RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 26 April 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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                                                                                                     26 April 2016

 

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, 26 April 2016 at 6:00 p.m.

 

 

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 - 22 March 2016

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 Councillor 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.

CP20/16    2 Wolseley Road, Coogee (DA/160/2011/B).............................................. 1

CP21/16    3a Gordon Ave, Coogee (DA/921/2015)................................................. 11

CP22/16    25 Meehan Street, Matraville (DA/916/2015)........................................... 15

General Manager's Report

GM5/16     Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan and Budget  2016-17.............. 27

Director City Services Report

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF13/16    Quarterly Budget Review - March 2016.................................................. 33

GF14/16    Investment Report - March 2016.......................................................... 55  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM11/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos – Proposal for an "Adopt-a-Road" Program 65

NM12/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson -  Recent inadequate and unsafe restoration of Council verge by NBN contractors................................................................... 67

NM13/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Recent Coogee Sewage overflow in a Council merger transition environment........................................................................ 69

NM14/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Public Submissions to the NSW Government Council Boundary Review............................................................................... 71

NM15/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Stevenson - Council Affordable Housing for Domestic violence victims............................................................................................ 73

NM16/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson -  Aboriginal artefacts at the Randwick Stabling Yard and the destruction of Trees along Anzac Parade..................................... 75

NM17/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Identifying a 5-a-side soccer facility location in Randwick LGA................................................................................... 77  

Closed Session

CS2/16      Tender for Installation of Telematics Hardware and Mounting Systems - T2016-21

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.

 

CS3/16      Tender for Coogee Beach Lower Promenade Building - T2016/09

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

 

 

CS4/16      Tender for Supply of Facility Maintenance at DRLC - T2016-17

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

 

CS5/16      Tender for the Provision of Security Services - T2016-02

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.

 

GM6/16     Notice of Failure to Comply With Code of Conduct Review Outcome

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.

  

Notice of Rescission Motion

NR4/16     Notice of Rescission Motion from Crs Shurey, Neilson and Belleli - Proposed amendments to Council's Hall Hire Policy.................................................................. 79  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     26 April 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP20/16

 

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

Folder No:                   DA/160/2011/B

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 application seeks to modify the original determination and the previous section 96 application by revising the staircase layout and seeking a roof terrace

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                X.Pace Design Group Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Elena Nova Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council as the original consent was determined by the Land and Environment Court on 9 December 2011.

 

 

 

 

Proposal

The Section 96 application seeks to modify the original determination and the previous section 96 application by revising the staircase layout and seeking a roof terrace measuring 25sqm.

Site history:

 

DA/160/2011

Development consent was provided by the Land and environment Court on 9 December 2011 for demolition of the existing building and construction of a part three part four level flat building comprising the following:

 

·      Basement level containing parking for 6 cars.

·      Ground floor consisting of foyer, garbage room; Plant Room and storage;

·      Level 1 consisting of one 3 bedroom unit with en-suite and study;

·      Level 2 consisting of one 3 bedroom unit with en-suite and study;

·      Level 3 consisting of one 3 bedroom unit with en-suite and study;

 

Figure 1: The proposed roof terrace is shown shaded apricot, it aligns with the roof of the neighbouring flat building to the south at No. 4 Wolseley Road.

 

DA/160/2011/A

Development consent was issued on 25 November 2014 at the Ordinary Council meeting for section 96 (AA) application to extend the size of the basement area, adding new mezzanine level in the void area above the basement level and various internal alterations

 

Site

 

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

 

At present, the site is occupied by a two storey brick dwelling with a tile roof. There is minimal vegetation on the site. To the rear is located a two storey residential flat building with an access handle running along the northern boundary of the subject site adjoining Neptune Park. To the south is a 3 storey residential flat building at No 4, and a 5 storey residential flat building at Nos. 6-8. To the north, is Neptune Park and across Wolseley Road is Grant Reserve and beyond that, Coogee Beach and the Pacific Ocean.

 

eview51266

Aerial view of the subject site

 

Street view of subject site and adjoining properties to the south at No. 2A Wolseley Road and No. and west. The adjoining land to the north is an access corridor to the rear apartment building at No. 2A Wolseley Road, Neptune Park shown and opposite side of the road is Trenerry Reserve.

 

Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

 

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 proposal remains substantially the same Development. In this respect, it is considered that the proposed changes will not result in a change to the nature of the original application and the changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which the consent was granted. The scope of modifications will remain consistent with the original consent.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

1/4 Wolseley Road Coogee

Issue

Comment

Causes additional overshadowing

The proposed development does not result in any significant overshadowing to the neighbouring properties.

Visual privacy impact

The terrace is well setback from the rear boundary and sufficiently setback from the southern elevation of the approved development to ensure no direct sightlines.

Acoustic privacy impact

The conditioned reduction in the size of the trafficable area and increased setback from the southern elevation will assist with minimising acoustic impacts.

Additional height

The balustrade of the terrace (to RL30.045) will have a maximum height of 10.65m above ground level existing (taken from RL19.35 shown on site analysis plan approved in the original application). The height of the terrace balustrade complies with the RLEP standard.

The modification will prolong the construction period

Suitable conditions have already been imposed on the original determination to ensure the site is appropriately managed in order to minimise the adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties during construction.

Several amendments represent a further example of stretching guidelines without due consideration for neighbours.

The proposed modifications remain substantially within the scope of the original development and therefore are able to be considered against the provisions of the relevant standards and controls that apply. This includes an assessment of the impacts from the proposed development on the streetscape and the amenity of neighbouring properties which are contained in the discussions in the key issues section of this report.

 

 

 

3/4 Wolseley Road Coogee

Issue

Comment

Causes additional size and non-provision of privacy screens is difficult to enforce

The size of the terrace has been reduced as a condition of consent and the resultant size will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the streetscape in relation to scale.

In relation to the provision of privacy screens, there are no privacy screens being installed as part of the application and it is considered that subject to compliance with the condition there is sufficient separation for the purposes of both visual and acoustic privacy protection.

Causes additional noise

The proposed development does not result in any significant overshadowing to the neighbouring properties.

 

Unidentified address

Issue

Comment

As a visually prime position, the design of all buildings on this site should be exemplary. The buildings should 'address' all aspects well from the north, south, east and west. Can you insist that an internationally recognised prize winning architect be commissioned?

The provisions of SEPP 65 required that the development be designed by a registered architect. This matter has been satisfied.

 

Key Issues

 

Building height

The RLEP standard is that the maximum height of the development not exceeds 12m and the RDCP control is that the maximum wall height be limited to a maximum of 10.5m above ground level (existing). The proposed balustrade will have a height of 10.25m (RL30.045) above the ground level (existing) - RL19.795 interpolated form the sections provided in the original application.

 

Roof design and visual and acoustic privacy

The proposed roof terrace is permissible under Cl 4.2vii) in Part C2 of the RDCP relating to Medium density development approved on site. The key objectives and controls are stated as follows:

 

Objectives

 

·      To ensure roof design integrates with the overall form, proportions and façade composition of the building.

·      To ensure any recreational use of the roof integrates with the built form and does not cause unreasonable privacy and noise impacts on the surrounding residences.

 

Control:

“vii) Terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces on the roof may be considered only if:

 

·      There are no direct sightlines to the habitable room windows and private and communal open space of the adjoining residences.

·      The size and location of terrace or deck will not result in unreasonable noise impacts on the adjoining residences.

·      Any stairway and associated roof do not detract from the architectural character of the building, and are positioned to minimise direct and oblique views from the street.

·      Any shading devices, privacy screens and planters do not adversely increase the visual bulk of the building.”

 

Ø No 2A Wolseley Road (rear of the site)

The proposed roof terrace will have a direct sightline to the habitable room windows of the flat building to the rear at No. 2A Wolseley Road. However for the purposes of visual privacy protection the proposed roof terrace is approximately 18m away from the neighbouring properties habitable room windows which is considered to be suitable separation for the purposes of privacy protection as referenced by Part 2F of the Apartment design guide requirements issued by the DPE.

 

Ø No 4 Wolseley Road (south of the site)

Living room

The proposed roof terrace is within 12m of the adjoining flat building at No. 4 Wolseley Road however the trafficable area is approximately 3.2m from the approved southern elevation which restricts the ability for a direct overlooking into this neighbour’s living room window as shown in figure 2 below. However the proposed terrace will have an outlook into this apartments bedroom window as assessed below.

 

Figure 2: Plan excerpt showing the 1.65m high sightlines above the living room window header of No. 4 Wolseley Road.

 

Bedroom

 

The proposed terrace will have an outlook within 12m of the north facing bedroom window of the upper level flat at No. 4 Wolseley Road which is due to the shorter setback from the southern eastern elevation of the approved development. In order to ensure no direct sightlines into this bedroom window a condition is included requiring a reduction in the trafficable area to a maximum of 4m wide by  2.5m deep as shown in figure 3 below. The reduced area ensures a sufficient setback from the south eastern elevation of the approved development whereby sightlines are generally restricted to those above the bedroom windows header from 1.5m sightline.

Figure 3: Plan excerpt roof terrace shows in red arrow the sightlines from the roof terrace into the bedroom of No. 4 Wolseley Road. Also shown is the reduction in the trafficable area of the roof terrace to maximum depth of 2.5m to the blue lines and the resultant 4m setback from the south eastern elevation.

 

Acoustic privacy

 

The objectives for acoustic privacy in Part C2 of the RDCP are stated as follows:

 

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

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

·      To ensure dwellings are designed to minimise impacts from significant exterior noise sources such as arterial roads, flight paths, industries and ports.

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

 

The proposed roof terrace as conditioned to be reduced in area in combination with the increased setbacks from the southern elevations reduces both the capacity for large groups of people to be entertained within this area and the potential for sleep disturbance.

 

View assessment

 

The applicant has used photos taken from units 9 & 10 of No. 251-261 Oberon Street during the assessment of the original application for the purposes of a view loss assessment of the proposed development. The photos below show that the iconic views of Wedding Cake Island are being retained from the high use living rooms and balconies of these neighbouring apartments. The view loss is minor and it is considered that the proposed development satisfies the matters required to be considered as set out in the planning principle for view sharing by the Land and Environment Court in the case of Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. The applicant also addresses the views loss likely to occur from unit 5/6 Wolseley Road as acceptable. It is noted that no submission have been received from these unit owners.

Sitting view from balcony of Unit 9/251-261 Oberon Street

 

Standing view from living room of Unit 9/251-261 Oberon Street. Red outline shows the approved development and the blue outline shows the proposed roof terrace.

Standing view from Unit 10/251-261 Oberon Street. Red outline shows the approved development and the blue outline shows the proposed roof terrace.

 

Having regard to the planning principle for view sharing, the views obtained from these apartments are of the ocean, an iconic view of Wedding Cake Island and the horizon view. These views are obtained from high use living and private open space areas. The extent of impact is minor and the likely impact will be reduced by the requirement for a reduction in the trafficable area of the roof terrace to 4m by 2.5m. The proposed roof terrace inclusive of balustrade will generally be consistent with the relevant controls and objectives in the RLEP and the RDCP having particular regard to building height, visual and acoustic privacy and solar access to neighbouring properties.

 

Overall, the proposed development is considered to be an appropriate form of development having regard to view sharing.

 

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 section 96 application has been assessed against relevant RLEP 2012 standards and Part C2 Medium Density Residential of the Randwick DCP 2013 and is considered to be acceptable subject to conditions being included. Approval of the section 96 modifications is recommended as it will be in line with the objectives of the abovementioned documents and will not result in any significant and unreasonable environmental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, views, site planning and privacy (as conditioned).

 

It is therefore considered that the proposed development is reasonable, subject to the recommended conditions attached to the DA compliance report.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify No. 160/2011 by revising the staircase layout and seeking a roof terrace at No. 2 Wolseley Road Coogee, in the following manner:

 

·              Amend Condition 1 to read:

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 2.01, 3.01 and 3.02 all revision A and all dated 28/09/11, the landscape plan LP-DA-01 Revision C dated 29/09/11, the application form and on any supporting information received with the   application, as amended by the following section 96 applications:

 

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

 

·              The Section 96 “B” plans titled basement plan, ground level plan, Level 1 plan, Level 2 plan, Level 3 plan, Roof plan, all dated 31.07.2015, plan number 1.00, 3.02 all received by Council on 3 August 2015.

 

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:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a        The roof terrace shall be reduced in depth to a maximum depth of 2.5m as measured from the northern end of the terrace and reduced in width to a maximum width of 4m as measured from the western side of the terrace. Details showing compliance with this condition shall be submitted to Councils Manager of Development Assessment for approval prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the section 96 modifications. Please note an access corridor from the amended stair layout to the amended trafficable roof terrace area is restricted to a maximum width of 1m.

 

b.       No umbrellas or awning structures are permitted on the roof terrace.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     26 April 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP21/16

 

Subject:                  3a Gordon Ave, Coogee (DA/921/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/921/2015

Author:                   Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including associated site and landscaping works

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Robinson Urban Planning PTY LTD

Owner:                        Ms T C Looby

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The application was referred to Council for determination as the cost of work is more than two (2) million.

 

Proposal

 

The applicant proposes alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house. In particular, single storied extensions are proposed on the northern and southern sides of the dwelling. A clerestory-style window is proposed window the original roof of the dwelling, new timber-framed windows are proposed on several faces of the dwelling, and internal layout changes are proposed. Solar panels are proposed on part of the roof of the dwelling house and the roof of an existing detached garage. External materials and finishes are proposed to include masonry, timber, sandstone, aged copper, and roof tiles.

 

The proposal includes associated site and landscaping works. In particular, the north-eastern corner of the site is to be redeveloped, additional retaining installed, weeds removed and replanting undertaken. A 2m high timber-clad shed is proposed within this area. Further, northern boundary fencing is proposed to be replaced with a 1.8m high timber-framed wire fence.

 

Site

 

The majority of the subject site sits at a lower level than the neighbouring residential sites. The site has a considerable slope to the south east towards Gordon’s Bay. The higher portion of the site is occupied by a dwelling which steps down the site over three levels, with one main roof line. The brick and timber clad dwelling was constructed in the 1970s. The lower portion of the site, closer to the coast, is occupied by a tennis court. The north-eastern corner of the site contains small to medium sized vegetation and a zig-zag walking track to the coast. A double garage is located within the south-western corner of the site. The site has driveway access but no street frontage to Gordon Avenue.   

 

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

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013

The proposal is generally compliant with the other relevant controls of the RCDCP 2013 (refer compliance report).

 

Retaining Walls within the Foreshore Building Line – Section B10

Cement rendered retaining walls are proposed within the foreshore building line area. This is non-compliant with Section B10 of the RCDCP 2013, which requires retaining within the foreshore area be sandstone finished. The proposed retaining walls directly face the coastal environment and the coastal walking track. Therefore, due to potential adverse visual amenity impacts resulting from multiple cement rendered retaining walls so close to and visible from the coastal environment, a condition of consent is recommended to require the retaining be sandstone or sandstone clad, which is a material naturally found within the coastal environment.

 

Foreshore Building Line – RLEP 2012

A foreshore building line runs across the site. A storage/garden shed is proposed within the foreshore area. The features on the site make it appropriate for a small shed to be erected within the foreshore area. In particular, although the site is large, limited space is available outside of the foreshore building line area and that space is proposed to be occupied by the dwelling, paths, landscaping and flat usable outdoor living areas. The proposed shed is small, only 2m high, will be partly recessed below ground level, will feature simple and non-reflective timber cladding and will be generally obscured from view of the coastal environment by existing and proposed vegetation. Further, a condition of consent is recommended to require retaining walls within the foreshore building line area to be sandstone or sandstone clad (as required by the RCDCP 2013). Therefore, the proposed shed will not be inconsistent with the objectives of the foreshore building line  (clause 6.6 of the RLEP 2012) as it will not impact on natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and amenity of the area.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP and Council’s policies and plans as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. The proposal is considered to result in no significant adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity of the locality and for adjoining residents and will not be inconsistent with the relevant objectives and criteria of the LEP 2012 and the RCDCP 2013.

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for approval.

 

 

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/921/2015 for Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including associated site and landscaping works. at No. 3a Gordon Ave, Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-standard conditions:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   The “cement rendered retaining walls” proposed to the north of the tennis court shall be constructed of sandstone or cladded with a 50mm thickness of sandstone.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 3A Gordon Avenue, Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     26 April 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP22/16

 

Subject:                  25 Meehan Street, Matraville (DA/916/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/916/2015

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new 2 storey attached dual occupancy.

Ward:                     South Ward

Applicant:                Ms L Li

Owner:                        25 Meehan St Matraville Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview32364.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application were assessed by external planning consultant and referred to Council for determination as an adjoining property owner is a Randwick City Council employee.

 

 

Proposal

 

It is proposed to:

 

§  Demolish the existing dwelling house and associated structures on the subject site.

§  Undertake minor earthworks.

§  Remove all existing vegetation and provide new landscaped surrounds, including the erection of a new front fence.

§  Construct an attached dual occupancy, with each dwelling consisting of three (3) bedrooms plus a study and an attached single garage.

 

A subdivision plan accompanies the subject DA which indicates two (2) Torrens Title lots, one having an area of 254.7sqm and the other having an area of 255.97sqm.  However, the applicant has advised that the subject DA does not propose land subdivision.  Accordingly a condition is recommended to be included in a consent to ensure that no approval is granted to a subdivision scheme,  particularly that indicated on Drawing Arch – 13 (Issue 1 dated 16 December 2015).

 

Site

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 21 in DP 24551 and addressed as 25 Meehan Street, Matraville. It is located on the eastern side of Meehan Street and has a 15.24m frontage to this street. The side boundaries are 38.1m to the north and 21.945m to the south. The total area of the site, indicated on the submitted survey, is 510.7sqm.

 

The subject site consists of a single storey dwelling house of fibro construction, with a pitched, tiled roof.  Contours provided on the submitted survey plan indicate that the site has a distinct fall from the front boundary to the rear boundary of approximately 4.4m and consequently the rear of the existing dwelling is raised above the existing ground level. A set of steps provides access from the rear backyard to a balcony that extends across the rear elevation.

 

There is vehicular access that extends from Meehan Street and along the northern side of the Site which leads to a detached garage at the rear corner of the site.

 

Paving is limited to the two concrete strips that form the driveway.  A paling fence extends behind the front building line setback, along the side boundaries, as well as along the rear boundary. Fencing forward of the front building line consists of a metal fence. The front fence along the front boundary is low lying.

 

The subject site is located within a residential area characterised by one to two storey, detached dwelling houses. The dwellings vary from contemporary to traditional in style.

 

The property known as 22 Meehan Street adjoins the subject site to the north. It is similar in size to the subject site and consists of a single storey fibro residential dwelling, with a pitched tiled roof.  There is an in-ground pool at the rear of this property.

 

The property known as 32 Hilary Parade adjoins the subject site to the south. The property consists of a more recently constructed, contemporary, two-storey dwelling house.  The property is located on the corner of Meehan Street and Hillary Parade.

 

There are two (2) properties that adjoin the subject site to the east.  The side boundary of property known as 34 Hilary Parade abuts most of the rear of the site.  It has an opposite orientation to the subject site.  A minor length of the rear of the subject site (further north) abuts the property known as 1159 Anzac Parade.  Each adjoining property contains a detached dwelling house. 

 

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:

 

·      1165 Anzac Pde, Matraville

·      1157 Anzac Pde, Matraville

·      34 Hillary Pde, Matraville

·      32 Hillary Pde, Matraville

 

Issues

Comments

1165 Anzac Pde, Matraville.

 

-    No issues with development proceeding.

Noted

1157 Anzac Pde, Matraville

 

Loss of Privacy

-    Loss of privacy from large, upper level balconies.  They can hold a large number of people and therefore a lot of noise will easily carry into neighbouring properties.

 

-    Rear balconies will enable overlooking into backyard, outdoor area, rear internal lounge recreation area and back patio of 1157 Anzac Parade.

 

-    We would like a reduction to both balcony sizes and measures of privacy to be put in place.

 

-    We would also ask for hedge planting along the fence line to 1157 Anzac Parade to a height that would afford privacy in the backyard, back room and back patio without reducing light availability.

 

 

Lighting Nuisance

-    Lighting of balcony should be sympathetic so as not to shine into 1157.

 

 

Loss of Privacy

Refer to the discussion below.  The recommended measures will minimise the impact to ensure a reasonable outcome, particularly given the aspects listed below. 

 

-    The property 1157 Anzac Parade is located diagonally across, further northeast from the subject site. 

 

-    The balconies would be setback an ample distance from this property to minimise impacts. 

 

-    The rear boundaries of properties along Anzac Parade (adjacent to the site) consist of trees that will provide some screening.

 

-    A condition is recommended to require evergreen screen planting to be provided along the northern side boundary, close to the site’s rear corner.

 

Lighting Nuisance

It is recommended that a condition be included in a consent to ensure lighting faces downwards and away from neighbouring properties so as not to cause a nuisance.

34 Hillary Parade, Matraville

 

Loss of Privacy

-      Negative impact on backyard amenity due to loss of privacy as proposed upper level balconies will overlook yard.

-      First Level balconies should be no higher in elevation than existing.

No concerns are raised to the upper level balcony of Unit 1 given:

-       It will be setback an ample distance from the rear boundary.

-       A blade wall will extend along its southern side.

-       It will not be accessible from a main living area.

-       A 1.8m high privacy screen will be provided along the northern side.

-       The proposed rear deck at ground level will be approx. 230mm lower in level to the existing.

 

To minimise the impact of the upper level balconies of Unit 2, a condition is recommended to require:

 

-       The master bedroom balcony be reduced in size to have a maximum 1m depth (max.).

-       Screening be provided along the southern side of the master bedroom balcony of Unit 2.  It should  wrap around the southeast corner by at least 600mm. 

-       The sitting room balcony of Unit 2 be deleted.

 

The reduction in depth will minimise use and restrict the provision of any tables on the balcony, and the screening will direct views away from the private courtyard located to the eastern side of the neighbouring garage.

 

Reference is made to the living room balcony of Unit 2.  The applicant has provided amended plans to delete the balcony further south (adjacent to 32 Hilary Parade) and provide a more useable balcony further north, mostly screened to the southern side by a wall.  A condition is recommended to require screening along the unscreened section of the south side.

 

The existing, raised deck already enables overlooking into 32 Hilary Parade.  The amended proposal will improve the impact, given the above discussed screening, setback further from the side boundary and reduction in area in comparison to the existing.

 

An existing tree provides some screening.  It is recommended that screen planting be provided along the southern boundary adjacent to the location of the balcony steps (i.e. closer to the sites rear corner). A condition is recommended accordingly.

 

No concerns are raised to the kitchen and dining room balcony of Unit 1.  A blade wall will extend along its southern side and a privacy screen is proposed along its northern side.

32 Hillary Parade, , Matraville

 

Overshadowing

-    Current shadow diagrams are insufficient to determine impacts.  I would like to peruse elevation views to see the impact on our north facing windows and recreational area.

 

-    Our home currently captures morning and midday sun in our main living area.  We get afternoon sun on western deck (laundry drying area) and photovoltaic and solar cells on front roof. As we adhere to sustainable living practices, we have a vegetable/herb garden, aquaponics fish pond, compost bin and worm farm in our back yard that will suffer if they receive little sun due to overshadowing. Perhaps floor-to-ceiling reduced to 2.7m or building built lower into ground to reduce bulk/scale and overshadowing.

 

Maximum wall height

-    The development relies on a wall height of 8m in contravention of the DCP control of 7m.  This is a gently sloping site not steeply sloping site and therefore we believe an 8m maximum is inappropriate and will contribute to greater impacts.

 

Setbacks

-    Setback are not clear.  Require further information.  We do not want the building closer than the setbacks as per Council guidelines.  Couples with the non-compliant wall height, encroachments into the requirement will only exacerbate overshadowing.

 

Loss of Privacy

-    Massive increase in occupants will dramatically affect our privacy.

 

-    Frangipani tree will be chopped down, which along with our 50 year old Camellia bush offer a natural form of visual privacy.

 

-    The balcony closest to us in not most ideal solution.  The slant gives residents full view of our activities.  We ask that visual privacy screens be required on both balconies of Unit 2.

 

-    We require windows on southern elevation to be frosted and not clear glass.

 

Frangipani Tree

-    We ask that the Frangipani tree in the south eastern corner be retained and both the Frangipani and Camelia Tree be protected including the root system.

 

Loss of On-street Parking

-    The driveway potentially eliminates an on-street space.

 

Flooding

-    The property has a history of flooding.  There may need to be retaining walls or additional drainage measures.

 

Asbestos Removal

-    We want every precautions taken to remove the current building in a safe manner.

 

 

Overshadowing

-    Additional shadow diagrams have been submitted by the applicant.  They include elevation shadow diagrams and diagrams by the hour.

 

-    A floor-to-ceiling height of 2.5m - 2.7 m is proposed.  (NB:  The plans indicate a floor-to-floor heights in some cases).  Reduction of the floor-to-ceiling by 0.1mm will be of little benefit to the impact and contrary to the objective to provide good internal amenity as 2.5m is already below the standard requirement of the DCP.

 

-    No concerns are raised to the proposed shadows, particularly given: the southern location of the neighbouring site; compliance of the proposal with the building envelope controls (except for a minor setback at ground level which would be of no consequence);  the solar panels will be overshadowed by the roof form of 32 Hillary Parade in the morning then just before 10am there will be a minor additional impact to the northern end which will slightly increase and then dissipate by 2pm.  Ample solar access and unaffected panels will be provided in winter.

 

(NB: The approved DA plans of the dwelling house at 32 Hilary Parade (DA 908/10) indicate the solar panels on the northern roof hip not on the existing west facing hip. 

 

Maximum wall height

The application of the 8m wall height is appropriate in this case as the site has a fall of 3m along the southern boundary and 4.55m along the northern boundary.

 

The applicant has amended the plans to ensure the scheme achieves strict compliance with the 8m height limit.

 

Setbacks

The only variance is along part of the side setback of Unit 2 to the southern side boundary.  The variance is at ground level. A setback of 1.15m-2.4m is proposed.  This represents a variance of 0.05m to the minimum 1.2m requirement.

 

The variance to the ground level side setback is satisfactory as:

 

-    It is very minor.

 

-    It represents the absolute minimum given the angled side boundary.  The setback increases progressively to 2.4m given the angling of the side boundary.

 

-    A condition is included in the recommendation, which will require narrowing of the driveway to retain an “on street” car space.

 

The proposed setbacks are discussed further in the accompanying Compliance Report.

 

Loss of Privacy

The privacy impacts of the balconies have been discussed above.

 

The windows on the southern elevation will be bathroom windows.  A condition is recommended to require them to consist of translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing.

 

The existing, raised deck already enables overlooking into 32 Hilary Parade.  The amended proposal will improve the impact, given the above discussed dining room balcony deletion, screening, further setback from the side boundary and reduction in area and slight drop in level in comparison to the existing situation.

 

An existing tree provides some screening.  It is recommended that screen planting be provided along the southern boundary adjacent to the location of the balcony steps (i.e. closer to the site’s rear corner). A condition is recommended accordingly.

 

No concerns are raised to the kitchen and dining room balcony of Unit 1.  A blade wall will extend along its southern side and a privacy screen is proposed along its northern side.

 

The on-site density will not result in an excessive impact as to require any specific noise attenuation measures.  The development type constitutes a ‘low density’ development which is permissible under the Low Density Residential R2 zone.  Compliance with the floor space ratio standard verifies that the proposed density is appropriate. 

Photo 1: View of 32 Hillary Parade from southern side of the existing rear deck.

 

Photo 2: View of 32 Hillary Parade from southeast corner at the landing of the existing rear deck.

 

Frangipani Tree

No concerns are raised concerning the tree removal.  The privacy implications will be reasonably controlled.  As discussed above, the scheme has been amended to remove the balcony originally proposed adjacent to the southern side boundary.  In addition, a condition is recommended to require replacement screen planting at the south-east corner and southern side (opposite the balcony steps of Unit 2), as well as screening along the unscreened southern side of the amended balcony.  Conditions are recommended to ensure neighbouring trees are protected during works.

 

Loss of On-street Parking

The minimum length for an on-street parallel space in accordance with AS 2890.1: 2004 is 5.9m.  The existing maximum crossing width is approximately 4.6m.  This is representative of the loss of 1 car space.  The proposed crossing will be approximately 7m.  This is representative of the loss of an extra car space.  To avoid this loss, a condition is recommended to require the crossing to be no more than 5.9m in width at the kerb. 

 

Flooding

A stormwater drainage concept plan accompanies the subject DA.  It indicates an OSD system.  Council’s Engineer has reviewed the scheme and has not raised any concerns in relation to this.  Conditions are recommended to be included in a consent to require final details to be submitted with an application for a construction certificate.

 

Asbestos Removal

Conditions are recommended to be included in a consent to ensure measures are adopted and removal is in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard.

 

Key Issues

 

Loss of Privacy

The privacy impacts of the proposed dwellings on the neighbouring properties to the south and east (32 and 34 Hilary Parade) have been discussed in the table above. Conditions are recommended to ensure impacts are minimised and reasonable.  

 

To minimise the overlooking impacts on the neighbouting property to the north (23 Meehan Street), a condition is recommended to require:

 

§    Translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing to the study room and kitchen windows of Unit 1 to at least a height of 1.5m from finished floor level.

§    A privacy screen along the northern side of the rear balcony of Unit 1 at ground level, i.e. fixed, minimum of 1.5m high, with the total area of openings not exceeding 25% of the area of the screen.

 

Overshadowing

The proposed additional shadows on the neighbouring property to the south, known 32 Hilary Parade, Matraville, are reasonable given:

 

§    The neighbouring property is located to the south of the subject site and therefore any expectation of avoiding an impact from a two storey, compliant, built form is unreasonable.

§    The proposal is compliant with building envelope controls such a floor space ratio, building height, external wall height, landscaped area, site cover and setbacks , except for a minor setback section at ground level which will be of no consequence to the additional overshadowing impact.

§    The window on the north elevation of 32 Hilary Parade does not serve a main living area but a guest bedroom (as marked on the approved plans of Development Application No. 908/2010).  It will receive some solar access in the morning and then again in the afternoon for about an hour.  The same room is also served by another window on the east elevation which will receive ample sunlight in the morning.

§    The row of solar panels at 32 Hilary Parade will be overshadowed by the roof form of 32 Hillary Parade in the morning.  Just before 10am there will be a minor additional impact on the northern end of the row of panels (i.e. impacting on less than one panel).  The impact will slightly increase to not more than 2.5 panels and then dissipate by 2pm.  As such, ample solar access and unaffected panels will be provided in winter.

§    Over three (3) hours of solar access will be maintained to the rear yard of 32 Hilary Parade during June 21.

§    The building height (maximum RL) and floor-to-ceiling heights are appropriate.  The building height is complaint (i.e. with the overall building height standard of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP) and external wall height control of Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013) and comparable to that of the built form at 32 Hilary Parade, i.e. it is slightly lower and creates a desirable, stepped transition from 32 Hilary Parade to 23 Meehan Street.  The floor-to-ceiling heights are proposed to achieve the minimum requirement, or be 0.1m to 0.2m below the minimum (in the case of the lower and upper levels respectively).  Further reductions are not favoured as they would not be in the interest of the internal amenity of the proposed dwellings, i.e. to facilitate light access and natural ventilation.  The current proposal represents a fair balance between the on-site amenity and impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

Car Parking

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RCDCP 2013) requires two (2) car spaces per dwelling. The proposal provides one (1) car space per dwelling.  This is accepted in this case given:

 

§   A second off-street car space within the front building line setback will require the proposed garage slab levels to be raised to achieve the gradients required, as advised by Council’s Development Engineer.  This would increase the overall building height and external wall height to result in non-compliances to the currently proposed compliant situations.  The increase in height will add to the additional overshadowing impact on the neighbouring property at 32 Hilary Parade, which is not a favoured outcome or in the public interest. 

§   The provision of a car parking space forward of the front building line is not a preferred outcome given the visual impact.

§   The shape and size of the site does not provide an opportunity for a tandem garage per dwelling.  This would adversely impact on the available main living area at ground level.  To compensate for this, the dwelling would either have to be extended further to the rear, or living areas relocated at an upper level.  In both cases there would be additional privacy implications in comparison to the proposed impact.  An extension to the rear would result in an inconsistent rear building line.

§   Part 4.3-Additional Provisions for Attached Dual Occupancies of RCDCP 2013 requires built forms to have parking that is a single garage width.  Double garage for each dwelling would not comply with this and dominate the streetscape.  In addition, the driveway crossing would need to be extended, which would result in the loss of additional on-street parking in comparison to the proposed situation.  The on-site hard paving would be necessitated for an extended driveway resulting in the loss of landscaped area.  This would be contrary to Part 4.3 which requires ‘landscape planting at front’ to be maximised.

§   There are on-street car spaces available within the immediate vicinity.  The recommended reduction to the vehicular crossing will protect one car space, which can be consumed by any demands created by the proposed development.

 

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 development complies with the relevant development standards prescribed under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.  Despite its non-compliance with the car parking requirement of Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 it represents a fair outcome in terms of its streetscape impact and amenity impacts on neighbouring properties, subject to the provision of the above discussed measures, particularly with respect to privacy.  They are recommended to be required by way of condition in a development consent.  Accordingly the subject development application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

 

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. 863/2015 for demolition works and the construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy development, at No. 25 Meehan Street, Matraville, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.     a.       No approval is granted to the subdivision of the approved dual occupancy development, particularly that indicated on Drawing Arch – 13 (Issue 1 dated 16 December 2015).

 

b.       In addition to the privacy screens indicated on the approved plans,  the following privacy screens shall be provided:

 

§   Screening along the southern side of the master bedroom balcony of Unit 2.  It should wrap around the south-east corner. 

§   Screening along the unscreened southern side of the living room balcony of Unit 2.

§   Screening along northern side of the rear balcony of Unit 1 at ground level.

 

All privacy screens must have a height of 1.5m from the finished floor level.  The total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Details are to be indicated on the Construction Certificate plans to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority.

 

c.       The following amendments shall be made and indicated on the Construction Certificate Plans to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority:

 

§   The master bedroom balcony of Unit 2 is to be reduced in size to have a maximum 1m depth (maximum).

§   The sitting room balcony of Unit 2 is to be deleted.

§   Provision of translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing to the bathroom windows on the south elevation.

§   Provision of translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing to the study room and kitchen windows of Unit 1 to a height of at least 1.5m from finished floor level.

§   Each inward opening door within the garage is to be replaced by a sliding door. 

 

d.       The vehicular crossing at the kerb must not be more than 5.9m in width at the kerb.  The driveway may taper over the footpath. Details are to be included with the Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 25 Meehan Street, Matraville

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     26 April 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

General Manager's Report No. GM5/16

 

Subject:                  Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan and Budget 2016-17

Folder No:                   F2016/03004

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

 

Introduction

 

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

 

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

 

·           a Long Term Financial Plan

·           an Asset Management Strategy

·           a Workforce Plan.

 

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

 

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

 

Each Operational Plan outlines the activities for the forthcoming year and includes key budget information. This year’s Operational Plan 2016-17 is the fourth and final plan to be derived from the current Delivery Program.

 

Towards the end of 2015, and in the preparation of the Operational Plan 2016-17, Council engaged the City’s precinct committees in a series of conversations about their funding priorities. The priorities identified through these and other consultation activities were incorporated into our planning and budget deliberations.

 

The Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2016-17 meets the requirements of s.404 and s.405 of the Local Government Act 1993 which specify the information that is to be included in a Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

 

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

Issues

 

The Draft Operational Plan 2016-17 is aligned to The Draft Randwick City Council Budget 2016-17, which is a detailed draft estimate of income and expenditure and the draft Statement of Fees, Charges and Pricing Policy. Each of these three documents are provided under separate cover.

 

 

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

 

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

 

Our Themes:

Responsible management

A sense of community

Places for people

A prospering City

Moving around

Looking after our environment

 

The final section ‘Our Budget ‘2016-17’, contains all of the statutory information required in the Local Government Act, including Council’s 2016-17 Revenue Policy.

 

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

 

Changes in Delivery Program

The four-year 2013-17 Delivery Program is presented in each one-year Operational Plan. Each year the Delivery Program is reviewed to ensure its currency with changing circumstances. No changes to the 2013-17 Delivery program are proposed from this review.

 

Public exhibition

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

 

We are planning to advertise this ‘exhibition period’ in the Southern Courier, as a subject of the Mayoral column, as a media release, and online, with a click through link to Council’s webpage; on priority local bus shelters as a timetable poster; through our website; e-news and social media such as the Your Say Randwick specialised consultation website www.yoursayrandwick.com.au/budget2017, the myRANDWICK smart phone app, twitter and facebook.

 

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

 

Budget 2016-17

The Draft 2016-17 Budget has been compiled in accordance with the Council’s adopted Resourcing Strategy (Asset Management Plans, Workforce Strategy and Long Term Financial Plan).

 

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

 

Table 1: Use of funds

Expenditure type

Amount ($)

Employee costs

59,882,386

Materials and contracts

35,123,675

Net capital expenditure

33,021,412

Other operating expenses

15,798,526

Net savings for future years

1,547,021

Total

145,373,020

Table 2: Source of funds

Revenue type

Amount ($)

Rates and annual charges

106,081,277

User fees and charges

17,181,664

Grants and contributions

11,539,687

Other revenues

8,393,874

Interest

2,189,724

Total

145,386,226

The proposed Budget for 2016-17 is balanced and sustainable, with a surplus of $13,206.

 

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

 

Rates

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

 

In June 2013, IPART approved a Special Variation to General Income for Randwick City of 3.59 per cent, per year, for four years, aligning with the 2013-17 Delivery Program. In line with this pre-approved variation, rates will increase by 3.59 per cent in 2016-17.

 

Environmental Levy

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

 

Buildings for Our Community

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

 

Domestic Waste Management Charge

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

 

The domestic waste management charge is proposed to increase from $529.05 to $543.00 for each residential service in 2016-17.

 

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

 

Stormwater Management Service Charge

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1a:      Council has a long term vision based on sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

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

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan and Budget 2016-17 have been prepared as the fourth and final subset of the current Delivery Program and outline the activities of the forthcoming year.

 

Following Council’s consideration of the Draft Operational Plan, it will be placed on public exhibition over the period from 3 to 30 May 2016, providing the community with time and information to consider the proposed activities.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)       the Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2016-17, which includes the 2016-17 Budget and associated Fees and Charges be placed on public exhibition for not less than 28 days, from 3 to 30 May, inviting submissions from the public;

 

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

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2016-17

 

2.

Link to the Draft Randwick City Council Budget 2016-17

 

3.

Link to the Draft Randwick City Council pricing Policy and Schedule of Fees and Charges 2016-17

 

    


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     26 April 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_BLUE SPOT_RGB 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF13/16

 

 

Subject:                  Quarterly Budget Review - March 2016

Folder No:                   F2015/00184

Author:                   Mitchel Woods, Manager Corporate and Financial Planning      

 

Introduction

 

As part of the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework for NSW Local Governments, the Office of Local Government has a set of minimum reporting requirements for Councils, in order for them to facilitate progress reporting against the original and revised annual budgets at the end of each quarter.

 

Collectively, these documents are known as the Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) and are reported to council in accordance with the relevant legislation at the end of each quarter.

 

Section 203(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that at the end of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that indicates the latest estimates of income and expenditure for the 2015-16 year.

 

The regulation (Section 203 (2)) also requires that the budget review statement must include, or be accompanied by:

 

I.      A report as to whether or not the Responsible Accounting Officer believes that the Statement indicates that the financial position of the Council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure; and

II.     If that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

 

Issues

 

This report is a review of the Council’s 2015-16 current budget and recommends adoption of a revised budget for the 2015-16 financial year.

 

It proposes variations to Council’s adopted budget, which will result in a projected budget surplus at year end of $38,571.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1a:      Council has a long term vision based on sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The proposed variations in this report and listed in the attachment will result in a projected budget surplus at year end of $38,571.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Manager Corporate and Financial Planning, as the Responsible Accounting Officer, advises that the projected financial position is satisfactory.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the report in relation to the March 2016 Budget Review be received and noted; and

 

b)     the proposed March 2016 budget variations shown in the attachment to this report be adopted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS) - March 2016

 

 

 

 


Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS) - March 2016

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     26 April 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_BLUE SPOT_RGB 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF14/16

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - March 2016

Folder No:                   F2015/06527

Author:                   Gail  Johnston, Financial Operations Accountant     

 

Introduction

 

The Local Government (General) Regulation requires a written report to be provided to the ordinary meeting of the Council giving details of all monies invested and a certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Act, the regulations and the Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Issues

 

Council is authorised by s625 of the Local Government Act to invest its surplus funds. Funds may only be invested in the form of investment notified by Order of the Minister dated 12 January 2011. The Local Government (General) Regulation prescribes the records that must be maintained in relation to Council’s Investment Policy.

 

The table in this report titled “Investment Register – March 2016” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of March 2016. All investments have been made in accordance with the Act, Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Investment Commentary

 

As at 31 March 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $73.56 million. The portfolio value decreased during March by ~$5.649 million. The decrease is representative of a negative cash flow for the month reflecting the net effect of revenue receipts (rates, grants & miscellaneous) offset by capital works expenditure and other operational payments.

 

The size of the investment portfolio may vary significantly from month to month as a result of cash flows for the period. Cash outflows (expenditure) are typically relatively stable from one month to another. Cash inflows (income) are cyclical and are largely dependent on the rates instalment due dates and the timing of grant payments including receipts of the Financial Assistance Grants.

 

 

The following graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from July 2012 to March 2016. Peaks are representative of the rates instalment periods.

 

Council’s Portfolio

 

The portfolio has high levels of liquidity with 9% of investments available at call and a further 23% of assets maturing within 3 months. Council also currently has a number of senior FRNs as additional cover for liquidity requirements (accessible within 3 business days)

 

The investment portfolio is diversified across a number of investment types and is spread across the higher rated ADIs. The various investment types may include term deposits, floating rate notes, on-call accounts and covered notes.

 

The following graph indicates the allocation of investment types held at the end of March 2016. The portfolio is dominated by term deposits (54% of the portfolio) with the higher rated ADI’s. Credit assets (FRNs) are around 37% 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 February 2013 to March 2016.

 

 

 

Investment performance for the financial year to date is above the industry benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index with an average return after fees of 3.12% compared with the benchmark index of 2.34%.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate remained unchanged at 2.00% at the 5 April 2016 meeting.

 

Term Deposits

 

At month end, deposits accounted for 54% of the total investment portfolio.

Five deposits totaling $9 million matured and were withdrawn. Four new term deposits were invested for a total of $5 million.

As at the end of March, the weighted average deposit yield stood at 3.14%, down 3bp from the previous month or around +75bp over bank bills.

    

Floating Rate Notes (FRNs)

 

The portfolio includes $26.9 million in floating rate notes.

 

These investments are classified as “held for trading” requiring that they are reported at the latest indicative market valuations at month end.

 

The indicative market value of the FRNs increased by ~$65k as at the end of March.

 

On 4 March 2016 Council purchased the newly issued 5 year senior Rabobank (A+) FRN at +150bp over, 10bp yield premium to wholesale equivalents of similar credit rating.

 

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 March 2016 amounted to $1,745,071.77

 

Certification – Responsible Accounting Officer

 

I hereby certify that all investments as at 31 March 2016 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 March 2016 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the investment report for March 2016 be received and noted.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     26 April 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM11/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposal for an "Adopt-a-Road" Program

Folder No:                   F2012/00347

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward      

 

 

That Council bring back a report investigating the feasibility of introducing an "Adopt-a-Road"program, similar to other programs operating in other Local Government Areas across NSW.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     26 April 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM12/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson -  Recent inadequate and unsafe restoration of Council verge by NBN contractors

Folder No:                   F2012/00378

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council notes the recent inadequate and unsafe restoration of the verge outside 60 Canberra Street resulting from the NBN roll out and seeks assurances that a higher standard for work will be implemented by Government contractors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     26 April 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM13/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Recent Coogee Sewage overflow in a Council merger transition environment

Folder No:                   F2004/07928

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council responds to the recent Coogee Beach sewage overflow by:

 

1)  reviewing its community service announcement procedures to ensure that the Coogee Precinct Committee, local Chamber of Commerce, east ward Councillors and general beach goers receive rapid alerts of future occurrences;

 

2)  clarifying whether the breakdown was responsibility of Council or Sydney Water;

 

3)  advising East Ward Councillors of any need to commit funds in the coming Council draft budget to infrastructure improvement at the beach to prevent a repeat incident in the next summer swimming season; and

 

4)  ensuring that ongoing preparations by Randwick’s Transition Working Group in preparation for the anticipated new eastern suburbs Council maintain any beach sewerage upgrades initiated by the three current Councils.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     26 April 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM14/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Public Submissions to the NSW Government Council Boundary Review

Folder No:                   F2008/00461

Submitted by:          Councillor Moore, West Ward      

 

 

That Randwick City Council calls upon the Minister for Local Government to make public the submissions received both through the public enquiry and provided in writing in response to the NSW Government Council Boundary Review.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     26 April 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM15/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stevenson - Council Affordable Housing for Domestic violence victims

Folder No:                   F2013/00153

Submitted by:          Councillor Stevenson, Central Ward      

 

 

That Council update the affordable housing strategy to include a provision that council prioritize the availability of affordable housing to victims of domestic violence who are required to have accommodation as a requirement for the custody of their children and that this accommodation be available for periods up to 12 months.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     26 April 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM16/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson -  Aboriginal artefacts at the Randwick Stabling Yard and the destruction of Trees along Anzac Parade

Folder No:                   F2013/00263

Submitted by:          Councillor Neilson, North Ward      

 

 

Randwick City Council urgently write to the Premier and TfNSW expressing concern about the lack of respect shown to our Indigenous and Environmental heritage during the construction of the Light Rail particularly regarding the Randwick Stabling Yard and the destruction of the Morton Bay Figs along Anzac Parade and urge an immediate stop to all works in an effort to more extensively preserve our Indigenous Heritage and to protect the environmental of Anzac Parade and further:

·      Noting that the Randwick Stabling Yard is within an area considered “most likely” to find Aboriginal artefacts according to 2013 Environmental Impact Assessment.

·      Already over 45,000 artefacts have reportedly been uncovered at this site

·      Extended time must be afforded to allow understanding of how Aboriginal tribes travelled, traded and interacted between one other.

·      Anzac Parade was previously called Randwick Road and the significance of this Parade both environmentally and also to our service men and women must be protected.

The Randwick Stabling Yard and Anzac Parade are vitally significant to Randwick City’s Heritage and we demand it be protected.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     26 April 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM17/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Identifying a 5-a-side soccer facility location in Randwick LGA

Folder No:                   F2012/00347

Submitted by:          Councillor Roberts, East Ward      

 

 

That Council:

 

1.   note the closure of the 5-a-side soccer facility formerly located at Kensington Bowls Club;

2.   note the new facilities at the synthetic field at Heffron Park are not a replacement to the lost facilities formerly at Kensington Bowls Club, as the dimensions are different and there’s no court boundary fences, amongst other differences;

3.   investigates possible Council controlled locations where a like-for-like facility could be built, and bring back a report detailing such locations;

4.   note a potential location could be the north western part of Heffron Park; and

5.   note any potential facility would be built and operated at the cost of a service provider, after a tender process, and any such facility would pay a market rent to Council for the use of the land. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                     26 April 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Notice of Rescission Motion No. NR4/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Rescission Motion from Crs Shurey, Neilson and Belleli - Proposed amendments to Council's Hall Hire Policy

Folder No:                   F2004/07674

Submitted by:          Councillor  Shurey, North Ward; Councillor Neilson, North Ward; Councillor Belleli, South Ward      

 

That the resolution passed at the Council meeting held on 22 March 2016 reading as follows:

 

“That Council remove the prohibition on the consumption of alcohol at the Coogee Eastward Senior Citizens Centre from its Hall Hire Policy effective immediately.”

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

If the Rescission Motion is carried, it is intended to move the following motion:

 

“That the no alcohol restrictions cannot be overturned without appropriate and usual consultation.”