units will include access via a stairwell as access to a private balcony or external terrace.

 

The table below details the components of the proposal:

 

Level

Components

 Level 1

·     1 x 3 Bedroom apartment

·     Car stacker for apartment 3

·     Pedestrian access

·     Access to lobby and stairwell

·     Bin, storage and bicycle areas accessed externally

Level 2

·     3 x single space garages

·     1 garage with car stacker to level below

·     Vehicle access

·     Access to first level of apartment 2

·     Stair access

Level 3

·     Stair access

·     Bedroom 2 & 3 of apartment 2

·     Access to first floor level of apartment 3

Level 4

·     Second level of Apartment 3

·     Stair access

 

Site

 

Image 1: Subject Site – Street view

 

1.     Site Description and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot 1 in DP 865809, known as 65 Howard Street, Randwick.  The site also includes land under SP 79691 (96 St Pauls St, Randwick) which is in part currently used as an easement for parking.  The subject and surrounding adjoining sites are zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential.   

 

The allotment is irregular in shape and is located on the corner of Howard place, Howard Street and the left turn intersection onto Dudley Street. The site is presently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling house.

 

The site frontage to Howard Street (south-east) is 29m, the northern boundary is 18m, the secondary frontage to Howard Place (west boundary) is 15m and the north-east boundary is 21.51m.  The site has an overall site area of 422m².  The site falls steeply from the western corner of the site fronting Howard Place to the eastern corner of the site Howard Street fronting with a difference in levels of up to 6.62m. 

 

The immediate locality contains predominately of a mixture of medium density residential development in the form of single, double storey detached dwellings and up to four storey residential flat buildings.  Multi dwelling housing exists to the north west of the subject site at no. 14E Dudley Street, Randwick.

 

2.       Key issues and areas of non compliance:

 

2.1     Request to vary development standards

Clause 4.3 - Height of buildings

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

Clause 4.3 of the LEP nominates that the height of a building is not to exceed the maximum height on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum building height as shown on the map is 12m for the site. The maximum building height of the development is 12.13m at its highest point from the existing natural line for a small portion of the fourth level terrace roof as shown in figure 1 below; which breaches the 12 metre height standard in the Randwick LEP 2012 by 0.13m.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Maximum Height of Buildings

Development Standard

12m

Existing Building height

Approximately 5.47m

Proposed Building height

12.13m

Excess above RLEP Standard

1.083% (or 130mm)

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Planner’s comments

There are a number of tests as to the acceptability of the breach and are of those is whether the proposed meets the objectives of the height standard in RLEP 2012.  In this regard:

 

·     The building scale and built form reflects the predominant character of buildings in the surrounding streetscape and in the immediate locality; and complies with the maximum floor space ratio development standard under the RLEP 2012;

·      The distribution of floor area on the site will fit in with the future streetscape character as envisaged by the building envelope and building design controls incorporated in both the LEP 2012 & DCP 2013 for medium density development.

·      The external wall height and overall building height will be consistent with other adjoining developments within the immediate area and will provide an acceptable streetscape outcome;

·      The extent of the variation is very minor in the context of the site’s topography and the overall development;

·      The proposal is well-articulated and the non-compliance is limited to a very small section of the building and will not significantly have an adverse impact on the amenity or solar access enjoyed by adjoining properties.  The shadow diagrams submitted demonstrate that the proposed development will comply with the DCP solar access control requirements to adjoining properties.  There are no north facing windows that will be impacted by the proposed development and the additional shadow impacts to the neighbouring properties are not significant.

·      As demonstrated in figure 1 below the minor variation occurs at the south eastern end of the building where the site topography drops and therefore, does not contribute to any additional view loss impacts to surrounding properties.  The development has been skilfully designed to achieve an acceptable level of view sharing between the site and the neighbouring properties;

·      The breach of the height limit does not create an inconsistency with the objectives of the zone;

·      The proposal exceeds the minimum standards for several amenity-based controls including landscaping, solar access and cross ventilation;

·      Whilst the subject site is not listed as an item of environmental heritage nor is it located within a heritage conservation area under the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, it is opposite a heritage item at no. 16 Howard Street which also forms part of a heritage conservation area, under the LEP 2012.  The proposed development is not considered to impact on the heritage significance of this item or nearby conservation areas.

 

The assessment above and the arguments provided in the applicant’s submission demonstrate that the resultant environmental impacts of the proposal will be satisfactory. The variation will enable a well-considered development to be provided that addresses the site constraints, streetscape and relevant objectives of the standard and the zone. Further, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable amenity or environmental impacts particular in relation to view sharing and will largely achieve greater levels of amenity for the apartments and streetscape. 

 

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

 

Figure 1: South eastern elevation

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

•    To protect the amenity of residents.

•    To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

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

 

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

 

The amended development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R3 – Medium Density Residential.

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      Units 2A & B, 3 & 4 Howard Place, Randwick

·      Units 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/59-61 Howard Street, Randwick

·      Unit 1/86 Howard Street, Randwick

·      88 Howard Street, Randwick

·      14C Dudley Street, Randwick

·      14D Dudley Street, Randwick

·      Unit 3/14E Dudley Street, Randwick

·      Unit 5/14E Dudley Street, Randwick & Petition containing 30 signatures submitted by this property owner

·      16 Dudley Street, Randwick

·      Unit 12/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick

·      Unit 19/96-98 St Pauls Street, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

SEPP 65 Panel

The building is of a size and bulk that should be subject to a SEPP 65 Panel for review.

Clause 4(1)(c) of SEPP 65 provides that the policy applies to buildings that contain at least four dwellings and three storeys in height.  This development contains only three units, therefore; SEPP 65 does not apply to this development application. 

View sharing

The proposed development will substantially impact water views and Coogee Bay. 

 

Concerns that the view loss has been done incorrectly and suggest that height poles be erected as it is a better method to determine the extent of view loss.

 

In terms of the information provided by the applicant in relation to the view loss assessment, Council does not solely rely on this information and an independent assessment of the view impacts has been undertaken. Notwithstanding, the methodology associated with the view loss assessment provided by the Applicant in terms of the photomontages that were submitted is consistent the photomontage policy established by the Land & Environment Court when dealing with Class 1 appeals. In relation to a concern raised as to the appropriate camera lens for the photomontage, the Court’s policy only requires the camera type and field of view of the lens to be submitted and does not specify a particular focal length.

Asbestos

Concerned there may be asbestos material on site.

Suitable conditions are included should there be any asbestos on the site.

Increased hazard to pedestrians and motorists & traffic study

Concerned the front setback does not allow adequate sightlines and will restrict views for both pedestrians and motor vehicles on an already high traffic junction, further cause hazard safety and risks.  A traffic study should be provided as part of the assessment.

Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposal with regard to its potential traffic and safety impacts and concludes that sightlines are adequate and that the likely vehicle trip generation would be minimal.

Damage during construction & use of Howard lane

Concerns relating to excavation, foundation, pile drilling/rock crushing may cause movement and damages to their building.

Suitable conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure that the development is safely engineered and adjoining properties are protected during excavation and construction. A construction site & traffic management plan will also be required as conditions of consent.

Lack of compliance with Randwick DCP 2013

Non-compliance with external wall height

 

Building height

The building exceeds the building height standard under the LEP.

See detailed assessment of these issues in Section 4 of this report.

The SEE

Lack of detail studies and support is provided in the SEE to justify the amenity impacts.

Council’s Assessment officer has undertaken an independent assessment of the merits of the application.

Impact on street

The construction of a four storey development will dominate the entire neighbourhood and block views.

 

The building is out of character with the existing streetscape.

The proposed size and scale of the building is commensurate with the desired future character that is anticipated by the built form  controls contained in RLEP 2012 and Randwick DCP 2013

Bulk, scale and height

Concerned how approval can be given for the construction of a four storey building with limited setbacks to the boundaries.

The proposed size and scale of the building is commensurate with the desired future character that is anticipated by the built form  controls contained in RLEP 2012 and Randwick DCP 2013

Acoustic concerns

Increase noise and disturbance due to proposed terrace balconies.

See detailed assessment in Section 4 of this report.

Geotechnical report

No geotechnical report is provided and concern about the excessive retaining walls and excavation works proposed on the site.

Suitable conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure that the development is safely engineered and adjoining properties are protected during excavation and construction

Historical tree

Concerned the existing Norfolk Pine tree will be impacted during construction of the building.  There also could be risk in terms of the tree falling and causing injury and damages to residents.

 

Council’s Landscape officer has assessed potential impact on this tree and subject to a series of recommended conditions, the proposed development will not adversely impact on its health.

Parking

Inadequate provision of parking for the apartments. Studies may be used as bedrooms and car stackers will deter residents from parking on the site

Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the parking provision and it is considered adequate to meet the parking demand of the proposed development on site.

Shadow impacts

The proposed development will impact on solar access to the north east facing window and balcony to no. 59-61 Howard Street.

 

The development will impact views, solar access and privacy to the common garden area at no. 59-61 Howard Street.

See detailed assessment in Section 4 of this report.

Calculation of Site area for the purposes of FSR should not include the land on SP 79691

The proposed works on the adjoining lot represent a significant development as they entail construction of a basement carpark and as such that part of land associated with SP 79691 may be considered in the site area calculation.

A covenant restricts height of any development to single storey

Clause 1.9A of RLEP 2012 suspends any covenants applying to the land that seek to restrict the carrying out of development.

Loss of property values

The impact of any proposed development on property values is not a relevant matter for consideration.

 

Ratio of hard and soft surfaces not provided and will impact on stormwater run off

The proposed area of deep soil have been calculated by Council’s Assessment Officer and the proposal complies with minimum requirement of 25% reserving and 42% of the site as deep soil.

 

 

Key Issues

 

2.2     Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

Part C2 - Medium Density Residential

 

External wall height

The proposed development has a maximum external wall height of 11.9m on the south eastern elevation exceeding the 10.5m maximum wall height control under the DCP.

 

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

 

Objectives

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

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

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

 

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

·      The variation is to the south eastern side of the building and is limited to a small section of the wall where the site significantly drops, refer to figure 2 below.  Hence, the variation will not result in detrimental impacts on the visual quality and amenity of the public domain.

·      The massing of the walls along all elevations are well articulated and is achieved by using a mix in materials, openings and varying side setbacks that serve to both break up the expanses of wall across the elevations creating visual interest when viewed from the public domain and neighbouring properties, refer to figure 3 below;

·      The scale of the proposed development will be consistent with the likely future scale and density in the locality given the compliance with the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and minimal non-compliance with the maximum building height standards under the RLEP.

·      The bulk and scale of the building is consistent with the existing medium density development in the locality and will not result in any significant adverse amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, overshadowing and view sharing. 

 

Overall, having regard to the variation being localised to a small area where the site falls and considering the level of non-compliance, the above justification for the external wall height of the proposed development is considered to satisfy the control objectives of the DCP. 

 

Figure 2: South eastern elevation                   Figure 3: Photomontage of proposed development

 

Sub-section 3.4 – Setbacks

The DCP defines the following objectives in regard to setbacks:

 

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

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

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

 

The DCP states that front setback on the primary and secondary property frontages must be consistent with the prevailing setback line along the street. Notwithstanding the above, the front setback generally must be no less than 3m in all circumstances to allow for suitable landscaped areas to building entries.

 

The DCP states that side setbacks for residential flat development on irregular shape allotments are assessed on merit and the rear setback for the site is to be 15% of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the rear setback may be varied in the following scenarios:

 

·          Allotments with an irregular shape.

·          Allotments with the longest boundary abutting the street or the rear adjoining neighbour (that is, the frontage width being longer than the site depth).

·          Allotments with the rear boundary abutting a laneway.

·          A central courtyard is provided in the development.

 

The site is irregular in shape and has two street frontages, the main frontage is off Howard Street and the secondary frontage is off Howard Place.

 

The objectives of setback controls are to reduce the impact of development on adjoining land, ensure adequate separation between buildings for landscaping and amenity, and integrate development with the established streetscape character.

 

The front setback on the primary property frontage along Howard Street varies from 2.04m to 4m. The majority of the building is setback 3m from this frontage with the exception of the curved stair case. 

 

The curved staircase allows for articulation for the building and does not contribute to any unreasonable amenity impacts particularly in relation to view sharing from the public domain.

 

Setback for the development from Howard Place would be approximately 7m to the edge of the street boundary.  This is consistent with the setback of the neighbouring multi dwelling housing at no. 14E Dudley Street. 

 

Landscape planting is provided to the Dudley and Howard Streets’ boundaries which will soften and deliver a high quality streetscape presentation. Adequate deep soil planting and private and communal spaces are provided for the site in excess of the DCP controls. No structures are proposed to the front setback.

 

The proposed rear and side setbacks are consistent with the objectives of the DCP in that:

 

·      The proposed rear and side setbacks will allow for adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and view sharing as discussed in the relevant section of this report.

 

·      The setbacks will be generally consistent with the built form along both street frontages, will maintain a human scale to the footpath and will not result in detrimental impacts on the visual quality and amenity of the public domain. 

·      The proposed terrace areas on the first and second floor levels are orientated away from neighbouring private open spaces and windows.  The existing large tree on the site is retained and will provide additional screening. This in conjunction with the proposed setbacks provides an adequate physical separation between buildings and will maintain reasonable levels of privacy to adjoining properties. 

·      The setbacks to the building will not result in any overshadowing or unreasonable privacy or visual amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties. The built form is consistent with the scale, bulk and height of the adjoining residential flat building within the locality.

 

The proposed setbacks are generally consistent with the established setbacks in the street and integrate acceptably with the frontage having regard to the amenity of the neigbhouring properties and therefore, will satisfy the objectives of the control.

 

Sub-section 5.3 – Visual Privacy

The DCP defines the following objectives in regard to visual privacy:

 

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

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

 

The window openings to the south eastern & south elevations will predominantly overlook the street and will not result in unreasonable privacy concerns to neighbouring properties.  The new window openings and terrace on level 3 to the north eastern elevation are orientated to generally overlook the covered walk way area of the neighbouring property and intersection of Dudley Street and Howard Street. 

 

To the northern end of the building the proposed window openings to the north western elevation are acceptable as adequate separation is provided between the subject and neighbouring properties, will be screened by the existing large tree that is to be retained on site and are general sited adjacent to the covered walk way.  However, to the western end of the building on the north western elevation the window openings on the third and four levels and terrace balcony on the second floor level may result in privacy concerns and therefore, the following privacy measures are to be implemented:

 

·      The bathroom windows to apartment 2 and 3 on the north western elevation are to be of obscure glazing.

·      The windows directly adjacent to the stair case to apartment 2 (1 window) & apartment 3 (2 windows) are to be of obscure glazing.  The awning hung window may be opened for cross ventilation but as its the awning window when open will not result in overlooking concerns.

·      Horizontal fixed louvres are to be provided to the opening of the north western side of the terrace balcony to apartment 2. The privacy louvres are to be installed to overlap and be angled away from the neighbouring dwelling to prevent overlooking.

 

The proposal has been designed to integrate well within the established streetscape character along Howard Street and subject to the above recommendations is unlikely to result in unreasonable adverse privacy impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

Sub-section 5.5 - View Sharing

The objectives of the view sharing control are as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

Controls

i)       The location and design of buildings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors or vistas to significant elements from the streets, public open spaces and neighbouring dwellings.

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

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

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

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

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

 

View loss assessment

 

Introduction

Sharing of views is a design performance requirement in Council’s Dwellings Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan.

 

An assessment of the proposed development and its impact on views is carried out in accordance with the Land and Environment Court planning principle after Roseth SC pp.25-29 in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.

 

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

 

The subject site is not located within the foreshore scenic protection area. However, a number of submissions have been received from neighbouring properties in relation to view loss.  The following properties have been investigated to determine if the proposal resulted in any view loss impacts:

 

•    Units 2A & B, 3 & 4 Howard Place, Randwick

•    Units 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/59-61 Howard Street, Randwick

•    88 Howard Street, Randwick

•    Unit 2/14E Dudley Street, Randwick

•    Unit 3/14E Dudley Street, Randwick

•    Unit 5/14E Dudley Street, Randwick

 

A view impact analysis was undertaken by Willana and Associates the applicant’s Planning Consultants and some of the photos have been used as part of the assessment of this application.  Council’s Assessment Officer has also undertaken an independent in assessment of the view sharing impacts and the above affected properties have been visited.

 

The aerial photograph in Figure 4 below identifies the properties that may be affected by the proposed development. The properties in question are identified in red and the arrows indicate the direction of the views.  The views are obtained in north westerly, northerly and easterly directions above the roof top of the subject and neighbouring properties.  The views include city skyline, district views to the north and of ocean and Coogee Bay. Some of the views are blocked by existing development and vegetation. The property at No. 88 Howard Street obtains district views of Coogee Bay in a northerly direction above the roof top of the subject site and neighbouring properties. 

 

There are no iconic views that will be impacted by the proposed development.

 

Figure 4: Site analysis plan identifying views currently enjoyed.

 

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

 

The existing views currently available to the neighbouring properties in question are described below:

 

Unit no.’s 2A & B, 3 & 4 Howard Place, Randwick

These properties are located to the north western end of Howard Place and are elevated from the street level with a floor level higher elevation relative to the subject site. The properties are single storey and obtain views from the front of the dwellings.  The views are obtained in a north westerly, northerly and easterly direction above the roof top of the subject site and neighbouring properties across to the ocean.  Some of the views are blocked by existing development.  Also, the vegetation in the foreground of the view located along the north side of Howard Place presently blocks part of a view towards the east for each of the dwellings.

 

The views directly to the north will not be impacted by the proposed development. The views will be mainly affected in an easterly direction.

 

The extent to which views are available depends on the viewing angle, where you are positioned in the room and the form, depth and width of window openings.

 

No. 2aNo. 3No. 2bNo. 4DSC02074

Image 1: South westerly view of the single storey semi-detached dwellings at no. 2 & 3 Howard Place and dwelling house at no. 4 Howard Place.  No. 2 Howard Place is divided into flats A & B.

 


 

Unit 2A Howard Place

 

Ground floor bedroom

Views are obtained across the front boundary in a standing and sitting position.

Approximate location of proposed developmentDSC02032

Image 2:  View from the front ground floor bedroom looking in an easterly direction towards the subject site.

 

Front elevated yard

Views are obtained across the front boundary in a standing and sitting position.

 

Approximate extent of impact from proposed developmentDSC02031

Image 3: View from the front yard looking in an easterly direction towards the subject site.


 

Unit 2B Howard Place

 

Front entrance and yard

Approximate extent of impact from proposed developmentViews are obtained across the front boundary in a standing and sitting position. 

 

DSC02042

Image 4: View from the front entry hall looking in an easterly direction towards the subject site.

Living room

Views are obtained across the front boundary through the entrance hallway in a standing and sitting position.  The views are limited and are only obtained to the north western end of the living room. This room is currently used as a storage area.

 

The subject development is located behind the curtainsDSC02048

Image 5: View from the living room looking in an easterly direction towards the subject site.


 

3 Howard Place, Randwick

 

Sunroom

Views are obtained across the front boundary on an oblique angle in a standing and sitting position. 

Approximate extent of impact from proposed development
 


DSC00612

Image 6: View from sunroom looking in an easterly direction towards the subject site.

 

Bedroom

 

Views are obtained across the front boundary on an oblique angle in a standing position close up to the window.  The views are very limited and are generally obtained once standing close up to the window.

 

Approximate extent of impact from proposed developmentDSC00609

Image 7: View from bedroom looking in an easterly direction towards the subject site


 

4 Howard Place, Randwick

 

Living room

Views are obtained across the front boundary on an oblique angle and depending where positioned in the room the views can be obtained in a standing and sitting position. The further away from the window the more limited views.

The subject development is located further to the east and is not visible from this imageDSC02056

Image 8: View from main living room looking in an easterly direction towards the subject site.

 

Front patio area

Views are obtained across the front boundary in a standing and sitting position. 

 

Approximate extent of impact from proposed developmentDSC02053

Image 9: View from north western corner of the front patio looking in an easterly direction towards the subject site.

Units 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/59-61 Howard Street, Randwick

 

This property is located at the eastern corner of Howard Street (south east facing) and Howard Place (north east facing).  The property is located to the south west of the subject site and is occupied by a four storey residential flat building with the lower level being used for garage parking and rooftop terrace area above. 

 

The property has views from several of the dwelling units. The views are obtained in a northerly, easterly and south easterly direction above the roof top of the subject site and neighbouring properties across to the ocean and Coogee coastline.   Some of the views are blocked by existing development and vegetation.

 

These views are obtained from bedrooms, kitchens and balconies. 

 

Third floor levelFirst floor levelSecond floor levelGround floorUnit 7Unit 8Unit 9Unit 2Unit 4Unit 6Unit 5DSC00627

Image 10: South westerly view of the residential flat building at no. 59-61 Howard Street, Randwick

 

Communal ground floor rooftop terrace

Built form of proposed development

Image 11: Looking towards 65 Howard Street, from the communal ground floor rooftop terrace of 59-61 Howard Street.

 

Unit 2/59-61 Howard Street, Randwick

Unit 2 is located on the third level to the centre of the building. 

 

Balcony off the living room

Views are obtained on an oblique angle fronting Howard Place in an easterly direction.  Views are obtained in a standing and sitting position. 

 

Unit 4/59-61 Howard Street, Randwick

Unit 4 is located on the second floor level to centre of the building and is below unit no. 2. 

 

Balcony off the living room

The views obtained are similar to unit 2 above.

 

Unit 5/59-61 Howard Street, Randwick

Unit 5 is located on the second floor level to the south western end of the building and faces Howard Street.

 

Balcony off the living room

Views are obtained on an oblique angle fronting Howard Street in an easterly direction.  Views are obtained in a standing and sitting position. 

 

Unit 6/59-61 Howard Street, Randwick

Unit 6 is located on the third level to the south western end of the building and faces Howard Street.

 

Balcony off the living room

Views are obtained on an oblique angle fronting Howard Street in an easterly direction.  Views are obtained in a standing and sitting position. 

 

The subject site is located in front of the buildingDSC00581

Image 12: View taken from south eastern side of the building of Unit 6 on the third floor level balcony.

 

Unit 7/59-61 Howard Street, Randwick

Unit 7 is located on the first floor level fronting Howard Place.

Balcony

Views are obtained from the front secondary street boundary (Howard Place) in an easterly direction.  Views are obtained in a standing and sitting position. 

 

Approximate built form of proposed development

Image 13: View looking north-east towards Coogee Bay from balcony of Unit 7, 59-61 Howard Street.

 

Approved on the plans as a sunroom used as Bedroom 1.  The bedroom window is located to the eastern end of the building.

Views are obtained from the front secondary street boundary (Howard Place) in an easterly direction.  Views are obtained in a standing and sitting position. 

 

Views retained beyondBuilt form of proposed development

Image 14: View looking north-east towards Coogee Bay from bedroom 1 of Unit 7, 59-61 Howard Street.

Kitchen

Views are obtained on an oblique angle from the front secondary street boundary (Howard Place) in an easterly direction.  Views are mainly obtained in a standing position. 

 

Views retained beyondApproximate proposed front building line

Image 15: View looking east towards Coogee Bay from kitchen of Unit 7, 59-61 Howard Street.

Bedroom 2

Views are obtained on an oblique angle from the street boundary (Howard Place) in an easterly direction.  Views are obtained in a standing and sitting position. 

 

Approximate proposed front building line Views retained beyond

Image 16: View looking east towards Coogee Bay from Bedroom 2 of Unit 7, 59-61 Howard Street.

Unit 8/59-61 Howard Street, Randwick

Unit 8 is located on the second floor level fronting Howard Place.

Balcony off the living room

Views are obtained from two street frontages (Howard Street & Howard Place) in an easterly direction.  Views are obtained in a standing and sitting position. 

 

Image 17: View looking north-east towards Coogee Bay from Balcony of Unit 8, 59-61Built form of proposed development Howard Street.

 

Approved on the plans as a sunroom used as Bedroom 1.  The window is located to the eastern end of the building.

 

Views are obtained from the street boundary (Howard Place) in a north easterly direction.  Views are obtained in a standing and sitting position. 

 

Approximate built form of proposed development

Image 18: View looking north-east towards Coogee Bay from Bedroom 1 of Unit 8, 59-61 Howard Street.

 

Kitchen

Views are obtained from the street boundary (Howard Place) in a north easterly direction.  Views are mainly obtained in a standing position. 

 

Image 19: View looking north-east from kitchen of Unit 8, 59-61 Howard Street.

Bedroom 2: The window is located to the western end of the building.

Views are obtained from the street boundary (Howard Place) on an oblique angle in a north easterly direction.  Views are obtained in a standing and sitting position. 

 

Image 20: View looking north-east from bedroom 2 on an oblique angle of Unit 8, 59-61 Howard Street.

 

Unit 9/59-61 Howard Street, Randwick

Unit 9 is located on the third floor level fronting Howard Place.

Balcony off the living room

 

Sunroom

Views are obtained from the street boundary (Howard Place) in a north easterly direction.  Views are obtained in a standing and sitting position. 

 

Image 21: View looking north-east towards Coogee Bay from bedroom 1 of Unit 9, 59-61 Howard Street.

Kitchen

Views are obtained from the street boundary (Howard Place) in a north easterly direction.  Views are mainly obtained in a standing position. 

 

Image 22: View looking north-east towards Coogee Bay from kitchen on an oblique angle of Unit 9, 59-61 Howard Street.

Bedroom 2: The window is located to the western end of the building.

Views are obtained from the street boundary (Howard Place) on an oblique angle in a north easterly direction.  Views are obtained in a standing and sitting position. 

 

Approximate built form of proposed development

Image 23: View looking north-east towards Coogee Bay from bedroom 2 on an oblique angle of Unit 9, 59-61 Howard Street.

No. 88 Howard Street, Randwick

The property is located to the south eastern side of Howard Street directly north of the subject site.  This property is occupied by an existing two storey dwelling house.

First floor sunroom/living area

The district views of Coogee are obtained across the side boundary in a standing and sitting position.

 

Image 24: View looking north-west and north towards the Coogee district from the first floor sunroom/living area of 88 Howard Street. 

Units 3 & 5/14E Dudley Street, Randwick

 

This property is located to the north west of the subject site and is occupied by two storey multi dwelling houses. 

 

The property has views from several of the dwelling units on the upper level of the building. The views are obtained in an easterly, north easterly and northerly direction above the roof top of the subject site and neighbouring properties of the Coogee coastline.   Majority of the views are blocked by existing development and vegetation.  Two of the dwelling units have been investigated.

 

Unit 2/14E Dudley Street, Randwick

First floor level:

Balcony off Living and dining room

Viewing corridorViews are limited and are obtained across the front boundary through a viewing corridor at the intersection of Dudley Street and Howard Street in a north easterly direction. Standing views and to a lesser extent sitting views.

Image 25: View looking north-east towards Coogee Bay from north east facing Balcony on the first floor level of Unit 3, 14E Dudley Street, Randwick.

Unit 3/14E Dudley Street, Randwick

Outdoor terrace deck

Views are obtained from the front boundary (Dudley Street) in a north easterly direction.  Views are obtained in a standing and sitting position. 

 

Subject site

Image 26: View looking north-east towards Coogee Bay from north east facing terrace deck of Unit 3, 14E Dudley Street, Randwick.

Bedroom

The north easterly views are currently obstructed by the large tree on the subject development.  There are no ocean views visible from this window.

 

Image 27: View looking north-east towards the subject site and street from the south east side bedroom window of Unit 3, 14E Dudley Street, Randwick.

Upper level staircase

Views are obtained from the front boundary of Dudley Street in a north easterly direction.  Given its use as a staircase the views from this window are mainly obtained in a standing position.  Views could be obtained in a sitting position.

 

Image 28: View looking north-east towards Coogee Bay from upper level staircase Unit 3, 14E Dudley Street, Randwick.

Elevated ground floor Balcony

Image 29: View looking in a north-easterly to easterly towards the side of the subject site from the south eastern side balcony of Unit 3, 14E Dudley Street, Randwick.

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

Unit no.’s 2A & B, 3 & 4 Howard Place, Randwick

Location

Extent of impact

Unit 2B Howard Place

 

Ground floor bedroom

Having regard to the extent of impact as detailed on the image 2 above which includes oblique angled north easterly distant sky-water interface views and filtered views between vegetation and those views which we be retained, the impact is considered to be minor to moderate.

Front elevated yard

The proposal will affect some of the distant sky-water interface views however a considerable portion of this view will be maintained. The degree of the impact is considered to be minor to moderate.

Unit 2B Howard Place

 

Front entrance and yard

The proposal will affect some of the distant sky-water interface views however a reasonable portion of this view will be maintained. The degree of the impact is considered to be moderate.

Living room

The views are limited and are only obtained to the north western end of the living room through the corridor of the front entrance.  Image 5 demonstrates that the development will not be visible from this angle of the living room and the views to the north and north easterly direction will be retained from this angle.

3 Howard Place, Randwick

Sunroom

The proposal will affect some of the distant sky-water interface views as shown in image 6 above, however a reasonable portion of this view will be maintained. The degree of the impact is considered to be moderate.

Bedroom

 

The views are limited and are obtained on an oblique angle very close up to the window.  The view is currently obstructed by the window sash.  Image 7 demonstrates that a small amount of the already limited distant sky-water interface and northern views will be maintained.

4 Howard Place, Randwick

Living room

Image 8 above demonstrates that the views will be retained and the proposed development will not be impacting these windows.  The views will only be impacted when directly up against the window on an easterly oblique angle.  This would be a very minor loss.

Front patio area

The wide exposed panoramic view to the north west, north and east, including views to the city skyline, development at Bondi Junction, district views to the north and views of open water in Coogee bay will be retained.  As demonstrated in image 9 above only a very minor section of the glimpse views in between the vegetation will be lost.

Units 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/59-61 Howard Street, Randwick

Communal ground floor rooftop terrace

As demonstrated in image 11 the view from the front rooftop terrace will generally be maintained however, the view to the north east will be obstructed as a result of the proposed development. Given that more than half of the existing view will be maintained the views lost are considered to be minor to moderate.

Unit 2/59-61 Howard Street

Balcony off the living room

Unit 2 is located on the third floor level to the centre of the building behind the front building line of the subject site and therefore will not be impact by the development.

 

The viewing corridor of the coastline and district views to the east and north east of Coogee Bay will not be impacted.

 

Unit 4/59-61 Howard Street

Balcony off the living room

Unit 4 is located on the second floor level to the centre of the building behind the front building line of the subject site and therefore will not be impact by the development.

 

The viewing corridor of the coastline and district views to the east and north east of Coogee Bay will not be impacted.

Unit 5/59-61 Howard Street

The viewing corridor from the public domain of the coastline and district views to the east and north east of Coogee Bay will be maintained.  The existing views will not be impacted by the proposed development.   The views are similar to image 12 above.

Unit 6/59-61 Howard Street

As demonstrated in image 12 above, the viewing corridor from the public domain of the coastline and district views to the east and north east of Coogee Bay will be maintained. The existing views will not be impacted by the proposed development.

Unit 7/59-61 Howard Street

 

Balcony off the living room

Having regard to the extent of impact as detailed on image 13 above, including distant sky-water interface views and those corridor views to the north east which we be retained the impact is considered to be minor.

Approved on the plans as a sunroom used as Bedroom 1.  The bedroom window is located to the eastern end of the building.

As demonstrated in image 14 the proposal will affect some of the distant sky-water interface views; however a substantial portion of this view will be maintained. The degree of the impact is considered to be minor.

Kitchen

As demonstrated in image 15 the proposal will affect a very small section of the distant sky-water interface views; however a substantial portion of this view will be maintained. The degree of the impact is considered to be very minor.

Unit 8/59-61 Howard Street

 

Approved on the plans as a sunroom used as Bedroom 1.  The bedroom window is located to the eastern end of the building.

As demonstrated in image 18 the proposal will not be affecting the distant sky-water interface views.  However, depending where positioned in the room a small section of the distant sky-water interface views maybe impacted by the proposed development.  Any impact will be very minor.

Kitchen

 

Balcony off the living room

Image 17 above demonstrates that a minor portion of the coastline view directly to the north east will be lost.  Majority of the viewing corridor from the public domain of the coastline to the east and district views to the north east will be maintained. 

Unit 9/59-61 Howard Street

 

Sunroom

Images 21 to 23 demonstrate that the existing ocean views to the north east and district views to the north will be maintained and will not be impacted by the proposed development.  

Kitchen

Balcony off the living room

No. 88 Howard Street, Randwick

First floor sunroom/living area

As demonstrated in image 24 above, there are no views of the ocean or coastline.  Majority of the existing district views across Coogee to the north east will be retained.

Units 2, 3 & 5/14E Dudley Street, Randwick

 

The viewing corridor to unit 5 will not impacted.

 

Unit 2/14E Dudley Street, Randwick

Balcony off Living and dining room

The views from this balcony are limited and are currently obscured by the large tree on the subject site.  This tree will be maintained as part of this development.  Therefore, the existing glimpse corridor ocean view in-between the subject development and this building as demonstrated in image 25 will be maintained. 

Unit 3/14E Dudley Street, Randwick

Outdoor terrace deck

Image 26 demonstrates that the proposed development will not impact the views.

Bedroom

Image 27 demonstrates that the views are already compromised by the existing large tree on the subject site which is to be retained as part of this development. There are no ocean views visible from this window.

Upper level staircase

Image 28 demonstrates that the proposed development will not impact existing views.

Elevated ground floor Balcony

Image 29 demonstrates that the views are already compromised by the existing large tree on the subject site which is to be retained as part of this development. There are no ocean views visible from this balcony.

 

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

 

Based on the above analysis, it is anticipated that the proposed development will not result in any significant material impact on the scenic views currently available to the following investigated properties at Unit 2 & 3/14E Dudley Street and Unit 2, 4, 5, 6 & 9/59-61 Howard Street. The views currently enjoyed from these properties will be retained.  No ocean or coastline view is available at no. 88 Howard Street and majority of the existing district views across Coogee to the north east will be retained from this property.

 

In relation to the remaining properties at Unit no.’s 2A & B, 3 & 4 Howard Place and 7 & 8/59-61 Howard Street including common communal area to this property, the impacts identified from these properties as a result of proposed development when assessed against the Land & Environment Court planning principle are considered minor to moderate in the context of the remaining views available from these properties. 

 

The proposal complies with the maximum allowable FSR under the RLEP 2012. The architectural character, size and scale of the proposed building reflect the emerging pattern for residential flat buildings in the locality. The bulk and scale of the proposed building is consistent with the desired future character of the locality in terms of built form.

 

The development has sought a variation to the building height development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 Exemption to Development Standards in the RLEP 2012.  The variation is considered well founded and meets the objectives of the standard.  In summary, the minor variation occurs towards the middle of the site where the site topography has a steep drop. This area of non-compliance does not contribute to any additional view loss impacts to surrounding properties as it is the rear of the proposed building as it presents to Howard Place that is causing the view impact and that part of the building is well within the maximum height limit. The development has been skilfully designed to achieve an acceptable level of view sharing between the site and the neighbouring properties. There is little opportunity to redistribute the complying floor space within the development in a manner that significantly improve the view impact without resulting in other amenity impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

The proposal is considered reasonable having regard to the Tenacity principle and the view sharing objectives of the DCP 2013. Accordingly, the resultant view loss impact is justified 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 site is located within Zone R3 - Medium Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposed development seeks to vary the building height standard under Clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012.  The proposed development has merit and is considered to compatible with the height, bulk and scale of other residential flat building in the neighbourhood.  Relevant controls and objectives within Randwick DCP 2013 are satisfied and environmental impacts have been assessed as being acceptable.  The scale and design of the proposal is considered to be suitable for the location and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality. 

 

The proposal will not result in significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of solar access, view sharing and privacy.  An adequate level of amenity will be retained for the surrounding residents and the public domain.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.       That Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/886/2014 for demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a 4 storey residential flat building comprising 3x3 bedroom dwellings, and 4 car spaces at 65 Howard Street, Randwick subject to the schedule of conditions outlined in this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

The following privacy measures are to be implemented:

 

a.     The bathroom windows to Apartments 2 and 3 on the north western elevation shall be of obscure glazing.

 

b.     The windows directly adjacent to the stair case to Apartment 2 (1 window) & apartment 3 (2 windows) shall be of obscure glazing.  The awning window shall open outward only sufficiently to allow airflow, and not to intrude on privacy.  

 

c.     Horizontal fixed louvres shall be provided within the opening of the north western side of the terrace balcony to Apartment 2. The privacy louvres shall be overlapped and angled to prevent overlooking of neighbouring dwelling. The privacy louvres must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy louvre must not exceed 25% of the area of the louvre.  The privacy lourvres must be implemented prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 65 Howard Street, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP41/15

 

Subject:                  14 Hillary Parade, Matraville (DA/913/2014/A)

Folder No:               DA/913/2014/A

Author:                    Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of the approved development by altering the internal configuration of the dwelling, enlarging the rear ground floor level deck off the lounge room (to a depth of 3.5m), adding a new ground floor level deck off the kitchen, relocating the swimming pool, increasing the size of master bedroom and associated balconies at first floor level, and increasing the overall height of the dwelling by 200mm

Applicant:               Mr J C D Kyngdon & Mrs A Kyngdon

 

Owner:                    Mr J C D Kyngdon & Mrs A Kyngdon

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview58649.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The proposal concerns a Section 96 modification of the approved development by altering the internal configuration of the dwelling, enlarging the rear ground floor level deck off the lounge room (to a depth of 3.5m), adding a new ground floor level deck off the kitchen, relocating the swimming pool, increasing the size of master bedroom and associated balconies at first floor level, and increasing the overall height of the dwelling by 200mm.

 

The applicant seeks to amend condition 1 to reflect their amended plans due to the aforementioned design changes.

 

The proposed also seeks to delete conditions 2b and 2C, as follows:

 

Condition 2b currently reads:

The maximum height of the development shall be reduced down to RL51.53. This shall be achieved by reducing the floor to ceiling heights at ground and first floor level to a maximum of 2.7m for each level.

 

The applicant seeks to delete condition 2b as their amended plans (proposed to be updated through condition 1) now propose a total height of RL51.73 and floor to ceiling heights of 2.4m at sub-basement level, 3m at ground floor level and 2.8m at upper floor level. The applicant has provided streetscape and shadowing analysis in support of this change.

 

Condition 2c currently reads:

The rear ground level balcony shall be reduced in depth by 3.7m from the northern corner and 500mm from the north western corner so that it has a maximum trafficable area of 2m. The rear extent of the balcony shall align with the north western elevation of the lounge room. A 1.6m high privacy screen shall be installed along the north eastern side of the balcony in order to restrict sightlines into the rear yard or habitable room windows of the neighbouring property at No. 16 Hillary Parade. A privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber or material that is consistent with an approved colours and materials schedule. Details of the privacy screen shall be submitted to the Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

The applicant seeks to delete condition 2c as their amended plans (proposed to be updated through condition 1) now propose a rear ground floor level balcony with a depth of 3.5m from both corners, and a usable length (excluding planter boxes) of 5.8m. The applicant argues that a deck of this size will result in only minor view loss for 18 Hillary Parade and will provide improved usability.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Hillary Parade, close to its intersection with Landy Street. Sites on the southern side of Hillary Parade are generally higher than the subject site and those adjoining it. Adjacent sites to the north-east are generally higher than the subject site. The street is characterized by a variety of mid-20th Century and post-modern dwelling styles, the majority of which are double storied.

The subject site contains a brick and tile single-storey plus basement dwelling from the mid-20th Century (refer fig 1). A gabled roofed single garage sits between the dwelling and the site’s north-eastern boundary, a similar garage sits between the dwelling and the site’s south-western boundary. The dwelling shares a similar alignment to those on the same side of the street. The north-eastern garage of the site is an exception to this and it extends slightly into a view corridor to Botany Bay from adjacent sites to the north-east. The remainder of the site is grassed/landscaped, excluding access pathways. The site is lower than road level and continues to slope down towards it rear boundary. 

 

Figure 1. The subject site (left of photo) with three neighbouring dwellings to the right.

 

Section 96 Assessment

 

Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria have been complied with:

 

1.    Substantially the Same Development

The modification to the approved development does not alter the nature of the approved development and for the purposes of legislative requirements under Section 96 (1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 it is considered that the application remains substantially within scope of the original development.

 

2.    Notification and 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:

 

·          18 Hillary Parade, Matraville

·          20 Hillary Parade, Matraville

 

Issues

Comments

View of Botany Bay might be potentially threatened by planned vegetation to be planted within the rear of the site. Requests that the Council restricts height of vegetation within the rear of site to no more than the height of existing eastern boundary fence.

The applicant is not proposing additional vegetation within the rear of the site beyond what was approved within the original consent. It is noted that generally low growing species were proposed within the original consent’s landscape plan.

View of Botany Bay might be potentially threatened by the extent of the proposed ground floor level deck. Views are from the submitters lounge room.

It is recommended that condition 2c is retained and amended so that the views are maintained and the deck off the lounge room does not extend beyond either the ridge height or the northern building line of the existing garage. This is the same outcome as the original consent.

 

Section 79C Assessment - Key Issues

For the reasons outlined below, the proposed modification, subject to relevant modified conditions, is considered satisfactory in relation to the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RCDCP 2013). The relevant controls of the RCDCP 2013 and environmental impacts are assessed below.

 

Building Height

The proposed amendment to condition 2b will result in an additional non-compliance with the external wall height control. The original approval was to result in a ridge height of RL 51.53 or 7.3m to 8.36m wall height along northern elevation and an 8.05m to 8.78m wall height along the southern elevation.

 

The proposal will result in a 200mm increase to the ridge height of RL 51.73. The proposal will result in a further non-compliance with the building height control. Notwithstanding the non-compliance, it is deemed to be consistent with the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 2013 and will generate no significant environmental impacts for surrounding neighbours in terms of overshadowing and loss of views.

 

The applicant has provided streetscape analysis of the heights of dwellings along a sizable section of Hillary Parade, this demonstrates that existing dwellings of the street vary in observable streetscape heights and wall and roofing styles.

 

The proposed amended wall height is generally in-keeping with this established variation. When viewed from the streetscape, and factoring in the slope of the site, the height of the dwelling will appear lower than its neighbouring dwelling at 16 Hillary Parade.

 

The dwelling retains significant façade articulation, including balconies, screens, and upper-level offsets. These features break-up the perceived visual bulk of the building. In addition, it is noted that the footpath and street sits at a higher level than the building site, thereby reducing its perceived bulk when viewed from the streetscape.

 

Setbacks

The amended proposed does not alter side or front setbacks. The proposed pool and new deck to the rear of the kitchen are not subject to the rear setback control and complies with other relevant provisions of the RCDP – refer to Visual Privacy assessment below.

 

Solar Access and Overshadowing

As demonstrated in the shadow diagrams accompanied with the application, neighbouring dwellings will continue to receive the 3 hours minimum required for habitable windows, and future solar panel installation will remain possible.

Visual Privacy

The proposed design changes to the windows, shutters, layout or height of the dwelling will not result in any significant privacy impacts for surrounding neighbours.

The proposed enlarged ground floor level deck off the lounge room would continue to have a primary outlook towards the rear of the site and will be screened by privacy screens (required by condition 2c) from the adjoining neighbour to the north-east. It is therefore deemed to comply.

 

The proposed new deck to the rear of the kitchen has an outlook generally focused to the rear of the site, and would be generally screened from the adjoining site to the north-east (16 Hillary Parade) by the proposed lounge room. The deck could potentially allow for overlooking into some of the rear outdoor area of the adjoining site to the south-west (12 Hillary Parade), however, this overlooking is going to be generally indiscernible from that of the existing dwelling, or the windows and decks of the dwelling approved by the original consent. It is therefore deemed to comply. 

 

View Sharing

The proposed enlarged ground floor level deck off the lounge room will protrude into a view corridor to Botany Bay from adjacent sites to the north-east (16, 18 and 20 Hillary Parade) by 1.5m further than the existing garage on the site and that conditioned by the original consent. It also would protrude out of the established rear alignments of adjoining sites along Hillary Parade (refer fig. 2 and fig.3).

 


Figure 2. View corridor plan showing the established alignment of the north-western side of Hillary Parade and viewshafts from a single point on 18 Hillary Parade. The applicant’s proposed enlargement of the deck will project it into view corridors and beyond the established rear alignment. Source: Stubbs Design Tribe.  

The Tenacity Consulting v Waringah [2004] case set out four steps to consider in relation to the principles of view sharing and the impact on neighbours. An assessment of the proposal against these principles follows (this assessment relates only to the proposed deck off the lounge room, other parts of the proposal have not been identified as obstructing any views):

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

 

In relation to the proposal, the views proposed to be obstructed include views of water, land and bush at Botany Bay (refer fig. 1 and fig 2). The view is therefore considered to have high value.

 

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

 

In relation to adjacent sites to the north-east (16 through to 20 Hillary Parade), views are present across the side boundary whether sitting or standing. The dwellings and associated decks have been orientated towards the view across the side boundary and they do not enjoy similar views to the rear, front or other side boundary. 

 

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

 

In relation to 16 and 18 Hillary Parade, the proposed deck extension will result in view loss from their rear decks. Refer fig. 2 and fig. 4.

 

In relation to 20 Hillary Parade, the proposed deck extension will result in view loss from kitchen and lounge (more significant) and bedroom areas, all at ground floor level. Refer fig. 3.

 

View from 20 Hillary Parade (2)

Figure 3. Photo from the lounge room of 20 Hillary Parade showing the existing views. The existing garage is the cream and olive coloured structure on the left of the photo. The proposed deck will obstruct views 1.5m to the right of this structure, up to the height of the structure. Condition 2c is proposed to restrict the extent of the deck to preserve the view.  

Figure 4. Photo from the rear deck of 18 Hillary Parade showing the existing views. The existing garage is the cream and olive coloured structure on the left of the photo. The proposed deck will obstruct views 1.5m to the right of this structure, up to the height of the structure (the privacy screen will extend above the proposed balustrade line. Condition 2c is proposed to restrict the extent of the deck to the line of the garage to preserve the view. Source: Stubbs Design Tribe.

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

 

High value views will be lost by the proposal and the development can be designed to avoid that loss. The applicant has proposed additional decking off the kitchen which will provide the occupants of the site with an additional sizable deck area - with outlooks to Botany Bay - that will not obstruct the views of neighbours. Therefore, an alternative solution is already available to the applicant and the additional view impacts do not reflect a skillful design.

 

In summary, the proposal to extend the deck off the lounge will result in the loss of high value views of part of Botany Bay from the rear decks and living areas of adjoining sites to the north-east. The loss of views can be easily avoided and as such the proposal will unreasonably reduce the amenity of the occupants of adjoining sites to the north-east.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification to the existing development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP and Council policies and plans as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. The proposed modifications are considered to result in development that is substantially the same nature as previously approved works. The modified development will not result in any significant environmental impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for approval.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/913/2014/A for a modification of the approved development by altering the internal configuration of the dwelling, enlarging the rear ground floor level deck off the lounge room, adding a new ground floor level deck off the kitchen, relocating the swimming pool, increasing the size of master bedroom and associated balconies at first floor level, and increasing the overall height of the dwelling by 200mm for 14 Hillary Parade, Matraville in the following manner:

 

·             Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans and supporting documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s approved stamp:

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA 1.00 Issue A

 

19/12/2014

19 December 2014

DA 1.01 Issue A

 

19/12/2014

19 December 2014

DA 1.02 Issue A

 

19/12/2014

19 December 2014

DA 1.03 Issue A

 

19/12/2014

19 December 2014

DA 1.04 Issue A

 

19/12/2014

19 December 2014

DA 1.05 Issue A

 

19/12/2014

19 December 2014

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

597317S

19 December 2014

19 December 2014

 

As amended by the Section 96 “A” plan and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

S96 1.01 Issue A

Stubbs Design Tribe

June 2015

S96 1.02 Issue A

Stubbs Design Tribe

June 2015

S96 1.03 Issue A

Stubbs Design Tribe

June 2015

S96 1.04 Issue A

Stubbs Design Tribe

June 2015

S96 1.06 Issue C

Stubbs Design Tribe

June 2015

 

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

 

·             Condition 2b is deleted

 

·             Amend Condition 2c to read:

2.       c)     The rear ground floor level balcony off the lounge room shall be reduced in depth by 1.5m from that shown on plan S96 1.01 (Issue A) so that it has a maximum trafficable area of 2m. A 1.6m high privacy screen shall be installed along the north-eastern side of the balcony in order to restrict sightlines into the rear yard or habitable room windows of the neighbouring property at No. 16 Hillary Parade. A privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber or material that is consistent with an approved colours and materials schedule. Details of the privacy screen shall be submitted to the Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP42/15

 

Subject:                  20 Bass Street, Kingsford (DA/362/2015)

Folder No:               DA/362/2015

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Subdivision of land into two Torrens Title lots

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:               Ms M Xiourouppa

Owner:                    Ms M Xiourouppa and Ms H Markou and Ms A Avraam

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview61272.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

No submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council as the proposed lot sizes have a shortfall greater than 10% to the 400sqm minimum lot size standard required for each lot under Clause 4.1(3) of the RLEP 2012.

Proposal

 

Torrens (Land) subdivision of the approved strata titled detached dwellings under DA/439/1996. The proposed lots:

 

•      Lot 101 = 244.3sqm with a frontage of 10.98m fronting Byrd Avenue

•      Lot 102= 364.5sqm with a frontage of 10.975m fronting Bass Street

 

Note: No alterations are proposed to the buildings on site. Whilst the site has not been strata subdivided, approval for strata subdivision is still valid as the development consent has been acted upon by virtue of the detached dwelling facing Byrd Avenue having been constructed.

 

Site

 

The subject site has a dual frontage to Bass Street and Byrd Avenue. The site contains two detached houses with the original dwelling fronting Bass Street and the additional dwelling built under DA/439/1996 fronting Byrd Avenue. The site is at the eastern side fronting Bass Street, containing the larger dwelling and larger proposed allotment size is elevated by approximately 2m above the western side of the site fronting Byrd Avenue which is largely a consequence of the excavation carried out under the previous approval.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

1.     Minimum allotment size - subdivision

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

 

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

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.1(3) of the RLEP 2012, the minimum allotment size for subdivision of land zoned R2 – Low Density Residential is 400sqm per allotment and the proposed two lot sizes contravene the standard contained in clause 4.1 (3) of RLEP 2012. The proposed variations are summarized in the table below:

 

 

Lot 101 fronting Byrd Avenue

Lot 102 fronting Bass Street

Proposal

244.3sqm

364.5sqm

Variation

155.7sqm below the development standard this equates to a proposed 38.9% shortfall.

35.5sqm below the development standard this equates to a proposed 8.87% shortfall.

 

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

 


 

2.     Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to vary development standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the minimum lot size standard are set out in clause 4.1(3) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

In assessing the proposed variation against the objectives of the standard, it is considered that the submitted justification generally substantiates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances in so far as the site is already approved for strata subdivision under DA/439/1996 and therefore does not create the potential for a change in the character of the R2 zone in the broader context. An assessment is carried out as follows:

 

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

 

The main objective for applying the minimum allotment size standard is to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties. There is no physical development sought other than that which has been approved, and the sites will be similarly configured in terms of layout to other properties in the surrounding area. The proposal will not result in any adverse impacts as a result of the development. The existing developments on site within the context of separate lots have also been subject to an assessment against the relevant controls and objectives for low density development under Part C1 of the RDCP 2013 (see the compliance report). There will be no additional adverse impact on the amenity of existing properties.

 

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

 

The proposed development will not affect any adjacent natural or cultural or special features associated with the site or surrounding developments.

 

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

 

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

 

Although the proposed allotment sizes of both lots have shortfalls to the current standards, of most note being the proposed allotment facing Byrd Avenue, the fact that the site already enjoys strata subdivision consent means that the proposed Torrens title subdivision will not create any separate entitlements on site.

The proposed Torrens title allotment will now convert the current non-conforming use on site that is two detached dwellings within the R2 zone, into a conforming use whereby a single dwelling is contained within its own allotment of land.

 

In addition, Council’s DCP 2013 which complements the RLEP 2012 in terms of providing more detailed guidelines stipulates the following objectives in respect of subdivision in the R2 zone:

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

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

 

The proposed lot fronting Bass Street (Lot 102) is of a similar size of adjoining sites to the south at No. 22 to 28 Bass Street and those sites at No. 12 and 14 Bass Street. The proposed lot fronting Byrd Avenue (Lot 101) is smaller than the surrounding lots however as indicated earlier, where sites are larger they contain single detached dwellings that have not received strata subdivision approval and therefore not considered a suitable basis for reference.

 

It is pertinent to this application, that although the lot facing Byrd Avenue (Lot 101) will be below the size of surrounding lots and cannot be considered to be consistent with the subdivision pattern, it nonetheless does not alter the predominant subdivision and development pattern in the locality.

 

Therefore, having regard to the applicant’s submission and the objectives for subdivision, it is considered that the proposed subdivision both in terms of layout and building design in combination with existing strata subdivision enjoyed on site will continue to respect the current subdivision pattern in the locality.

 

It is important to reiterate the fact that the existing site is already approved for separate tenure which means that the proposal would not set a precedent for permitting other shortfalls to lot sizes for dual occupancy developments within R2 zoned land. Dual occupancies are permitted on smaller lots (minimum of 450sqm without subdivision) to provide housing choice and to assist with housing affordability and intra family arrangements without cumulatively transforming the low density zone into an a higher density zone.

 

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

 

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

The applicant’s written request demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard inclusive of the fact that the site already enjoys separate tenure for each dwelling. As discussed above, the proposal achieves the planning objectives for the locality, respects the subdivision layout and character of similar developments and where the west facing allotment is substantially lower than the predominant size of lots it will not form the basis for cumulatively transforming the character of the R2 low density zone. The proposed subdivision will be representative of the most orderly and economic use of the site.

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the minimum lot size standard in the circumstances of the case. The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 - Low Density Residential) are:

 

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

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

•     To protect the amenity of residents.

•     To encourage housing affordability.

 

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

 

·      The proposed subdivision maintains the existing two lot tenure on site in so far as no additional lots are being created as part of this application and the housing needs of the community within the low density residential environment.

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

·      The proposed development is consistent with the separate strata title tenure which is enjoyed on site (as per DA/439/1996) and the two occupancies have been separately rated for a significant period

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

 

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

 

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

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

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for minimum allotment size  in clause 4.1 of RLEP 2012.

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

The DCP provisions are structured into two components, Objectives and Controls. The Objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions. Any proposed variations from the DCP controls may be considered where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome. Hence, the consent authority must be flexible in its application and consider reasonable alternative solutions to achieve the objectives of the DCP Controls.

 

Section 2.1 Minimum lot size and frontage

The proposed development is subject to the DCP minimum 12m lot frontage control. The proposed sites have frontages of 10.98m to Byrd Avenue and 10.375m to Bass Street. The proposed development does not alter the existing frontages and neither are there any works proposed to the existing dwellings on site. Notwithstanding, due to the shortfall in frontage widths for each lot an assessment against the following objectives is required:

 

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

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

 

The approved development (DA/439/1996) was considered suitable for the site in so far as it enabled dwellings of adequate dimensions, configuration and amenity performance. The proposed frontage to Bass Street of Lot 102 is consistent with the frontage widths of other allotment frontages in the vicinity. The proposed frontage to Byrd Avenue is smaller than the frontages of lots (three in total at No.1A, 3A and 3 Byrd Avenue). Despite the smaller frontage of Lot 101, the fact that the development is already strata subdivided and there is an existing dwelling on site it means that the built form within the allotment is not being altered and there will be no increase in demand for services.

 

Overall, characteristics such as the approved strata on site and the approved built form of the dwellings on each lot does not alter the configuration of the development from street level ensuring no contravention of the objectives under Section 2.1 of 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

 

This development application is referred to Council because there is an Exception to the RLEP 2012 development standard for minimum lot sizes where each of the lots proposed falls short of the minimum by more than 10%.

 

The proposed lots are similar in size and frontages to existing approved strata tenure on site and there are no physical works proposed to the detached dwellings on each of the lots. The fact that the site already enjoys approval for strata subdivision means that the proposed Torrens title subdivision does not create additional tenure within the low density residential zone and will therefore will not contravene the objectives of the minimum allotment size standard, and the R2 Low density residential zone under the RLEP 2012 – key requirements for a well-founded Clause 4.6 exception to a development standard. The proposal does not seek to carry out works to the existing dwellings and will not contravene the objectives of the minimum frontage control required under Section 2.1 of the RDCP 2013. As such, the character of the area will not be altered.

 

Overall, the application is accompanied by an exception to the development standard which in combination with the existing approved strata tenure on site will mean that it will not alter the existing subdivision pattern, does not unacceptably impact on neighbouring dwellings or create any potential for speculative development incentives for the subdivision of smaller sized lots.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.1 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Minimum Allotment Size, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Environment be advised accordingly.

 

B.       That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 362/2015 for subdivision of land into two Torrens Title lots, at No. 20 Bass Street, Kingsford, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 20 Bass Street, Kingsford

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP43/15

 

Subject:                  47 Anzac Parade, Kensington
(DA/414/2014/B)

Folder No:               DA/414/2014/B

Author:                    Olivia Yana, Development Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of the approved development by deleting basement level 2, adding car stackers to basement car park, reallocation and reconfiguration of parking spaces

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:               Prosperity Thirdi Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Prosperity Thirdi Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview61615.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This section 96 modification application is referred to Council for its consideration, as the original application was determined by Council.

 

1.  Proposal

 

The Section 96 modification of approved development seeks the following:

 

Basement Level 2:

-    Remove the entire basement level, comprising storage area, 20 car spaces, 20 bicycle spaces and 4 motorcycle spaces.

 

Basement Level 1:

-    Add car stackers to increase car spaces from 17 to 30, including 3 x double and 2 x single stackers;

-    Reduce bicycle spaces to 8 and add 2 new motorcycle spaces;

-    Relocate building services from basement level 2;

-    Amend allocation for adaptable parking spaces; and

-    Modify wall alignment on the southern boundary.

 

Ground Level:

-    Increase car spaces from 11 to 12 spaces, including 3 retail and 9 residential; and

-    Reconfigure internal layout and amend allocation of parking spaces.

 

2.  Site

 

The site is located on the western side of Anzac Parade. It has a 26.92m street frontage to Anzac Parade and is adjoined to the south by other commercial premises and to the north and west by residential premises. Along the sites southern side boundary a pedestrian walkway known as Balfour Lane, extends all the way through to Boronia Street to the west.

 

The development was approved by amalgamating three (3) individual allotments, which has a total site area of 885m². The site is currently undertaking construction works and the existing buildings have been demolished.

 

Image 1: Subject site

 

3.  Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RCDCP) 2013. The following submission was received as a result of the notification process:-

 

Unit 8/45 Boronia Street, Kensington

Issues

Comments

Parking was an issue when the above consent was granted and the reduction of basement parking not have any positive effect on the already short supply of parking space in the immediate area. It is likely to add to the already bad congestion in Boronia Street and the side streets off Anzac Parade.

 

During construction works, it should be noted that arrangements to limit the parking for construction staff required avoiding taking up the very limited parking space available in Boronia Street.

The proposed reduction in parking spaces will not satisfy Council’s DCP requirements. Refer to Part 6.1 of this report for detailed parking assessment.

 

 

 

 

 

Works zone for the development has been allocated at Anzac Parade and will not affect existing parking spaces in Boronia Street.

 

Concerns are raised relating to redesigning the building so as to eliminate the need for ground anchors and a retaining wall between 45 Boronia Street and 47-53A Anzac Parade.

The proposal does not include changes to retaining wall adjoining to 45 Boronia Street and 47-53A Anzac Parade. It is proposed to reduce the extent of excavation works. Therefore, ground anchors may not be necessary.

 

4.  S.96 Assessment

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

 

4.1     Substantially the Same Development:

The modification to the approved development does not significantly alter the nature of the approved development and the proposed changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which consent was granted for the purposes of legislative requirements under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The modification consists of reconfiguration of parking provision within the basement and ground floor levels. No substantial changes are proposed in the built form and envelope of the approved development, thus the works remain consistent with the original consent. 

 

5.  S.79C Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 65

The aim of this policy is to improve the design quality of residential apartment development in New South Wales. The application proposes to modify parking provision for the approved shop top housing development. The proposal satisfies the design criteria for development located within close proximity of public transport in metropolitan Sydney as stipulated in Part 3J for Bicycle and Car Parking from the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). Refer to Part 5.1.1 of this report for detailed assessment.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

Zone B2 Local Centre 

The site is zoned B2 Local Centre under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide for the ongoing viability of the centre whilst integrating residential development in a suitable manner that protects the amenity of the local residents.

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

Nil.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Refer to Part 5.2 of this report for compliance.

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

The submission received for this proposal is addressed in Part 3 of this report.

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

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

 

 

5.1   Relevant Environment Planning Instruments:

5.1.1 State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 65

 

The following clause of SEPP 65 is relevant to the proposed development:

 

30   Standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse development consent or modification of development consent

 

“(1)  If an application for the modification of a development consent or a development application for the carrying out of development to which this Policy applies satisfies the following design criteria, the consent authority must not refuse the application because of those matters:

 

(a) if the car parking for the building will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum amount of car parking specified in Part 3J of the Apartment Design Guide,”

 

Part 3J of the ADG states that parking requirements should be determined in relation to the availability, frequency and convenience of public transport. Provision of parking for alternatives forms of transport such as motorcycles and bicycles should also be considered. Further to that, where less car parking provided, council should not provide on street resident parking permits.

 

Modification of the approved development proposes to reduce the number for car parking by 6 spaces. Under the design criteria of Objective 3J-1 for development located within close proximity of public transport, the minimum car parking requirements for residents and visitors is set out in the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), or the car parking requirements prescribed by Council, whichever is the lesser. The Department of Planning has advised that this provision applies to stations/shops that are already constructed but not those that are proposed.

 

5.1.2 Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

The following clause of RLEP 2012 is relevant to the proposed development:

 

Zone B2 Local Centre 

The site is zoned B2 Local Centre under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide for the ongoing viability of the centre whilst integrating residential development in a suitable manner that protects the amenity of the local residents.

 

5.2           Development Control Plans:

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RCDCP) 2013

 

Part B7    Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

B7

Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

3.

Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

Car parking requirements:

1space per 2 studios

1 space per 1-bedroom unit (over 40m2)

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

 

Residential – 34 spaces

Visitors – 5 spaces

 

No, A shortfall of 8 spaces. See Part 6.1 of this report for parking assessment by Council’s Development Engineer.

 

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement

 

3 required, 2 provided

No, however it complies with 5% of car parking requirement from RMS.

 

Business premises, retail premises and office premises car parking requirements:

1 space per 40m² Gross Floor Area (GFA)

Commercial area of 130m² - 3 car spaces

Yes

 

Part D1 Kensington Town Centre

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

D1

Kensington Town Centre

4.5

Access & Parking

 

 

4.5.2

On-site parking

 

 

 

i) Comply with the provisions contained in the section on Traffic, Parking and Access in Part B of this DCP.

ii) Tandem or stack parking (maximum two spaces) maybe suitable where these spaces are attached to the same strata title comprising a single apartment, subject to the maximum parking limit applying.

 

i) Refer to Part B7 assessment above.

ii) No details in relation to strata entitlement of stack parking submitted with approval. Relevant condition of consent is to be imposed.

Yes, subject to condition of consent.

4.7.10

Storage

 

 

 

i) Provide accessible and adequate storage facilities per apartment:

ii) Provide at least 50% of this storage facility within the apartment, accessible from either a hall or a living space. The remaining 50% may be provided in a secured area remote from the apartment.

 

Storage area within the basement is proposed to be deleted and adequate storage facilities will be provided within each of the apartment.

Yes

 

6.  Referral

 

6.1 Development Engineer

A Section 96 modification of the approved development has been received which seeks to Section 96 modification of the approved development by deleting basement level 2, adding car stackers to basement car park, reallocation and reconfiguration of parking spaces.

 

Original consent:

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of seven storey shop top housing development (6 storeys with roof level) comprising ground floor retail, 33 dwellings and basement car parking for 48 vehicles.

 

The section 96 proposes the following car parking provision:

 

Residential – 34 (RMS rate 29, Council’s DCP 39 and approved scheme 36)

Visitors – 5 (RMS rate 7, Council’s DCP 8 and approved scheme 8)

Retail – 3 (RMS rate 3, Council’s DCP 3 and approved scheme 4)

 

Note – the Section 96 Application reduces the commercial area from the approved 140m² to 130m². The proposed retail / commercial parking provision of 3 is therefore compliant.

 

Comments

The RMS parking rates are lower than the Council’s DCP rates. The application identifies that the residential component of the development is covered by SEPP 65. In this regard the recent Amendment No. 3 to the SEPP references Clause 30 which in turn references Part 3J of the Apartment Design Code (ADG). However, this Clause is not applicable until such time as the light rail stops are in place.

 

The applicant has provided parking survey data indicates that the proposed parking deficiency, measured against Council’s DCP, could be accommodated within 400 metres of the subject development site. Notwithstanding the CSELR is not operational, the development site is well served by public transport.

 

Conclusion

The parking provision is greater than RMS rates and less than Council’s DCP. The departure from Council’s DCP is not considered to be of an extent to warrant refusal.

 

Conditions relating to the operation of car stackers, allocation of parking spaces within any future strata and restrictions on eligibility for resident parking schemes will be required.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 414/2014 for Section 96 modification of the approved development by deleting basement level 2, adding car stackers to basement car park, reallocation and reconfiguration of parking spaces at No. 47-53 Anzac Parade, Kensington, in the following manner:

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA1.01 Rev B

Fox Johnson

29/10/14

31 October 2014

DA1.02 Rev B

 

29/10/14

31 October 2014

DA1.03 Rev B

 

29/10/14

31 October 2014

DA1.04 Rev B

 

29/10/14

31 October 2014

DA1.05 Rev B

 

29/10/14

31 October 2014

DA1.06 Rev B

 

29/10/14

31 October 2014

DA1.07 Rev B

 

29/10/14

31 October 2014

DA1.08 Rev B

 

29/10/14

31 October 2014

DA1.09 Rev B

 

29/10/14

31 October 2014

DA1.10 Rev B

 

29/10/14

31 October 2014

DA2.01 Rev B

 

29/10/14

31 October 2014

DA2.02 Rev B

 

29/10/14

31 October 2014

DA2.03 Rev B

 

29/10/14

31 October 2014

DA2.04 Rev B

 

29/10/14

31 October 2014

DA4.01 Rev A

 

17/09/14

16 October 2014

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

556751M_02

21 November 2014

21 November 2014

 

           As amended by the following Section 96 ”A” plans and documentation:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

CD1.01 Rev A

Fox Johnson

16/06/15

30 June 2015

CD1.02 Rev A

 

16/06/15

30 June 2015

CD1.03 Rev A

 

16/06/15

30 June 2015

CD1.04 Rev A

 

16/06/15

30 June 2015

CD1.05 Rev A

 

16/06/15

30 June 2015

CD1.06 Rev A

 

16/06/15

30 June 2015

CD1.07 Rev A

 

16/06/15

30 June 2015

CD1.08 Rev A

 

16/06/15

30 June 2015

CD1.09 Rev A

 

16/06/15

30 June 2015

CD1.10 Rev A

 

16/06/15

30 June 2015

CD2.01 Rev A

 

16/06/15

30 June 2015

CD2.04 Rev A

 

16/06/15

30 June 2015

CD2.05 Rev A

 

16/06/15

30 June 2015

CD2.06 Rev A

 

16/06/15

30 June 2015

CD2.07 Rev A

 

16/06/15

30 June 2015

 

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

556751M_03

18 May 2015

30 June 2015

 

An amended BASIX certificate must be consistent with the plans referenced in Condition 1 of this determination and a copy shall be submitted to Council and the Principal Certifying Authority prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

As amended by the following Section 96 ”B” plans and documentation:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

A – 1.02 Rev E

Fox Johnston

16/07/2015

A – 1.03 Rev E

A – 2.01 Rev E

 

 

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

 

·      Add the following Conditions:

 

Car Stacker Details

24.     a)     Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, the following details (at a scale of either 1:100 or 1:200) must be submitted to Council’s Development Engineer for approval:

 

·         Structural details/dimensions (external & internal dimensions) of the proposed car stackers to be used.

·         The location and dimension of any structural columns located within the basement car park.

·         Dimensions of aisle widths/lengths within the basement car park.

·         Instructions for operation; details of manual operation in the event of power/mechanical failure; maintenance schedules/annual service contract; the waiting and working times for the car lift and safety and training requirements for the use of the car lift.

·         Turning paths for the car spaces within the basement garage once manufacturer’s details for the car stackers and any structural columns have been considered and detailed in the plans.

·         Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate a qualified Traffic Engineer shall advise in writing that turning paths are considered acceptable and satisfy AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 requirements for the B85 vehicle.

 

24.     b)     Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the applicant is to submit the following details must be submitted to Council’s Development Engineer for approval:

 

·       Proposed allocation of all residential car spaces with particular emphasis on the allocation of spaces within the car stackers.

 

·       Management plan/strategy for the use of the car stackers for all units allocated spaces within the stackers.

 

The applicant must liaise with Council’s Development Engineers prior to lodging this information to obtain Council’s requirements for the submission.

 

Residential Parking Permits

101.   All prospective owners and tenants of the building must be notified that Council will not issue any residential parking permits to occupants/tenants of this development.  As a minimum a notice shall be placed in the foyer/common areas of the building advising tenants/occupiers that they are in a building which does not qualify for on-street resident parking permits.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP44/15

 

Subject:                  Cultural and Community Grant Program - Recommended Allocations - September 2015

Folder No:               F2009/00182

Author:                    Warren Ambrose, Senior Social Planner      

 

Introduction

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program was endorsed by Council on 28 April 2009 and commenced in June 2009.  The Cultural and Community Grants Program provides financial support to creative arts and cultural projects that encourage community participation and vibrancy within the City of Randwick. The Grants Program, assessed twice a year in March and September, is linked to actions and strategies identified within the Council’s Cultural Plan, A Cultural Randwick City.

 

This report requests the allocation of funds from the Grants Program for the September 2015 Round. The September 2015 Round is the first of two funding rounds for the 2015/16 financial year.

 

Council has received a total of 18 applications seeking a total of $155,910.26 (in-kind and cash). The applications were assessed by an assessment panel comprising of Council staff. Applications were assessed against the Cultural and Community Grants Guidelines.

 

Details of the applications recommended for funding are listed in Attachment One. Applications not recommended for funding are also listed in Attachment One.

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program has an annual budget of $110,000.  This amount covers both in-kind and cash contribution requests from grant applications. 

 

$66,000 is available for allocation for the September 2015 round. This amount represents approximately a budget split of 60:40 between the September 2015 and March 2016 funding rounds, respectively.  Allocating a larger proportion of the budget to the September round is appropriate because the spring/summer seasons are the busiest period for organised community events and activities.

 

This report ultimately recommends eleven applications, totaling $65,998.26 to receive funding under the current September 2015 round.

 

All applicants will be advised about the outcomes of their grant application.

 

 

Issues

 

Cultural and Community Grants Program Background

The Cultural and Community Grants Program has an annual budget of $110,000.  This amount covers both in-kind and cash contribution requests from grant applications.

 

There are two funding rounds per financial year, in March and September.  These are promoted in the local newspaper, on the Council’s website, and email through local community networks.

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program funding is currently awarded to locally based not-for-profit organisations or community groups. The applicants must demonstrate that their project benefits a cross section of our diverse community. The resulting activities or events must be held in the City of Randwick. Applicants may seek grants from Council as an in-kind contribution only (waiver of Council fees and charges), cash contribution only, or a combination of in-kind and cash contribution. 

 

The Program requires and expects a high level of accountability from funding recipients. As part of the funding acquittal process, all recipients who have received cash grants are required to provide evidence that the activity or event was held, and to complete an End of Project report.

 

September Round 2015/16 Assessment

The assessment process was undertaken by a panel of Council officers. The panel met to assess the applications and to recommend which of these should receive full, partial or no funding. All applications were assessed for compliance with the program’s funding priorities and guidelines, and the organisation’s capacity to deliver the program outcomes. Each application was assigned a numerical score reflecting a priority ranking of A, B or C. Priority levels are detailed below:

 

·         Priority A: High priority for funding. The project is consistent with program funding priorities and has special weighting and compares well with other applicants.

·         Priority B: Possibly fund if sufficient funds are available. Application meets eligibility criteria but with lower scores than the Priority A applications.  Priority B applications may lack adequate detail or be poorly targeted.

·         Priority C: Does not meet the eligibility criteria.

 

Through this assessment process, a total of twelve applications fully met the funding criteria and have been recommended to receive funding totalling $65,998.26 comprising of $20,161.76 in cash and $45,835.50 in-kind (fee waiver). This amount represents approximately a budget split of 60:40 between the September 2015 and March 2016 funding rounds, respectively.  Allocating a larger proportion of the budget to the September round is appropriate because the spring/summer seasons are the busiest period for organised community events and activities.

 

The grant applicants and a brief description of their proposed projects being recommended for funding are summarised below:

 

·         Enriching and enhancing life through music (Australian Children’s Music Foundation) Cash funds to engage teachers to visit Matraville Soldiers Settlement School to run: junior choir, senior choir, school rock band and music lessons outside the school curriculum; resulting in building self-esteem, confidence in children. The program will provide performances at local nursing homes and other locations identified by Council.

·         Randwick Shield (Coogee Minnows) In-kind funds to use Coogee Beach for a Nippers Surf Life Savings Carnival where South Maroubra, Coogee and Clovelly nippers will compete.

·         Coogee Island Challenge (Coogee Surf Life Saving Club) In-kind funds to use Coogee Beach to hold two ocean swims (November 2015 and April 2016) for the purpose of fundraising for the club.

·         Blak Market Aboriginal Employment Project (First Hand Solutions Aboriginal Corporation) Cash funding to employ three Aboriginal people to work at the Blak Markets, eg to carry out general market duties and assisting stallholders during bumping in and out.

·         International Day of People with a Disability dinner dance (Holdsworth Community) Cash and in-kind funds to hold a dinner dance to celebrate International Day of People with Disability for adults living with a disability and their carers who are residents in Randwick City.

·         IWA Maroubra Group (Indonesian Welfare Association Inc) In-kind funds to use the Senior Citizens Centre to hold weekly meetings to provide a supportive environment for the Indonesian community and encourage social interaction.

·         Mindfulness in Nature & Art – garden workshop (Randwick Community Organic Garden) Cash funds to hold a half day workshop in the Randwick Community Organic Garden to enrich connections with nature using: short contemplative exercises, mindful walking, mediation and observation, and some gentile reflective painting and drawing.

·         Pere Receveur Commeration Mass (St Andrew’s Catholic Church) Cash funds to supply a marquee, sound system and to hire 300 chairs for their Commemoration Mass.

·         Afterschool Bush Art Club (UNSW Community Development Project) Cash funds to run weekly after school arts activities for children living in the Namatjira and surrounding Housing NSW Communities.

·         Coogee Family Fun Day (Coogee Chamber of Commerce) Cash funds for staging, entertainment and sound system, and in-kind funds for use of Goldstein Reserve, parking and cleaning, and application fees.  Profits to be donated to Sydney Children’s Hospital.

 

Coogee Family Fun Day – Incomplete financial acquittal

 

The Council has received an application from an organisation that have yet to complete its funding acquittal End of Project reporting for grants received in 2014/15 financial year. The outstanding information is the amount of funds donated to the Sydney Children’s Hospital

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program requires applicants who have received previous funding to account for its grant expenditure before they are eligible to apply for new funding under the same grants program.

 

Information required from grant recipients for their end of project reporting and acquittal are: all income sources and expenses for the project, copies of invoices and receipts.

 

Should the Council wish to take a conciliatory stance, it is suggested that this organisation be given another opportunity to complete its acquittal documentation to Council.  In other words, funding under the current round will only be allocated for this project if the required information is submitted to Council by 5pm Wednesday 7 October 2015.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  5:     Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

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

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

The Cultural and Community Grant Program has an annual budget allocation of $110,000, to fund 2 allocation rounds per financial year with a budget split of 60:40 between the September 2015 and March 2016 funding rounds. The current funding round has a notional budget of $66,000 (60% of total budget).  The amount recommended for allocation is $65,998.26.

 

Conclusion

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program plays an important role in supporting cultural and community activities that contribute to the vibrancy of the City of Randwick. It is an important program to help the Council achieve its vision of building a “sense of community”.

 

The assessment panel has recommended the funding of eleven applications, totalling $65,998.26 in cash and in-kind contribution under the current funding round, as detailed in Attachment 1.  For the second funding round in March 2016, a budget of $44,001.74 will be available for allocation to eligible applicants.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

a)       endorse the funding of Coogee Family Fun Day event, being for inkind contribution of $10,750 and cash of $2,250, totaling $13,000, subject to Council receiving a completed end of project acquittal documentation as identified in this report by close of business Wednesday 7 October 2015.

 

b)       approves the remaining allocation of Cultural and Community Program funds totalling $52,998.26 to be allocated to the recommended grant applicants as listed in Attachment One.

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Cultural and Community Grants Program - Details of Applications Recommended and Not recommended - September 2015 funding round

 

 

 

 


Cultural and Community Grants Program - Details of Applications Recommended and Not recommended - September 2015 funding round

Attachment 1

 

 

Attachment One

2015/2016 CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING – SEPTEMBER 2015 ASSESSMENT

No.

Organisation

Name of Project & Description

Amount

Requested

Rank

In-Kind Recommended

Cash

Recommended

In kind

Cash

1

Australian Children’s Music Foundation

Enriching and enhancing life through music (Australian Children’s Music Foundation) Cash funds to engage teachers to visit Matraville Soldiers Settlement School to run: junior choir, senior choir, school rock band and music lessons outside the school curriculum; resulting in building self-esteem, confidence in children. The program will provide performances at local nursing homes and other locations identified by Council.

$0.00

$45,700.00

A

$0.00

$15,000.00

3

Coogee Chamber of Commerce

Coogee Family Fun Day Cash funds for staging, production, infrastructure, entertainment, and in-kind funds for use of Goldstein Reserve for the Coogee Family Fun Day Community Fair. Profits to be donated to Sydney Children’s Hospital.

 

Subject to Council approval, the recommended amount in-kind and cash funding be allocated to applicant on receipt of a full End of Project report for previous Cultural and Community Grant funds of $10,000, before 7 October 2015.

 

$10,750.00

$14,500.00

B

$10,750.00

$2,250.00

5

Coogee Minnows (Nippers)

Randwick Shield (Coogee Minnows) In-kind funds to use Coogee Beach for a Nippers Surf Life Savings Carnival where South Maroubra, Coogee and Clovelly nippers will compete.

 

$862.00

$0.00

A

$862.00

$0.00

6

Coogee Surf Life Saving Club

Coogee Island Challenge  (Coogee Surf Life Saving Club) In-kind funds to use Coogee Beach to hold two Ocean swims (November 2015 and April 2016) for the purpose of fundraising for the club.

$1,814.00

$0.00

A

$1,814.00

$0.00

7

First Hand Solutions Aboriginal Corporation

Blak Market Aboriginal Employment Project Cash funding to employ three Aboriginal people to work at the Blak Markets, eg to carry out general market duties and assisting stallholders during bumping in and out.

$0.00

$7,560.00

A

$0.00

$7,560.00

11

Holdsworth Community

International Day of People with a Disability dinner dance Cash and in-kind funds to hold a dinner dance to celebrate International Day of People with Disability for adults living with a disability and their carers who are residents in Randwick City.

$2,135.76

$3,150.00

A

$2,135.76

$3,150.00

12

Indonesian Welfare Association Inc

IWA Maroubra Group In-kind funds to use the Senior Citizens Centre to hold weekly meetings to provide a supportive environment for the Indonesian community and encourage social interaction.

$4,600.00

$0.00

B

$4,600.00

$0.00

13

Randwick Community Organic Garden

Mindfulness in Nature & Art – garden workshop Cash funds to hold a half day workshop in the Randwick Community Organic Garden to enriching connections with nature using: short contemplative exercises, mindful walking, mediation and observation, and some gentile reflective painting and drawing.

$0.00

$680.00

A

$0.00

$680.00

15

St Andrew’s Catholic Church

Pere Receveur Commeration Mass Cash funds to supply a marquee, sound system and to hire 300 chairs for their Commemoration Mass.

$0.00

$3,876.50

A

$0.00

$3,876.50

17

UNSW Community Development Project

Afterschool Bush Art Club Cash funds to run weekly after school arts activities for children living in the Namatjira and surround Housing NSW Communities.

$0.00

$13,820.00

A

$0.00

$13,320.00

 

 

 

$20,161.76

$89,286.50

Total

$20,161.76

$45,836.50

 

 

 

 

 

Total

$65,998.26

 


2015/2016 CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM

APPLICATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING – SEPTEMBER 2015 ASSESSMENT

No.

Organisation

Name of Project

Amount Requested

Rank

Reason for not recommending - future action

In kind

Cash

2

Bondi and Eastern Suburbs Theatre Company

Wilde in the Open

Cash and in-kind funds to present Oscar Wilde’s “Importance of Being Earnest” play at Coogee Amphitheatre.

$722.00

$1,000.00

C

Applicant charging to attend the event ($20/person, $10/child, student, pensioner).

4

Coogee Minnows (Nippers)

Coogee Minnews Surf Camp In-kind funds to use Coogee Beach for a two day school holiday surf camp for 160 children.

$1,554.00

$0.00

C

Children charged to attend the holiday surf camp ($160/child).

8

Gadigal Information Service Aboriginal Corporation

Young Black and Deadly – rising star workshop Cash Funds to provide in seven, one day workshops, to train 12 young Aboriginal people in song writing, performance, recording and production of an EP.

$0.00

$4,771.00

C

Majority of this project conducted outside of Randwick City.

9

Greek Orthodox Community of NSW Ltd

Alexandra Danalis Photographic Exhibition

In-kind funds to use the Prince Henry Centre for a two part photographic exhibition.  Cash funds for entertainment, production and refreshments for the exhibition and its opening function.

$2,085.00

$13,500.00

C

Charging entry to the event and limited cultural connections to Randwick residents.($10/person)

10

Heartdancers Inc

Transforming lives through music, dance and yoga Cash funds to run a series of music, dance and yoga workshops for Randwick residents with disabilities.

$0.00

$13,200.00

C

Incomplete application.

14

Sisters of Charity Outreach

Eastern Area Visit Program – End of Year Socialisation Event Cash funds to hold an end of year socialisation event at Paddington RSL for clients of the in-home respite service, and those who are socially isolated due to age disability or medical conditions.

$0.00

$4,980.00

C

Event to be held outside Randwick City.

16

The Ahepa Medical Foundation Inc

Fun Run for MS Funds to conduct a Fun Run, in support of research of MS, in a healthy competition followed by a sausage sizzle.

Not provided

Not provided

C

Budget details were not provided, incomplete application.

18

Youth Off The Streets Ltd

Identify Cash funds to run three camps for disadvantaged young people to resolve issues, strengthen cultural identity, learn about  local significant sites, how to set up camp, and cook meals utilising traditional methods.

$0.00

$4,650.00

C

Activity to be held outside Randwick City, Community Partnerships Funding Program is more appropriate for the project.

 

 

Total

$4,361.00

$42,101.00

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

General Manager's Report No. GM14/15

 

Subject:                  2014-15 Annual Report and Financial Statements

Folder No:               F2015/03005

Author:                    Karen Hawkett, Coordinator Integrated Planning & Reporting; Mitchel Woods, Manager Corporate and Financial Planning     

 

Introduction

 

The 2014-15 Randwick City Council Annual Report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009.

 

The 2014-15 Randwick City Council Financial Reports have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993, Australian Accounting Standards, and the NSW Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.

 

As required under s419 of the Local Government Act 1993, the Ordinary Council Meeting of September is the meeting where Council will present its audited financial reports, together with the auditor’s reports to the public. Council's auditor, Hill Rogers Spencer Steer, will be attending the meeting to present their audit report to Council.

 

Issues

 

2014-15 Annual Report

The Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009 requires Council to prepare and publish an annual report by November 30 each year which must include the audited financial reports and satisfy statutory reporting requirements.

 

The annual report is one of the key accountability mechanisms between council and the community regarding the implementation of the 20-year Randwick City Plan. In alignment with the 20-year plan, the annual report is organised according to the Randwick City Plan themes:

·          Responsible management

·          A sense of community

·          Places for people

·          A prospering City

·          Moving around

·          Looking after our environment.

 

The 2014-15 Randwick City Council Annual Report details the achievements of Council over the last financial year against the 2014-15 Operational Plan which was adopted in June 2014. It includes details of Council's financial and operational position for the year ending June 2015 and includes a supplementary State of the Environment report.

 

Some of the main achievements for the 2014-15 operating year have been:

·          launch of Council’s Beach Library at Coogee

·          the inaugural night noodle markets at Kingsford

·          recognition through a number of industry awards

·          development of a light rail support plan

·          a strong staff engagement score

·          continued record spending on public infrastructure including ongoing development of Chifley Sports Reserve and Heffron Park, and

·          further technological advancements such as the provision of flexible payment methods for customers.

 

State of the Environment Report

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

 

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

 

Council’s 2014-15 SoE report directly aligns with and provides accountability for the six environmental objectives (10a to 10f) adopted by Council within Outcome 10, A Healthy Environment.

 

City Plan Outcome

Direction

10. A Healthy Environment.

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

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

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

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

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

10f.Energy conservation and efficiency programs are implemented.

 

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:           Leadership in sustainability.

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

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

Council reported an $11.485 million Net Operating Surplus for the 2014-15 financial year, and a $4.125 million Net Operating Surplus before Capital Revenue. This headline result, combined with the Statement of Financial Indicators in Attachment 3 and the Asset Management Indicators in Attachment 4, illustrate the successful past year in terms of the management of Council's finances and its assets.

 

In their Audit Report for the 2014-15 Financial Statements, Council’s auditors, Hill Rogers Spencer Steer, advised "Council’s overall financial position is, in our opinion, sound."

 

Conclusion

 

The 2014-15 Randwick City Council Annual Report provides a detailed analysis of Council’s numerous achievements and positive financial performance over the previous year. The report provides an account to the community of our progress in meeting our objectives as set out in the 20-year Randwick City Plan.

 

The Council’s Financial Statements have been finalised for the 2014-15 Financial Year and the Council finances are in a strong and stable position.

 

The 2014-15 Financial Reports have also been received and noted by Council’s Internal Audit Committee at their meeting held on Wednesday 9 September 2015.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the Randwick City Council Annual Report 2014-15, be received and noted;

 

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

 

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

 

d)     the Financial Statements for the financial year ended 30 June 2015 be adopted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Link to the Randwick City Council 2014-15 Annual Report

2.

Link to the Randwick City Council 2014-15 Financial Reports

3.View

Randwick City Council 2014-15
Statement of Financial Performance Indicators

4.View

Randwick City Council 2014-15
Statement of Asset Management Indicators

 

 

 


Randwick City Council 2014-15  / Statement of Financial Performance Indicators

Attachment 3

 

 


 


Randwick City Council 2014-15  / Statement of Asset Management Indicators

Attachment 4

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_BLUE SPOT_RGB 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF35/15

 

 

Subject:                  Determination of number of Councillors

Folder No:               F2007/00634

Author:                    Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

Section 224 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires:

 

“1)   A council must have at least 5 and not more than 15 councillors (one of whom is the mayor).

 

2)     Not less than 12 months before the next ordinary election, the council must determine the number, in accordance with subsection (1), of its councillors for the following term of office.

 

3)     If the council proposed to change the number of councillors, it must before determining the number, obtain approval for the change at a constitutional referendum.”

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability.

Direction 1b.2:  Contribute to protecting the Council’s reputation and enhancing its positive public image.

 

Financial impact statement

 

If Council were to decide to reduce the number of Councillors, it must obtain the approval for the change at a constitutional referendum. There has been no budget allocation for a constitutional referendum prior to the 2016 Local Government elections.

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that Council determine that the number of Councillors for Randwick City Council remain unchanged at 15.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council determine, in accordance with Section 224 of the Local Government Act 1993, that the number of Councillors for Randwick City Council for the 2016-2020 term remain unchanged at 15.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_BLUE SPOT_RGB 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF36/15

 

 

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

 

Investment Commentary

 

As at 31 August 2015, Council held investments with a market value of $ 79.752 million. The portfolio value increased during August by ~$16.201 million. The increase is representative of a positive cash flow for the month reflecting the net effect of revenue receipts (rates, grants & miscellaneous) offset by capital works expenditure and other operational payments.

 

The size of the investment portfolio may vary significantly from month to month as a result of cash flows for the period. Cash outflows (expenditure) are typically relatively stable from one month to another. Cash inflows (income) are cyclical and are largely dependent on the rates instalment due dates and the timing of grant payments including receipts of the Financial Assistance Grants.

 

 

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

 

Council’s Portfolio

The portfolio has high levels of liquidity with 8% of investments available at call and a further 18% 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 August 2015. The portfolio is dominated by term deposits (64% of the portfolio) with the higher rated ADI’s. Credit assets (FRNs) are around 28% 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.

 

 

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 August 2012 to August 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 3.22% compared with the benchmark index of 2.15%.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate remained unchanged at 2.00% at the 1 September meeting.

 

Term Deposits

 

At month end, deposits accounted for 64% of the total investment portfolio.

Two deposits matured and were withdrawn. Twelve new deposits were undertaken during the month totaling $17 million.

As at the end of August, the weighted average deposit yield stood at 3.19%, down 22bp from the previous month or around +100bp over bank bills.

    

Floating Rate Notes (FRNs)

 

The portfolio includes $22.2 million in floating rate notes.

 

These investments are classified as “held for trading” requiring that they are reported at the latest indicative market valuations at month end.

 

The indicative market value of the FRNs decreased by ~$18k as at the end of August.

 

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 2015-16 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 $1,958,370.00. Investment income to 31 August 2015 amounted to $363,948.29.

 

Certification – Responsible Accounting Officer

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF37/15

 

Subject:                  Cancellation of Easement for Drainage affecting 83 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

Folder No:               F2008/00439

Author:                    Sharon Plunkett, Property Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

Clause 400 (Part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

Issues

 

It is necessary for the Council’s seal to be affixed to the ‘Transfer Releasing Easement’ form to remove an easement for drainage affecting the part of the land described in Vol 5613 Fol 136 known as 83 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra (Lot 7 in DP 6569).  The easement for drainage measuring four feet wide along the northern boundary of Lot 7 was put in place in January 1912.

 

Investigation into the history of the property and adjoining property in Garrett Street indicates that the easement no longer extends from Loch Maree Street to Garrett Street and would therefore mean that Council no longer has any benefit of a drainage easement over Lot 7.  The current owners Benoit Etienne Nicolas & Meredith Mary Sian Droulez need to lodge the Transfer Releasing Easement form with the Land Titles Office and pay all associated expenses.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

As Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorising the Affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Council’s Seal be affixed to the Transfer Releasing Easement form and any other necessary documentation to extinguish the need for the easement over the property at 83 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Deposited Plan 6569 and Title Search 83 Loch Maree Street and 94 Garrett Street Maroubra

 

 

 

 


Deposited Plan 6569 and Title Search 83 Loch Maree Street and 94 Garrett Street Maroubra

Attachment 1

 

 


 

 


 



Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF38/15

 

Subject:                  Withdrawal of Caveat and Affixing of the Council Seal - 46 White Avenue & 42 Manwaring Avenue, Maroubra

Folder No:               F2004/06325

Author:                    Sally Fernandez, Property Officer      

 

Introduction

 

Clause 400 (Part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

Issues

 

It is necessary for the Council’s seal to be affixed to the ‘Withdrawal of Caveat’ forms to remove caveat number ‘L499726’ from the title of property at 46 White Avenue, Maroubra (Lot 713 Deposited Plan 236610) and caveat number ‘L732735’ from the title of property at 42 Manwaring Avenue, Maroubra (Lot 764 Deposited Plan 237149).

 

These caveats were put in place in 1966 and expired in 1969.  Council placed the caveats on properties forming part of the Stocks and Holdings affordable housing development of South Maroubra to prevent property developers purchasing the properties and reselling at inflated prices.  The caveats placed restrictions on the re-sale of the properties for a period of three (3) years from the date of acquisition by the registered proprietor.

 

The caveats are now redundant.  The proprietor’s Solicitors needs to lodge the Withdrawal of Caveat form with the Land Titles Office to finalise the sales and permit transfer of the properties.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

As Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorising the Affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities.

 

 


 

Recommendation

 

That the Council’s Seal be affixed to the Withdrawal of Caveat form for the property at 46 White Avenue, Maroubra also known as Lot 713 in Deposited Plan 236610 and 42 Manwaring Avenue, Maroubra also known as Lot 764 in Deposited Plan 237149).

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF39/15

 

Subject:                  Application of Council's Code of Conduct - Precinct Committees

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 issues raised by 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.

 

Accordingly at its ordinary meeting held 28th July, Council resolved:-

 

“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

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

 

Concerns were raised by some Precinct Executives as to how the Code of Conduct is to be applied at Precinct Meetings. In response to these concerns, the General Manager gave an undertaking at the August Council meeting to meet with the Combined Precincts Group to discuss their concerns and formulate options for moving forward.

 

Issues

 

The General Manager met with the Combined Precincts Group on 9th September, 2015 to discuss their concerns about the Code of Conduct and to formulate options for moving forward so the Precincts can continue to serve the local communities in an efficient and equitable manner. The following three options have come from this meeting:-

 

 

 

Option1:

Council move to rescind the resolution of Council dated 30th August, 1994 which formed the Council Precinct Committees and further resolve to form new “Precinct Community Groups” which would function in much the same way as the former Precinct Committees. These Precinct Community Groups would operate under the recently adopted Precinct Rules & Procedures but not be bound by Council’s Code of Conduct as they are no longer Committees of Council under the Local Government Act.

 

Option 2:

That the Council resolution of 28th July, 2015 stands with the one exception which will require Council to resolve that the Code of Conduct will only apply to Precinct Executives and not all Precinct Committee members, for the purpose of clarifying this issue.

 

This resolution would be in accordance with the advice received from Senior Counsel that Council can amend its Code of Conduct and the definition of Committee Members so Precinct Committee members are excluded, as they are normally only turning up to participate in a community consultation process rather than carrying out the functions of the Executive Committee.

 

Option 3:

Council move to rescind the resolution of Council dated 30th August, 1994 which formed the Council Precinct Committees and further resolve to form new “Precinct Community Groups,” which would function in much the same way as the former Precinct Committees, but not be considered Committees of Council under the Local Government Act.

 

The Precinct Rules & Procedures would then be updated by the insertion of the relevant parts of Council’s Code of Conduct that are applicable to Precinct Executives. Whilst the Code of Conduct wouldn’t apply to Precinct Executives, the Rules & Procedures would be strengthened in terms of expected standards of behaviour for Executives.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 3:       An informed and engaged community.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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. It is hoped that the option for moving forward selected by Council will ensure the ongoing efficient and transparent running of our local Precincts.

 

The precincts are a vital community & communication link for the Council.  It was clear from the meeting of the Combined Precincts on 9 September 2015 that the overwhelming view is that everyone would appreciate the working relationship to be strengthened and reflect the position we were in 12 months ago.

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council resolved to adopt one of the three options outlined in this report to ensure the ongoing efficient and transparent running of our local Precinct meetings.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF40/15

 

Subject:                  Renewal of Community Partnership with the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service

Folder No:               F2009/00266

Author:                    David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services      

 

Introduction

 

At its ordinary meeting held 25th June, 2013 Council resolved:

 

“That Council enters into a Memorandum of Understanding, containing the initiatives outlined in this report, with the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service for the next three years by donating $15,000.00 per annum plus GST from the Contingency Fund.”

 

As the agreement commenced in October 2012, this agreement is due to expire in October 2015 and Council has again been approached by the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service to enter into another community partnership agreement at the same cost to Council.

 

Issues

 

A number of representatives from Council’s management team attended an onsite meeting on 3rd September, 2015 with representatives from the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service to discuss a number of potential new initiatives to further strengthen this community partnership for the benefit of both organisations. A summary of the potential initiatives is as follows:-

 

·      The conduct of a joint Open Day at Heffron Park, at a date to be determined by Council, which will showcase the services provided by the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service, other Emergency Services and Randwick City Council;

·      Re-launching the partnership in the media with a greater emphasis on the benefits of the partnership, including our organisations working together to increase water safety awareness, address the dangers of rock fishing in a collaborative and proactive way and promoting how well our organisations work together to conduct water rescues in the Randwick City area;

·      Increasing the profile of our community events, such as the Coogee Carols, by having the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service deliver Santa via a helicopter or fire engine;

·      Greater utilisation of social media to inform the community about what both organisations are doing; and

·      Council’s logo will remain on the helicopter under the new partnership agreement.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost to Council will be $15,000.00 per annum plus GST for three years.

 

Conclusion

 

The Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter service provides a very valuable service to Randwick’s residents and visitors and it is proposed that Randwick continues with this valuable community partnership which will incorporate a number of new initiatives as outlined in this report.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council enters into a Memorandum of Understanding, containing the initiatives outlined in this report, with the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service for the next three years at a cost of $15,000.00 per annum plus GST, with provision to be made in Council’s annual budget moving forward.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM44/15

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza -  Cyclist and pedestrian safety around Pioneer Park, Malabar

Folder No:               F2004/08338

Submitted by:         Councillor D'Souza, South Ward     

 

That, after a spate of near misses and accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians in the vicinity of Pioneer Park Malabar, Council:

 

a)     calls for a report on options available to Council to help reduce the very real danger to cyclists and pedestrians in the vicinity of Pioneer Park, Malabar;

 

b)     such options to include an inspection of the T-Junction at Cromwell Place and Franklin Street to see what can be done to make this danger spot safer, for example a Stop Sign at the corner so both cyclists and motorists will pause before turning left or right as well as other traffic calming devices such as speed bumps; and

 

c)     considers implementing a cycle safely education campaign to encourage both adults and children to obey both road and pathway rules so we can all enjoy the great outdoors together in harmony and without injury.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM45/15

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - role of Trade Unions

Folder No:               F2012/00347

Submitted by:         Councillor D'Souza, South Ward     

 

That Council:

 

a)     as a matter of urgency, writes to Hutchinson Ports to express our strong view that their attempted dismissal via text and email of 56 stevedores from its Port Botany operations was an attack on human dignity and was completely disrespectful  and that they should ensure  that in future they respect their employees' rights to work under just and favourable conditions, to free choice of employment and for protection against unfair dismissal;

 

b)     note both the important role trade unions play in our community and the large number of union members in the Randwick local government area; and

 

c)     unequivocally confirms its support for fairness for the unions involved in the Royal Commission.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM46/15

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Compensation to residents in Doncaster Ave, Kensington

Folder No:               F2013/00263

Submitted by:         Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward     

 

 

That Council make representations, on behalf of residents living in Doncaster Avenue, Kensington, who are affected by the future construction/operation of the light-rail stabling yard, requesting that the NSW State Government cover the cost of noise abatement measures. These abatement measures are to include sound-proofing, double-glazed glass and tree-planting.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM47/15

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stevenson - Domestic Violence Support Officer

Folder No:               F2013/00153

Submitted by:         Councillor Stevenson, Central Ward      

 

That Council establish and fund a position of Domestic Violence Support Officer in conjunction with the Salvation Army or other community groups to assist women and children who are victims of domestic violence in Randwick City and need assistance with emergency accommodation and with support during court appearances.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                22 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM48/15

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Blak Markets - Improved Parking Arrangements

Folder No:               F2015/00397

Submitted by:         Councillor Roberts, East Ward      

 

That Council:

 

a)     Notes the value the La Perouse Blak Markets provide for the wider and aboriginal community. 

 

b)     Investigate the parking arrangements at La Perouse on Blak Markets days, with a view to recommending improved parking arrangements for market patrons. 

 

c)     Notes the investigation would take into consideration all stake holders in the area. 

 

d)     Notes the investigation could include the option of 'special event' parking arrangements that reduce the maximum time allowed for parking on market days for parts of the La Perouse loop – promoting greater parking turn over and hence greater patronage of the Blak Markets.