RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 24 May 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                                                                                                          24 May 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, 24 May 2016 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 - 26 April 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.

CP23/16    2 Pearce Street, South Coogee (DA/561/2015)....................... 1

CP24/16    65 Willis Street & 27 Meeks Street, Kingsford (DA/795/2015) 23

CP25/16    1 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick (DA/99/2016)....................... 45

CP26/16    13 Cairo Street, South Coogee (DA/731/2014/A).................. 57

CP27/16    11 Bond Street Maroubra (DA/535/2015/B)......................... 61

CP28/16    26 Wentworth Street, Randwick (DA/640/2014/A)................ 69

CP29/16    7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/851/2015).................. 73

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP30/16    Report for variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 11 March 12 May, 2016....................................... 107

CP31/16    Post Exhibition Report: Planning Proposal 270 Malabar Road, Maroubra......................................................................... 111

CP32/16    Randwick Junction Town Centre Issues Paper..................... 115

CP33/16    Randwick City Sporting Walk of Fame Committee............... 123

CP34/16    Affordable Housing Dwelling at Lots 1, 15 and 18 in Strata Plan (SP) 89412, 33 Harvey Street, Little Bay.  Classification of Land under the Local Government Act 1993............................... 125

General Manager's Reports

GM8/16     Review of the Randwick City Council 2015-16 Operational Plan – March Quarter.................................................................. 129

GM9/16     Submission to Council Boundary Review - Botany Bay Proposal...................................................................................... 175

Director City Services Report

CS6/16     Malabar Headland - Western Walking Track - Community Consultation.................................................................... 179

Director Governance & Financial Services Report

GF15/16   Investment Report - April 2016......................................... 211  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM18/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson -  Increased impacts on Kensington and Kingsford residents from the planned St Peters M5 motorway interchange................................................. 221

NM19/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Potential legal challenge reflecting Heffron MP’s advice re clause B43 of the consent for the recently approved Stage 2 of the WestConnex motorway 223

NM20/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - NSW Government decision to introduce a 10 cent levy on beverage containers................. 225

NM21/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - Planned redevelopment of Bondi Pavilion.................................................................. 227

NM22/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson – Unique opportunity to recreate tree canapy losses from CSELR construction works 229

NM23/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson – Potential for a striking canopied southern entrance to the new administrative centre of a merged eastern suburbs Council..................................... 231

NM24/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Motion to investigate legal challenge to delegate’s report to Boundary Commission endorsing merger of Randwick City Council ....................... 233

NM25/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Request for the Premier to investigate Waverley Council’s $38M commitment for Bondi Pavilion upgrade during merger process ............................ 235

NM26/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Retention of Tree of Knowledge....................................................................... 237

NM27/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Impacts of the AHSEPP within suburbs of Randwick City.................................................. 239

NM28/16   Notice of Motion Cr Moore – Pedestrian, Cylists and Traffic Safety around the CSELR.................................................. 241

NM29/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson - Poll on Merger  .............. 243

NM30/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson - Urgent request to save The Tree of Knowledge (corner High St & Wansey Rd, Randwick) 245

Closed Session (record of voting required)

Director City Services’ Report

CS7/16     Tender for Structural Lining of Stormwater Pipes - No. T2016-19

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.

 

Governance & Financial Services’ Reports

GF16/16   Tender for Replacement of PABX - Supply of Equipment, Licencing, Implementation, Professional Services, Maintenance and Support - No. T2016-29

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.

 

GF17/16   Tender for Legal Services - No. T2016-14

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 Motion

NR5/16     Notice of Rescission Motion submitted by Crs Seng, Smith and Stavrinos - Aboriginal Artefacts at the Randwick Stabling Yard and the Destruction of Trees along Anzac Parade................ 247  

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP23/16

 

Subject:                  2 Pearce Street, South Coogee (DA/561/2015)

Folder No:               DA/561/2015

Author:                    Barker Ryan Stewart, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of all structures on site and construction of new 3 storey dwelling house including new boundary fence, associate site and landscape works (variation to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Red Gum Town Planning Services

Owner:                    Mr T M S Foo & Mrs S S C Foo

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview70721.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by External Consultant and referred to Council for determination as one of the affected properties is owned by a Council employee.

1.     Proposal

 

The proposed development will include demolition of the existing dwelling and associated structures and construction of a new part two and part three storey single residential dwelling. 

 

The development will include four bedrooms, a combined kitchen/dining room and three family/lounge rooms. The upper levels both include balconies, the lower level opens onto a terrace and private open space.

 

The proposal includes a double garage to the front of the dwelling and a front fence and gate.

 

The plans have been amended in accordance with Council comments. This assessment is based on the amended plans dated 10 March 2016.

 

The applicant has revised the plans to reduce the overall FSR and height, reduce the depth of the second level balcony to minimize circulation space and increase the rear setbacks.

2.     Site

 

The site is a regular shape with a frontage of 12.19m to Pearce Street, a depth of 37.42m and has a total site area of 455.3m².

 

To the east is a single storey residential dwelling, to the west is a three storey residential flat building and a three storey dwelling and to the north are two single dwellings.

 

The area is generally characterized by large single dwellings and multi-unit developments. The site is within 2km of Coogee Beach and 4km of Randwick Junction.

 

The below photographs show the subject site and surrounding development.

 

IMG_7706

Figure 1: Subject site at 2 Pearce Street with current dwelling.

 

IMG_7704

Figure 2: Adjacent properties on Pearce Street.

Figure 3: Neighbouring properties on the western site of Pearce Street.

 

3.     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012)

 

The DA requires consideration of a variation to the development standard for maximum floor space ratio.

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Zoning

The site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone having regard to the relevant matters discussed throughout this report.

Yes

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.65:1

0.675:1

No

 

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

9.5m

Yes

Development within the coastal zone

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the clause. The development will not impact on the natural environment, views or access to or from the foreshore, or negatively impact on water quality.

 

Yes

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The site is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the clause as it:

 

-    Will not negatively impact on the natural landscape or visual qualities;

-    Does not impeded on public views;

-    Is not visible from public viewing areas, parks or the foreshore; and

-    The design contributes to the amenity of the local area.

Yes

Refer to the Clause 4.6 request to vary a development standard for justification for exceeding the FSR limit.

4.     Request to vary development standard

 

Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) contained in clause 4.4 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 proposed variations is summarized in the table below:

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

Variation

4.4 Floor space Ratio

0.65:1

0.675:1

No

4% (11.73m2)

 

(i)    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.

 

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

 

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

 

The objectives of the FSR standard are set out in clause 4.4 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

The applicants’ written justification is generally in accordance with the Department of Planning and Infrastructures’ Varying Development Standards: A Guide. The justification for each variation can be found in the table below.

 

The applicant’s written justification indicate the following key arguments for variation to the FSR standard

Floor Space Ratio

The following constitutes a written request for an exception to development standards under Clause 4.6.

 

Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio and the accompanying maps identify a maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 (295.945m). The total proposed calculable floor space on the site is 307.48m. Over a site area of 455.3m this represents a floor space ratio of

0.67:1. The proposed FSR exceeds the maximum by 11.73m (4%).

 

a) The objectives of the floor space ratio development standard are listed under

Clause 4.4 of Randwick LEP 2012. It is contended that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in this circumstances of the case as addressed further below. The reasonableness or necessity for compliance

with the development standard has been assessed against each of its objectives

below:

 

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

future character of the locality,

 

As detailed further in the accompanying statement of environmental effect the application site sits within a street containing a variety of dwelling forms and types on

a lot pattern varying from approximately 300m2 up to 600m2. The built form is quite varied in terms of scale and presentation to the street with single storey cottages being observed up to three storey dwellings of considerable mass and form. The proposed new dwelling is only marginally higher than the existing dwelling on the site and is of a scale comparable to and in some instances considerably smaller than that observed in the locality.

 

Further it is noted that the operation of Clause 4.4 of Randwick LEP 2012 is somewhat inequitable in the gradations of the awarding of floor space based on lot size. The intent of the sliding scale provided in subclause 2A is to allow a reasonable intensity of development on smaller lots to allow the dwelling needs of occupants to be met yet not allow them to be unduly dominant or bulky relative to their lot size. In

doing so however the ‘steps’ provided in subclause 2A allow for example, on a lot size of 451m a total of 293m GFA whereas on a site of an indiscernibly smaller size at 449m up to 336m GFA could be provided. The application site is only just above the 450m step (at 455m) and were the site area only 6m smaller the proposal would be fully compliant with the floor space ratio control. This assists in supporting the inherent reasonableness of the proposed variation.

 

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

energy needs,

 

The proposed new dwelling has been architecturally designed to provide a high degree of modulation and visual interest. The proposal also incorporates passive solar and energy design features and includes generous floor to ceiling heights and opportunities for cross ventilation to allow for minimal reliance on mechanical ventilation and to take advantage of cooling easterly breezes in warmer months. The exceedance of the maximum floor space ratio control by a minor amount does not compromise the achievement of this objective.

 

(c) to ensure that development is compatible with the scale and character of

contributory buildings in a conservation area or near a heritage item,

 

The proposed new dwelling is not located near or within the visual catchment of any contributory buildings in a conservation area or near a heritage item. The proposed

FSR provided on the site will sit comfortably within the established scale and character of the area.

 

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

 

The proposed new dwelling will not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and

neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing or loss of views. The proposal has been designed so as to provide adequate front, side, and rear setbacks, respond to the sloping topography of the site and minimise vertical projection so as to maintain key water views enjoyed by surrounding properties. The exceedance of the FSR control by 11.73m will be visually imperceptible and will not exacerbate any amenity impacts on neighbouring properties.

Planning Grounds

b) Sufficient environmental planning grounds exist to vary the FSR of the building development standard as:

·      There will not be any adverse impacts for adjoining sites as a result of this proposal and the proposal will not unacceptably increase the actual or perceived bulk or scale of the building.

·      The proposal will result in a well designed and appropriately proportioned and scaled built form. The resultant dwelling will continue to make a positive contribution to the streetscape and character of the area.

Zone objectives

With respect to the requirement for satisfaction as to whether the proposed variation

is within the public interest and the objectives of the particular standard and the

objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to

be carried out, the R2 zone objectives are;

 

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents. 

·      To encourage housing affordability. 

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

 

The proposal will provide for the housing needs of the community in a manner that maintains the low density character of area. The proposal will provide for an appropriate level of amenity for future and existing residents and is considered to be consistent with the zone objectives.

 

In the circumstances of the case, the variation to the development standard satisfies the objectives of the standard and the zone. The Clause 4.6 exemption demonstrates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. The concurrence of the Director General of the Department of Planning will be obtained by Council.

 

(iii)  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 has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

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

 

(iv)  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 both the zone and the FSR standard.

 

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

 

The objectives for the development standard are:

 

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

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

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

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

 

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives because it provides a well-designed, low density residential dwelling within the coastal context. The proposal will result in only a minor variation the FSR, the design is well articulated and responds the environment and the development is consistent with surrounding dwellings and the future desired character of the area. Finally, potential amenity impacts on neighbouring properties have been mitigated through the considered redesign of the proposal.

 

(v)   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 FSR of buildings in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

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

 

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

5.  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 Wisdom Street, Coogee

·      55 Denning Street, Coogee

 

Issues

Comments

View loss – The proposed development may result in a reduced view for neighbours to the west.

In response to submissions and the view loss assessment, Council requested the proposal be amended to reduce the potential view loss impacts for neighbours.

 

The applicant has revised the development to:

-    Reduce the rear 2nd floor balcony and associated privacy screen;

-    Reduced the FSR and height; and

-    Increase the rear setback.

 

These amendments have reduced the potential impact on the neighbouring dwellings. The view loss impact caused by the revised development is minor, refer to the view loss assessment for further detail.

Privacy – The rear balconies and terrace will result in overlooking into the northern properties living room and backyard. The following change should be made:

Second floor balcony

-    Reduce the size of the balcony to 2m x 5m (from 3.21m x 5.76).

-    Provide opaque balustrades.

First floor balcony

-    Provide opaque balustrades.

Rear boundary Fence

-    Provide additional screening, of 1m along the rear fence.

The proposed development’s windows and balconies are generally orientated towards the north east, over the rear neighbouring sites, towards the ocean and Coogee Beach.

 

In response to submissions and the initial assessment Council requested the proposal be amended to reduce the potential visual privacy impacts for the rear neighbour.

 

The applicant has revised the development to:

-    Increase the rear setback;

-    Reduced the depth of the 2nd floor balcony; and

-    Reduced the FSR.

 

These amendments have reduced the potential impact on the neighbouring dwellings. It is considered that the privacy impact from the revised development is reasonable. Therefore, the additional opaque balustrade is not necessary in this instance.

Height – The development exceeds the maximum height limits, while the internal heights could easily be reduced.

In response to submissions and the initial assessment Council requested the proposal be amended.

 

The proposed development now has a height of 9.5m, which is in accordance with the LEP.

 

This amendment has reduced the potential view loss and privacy impact.

Ground floor level – The backyard ground level is going to be raised which may impact the rear fence and reduce privacy. The submission requested an additional 1m screening above the rear fence for privacy.

 

 

Part of the rear lawn area adjacent to the north western side of the lower ground terrace (see sheet 06) is raised to RL34.16 from RL33.69 (as shown in the survey plan). This is inconsistent with the RL shown on the Landscape Plans.

 

An appropriate condition has been included to ensure the finished ground level of the elevated north western portion of the rear backyard is not higher than the existing ground level of RL33.69. Therefore, additional screening on rear fence is required.

Rear garage – Please provide a dilapidation report for the northern neighbours fence and western neighbours plants.

A Dilapidation Report for the boundary fences and landscaping will be required as a condition of consent.

Front Setback – the development would result in a better planning outcome if the front setback was reduced and the rear setback was increased.

In response to submissions and the initial assessment Council requested the proposal be amended to reduce the potential visual privacy impacts for the rear neighbour.

 

The proposed development has retained the 6m front setback in accordance with the Randwick DCP and increased the rear setback to 11.7m.

 

The increased setback will reduce the potential view loss and visual privacy impacts on the neighbours. A reduction of the front setback is not practical for the driveway and garage design in this instance.     

 

6.  Key issues

 

View Sharing

View loss assessment

Sharing of views is a design performance requirement in Council’s Low Density Residential Development Control Plan.

 

A view loss assessment was undertaken, the applicant provided height poles as per Council’s request. However the Surveyor verified that the height poles were higher than the proposed building. The height poles have not been relied upon for this assessment.

 

The following images and assessment are based on plans and dimensions of the proposed height and depth with a comparison between the proposal and the existing dwelling. The revised proposal has an overall building height of RL42.77 and the existing dwelling has a ridge height of RL42.5, this is an increase of 0.27m. Figure 4 shows the southern elevation of the proposed dwelling and a comparison with the existing dwelling, which is indicated in grey hashing. 

 

Plan Extract - Height

Figure 4: Extract from Architectural Plans indicating height of existing and proposed dwellings

 

The revised proposal has a rear setback of 11.6m and the existing dwelling has a rear setback of approximately 16m, this is an increase of approximately 3.4m. Figure 5, shows the western elevation of the proposed dwelling in comparison to the existing dwelling, which is indicated in grey hashing. It indicates that the proposed dwelling falls short of the existing rear deck.   

 

Plan Extract - DEPTH

Figure 5: Extract from Architectural Plans indicating depth of existing and proposed dwellings

 

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 located within the foreshore scenic protection area. Two submissions have been received from a neighbouring property to the west in relation to view loss. Views from the subject property were investigated to determine if the proposal will result in any view loss impacts:

 

·      55 Denning Street, South Coogee

 

Council’s independent consult undertook an assessment of the view sharing impacts and the above affected property has been visited.

 

The aerial photograph in Image 3 below identifies the property whose view may be affected by the proposed development. The subject site is identified in green, the property with potential view loss impacts is identified in red and the arrows indicate the direction of the views. The blue area indicates the approximate location of the proposed dwelling based on the setback dimensions.

 

The views are obtained in a north easterly and easterly direction across the backyard and rooftop of the subject site. The views include ocean views and rooftops, the Wedding Cake and views of Coogee headland and interface with the ocean. Some of the views are partially blocked by existing development and vegetation from various levels of the building.

 

The ocean views, Coogee Headland and Wedding Cake are valued, the Wedding Cake is considered to be an iconic view within the Coogee area.

 

VIEW LOSS MAP

Figure 6: Site analysis plan identifying views currently enjoyed.

 

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

 

55 Denning Street, South Coogee

No. 55 Denning Street is located to the west of the subject site. The property appears to be single storey from Denning Street, however steps down with the site containing a total of three storeys, each with balconies and large windows orientated towards the east and north east to capture views. The ground floor level at the rear has an outdoor entertainment area, while the backyard steps down another level. The views are obtained in a north easterly and easterly direction generally above the side boundary and roof top of the subject site and more easterly properties. The existing roof of the subject site is also viewed from the property.

 

Views to the north east will not be impacted by the proposed development. The views to the east will be partially obstructed by the development.

 

The property is generally orientated towards to the east, with large windows and balconies orientated to the east and north east to capture views. The outdoor areas have views to the ocean and wedding cake.

55 Denning

Figure 7: Easterly view of 55 Denning Street, South Coogee.  

 

 

55 Denning Street

 

Second level

Views of the ocean and Wedding Cake are obtained from the upper level living area and balcony in a standing and sitting position.

 

With consideration of the dimensions of the proposed development noted above these photographs indicate that the development will take up only part of the ocean views and that views of the Wedding Cake will not be impacted.

 

IMG_7768

Figure 8: View from the balcony facing east looking over the subject sites roof and rear yard.

 

3B

Figure 9: View from the dining room facing north east towards the wedding cake and Coogee headland and water interface.

First level

Views of the ocean are obtained from the balcony and main bedroom in a standing and sitting position.

 

The red dashed line indicates the approximate location of the rear boundary of the subject site.

 

With consideration of the dimensions of the proposed development noted above, these photographs show that although some ocean views will be impacted, significant views of the land water interface and Wedding Cake will not be impacted. 

 

IMG_7757

Figure 10: Rear view from the balcony facing east, looking over the subject sites roof and backyard.

 

IMG_7756

Figure 11: Rear view facing north east, looking over part of the subject sites backyard and other neighbouring properties roof lines. 

Ground Level

Partial views of the ocean are obtained from the eastern/rear ground level terrace in a standing and sitting position.

 

With consideration of the dimensions of the proposed development noted above these photographs show that although some ocean views will be impacted, the majority of views will be retained. (The wedding cake is out of frame to the left).

 

IMG_7758

Figure 12: View from the ground level terrace, over the subject sites rear yard and roofline to the ocean.

Lower lever backyard

Partial views of the ocean are obtained from backyard in a standing position.

 

With consideration of the dimensions of the proposed development noted above this photograph shows that although some ocean views will be impacted, significant views of the land water interface and Wedding Cake will not be impacted by the development.

 

IMG_7762

Figure 13: View from the backyard, over the subject sites rear yard to Coogee headland, the Wedding Cake (partially covered by a tree) and ocean.


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.”

 

55 Denning Street, South Coogee

Viewing area

Extent of impact

Third Storey (Denning Street ground level)

The views are generally from a standing and sitting position within the living area and balcony, over the side boundary of 53 Denning Street and the rear boundary of No 55. The view is a distant sky-water interface over the roof of 2 Pearce and the Wedding Cake and Coogee Headland over 3-5 Wisdom Street. 

 

The degree of the impact is considered to be minor, given the loss over the roof top is a small portion of the view and less valuable than the wedding cake and Coogee headland.

Second Storey

The views are from a standing and sitting position from the outdoor balcony and main bedroom, over the rear boundary in a north easterly and easterly direction. The view is a sky-water interface over rooftops.

 

The degree of the impact is considered to be minor, given the loss over the roof top is a small portion of the view and less valuable than the Wedding Cake and Coogee headland. Further the view is from a bedroom and the neighbour’s side boundary. 

First/Ground Storey

The views are from a standing and sitting position from the outdoor terrace area, over the rear and side boundary in a north easterly and easterly direction. The view is a sky-water interface over the subject sites roof top and the Wedding Cake and Coogee headland further north.

 

The degree of the impact is considered to be minor to moderate, given the loss over the roof top is a small portion of the view and less valuable than the Wedding Cake and Coogee headland which will be retained.

Backyard

The views are from a standing position from the backyard, over the side boundary in a north to north easterly direction over the roof tops of 3 and 5 Wisdom Street. The view is a sky-water interface, the Wedding Cake and Coogee headland to the north.

 

The degree of the impact is considered to be minor, given the loss is a small portion of the view and less valuable than the Wedding Cake and Coogee headland which is retained. 

 

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 a significant material impact on the scenic views currently available to the property at 55 Denning Street, South Coogee. The views currently enjoyed from the property will be affected, however this impact is considered to be minor. This rating applies because the significant views of Coogee headland and the Wedding Cake will not be impacted, the impacted views are a small section of ocean and water sky interface and the views are over the neighbour’s side boundary.

 

The architectural character, size and scale of the proposed building is consistent with the surrounding 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 proposed development complies with the height and setback requirements for the zone. The proposal does include a minor variation to the FSR of 4%, however, this is considered to be reasonable in accordance with Clause 4.6 justification.

 

The applicant has redesigned the development to achieve an acceptable level of view sharing for both the subject site and the neighbouring property to the west. There is little opportunity to redistribute the floor space within the development in a manner that significantly improve the view impact without resulting in other amenity impacts on neighbouring properties and the subject site.

 

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.


Visual Privacy

 

The view sharing objective is:

 

·      To ensure development minimise overlooking or crossviewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy

 

The view sharing controls are:

 

i)        All habitable room windows must be located to minimise any direct viewing of existing habitable room windows in adjacent dwellings by one or more of the following measures:

-    Offsetting or staggering windows away from those of the adjacent buildings.

-    Setting the window sills at a minimum of 1600mm above finished floor level.

-    Installing fixed and translucent glazing up to a minimum of 1600mm above finished floor level.

-    Installing fixed privacy screens outside the windows in question.

-    Creating a recessed courtyard on the side elevations of a building measuring not less than 3m x 2m in dimensions, with windows opening towards the courtyard in lieu of the common boundary.

ii)       The windows to the living areas must be oriented away from the adjacent dwellings where possible. In this respect, they may be oriented to:

-    Front or rear of the allotment

-    Side courtyard

iii)      Focus upper floor balconies to the street or rear yard of the site. Any elevated balconies or balcony returns on the side facade must have a narrow width to minimise privacy impacts on the adjoining properties.

NOTE: ‘Living Areas’ are indoor space occupied for extended periods of time such as a living room, lounge room, dining room, family room and/or other open plan living areas.

iv)      Where a balcony, deck or terrace is likely to overlook the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings, privacy screens must be installed in positions suitable to mitigate the loss of privacy. Privacy screens must be permanently fixed and have a minimum height of not less than 1600mm as measured from the finished floor level. Privacy screens must achieve a minimum of 70% opaqueness and may be constructed with:

-    Translucent or obscured glazing

-    Fixed timber or metal slats mounted horizontally or vertically

-    Fixed vertical louvres with the individual blades oriented away from the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings

v)       Screen planting and planter boxes may be used as a supplementary device for reinforcing privacy protection. However, they must not be used as the sole privacy protection measure.

vi)      For sloping sites, any ground floor decks or terraces must step down in accordance with the landform, and avoid expansive areas of elevated outdoor recreation space.

 

The proposed development orientates the windows and balconies towards the north east to take advantage of ocean views. This will result in potential overlooking of the neighbouring site to the rear. A number of measures have been implemented to reduce the potential for overlooking.

 

The development will result in minimal habitable room to habitable room privacy impacts between neighbouring properties. The neighbour to the east has a lower ground level and windows are generally below the fence line. While there is minimal impact for rear neighbours who, together with the subject site, have a significant setback from the rear boundary.

 

The upper level balconies face the rear yard to the north east. This may result in some overlooking of the rear neighbours private open space. The proposal has been redesigned to reduce the potential for overlooking from the balconies through an increase to the rear setback and reduced balcony size. 

 

Privacy screening is provided to the western side of the balcony to improve privacy for residents and western neighbours. No privacy screening is provided to the north-east as this would reduce ocean views.

 

The outdoor terrace area is generally at ground level.

 

The proposed development was redesigned in response to Council’s concerns about the neighbours’ visual privacy. The amended design includes a reduced upper level balcony, reduced height and FSR and an increase to the rear setback. It is considered that the amended development will result in reduced overlooking and loss of privacy.

 

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 site is located within the R2 Low Density Residential zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposed development, being for a three storey residential dwellings, double garage and landscaped garden is permissible with consent in the zone.

 

Two (2) submissions were received during the exhibition period. The matters raised in the submissions related to the potential for loss of 1) views and 2) visual privacy. These matters have been addressed in the report and in the redesign of the original development.

 

The application has been assessed having regard for Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, together with the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan and all relevant Council DCPs. Following detailed assessment is it considered that the Development Application No. DA/561/2015 may be support.

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.       That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/561/2015 for demolition of all structures on site and construction of new 3 storey dwelling house including new boundary fence, associate site and landscape works, at No. 2 Pearce Street, South 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

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

 

a)       The height of the driveway gate must not be more than 1.2m above the proposed driveway level. The remainder of the front fence on Pearce Street boundary must not be higher than RL35.48.

b)       The horizontal slats of the front fence and gate must be at least 30% open.

c)       The Landscape Plan by Conzept Landscape Architects, dwg no’s LPDA 15-124/1B – 3, issue B, dated 03/11/15, shall be amended to ensure consistency with the approved Architectural Plans and relevant conditions.

d)       The finished ground level of the elevated north western portion of the rear yard must not be morer than RL33.69. 

e)       A privacy screen, having a height of 1.6m above floor level, must be provided to the whole length of the western edge of the rear ground floor balcony (adjacent to the BBQ area). The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 2 Pearce Street, South Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP24/16

 

Subject:                  65 Willis Street & 27 Meeks Street, Kingsford (DA/795/2015)

Folder No:               DA/795/2015

Author:                    Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of existing buildings on site and construction of a new 4 storey boarding house containing 36 rooms.

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:               Ekos (Kingsford) Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Ekos (Kingsford) Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

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 application as amended on 13 April 2016 is for the demolition of all existing buildings at 65 Willis Street and 27 Meeks Street, amalgamation of both sites and construction of a new 4 storey boarding house containing 36 rooms.

 

It should be noted that the proposal was subject to a pre-lodgment meeting (PL/36/2015) and advice was provided on the 14 August 2015.

 

On 13th April 2016 amended plans and shadow diagrams were received for the subject site, the amendments included removal of two rooms at ground floor level resulting in two built forms, internal changes to the layout of the proposal at all floors and reduction in maximum height.

Figure 1: Perspective of proposal

 

A breakdown of the proposal is as follows:

 

Ground Floor

·      Two built forms (one facing Meeks and Willis Street and one facing Willis Street and Bow Lane);

·      Meeks and Willis Street Building:

1 x double rooms (accessibility room)

2 x single room (one is an accessible rooms)

1 x manager room

garbage room

·      Willis Street and Bow Lane Building:

communal living room

8 car spaces

6 motorbike spaces

·      Communal private open space located centrally on the site.

 

First Floor

·      Two built forms (one facing Meeks and Willis Street and one facing Willis Street and Bow Lane);

·      Meeks and Willis Street Building:

1 x double room

4 x single rooms

·      Willis Street and Bow Lane Building:

7 x single rooms

 


 

Second Floor

·      Two built forms (one facing Meeks and Willis Street and one facing Willis Street and Bow Lane);

·      Meeks and Willis Street Building:

1 x double room

4 x single rooms

·      Willis Street and Bow Lane Building:

7 x single rooms

 

Third Floor

·      Two built forms (one facing Meeks and Willis Street and one facing Willis Street and Bow Lane);

·      Meeks and Willis Street Building:

1 x double room

2 x single rooms

·      Willis Street and Bow Lane Building:

5 x single rooms

 

Roof Level

·      Installation of photovoltaic solar panels on the roof of each building.

 

Other works

·      Erection of picket and sandstone fence along Willis Street Boundary;

·      Removal of trees;

·      Associated site works; and

·      New driveway and kerb crossing

 

2.     Site

 

The proposal seeks to amalgamate two sites 65 Willis Street and 27 Meeks Street, Both are regular shaped sites (rectangular in shape),as seen in figure 2 below:

 

Figure 2: Subject sites to be amalgamated

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Willis Street and the southern side of Meeks Street. The land has the following dimensions:

 

 

Boundary

Dimension

North Boundary (Meeks Street)

10.06m

South Boundary (Bow Lane)

10.06m

Eastern Boundary

70.41m

Western Boundary (Willis Street)

70.41m

 

The site is slopes to the west, towards Willis Street with a fall of approximately 800mm.

 

65 Willis Street and 27 Meeks Street are both occupied by single level dwelling houses with detached garage structures, both vehicular crossovers are off Willis Street.

 

Figure 3: Meeks Street frontage

 

Figure 4: Willis Street frontage

 

The locality is occupied by medium density housing options, comprising of multi-unit developments. To the east and south of the subject site are several Residential Flat Buildings ranging in height between 2 and 4 storeys, to the west and north of the subject site are several Residential Flat Buildings ranging in height between 3 and 4 storeys.

 

3.     Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. A total of 40 submissions were received as a result of the notification process and details are as follows:

 

1/69 Willis Street

Unknown Unit 29 Meeks Street

4/64 Willis Street

3/60 Willis Street

4/38 Meeks Street

2/41 Meeks Street

5/29 Meeks Street

5/23 Meeks Street

3/29 Meeks Street

1/42 Meeks Street

4/21 Meeks Street

1/31 Meeks Street

18/33 Meeks Street

31 Harbourne Road

20/41-41A Meeks Street

1/29 Meeks Street

4/70 Willis Street

29 Meeks Street (Body Corporate)

Unknown Unit 40 Meeks Street

3/31 Meeks Street

4/29 Meeks Street

4/44 Meeks Street

8/60 Willis Street

5/74-80 Willis Street

2/72 Willis Street

4/38 Meeks Street

3/72 Meeks Street

22 Wallace Street

3/64 Willis Street

4/64 Willis Street

4/29 Meeks Street

8/70 Willis Street

1/73 Willis Street

72 Willis Street (Body Corporate)

4/60 Willis Street

64 Willis Street (Body Corporate)

7/64 Willis Street

3/38 Meeks Street

7/23 Meeks Street

4/42 Meeks Street

 

·      In addition to the above submissions, a petition signed by 43 residents was received; and

 

·      Correspondence from Ron Hoenig (Member for Heffrom) was also received.

 

It should be noted that the amended plans received on 13th April 2016, will result in a lesser impact on the surrounding properties than the original application. As per section A3 of the RDCP 2013 – Public Notification, the amendments were not required to be re-notified and submissions received for the original application were considered in the assessment.

 

The issues raised in the submissions are summarised as follows:

 

·      Objections received having regards to lack of parking availability within the area and lack of parking provided on site.

Planners Comment

The proposal is subject to parking rates outlined within Part B7 of the RDCP 2013 and the ARHSEPP, the proposal complies with the relevant parking rates outlined for Boarding Houses under both heads of considerations. See Development Engineers Comments in compliance report for further discussion.

 

·      Proposal does not comply with the relevant controls for landscaping and deep soil area on site.

Planners Comment

See landscaping and deep soil discussion under key issues section within this report.

 

·      Concerns with regards to waste generation and lack of garbage facilities on site.

Planners Comment

Amended plans were submitted to council on 13th April 2016; the amended plans reduced the number of boarders on site and increased the size of the waste room at ground floor level. The proposal now complies with the relevant requirements outlined under the RDCP 2013. See Development Engineers Comments in compliance report for further discussion.

 

·      Concerns with regards to overshadowing on adjoining properties

Planners Comment

See Overshadowing discussion under key issues section within this report.

 

·      Concerns regarding the impact on the value of property within the area.

Planners Comment

Property values are not a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and cannot be considered as part of the assessment process.

 

·      Out of character and inconsistent with the streetscape

Planners Comment

See assessment of Clause 30A of the ARHSEPP under the key issues section within this report.

 

·      Inappropriate and inconsistent use within the zone, should not locate a commercial use within a residential area.

Planners Comment

The subject site is located within an R3 Medium Density Zone identified in the RLEP 2012. The proposed use as a boarding house is permissible with consent within the zone.

 

·      Concerns regarding the potential acoustic impacts from the proposed development

Planners Comment

An acoustic report was submitted to council and has been assessed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer. It has been determined that the proposal subject to recommendations made in the submitted acoustic report and Plan of Management (which have been included in Council’s Environmental Health Team’s conditions) complies with the relevant controls in the RDCP 2013 and will not adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

·      Objection to the notification period happening over the Christmas period.

Planners Comment

The proposal was notified between 25/11/2015 and 9/12/2015 in accordance with the RDCP 2013 –Public Notification. In addition the proposal was advertised in the local paper and notification signage was placed on site by Council. The notification process complies with the relevant requirements in the RDCP 2013.

 

·      Concerns regarding the location of the waste room and its affect the adjoining properties.

Planners Comment

The proposed garbage room is setback 2.2m from the side boundary and will not result in adverse effects on the adjoining properties. It is of a size that will satisfactorily serve the occupants of the proposed boarding house.

 

·      Concerns relating to potential asbestos located on site.

Planners Comment

Standard conditions relating to asbestos removal have been recommended in the development consent.

 

·      Objection to the non-compliant setbacks on site, particularly on Willis Street.

Planners Comment

See Setback discussion under key issues section within this report.

 

·      Concerns regarding potential crime resulting from the proposed Boarding House development.

Planners Comment

The proposed use is a permissible use within the R3 medium density zone. A plan of Management has been submitted with the application and is considered satisfactory for the proposal. The design of the proposal complies with relevant CPTED principles.

 

·      The proposed boarding rooms do not meet the minimum size outlined under the ARHSEPP.

Planners Comment

The ARHSEPP outlines that the minimum room size for a single lodger room is 12m² and for a double lodger room is 16m². The proposal complies with the minimum room size requirements outlined under the SEPP.

 

·      On site managers POS area and communal open space areas do not meet the minimum dimensions outlined under the ARHSEPP.

Planners Comment

Amended plans were submitted to council on 13th April 2016 which includes reconfiguration of the ground floor layout of the proposal; provision for direct access to an area of POS within the front setback area (fronting Meeks Street) from the managers room. The area meets the minimum dimension requirements under the ARHSEPP and is directly accessible and adjacent to the managers’ accommodation.

 

·      The front setback area along Meeks street has not been provided with landscaped area in accordance with the ARHSEPP.

Planners Comment

The proposal maintains a consistent front setback with the predominant setback along the Meeks Street streetscape. The treatment of this area as a landscaped space with the provision of two mature trees is also consistent with the character of the streetscape. The proposal complies with the ARHSEPP.

 

·      Boarding house will not be used as ‘Affordable Housing’.

Planners Comment

Boarding houses are a type of new affordable rental housing under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The proposal has been assessed against the relevant Clauses of the SEPP.

 

·      Incorrect information, the shadow diagrams provided are not accurate.

Planners Comment

The shadow diagrams have been amended and are considered to be accurate. See Overshadowing discussion under key issues section within this report.

 

·      No BASIX Certificate or Acoustic report was submitted with the application.

Planners Comment

A BASIX Certificate and Acoustic report were submitted to Council.

 

·      Does not comply with the RLEP 2012 controls and objectives.

Planners Comment

The proposal complies with maximum building height control outlined in the RLEP 2012. The proposal has a total floor space ratio of 1.01:1. RLEP 2012 applies a maximum FSR of 0.9:1 to the subject site. For the purpose of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, the proposal is also eligible for a floor space bonus of an additional 0.5:1.

 

While the proposed floor space does not comply with the LEP, the proposal sits well within the bounds of that permissible under the SEPP, which would allow up to 1.4:1 on the subject site. The SEPP being a higher order planning instrument than RLEP 2012 allows that an objection under Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 is not necessary in this instance.

 

It should be noted that not all proposed corridor areas have been included in the F.S.R calculations as they are open on several sides, however the additional bulk created by these access corridors has been considered as part of the application. If all these access corridors were to be included in the F.S.R Calculations the F.S.R for the site would be 1.19:1, this still significantly complies with the maximum allowable F.S.R under the ARHSEPP of 1.4:1. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is considered acceptable having regards to the objectives of the zone, the controls objectives within the ARHSEPP and the character of the locality.

 

The objectives of the R3 medium density zone are as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

•   To protect the amenity of residents.

•  To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposed boarding house provides for housing needs within the medium density environment, is consistent with the streetscape having regards to built form and will not result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining properties. See further discussions under key issues section of report.

 

·      Notification signs on site were not visible.

Planners Comment

Notification signage was placed on site by Council in accordance with the relevant requirements under the RDCP 2013.On 1st December 2015, Council were notified by a member of the public that the signs were no longer on display at the subject site. In response, two new signs were re-erected at the site in a prominent location on both the Meeks and Willis Street frontages.

 

·      Subject site is not accessible to public transport

Planners Comment

Accessible area as defined under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, means land that is within 400 metres walking distance of a bus stop used by a regular bus service (within the meaning of the Passenger Transport Act 1990) that has at least one bus per hour servicing the bus stop between 06.00 and 21.00 each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive) and between 08.00 and 18.00 on each Saturday and Sunday.

 

The subject site is located approximately 370m from high frequency bus stops along Anzac Parade in a westerly direction which is consistent with the definition of accessible area.

 

·      No Laundry Facilities have been provided.

Planners Comment

Laundry facilities are provided within each room; this has been confirmed by way of correspondence with the applicant and will be enforced by way of a recommended condition.

 

·      Concerns are raised with regards to fire safety of the occupants.

Planners Comment

The proposal will have to comply with the relevant requirements for fire safety under the BCA. Standard conditions have been recommended in the development consent.

 

·      Objection to trees being removed along Willis Street.

Planners Comment

Council’s Landscape Officer has outlined tree removal proposed on site. It should be noted that the majority of trees proposed to be removed are on the subject site and only two trees T9 and T19 which are located on Council’s reserve are proposed to be removed, Council’s Landscape Officer has granted approval for this via way of recommended condition.

 

·      Drainage concerns are raised for the site.

Planners Comment

Council’s Engineers have assessed the submitted storm water management plans; conditions have been recommended as part of the Engineer’s referral and have been included in the development consent.

 

·      Number of potential boarders on site will not be able to be controlled.

Planners Comment

The application has outlined that the proposal will have 1 manager, 4 double room and 31 single rooms. This will be enforced by conditions within the development consent.

 

·      Disabled access inadequate for the site.

Planners Comment

Two accessible rooms have been provided at ground floor level. In addition Council’s BCA Team has recommended relevant conditions relating to disabled access for the site. The proposal is considered to provide adequate disabled access

 

·      Concerns relating to the potential construction noise.

Planners Comment

Standard construction conditions relating to construction noise and construction hours have been recommended in this report.

 

·      Objection to the removal of the Heritage listing at No. 65 Willis Street.

Planners Comment

The subject dwelling at No. 65 Willis Street is a Californian Bungalow Cottage which was listed on the Heritage Inventory Sheet in 1989 (Randwick Heritage Study 1989). However as a result of alterations to the property since its listing in 1989, the building was removed from the Heritage Inventory Sheet.

 

·      Objection to the potential adverse impacts on the visual amenity of the adjoining property at No. 29 Meeks Street.

Planners Comment

It should be noted that the subject site is currently one of the few undeveloped sites within the immediate area.

 

The proposed development complies with the maximum building height allowable on the site under the RLEP 2012 and for the most part complies with the maximum external wall height on the eastern elevation. It is acknowledged that there are particular areas that are non-compliant with the external wall height control (400mm in excess).

 

It is considered that the proposed built form is commensurate to the development potential of the site and does not result in a development that will adversely affect the visual amenity of No. 29 Meeks Street or appear as visually bulky. The proposal has a modulated and articulated built form with the setbacks from the eastern side boundary ranging from nil to 1350mm at ground floor level; 1350mm – 2200mm at first and second floor level; 2200mm – 5345mm at third floor level. The staggered appearance helps to break up the visual bulk and soften the appearance of the building from the street and adjoining properties.

 

There are no significant views obtainable from the adjoining properties, it is however acknowledged that there is an outlook of the roofs of other houses from the adjoining property at No. 29 Meeks Street which will be affected by the development. This outlook is achieved over the single storey dwellings on the subject site and will be impacted by any compliant development on site of 2 or more storeys in height.

 

The proposal is considered to be acceptable for the site and complies with the relevant objectives for the zone.

 

4.     Key Issues

 

4.1   State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

 

Assessment of Clause 30A- Character of the local area

 

Character of the local area

The consent authority is required to take into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

 

Context:

The site sits on a corner allotment, with 3 street frontages (Corner of Meeks Street, Willis Street and Bow Lane). The site is located within an established residential block bound by Meeks Street, Willis Street and Bow Lane and Kennedy Street.

 

The site is zoned R3- Medium Density residential. The urban block in which the subject site sits is predominately made up of 2, 3 and 4 storey Residential Flat Buildings, with the existing site accommodating two single storey dwelling houses.

 

The subject site sits centrally within the R3 zoned area.

 

Zoning context

 

 

 

When viewed from the corner of Meeks Street and Willis Street, development within the immediate visual catchment of the subject site is characterised by a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 storey residential flat buildings. The intersection of Meeks and Willis street comprises of 4 corner developments; the subject site on the south-eastern corner is a single storey dwelling house, the south-western corner is a 3 storey residential flat building; the north-west and north east are both comprised of 4 storey residential flat buildings.

 

Meeks and Willis Street accommodate one lane of traffic in either direction with parallel parking on both sides of the streets.

 

Anzac Parade is located approximately 350 metres walking distance to the west of the subject site with UNSW (Barker Street) located approximately 375m to the north, both are well serviced by public transport.

 

Compatibility of built form:

The proposed development is of 4 storey scale and is considered to comprise a bulk and scale appropriate to that existing within the visual catchment and immediate vicinity of the site.

 

The scale of the surrounding area is as follows: To the north there is a 3 and 4 storey scale fronting Willis Street; to the west there is a 3 and 4 storey scale which transitions down to 2 storey developments fronting Meeks Street; to the south there are 2 and 3 storey developments along Willis Street, this transitions to a few 4 storey developments towards the Rainbow Street intersection; and to the east the scale is predominantly 2 to 4 storeys. The proposed development sits suitably within the medium density zone and remains consistent with the scale within the immediate area. The proposal will not adversely affect the streetscape character.

 

The floor area of the proposal has been effectively distributed across the site in two built forms (which assists in breaking up the building bulk). Appropriate design and landscaping measures have been employed to minimise bulk, shadow and privacy issues, while still contributing a strong element within the corner allotment. The proposal utilises the large street verge to assist in softening its appearance along Willis Street. It is considered the proposal has an effective balance of density and distribution of built form across the site that is consistent with the surrounding streetscape.

 

Compatibility of use:

The bulk of the building supports a reasonable intensity of residential use and remains within the scope of a boarding house, notably for the purpose of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. Critically, the increase in intensity posed by the development is well supported by public transport options and local services which are 400 metres from UNSW to the north and Anzac Parade to the west.

 

Effective measures in relation to operation and management of the boarding house have been outlined in a Plan of Management. These measures are recommended for enforcement by way of condition of consent, ensuring the development poses minimal detrimental amenity impact to adjoining residents and integrates effectively into the prevailing character of the locality.

 

It is considered that through conditions, the proposal provides both a built form and operational outcome consistent with surrounding character, minimising detrimental impacts upon adjoining sites, while providing contemporary affordable housing to the community.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the Residential R3 zone;

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone, established in part to preserve character. The development will provide for and encourage affordable housing options and variety in housing type, in a form consistent with that expected in a medium density residential environment. The proposed building remains consistent with the surrounding streetscape and with the character within the existing medium density residential context. The proposal provides a modern design maintaining and enhancing desirable attributes of built form. The proposal incorporates a Plan of Management, detailing ongoing commitment to reduce impacts upon and protect the amenity of existing residents. The Plan of Management is recommended to be tied to any consent issued by way of appropriate condition.

 

The proposal is considered to meet the relevant objectives outlined in the RLEP 2012 for the R3 Medium Density Zone.

 

4.2   Private Open Space and Deep Soil

Whilst the DCP does not contain specific controls in relation to private open space and deep soil requirements for boarding houses, the objectives and controls from C2 - Medium Density Residential development provide a suitable guide in this regard.

 

·      Part C2, Section 2.2.1 of the RDCP 2013 states that a minimum of 50% of the site area is to be landscaped open space.

 

·      Part C2, Section 2.2.2 of the RDCP 2013 states that a minimum of 25% of the site area should incorporate deep soil areas sufficient in size and dimensions to accommodate trees and significant planting.

 

The subject proposal (as amended) provides 17% of the site as deep soil permeable area; this calculation includes the common open space located centrally on the site. The finish of this landscaped common open space area has not been annotated on the plans and as such a condition has been recommended in the development consent requiring the communal open space area to be provided with deep soil permeable treatment.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal falls short of the 25% outlined within the RDCP 2013, it is considered that the provided area complies with the relevant objectives of both the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP (2009) and the RDCP 2013 and provides sufficient landscaped space for recreational activities and improves storm water infiltration.

 

The proposal provides 34% of the site as landscaped area, again whilst the proposal does not comply with the RDCP 2013 numerical control the proposal complies with the relevant objectives. In addition to the above the proposed development provides both landscaped area and deep soil area above and beyond what is present on the adjoining properties; the proposal is consistent with the adjoining properties within the streetscape.

 

The proposed development is considered to meet the relevant objectives in the RDCP 2013 and Affordable Rental Housing SEPP (2009).

 

4.3   Setbacks

Objectives

·      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.

 

Council’s DCP does not identify any setback controls specifically for boarding house development. The objectives and controls from C2 - Medium Density Residential development have been employed as a guide in this assessment.

 

Front Setbacks

The subject site sits on a corner allotment, bounded by Bow Lane to the south, Willis Street to the west and Meeks Street to the north. The front setback area fronting Meeks Street is 6.09m and has been provided with landscaped courtyard areas and retention of two mature trees. The front setback area is consistent with the streetscape along the southern side of Meeks street.

 

The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP states that the landscape treatment of the front setback area is to be compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.

 

Figure 5: Front Setback area along Meeks Street

 

Figure 5 above shows the visual catchment along the southern side of Meeks Street, the proposed landscaped courtyard which maintains an identical setback to the adjoining property at No. 29 Meeks Street, will be consistent with the predominant landscape treatment within the streetscape.

 

It should be noted that the subject site’s secondary street frontage occupies the entire western boundary of the urban block in which it is located. The secondary street frontage for the site fronting Willis Street (western boundary), has been provided with a staggered setback, ranging from a nil setback (for the majority of the development) to a 1m setback towards Meeks Street. There is a staggered front setback pattern along the eastern side of Willis Street ranging from:

 

·      55-57 Middle Street (Corner of Middle and Willis Street – secondary street frontage) = Nil Setback of basement garage associated retaining wall, 1.5m setback for elevated ground and first floor level.

·      34 Meeks Street (Corner of Meeks and Willis Street – secondary street frontage) =     1.5m setback

·      67 – 79 Willis Street (Primary street frontage) = 5m – 6m setback approximately

 

The subject site benefits from a large council street verge on Willis Street measuring approximately 7.6m depth which is assists in softening up the appearance of the development within the visual catchment.

 

The subject site is a narrow block (10.06m) and the nil setbacks to the Willis Street frontage assist in providing adequate building separation from the eastern boundary, reducing the visual bulk and potential amenity impacts on the adjoining property at No. 29 Meeks Street. It is considered that the proposed nil setback along Willis Street is acceptable in that it ensures adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access and air circulation; provides sufficient contiguous areas for use as communal open space and landscaped area on site; and will not result in any adverse visual impacts on the character of the streetscape.

 

The proposed development is considered to meet the relevant objectives in the RDCP 2013 and will not adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining properties or the streetscape.

 

 

Side Setbacks

The subject site has a frontage width of 10.06m, Part C2 of the RDCP 2013 states the following:

 

 

Using the RDCP 2013 as a guide, the subject site is subject to a merit based assessment with regards to side setbacks. The proposal provides staggered side setbacks along the eastern boundary at all levels, the provided side setbacks are as follows:

 

Ground Floor:

·      Southern built form – Garage has a nil side setback, the remainder of the built form has a 2.2m side setback

·      Northern built form – 1.53m to 3.6m

 

First and Second Floors:

·      Southern built form – 2.2m

·      Northern built form – 1.35m to 3.4m

 

Third Floor:

·      Southern built form – 2.2m to 5.345m

·      Northern built form – 3.945m to 4.88m

 

The provided side setbacks are considered acceptable for the site; for the most part they exceed that required for a site with a frontage width over 12m and provide sufficient building separation between the adjoining blocks.

 

The car parking area within the southern built form which has a nil side setback is immediately opposite the car parking area and rear unit of the adjoining property. In addition it is in a similar location as the existing residence on site (which has a 500mm side setback). The roof of this car parking area on the subject site has an RL of RL40.90 which sits below the ground floor finished floor level of the adjoining property which is RL40.94; as such the nil setbacks will not result in adverse visual bulk.

 

It is considered that the proposed side setbacks from No. 29 Meeks Street are acceptable they provide sufficient building separation to protect the amenity of the adjoining property are consistent with the character of the streetscape and provide modulation within the building façade which assists in softening the visual appearance from the adjoining properties and the streetscape.

 

The proposed development is considered to meet the relevant objectives in the RDCP 2013 and will not adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining properties or the streetscape.

 

Rear Setback

As stated previously the subject site has rear lane access in the form of Bow Lane, the RDCP 2013 states that a minimum rear setback of 15% of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater should be provided. Notwithstanding this the RDCP 2013 also states that this may be varied when an allotment has rear laneway access and when a central courtyard is provided within the development.

 

The proposal provides a 6.28m rear setback from Bow Lane which is 4.28m short of the required 15%. However as stated previously the proposal does have access to a rear laneway and provides a central courtyard within the site breaking up the development into two built forms. It should also be noted that there is no predominant rear setback along Bow lane.

 

The proposed rear setback to Bow Lane is considered to be acceptable and will not result in any adverse impacts on the laneway character or the adjoining properties.

 

The proposal meets the relevant objectives and controls in the RDCP 2013.

 

4.4   External Wall Height

The RDCP 2013 states that where the site is subject to a 12m building height limit under the LEP, a maximum external wall height of 10.5m applies. Whilst the DCP does not contain specific controls in relation to external wall height for boarding houses, the above control from C2 - Medium Density Residential development provide a suitable guide in this regard.

 

The proposal for the most part is compliant with the maximum external wall height of 10.5m on the eastern elevation (as seen below in figure 6). There are however some localised areas of non-compliance.

 

Figure 6: Green area shows non-compliance, Red line shows 10.5m wall height

 

As seen above, there are only small areas of non-compliance (maximum 400mm) with regards to the external wall height which result from the fall in topography towards Willis Street. It should be noted however, that the area of the top floor where the non-compliance occurs is stepped in further from the floor below (2nd floor) resulting in a 3.945m to 5.345m setback from the eastern boundary.

 

The area of non-compliance will be indiscernible and will not result in any significant additional amenity impacts on the adjoining properties with regards to overshadowing or visual bulk compared to development compliant with the external wall height control.

 

As stated previously the subject site slopes from east to west and as a result the proposal results in a non-compliance with the external wall height on the western elevation fronting Willis Street. Figure 7 below outlines the area of non-compliance

 

Figure 7: Green area shows non-compliance, Red line shows 10.5m wall height

 

As seen above the maximum non-compliance on the western elevation with the external wall height control is 1.2m, the proposal still wholly complies with the RLEP 2012 maximum building height control. The top floor where the non-compliance occurs is housed within a mansard style roof form, the entire western elevation has been articulated and modulated breaking up the built form of the development as perceived along Willis Street softening its built form within the visual catchment.

 

The non-compliant external wall height on the western elevation will not result in significant increase in overshadowing and privacy on the adjoining properties as it is setback from the front boundary of the properties on the western side of Willis Street by approximately 25m.

 

The 4 storey scale that results from the mansard roof form still remains consistent with development within the immediate vicinity, some of which comprises of a 4 storey residential flat buildings with a pitched roof form on top. It should be noted that the proposal provides sufficient floor to ceiling heights for all levels.

 

The proposal is considered to meet the relevant objectives within the RDCP 2013 and RLEP 2012 and will not result in any adverse impacts on the adjoining properties and streetscape character.

 

4.5   Overshadowing

Whilst the DCP does not contain specific controls in relation to solar access and overshadowing impacts for boarding houses, the objectives and controls from C2 - Medium Density Residential development provide a suitable guide in this regard.

 

The RDCP 2013 states that Living areas of neighbouring dwellings and at least 50% of the landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum must receive a minimum of 3 hours access to direct sunlight to between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

Properties to the west will not be significant affected by additional overshadowing as a result of the 25m – 30m building separation, with the majority of additional overshadowing falling over Willis Street. Properties to the south will be overshadowed during the middle of the day, but will still receive the required solar access in the morning and afternoon periods.

 

Properties to the east will be overshadowed in the afternoon period from just after 1pm. First floor apartments will maintain solar access till approximately 2.30pm; ground floor apartments will maintain solar access until just after 1pm.

 

It should be noted that 29 Meeks Street is made up of 8 apartments, 4 at ground floor level and four at first floor level, the front and rear apartments all have three aspects, with bedrooms located on the eastern elevation and kitchen and living areas on the western elevation. The 4 middle apartments have dual aspects (eastern and western), with bedrooms and kitchens located on the eastern elevation and living areas on the western elevation. As a result of the narrow subdivision pattern and site orientation (north to south), residential flat buildings along Meeks Street are overshadowed by their eastern adjoining neighbours in the morning and their western adjoining neighbours in the afternoon. The site at 29 Meeks Street is no different, it is overshadowed in the morning by 31 Meeks Street, however currently enjoys afternoon solar access to the western elevation over the undeveloped single storey dwellings at 27 Meeks and 65 Willis Street.

 

It is acknowledged that the proposal does not achieve strict compliance in relation to providing 3 hours direct solar access to the all living areas of No. 29 Meeks Street. The two apartments fronting Meeks street will still maintain direct solar access during the middle of the day and will retain compliance. The first floor apartments will receive approximately 2 and half hours direct solar access (minor non-compliance); the ground floor apartments however will only receive 1 hour direct solar access.

 

Notwithstanding the departure from the relevant numerical controls, the proposed impacts are considered acceptable in the circumstances for the following reasons:

 

·      The north south orientation of the site at 27 Meeks and 65 Willis Street in addition to the construction of any fully compliant development will result in unavoidable overshadowing in the afternoon period to the western elevation of 29 Meeks Street, especially to the ground floor apartments.

·      As discussed previously the eastern elevation of the proposed development complies with the relevant controls in the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013 except for a minor non-compliance (400mm) with external wall height. It should be noted that the additional overshadowing caused by these areas of non-compliance are indiscernible.

·      The split built form design allows for increased solar access to several windows and balconies (seen in Figure 8 below, ‘Elevation B’) from 2pm through to 4pm on two of the central units at ground and first floor level.

·      The proposed development is well under the allowable FSR control of 1.4:1 prescribed under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and generally satisfies the requirements of Council’s DCP controls. The proposal is indicative of an acceptable form of development on the site that is compatible with surrounding development and the local character of the area.

·      The proposal provides side setbacks in excess of what would be required for a property with a 12m – 14m frontage. The proposal complies with the maximum building height control over the whole site and concentrates the high side of the proposed development to the western boundary to improve solar access and reduce visual bulk to the eastern adjoining neighbours.

 

 

Figure 8: Overshadowing to the western elevation of 29 Meeks Street

 

The overshadowing impacts resulting from the proposed development are considered to be acceptable in the circumstances of the subject site.

 

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 standard and non-standard conditions outlined in this report and 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. 795/2015 for Demolition of existing buildings on site and construction of a new 4 storey boarding house containing 36 rooms, at No. 65 Willis Street and 27 Meeks Street, Kingsford, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     All louvres on the eastern elevation at third floor level shall be fixed at an upward angle of 45 degrees.

 

b.     The central common open space area located at ground floor level shall be replaced with permeable deep soil area (i.e. lawn).

 

c.      Laundry facilities shall be provided within each boarding room.

 

d.     A clothes drying area shall be provided on the eastern side of the common open space area.

 

e.     The picket fence along the western edge of the common open space area (fronting Willis Street) at ground floor level shall be a maximum height of 1.2m and be designed so that the fence (excluding any piers or posts) is at least 30% open.

 

f.      The following windows must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the windows are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height:

 

·          Habitable room window on the eastern elevation of Room 112 at first               floor level; and

·          Habitable room window on the eastern elevation of Room 212 at                     second floor level

 

Operation of Premises

87.    All the items listed in the Plan of Management, titled “Annexure C Operational Plan of Management For Boarding House at 27 Meeks Street Kingsford” and dated April 2016, shall be implemented at all times.

 

The following occupancy rates shall apply to the ongoing use of the premises:

 

 

Room Number

Maximum occupancy

G01

One (1) occupant

G02

one (1) occupant

G03

Two (2) occupants

101

One (1) occupant

102

One (1) occupant

103

One (1) occupant

104

One (1) occupant

105

One (1) occupant

106

One (1) occupant

107

One (1) occupant

108

One (1) occupant

109

One (1) occupant

110

One (1) occupant

111

Two (2) occupants

112

One (1) occupant

201

One (1) occupant

202

One (1) occupant

203

One (1) occupant

204

One (1) occupant

205

One (1) occupant

206

One (1) occupant

207

One (1) occupant

208

One (1) occupant

209

One (1) occupant

210

One (1) occupant

211

Two (2) occupants

212

One (1) occupant

301

One (1) occupant

302

One (1) occupant

303

One (1) occupant

304

One (1) occupant

305

One (1) occupant

306

One (1) occupant

307

One (1) occupant

308

Two (2) occupants

Managers Room

One (1) occupant

Total

40 Occupants

 

The above occupancy rates and adopted Plan of Management shall be enforced by the appointed Manager at all times.

 

Any variation of the above occupancy rates or provisions detailed within the adopted Plan of Management shall be subject to Council approval.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report Meeks St & 65 Willis St, Kingsford

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP25/16

 

Subject:                  1 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick (DA/99/2016)

Folder No:               DA/99/2016

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of existing structures, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building with 10 dwellings with semi-basement car parking for 11 vehicles (Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Mkd Architects Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Mr P Pires and Mrs A Pires

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council as the development has a cost of works greater than $2million.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 4 storey residential flat building comprising 10 dwellings and semi-basement car parking for 11 vehicles.

 

Amended plans were received by Council on 31 March 2016, amending the layout of landscaping in front of the building; increasing the depth of the rear balconies and reconfiguring the pedestrian entry. These amendments do not result in any additional impact on the neighbouring properties with the exception of the increase in balcony depth; a condition is included requiring the increase in balcony depths to essentially be removed requiring a 500mm reduction in the depth of the east facing balconies at first and second floor level.

 

Site

 

The site is located at the eastern side of Daintrey Crescent in Randwick. The site is located within the Spot Heritage Conservation area. Daintrey Crescent wraps around in a loop starting from the western end of St Pauls Street and returning to St Pauls Street towards the east.

 

The subject site sits above street level with a sloping grass verge rising to the elevated ground level within the site. The site is rectangular in shape with a western frontage of 19.65m and a side boundary depth of 30.51m to the south and 30.81m to the north and a total site area of 604.4sqm. The southern side adjoins a four storey flat building whose address is identified as No. 65 St Pauls Street. The northern side boundary adjoins the rear boundaries of Properties identified as No. 3 and 5 Daintrey Crescent. The rear boundary has a width of 19.74m and adjoins the rear of a development at No. 11 Daintrey Crescent. The rear yard of the site is approximately 2m above the land levels of the neighbouring properties.

 

Photos of the subject site and adjoining development to the south at No. 65 St Pauls Street as well as an Aerial image of the site and surrounding properties are provided as follows:

 

Photo of subject site.

 

Photo showing the elevated rear yard of the subject site.

 

Neighbouring residential flat building to the south at No. 65 St Pauls Street. The stairs at left lead into the clothes line area referenced in this report.

 

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:

 

3 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick

 

Issue: The glazing along the northern elevation is substantial and will result in adverse overlooking into our rear yard arear at No. 3 Daintrey Crescent

 

Comment: The glazing elements along the northern side include narrow slim windows, ground level sliding doors, and upper level (level three) sliding door to a terrace and bedroom window. The central component that extends from ground to the third floor level is a louvred breezeway corridor and does not contain glazing.

 

In relation to the ground level sliding doors, there are no privacy concerns as a standard 1.8m high side fence would provide reasonable privacy screening.

 

The slim windows to the kitchen do not result in any privacy concerns due to their narrow height.

 

In relation to the third floor level bedroom window and terrace, there is adequate vertical distance from the neighbour’s northern elevation and their rear yard areas for the purposes of privacy protection – however it is noted that a condition is included requiring a planter box at the northern side of this balcony to restrict sightlines from this balcony into the habitable room windows of the dwelling at No. 5 Daintrey Crescent. In relation to the privacy impacts from the other north-eastern corner balconies at first and second floor level, a condition is included requiring a 1.6m high privacy screen along the northern side of these balconies to adequately restrict sightlines.

 

In relation to the breezeway attached to the lobby from ground to third floor level, there are no major concerns with the privacy impact as they are low use transient areas which do not lend themselves for the purposes of entertainment.

 

Issue: Concerned with the loss of mature trees within the subject site and those located at street level which contribute to privacy and amenity.

 

Comment: Acknowledged. However it is considered that suitable privacy measures have been employed within the development and appropriate conditions have been recommend in this report to ensure reasonable privacy protection of neighbouring properties. In terms of the contribution to general amenity, the applicant has provided a landscape plan that is considered suitable for this purpose. It is also considered that the earthworks carried out within the rear yard will be more beneficial in terms of privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties, both reducing the necessity for significantly sized retaining walls along the boundaries of the rear yard. The Olive tree is not covered by Councils Tree Preservation Order and therefore may be removed without consent.

 

9 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick NSW 2031

 

Issue: loss privacy and overshadowing and concerned with the loss of vegetation

 

Comment: The proposal will not result in any additional mid-winter overshadowing in to the objectors property as it is located at the north-eastern side of the subject site. In relation to privacy, the balconies are 6m from the corner boundary shared with this neighbour’s property providing sufficient separation. In relation to the loss of vegetation see comments above.

 

3/65 St Pauls Street, Randwick NSW 2031

 

Issue: The proposed development will have significant overshadowing on the balconies attached to units 7 to 12.

 

Comment: There will be additional overshadowing to the southern property and to their balcony areas however these balconies face west and will receive the 3hrs minimum. It is further noted that the additional overshadowing is largely unavoidable and a consequence of the orientation of the site rather than an inappropriate form of development for the site having regard to the context of the surrounding area and the scale of development envisaged and guided by the Apartment Design Guide, Council’s standards in the RLEP and objectives and controls in the RDCP.

 

Issue: The applicant is trying to put too much into too small a space resulting in an excessive scale

 

Comment: The proposed development displays a high level of compliance with the relevant controls applicable to this form of medium density development. The non-compliances have been adequately assessed in this planning report. The development as a whole is considered to be appropriately planned taking into account the size of the site and context of surrounding developments. The overall scale of the development as conditioned for the mansard to be setback further from the front elevation will achieve an appropriately scaled development for the site and surrounding area. It is also noted that the only windows on the northern elevation of this residential flat building serves a bathroom and not a living room.

 

Issue: The close proximity and height will mean that the residents within the development will have direct views into the apartments of existing residents.

 

Comment: The proposed development as designed and conditioned will not result in any unreasonable or significant privacy impacts on the residents within No. 65 St Pauls Street.

 

Impact: The proposed development will result in excessive noise impacts

 

Comment: The proposed development has been designed to have the majority of balconies face the front and rear of the building and the sizes of these balconies are not considered of a size that would contribute to significant noise impacts.

 

Issue: The development does not provide a realistic amount of parking

 

Comment: the proposed development provides compliant levels of car parking spaces, bicycle and motor cycle spaces in accordance with Part B7 of the RDCP 2013.

 

9/65 St Pauls Street Randwick NSW 2031

 

Issue: The excavation of the grass hill in front of the site will detrimentally affect the streetscape

 

Comment: The grass verge in front of the site is not considered to contribute positively to the aesthetic quality of the site and the character of the streetscape.

 

Issue: Excessive scale within the site and results in a terrible precedent.

 

Comment: The overall scale of the development as conditioned is considered to be acceptable having regard to the relevant matters for consideration in the assessment of the application. In particular, the proposed development provides a density and building envelope that is compliant with Councils RLEP and the majority of controls under RDCP 2013 regarding medium density residential development.

 

Issue: increased demand for on street parking

 

Comment: see comments above.

 

Issue: Significant blocking of sunlight and lack of privacy

 

Comment: See comments made in this report relating to orientation and solar access and privacy.

 

Key Issues

 

Earthworks (Cl. 6.2 of the RLEP 2012 & Part C2 of the RDCP 2013)

 

Depth of excavation

The basement level is at street level and considered an adequate outcome having regard to the relevant objectives. The proposed lowering of the rear yard by 2m is significant. It is considered that this is adequate because the lower rear yard level will be closer to and more consistent with the finished lower ground levels on neighbouring properties at Nos. 5, 9, 11 Daintrey Crescent and Nos. 67-69 St Pauls Road. This is considered a better planning outcome.

 

Loss of trees

The excavation within the rear yard means two mature trees will be removed. Although the loss of these two mature trees is unfortunate, it is considered that the outcome will be beneficial to the surrounding area as the lowering land levels closer to those on surrounding properties which will have the effect of lowering the height of the existing high retaining walls and fencing opposite neighbouring properties to the rear and parts of the side boundary.

 

Stability:

Appropriate conditions are included to ensure the neighbouring land and structures are adequately supported.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality Residential Flat Buildings (Apartment Design Guide)

 

SEPP No. 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposal is subject to the policy as it involves the development of a residential flat building being 3 storeys and more in height. Council’s Design Review Panel has considered the proposal and the Panel’s comments are included in a Section of the DA Compliance report. An assessment has been carried out in accordance with Part 3: Siting the Development and Part 4: Designing the Building of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) against the design criteria requirements. The key non-compliance to the design criteria includes a merits based assessment as per the design guidance of the Apartment Design Guide (included in this Council meeting report below). These include controls relating to communal open space, and visual privacy.

 

Orientation – solar access (Part 3B-2 of ADG and Part C2 of RDCP 2013)

 

This part of the ADG and the RDCP 2013 is included as a key issue in this Council meeting report as the required 6m side setback for the purposes of solar access to neighbouring properties has been raised in submissions received by Council. The proposed development is only 3.5m from the southern side boundary which does not meet the minimum 6m control in the ADG; however it does meet the minimum side setback control in the RDCP 2013 under Part C2 – Medium Density residential development for a site of this width.

 

The ADG requires a minimum of two hours of direct solar access be provided to the affected neighbours (Living areas, private open space and communal open space) between the hours of 9am – 3pm, mid-winter. The proposed development does not reduce solar access to these areas of the neighbouring property to the south at No. 65 St Pauls Street. The areas affected by the proposed development include north facing bathroom windows and two clothes lines located between the northern elevation and the boundary shared with the subject site. Parts of the clothes line area will receive two hours of direct sunlight in the afternoon period. The neighbour’s private open space in the front of their building in the form of balconies will also receive the minimum two hours of solar access.

 

Therefore in terms of solar access, the proposed development is considered acceptable having regard to the ADG and RDCP side setback controls. Also, the east-west orientation of the site and the lower land level of the neighbouring property to the south means that southern neighbouring properties are highly vulnerable to overshadowing. The demonstrated high level of compliance with the site planning and envelope controls in the RDCP 2013 means that the additional overshadowing is largely an unavoidable consequence of the site conditions rather than a result of inappropriate site planning or envelope. It is also noted that any further setback from the southern side boundary would severely compromise the development potential of the subject site as well as detract from the spatial setting of the development and presentation along the street.

 

Overall, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the design guidance for 3B-2 Orientation.

 

Communal Open Space (Part 3D-1 of ADG and Part C2 of the RDCP 2013)

 

The SEPP 65: Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development policy requires consideration of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) which also requires that communal open space be provided with a minimum of 25% of the site. The Council controls also require that communal open space for residential flat buildings is of a sufficient contiguous area (with minimum depth of 2m) and not divided up for allocation of individual units. The proposal does not comply with the ADG or Council controls providing only 5.6% communal space at the southern side (with a depth of 1.8m) and south-eastern corner of the site (compliant depth).

 

In the ADG, the design guidance for communal open space indicates that it may be difficult for developments on smaller allotments to provide a compliant area for communal open space. Given the generous allotment size and width it is considered that the proposed smaller communal open space area is inadequate in servicing the occupants within the building and additional communal open space is capable of being accommodated within the rear yard. Therefore it is recommended that a condition is included requiring the rear permeable area measuring 4m from the rear boundary for the full length of the rear yard to be allocated as communal open space. This will increase the communal open space to 20%. Whilst this is still less than the 25% required in the ADG, it is considered acceptable having regard to the design guidance provided in the ADG as each apartment is provided with separate private open space and the provision of any additional communal open space would unfairly compromise other parts of the development.

 

In addition to the above, as this required communal open space area is adjacent to two bedroom ground level apartment at the rear, the condition shall also make provisions for a strategically located privacy screening between these two areas.

 

Overall, it is considered that the allocation of additional area for communal open space ensure compliance with the design guidance provided for in the ADG as well as Council controls for providing a reasonably sized communal area within the site that also receives reasonable levels of solar access.

 

Visual Privacy (3F-1 of ADG)

 

In order to achieve appropriate levels of visual privacy, the ADG requires a minimum building separation of 6 metres from habitable rooms (inclusive of balconies) to the side boundaries and 3 metres from non-habitable rooms for buildings up to 4 storeys in height.

 

Windows

The proposed highlight windows on the southern elevation do not pose any unreasonable privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties.

The proposed windows on the northern elevation are sling windows of narrow height and don’t afford any substantial privacy impacts.

The windows on the eastern elevation are suitably setback from the rear boundary and the neighbouring property.

 

Balconies

The proposed balconies (at first and second floor level) located at the northeastern corner of the development are only 3m from the northern side boundary shared with Nos. 3 and 5 Daintrey Crescent and well within the ADG required 6m side setback.

 

As these first and second floor balconies form the principle private open space for the apartments it is reasonable to require additional privacy protection measures. A condition is included requiring 1.6m high screen to be appropriately designed and located at the northern side boundary of these balconies. This condition appropriately minimises direct sightlines and is consistent with Councils objectives for Medium Density Residential development under Part C2 of the RDCP 2013.

 

It is noted that no screen is required for the northern side upper level 3 balcony as it is conditioned to be provided with a 900mm planter box along the northern side of the terrace ensuring adequate separation from the neighbouring properties in regard to the ADG requirements.

 

The east facing balconies to bedrooms have been increased in depth from 500mm to 1000mm. As these balconies have not been notified a condition has been included requiring them to reduce in depth to a maximum of 500mm.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan

 

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 controls may be considered only where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome.

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed in the table below. (Note: a number of control provisions that are not related to the proposal have been deliberately omitted.)

 

Roof design (Part 4.2 of the RDCP 2013 and Clause 5.10 of the RLEP 2012)

 

The proposed development has a mansard roof form, which contains greater massing than a conventional hipped or gable roof form. The massing and scale of the roof is also exaggerated by it being in close proximity to the perimeter of the building at the front.

 

Council’s Heritage planner indicates that relative to the scale and massing of the neighbouring properties along Daintrey Crescent that the scale should be reduced. In this respect, in discussions with the Heritage planner, it is considered suitable that the mansard roof be required to be setback an additional 500mm from the front elevation.

 

The only projecting feature of the roof is the lift overrun which is limited to only a small part of the development and will not present an obtrusive element from the street therefore this element is excluded from the condition above.

 

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 non-compliances occur are adequately addressed in the assessment of the application and will not result in any unreasonable or significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 99/2016 for demolition of existing structures, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building with 10 dwellings with semi-basement car parking for 11 vehicles, at No. 1 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     Privacy screens having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to northern side of balconies located at the northern eastern corners of the site at first and second floor levels. The privacy screens must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screens must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screens may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

b.     The mansard roof form shall be setback a further 500mm from the western (front) elevation.

c.      An area within the rear yard measuring a minimum of 4m from the rear boundary shall be dedicated as communal open space. This area shall be appropriately screened to ensure that suitable privacy is provided to the ground level two-bedroom apartment at the rear.

d.     The louvres to the northern and southern sides of the central breezeway shall be at least 50% open.

e.     A planter box having a depth of 900mm shall be installed along the entire northern edge of the terrace adjacent to the northern side of the living room at third floor level. This condition has been included to minimise the privacy impact on the neighbouring property at No. 5 Daintrey Crescent.

f.      The depth of the rear eastern facing balconies at first and second floor levels shall be reduced by 500mm.

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

 

Details showing compliance with this condition shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 1 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP26/16

 

Subject:                  13 Cairo Street, South Coogee (DA/731/2014/A)

Folder No:               DA/731/2014/A

Author:                    Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of the approved development by the replacement of privacy screen on the ground level east facing deck with 1.035m high balustrade

                                Original consent: Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new garage and upper level additions

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Cape Cod Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Mr T B Fogg and Mrs N Shaw

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions Received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The application is referred to Council for consideration as the original application was determined by Council.

 

Proposal

 

Details of Current Approval:

Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new garage and upper level additions.  Condition 2a required a 1.6m high privacy screen to be installed to the eastern side of the ground level deck for a distance of 6m from the rear corner of the deck.

 

It should be noted that the subject application is accompanied by a letter of support from the owners of the eastern adjoining property at 15 Cairo Street for the deletion of Condition 2(a).

 

Details of Proposed Modification:

Section 96 modification of the approved development by the replacement of privacy screen on ground level east facing deck with 1.035m high timber balustrade. The proposal will require the deletion of condition 2a.

 

Site

 

The subject site is on the southern side of Cairo Street and has an area of 815m². The site has a fall from the rear to the front and across the site from the west to east.

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of older style and contemporary two and three storey dwellings and some multi-unit housing development. The site is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection area.

 

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

 

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 has been complied with:-

 

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 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It is considered that the application remains substantially within the scope of the original development.

 

Section 79C Assessment:

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

 

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012)

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the RLEP 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent. The proposed modification is not inconsistent with the aims of RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposal will generally preserve the amenity of the surrounding environment and will protect the amenity of adjoining residents. The proposed modification will remain compliant with the relevant development standards of the RLEP 2012.

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013)

 

Visual Privacy – Sub-Section 5.3

The proposed modification will allow for overlooking from the ground floor deck to the private open space (POS) of the site to the east. This would result in a non-compliance with the visual privacy provision of Sub-Section 5.3 of part C1 of the RCDCP 2013. Refer fig. 1 below.

 

The proposed non-compliance is not inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 2013 and will result in no significant adverse impacts. While the removal of the privacy screen will allow for overlooking of the POS of the adjoining property at (15 Cairo Street), the owners of the adjoining site have provided a letter of support for the removal of the privacy screen. Furthermore, overlooking is not an unexpected outcome within this locality due to the slope of the area and the coastal views. The rear of the subject site already overlooks the POS of 15 Cairo Street. The raised decks at Nos 3 and 5 Bloomfield Street can also overlook the POS of the subject site and 15 Cairo Street. Therefore, it can be argued that the removal of the privacy screening will not significantly reduce the privacy enjoyed within the POS of 15 Cairo Street.

 

Figure 1. The view from the partially completed eastern ground level deck. The privacy screen was required in lieu of a balustrade along the eastern edge of the deck (left of photo). Views of the POS of the adjoining site to the east can be seen in the left of the photo.   

 

Other Environmental Impacts – Section 79C(1)(b)

The proposed modification will be compatible with the character of the locality and is not an unexpected outcome within the context. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal will generate no significant adverse environmental impacts.

 

 

Site Suitability

The modification to the approved development does not alter the nature or scale of the approved development in relation to site suitability.

 

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 approved 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 significant adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity and character of the locality and will be not 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 Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. DA/731/2014/A by replacing the privacy screen on the ground level east facing deck with 1.035m high balustrade.  The consent is modified in the following manner:

 

·       Delete Condition No. 2a

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP27/16

 

Subject:                  11 Bond Street Maroubra (DA/535/2015/B)

Folder No:               DA/535/2015/B

Author:                    Gabrielle Coleman, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the size of the building at upper and lower ground floor levels, including additional games rooms and deletion of front upper level balconies, changes to the size of lower ground floor decks and plunge pools and new timber pergola to rear decks

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               E Elski

Owner:                    E Elski and B Meck

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

This Section 96 (2) application is referred to Council as the original development consent was determined at the Planning Committee Meeting on 9 February, 2016.

 

Proposal

 

The subject Section 96 (2) application seeks consent for the following modifications to each dwelling: 

 

·      Construction of a games room at the lower ground floor level with internal reconfiguration.

·      Minor reconfiguration of the lower ground floor level.

·      Modifications to the plunge pool and associated rear deck with new timber pergola over the decks.

·      Relocation of the pool equipment to below the rear deck

·      Reduction in the extent of the excavation.

·      Replacement of north facing balconies on upper level with 400mm deep window reveals.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Bond Street between Bona Vista Avenue and Duncan Street, Maroubra.  The site has a frontage to Bond Street of 15.24m, a depth of 54.255m; and a site area of 826.8m². The site has a cross fall of between 740mm to 1.79m from west to east and a fall of up to approximately 8m from the front to rear. 

 

The neighbouring dwelling to the north west at no.’s 7-9 Bond Street are split level duplex dwellings and to the south east at no.15 Bond Street is a two storey dwelling which is currently under construction.

 

The surrounding area predominately consists of single to two storey dwelling houses, attached dual occupancy and semi-detached dwellings which some of the buildings have split level due to the significant fall of the site towards the rear.  There are a number of old residential flat buildings in the immediate vicinity.

 

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:

 

Issue

Comment

 

5 Bond Street Maroubra

 

The proposed new windows and deletion of the balcony with a new non-retractable louvre system is much more commercial in character and being fixed and mounted flush with the façade provide very minimal detail and articulation to the façade and contributes to a very commercial character to the façade.

 

 

 

 

The front façade will remain articulated by the provision of new adjustable louvres, front entry awning, recessed front entry foyers and garage doors. The new adjustable louvres will provide shading and privacy screening to the upper floor bedrooms. Further, the combination of various building materials and the provision of landscaping within the front yard area will also help to minimise the visual bulk and create visual interest from the street.

 


 

Section 96 Assessment

 

Substantially the Same Development

The proposal does not involve any significant changes to the approved built form, floor space or landscaped area provision on site. Therefore, the modified development is considered to be substantially the same development as that for which the consent was originally granted.

 

Notification and Consideration of Submissions

The subject application was notified to surrounding property owners. Two (2) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public notification process (see above). 

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

State Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for all new dwellings, dual occupancies and some transient residential accommodation where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2004. A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

Clause 55A of the EP & A Regulation requires that a new BASIX certificate be lodged for amended plans or where a section 96 modification makes a material change to the BASIX commitments as originally approved.

 

The applicant has submitted a new BASIX certificate. The plans have been checked with regard to this new certificate and they are consistent with the requirements indicated for DA stage. Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX were included in the original determination.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

The proposal is not inconsistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012. The following clauses of LEP 2012 are relevant to the proposed development:

 

Description

Council Standard

Approved

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.75:1

Lot 11A = 0.485:1 (or 200.5m²)

 

Lot 11B = 0.485:1 (or 200.5m²)

 

Lot 11A = 0.57:1

Lot 11B = 0.59:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

Max. approximately 9.13m from the natural ground level.

 

No change

Yes

Clause 4.1A - Lot Size (Minimum) for strata in the R2 zone:

400sqm per allotment

Site area = 826.8m²

 

Lot 11A = 413.4sqm

 

Lot 11B = 413.4sqm

No change

Yes

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

The amended development will generally be consistent with the objectives and performance requirements of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan as highlighted in the assessment against the relevant controls below. 

 

Clause 2.3 Site Coverage

 

The increased site coverage will still remain compliant with the numerical requirements of the RDCP 2013.

 

Description

Council Standard

Approved

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Site Coverage

301 to 450 sqm = 55%

 

Lot 11A = 35.7% (or 147.5m²)

 

Lot 11B = 35.7% (or 147.5m²)

 

Lot 11A = 45%

 

Lot 11B = 45%

Yes

 

Clause 2.4 Landscaping and permeable surfaces

 

The proposal will result in a decrease to the amount of landscaping and permeable surfaces on site but will remain compliant with the RDCP 2013.

 

Description

Council Standard

Approved

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Landscaping and permeable surfaces

301 to 450 sqm = 25%

 

Lot 11A = 35.2% (or 145.5m²)

 

Lot 11B = 35.2% (or 145.5m²)

 

Lot 11A = 26%

 

Lot 11B = 26%

Yes

 

Clause 4.1 Building Design – General

 

The subject section 96 modification also seeks consent to delete the front Juliet balconies and replaced the retractable louvres with non-retracting adjustable louvres with 400mm deep window reveals. The visual difference to the front faced of the building between the approved and modified proposal is considered to be minimal as the façade will remain articulated by the provision of new adjustable louvres, front entry awning, recessed front entry foyers and garage doors.

 

 

 

Clause 5.1 Solar access and overshadowing

 

The original development consent highlighted that the approved development would not have unreasonable additional overshadowing impacts on the adjoining neighbours. Due to the slope of the site from the street towards the rear of the site, the extension of the lower ground floor level by approximately 5m steps down from the approved building envelope by approximately 2.6m. The timber pergola is stepped down further and both structures will maintain a 1.2m side setback and a new 18.7m rear setback. Therefore, these modifications do not involve any increase in height or width from the approved roof line and side setbacks and is considered to be compliant with the building envelope controls in the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013. As a result, any additional overshadowing would be considered unavoidable with any compliant extension to the approved development.

 

Clause 5.3 Visual Privacy

 

Windows

The addition of the games room will result in a new window to both the north western and south eastern elevations. The games room window on the south eastern elevation will have the potential to overlook as it is elevated above the existing ground level and will not be adequately screened by the dividing fence. As a result, an appropriate condition is included in the recommendation of this report that requires that the sill height of the window to the games room on the south-eastern elevation must be raised to a minimum of 1600mm must be fixed and provided with translucent, obscured or frosted glazing to ameliorate against overlooking towards the adjoining neighbour. 

 

Rear ground floor deck

The deck and proposed extension to 11A will be screened by planting and the existing boundary paling fence and will therefore protect the privacy of the adjoining north western neighbour.

 

The RL to the rear ground floor deck adjoining 11B involves raising the deck level by 300mm to RL32.6 and extending it by 2.7m to the rear and 800mm towards the north eastern boundary. It is considered that the raising of the deck level will result in the potential for overlooking towards the POS of the adjoining north eastern neighbour. A condition of consent has been included that the section of the rear ground floor deck that extends east of the building line at 11B be deleted. 

A 1600mm high privacy screen (measured from the deck RL32.9) must be included along the south eastern edge of the deck, excluding along the stairs adjacent to the deck.

 

Clause 5.4 Acoustic Privacy

 

The pool filter has been moved to below the rear deck and will ameliorate any adverse acoustic impacts on the adjoining neighbours.

 

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 modifications to the existing development have been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP 2012 and Council’s Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan, 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 a development that is substantially the same development as that previously approved, and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/535/2015/B for the Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the size of the building at upper and lower ground floor levels, including additional games rooms and deletion of front upper level balconies, changes to the size of lower ground floor decks and plunge pools and new timber pergola to rear decks, at No. 11 Bond Street, Maroubra, in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition 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, except where amended by Council in red and/or by other conditions of this consent:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

Sheet 1of 7 to 7 of 7 (Issue F)

Architects Ink

19/01/2016

25 January 2016

Colours, Materials and Finishes Schedule

Architects Ink

-

6 August 2015

 

as amended by the following Section 96’A’ plans and information:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Sheet 1of 7 to 7 of 7 (Issue

G)

Architects Ink

June 2015

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Single Dwelling

646628S_05

18 March 2016

 

 

 

 

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:

 

Add Condition 2 c and 2 d.

 

2.       c.     The sill height of the window to the games room on the south eastern elevation is to be increased to a minimum height of 1600mm above floor level. Alternatively, the window is to be fixed and provided with translucent, obscured or frosted glazing below 1600m above floor level.

 

d.     The rear ground floor deck at No. 11B Bond Street must be setback 1200mm from the south-eastern side boundary. A privacy screen having a height of 1600mm above the deck must be installed along the south eastern edge of the deck, excluding the stairs adjacent to the deck.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP28/16

 

Subject:                  26 Wentworth Street, Randwick (DA/640/2014/A)

Folder No:               DA/640/2014/A

Author:                    Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modifications of the approved development by reducing the size of the rear double garage to single garage, provision of new in-ground swimming pool and changes to window openings

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mr C G Wilkinson

Owner:                    Ms C A Shand & Mr C J Kimber

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=4eb084b1-f5fe-451a-8bdc-fc3e957f7b7c&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application is referred to Council for consideration as the original was determined by Council as the applicant has indicated that they have a close personal relationship with a Councillor.

 

 

Proposal

 

Council granted consent under DA/640/2014 for Alterations and additions to the rear of the existing dwelling including new first floor addition and new double garage with storage shed fronting Dangar Lane (Heritage Conservation Area).

 

This application seeks to modify the approved development by:

 

-    Reducing the size of the rear double garage to a single garage to enable the construction of an in-ground swimming pool, and

-    Changes to window openings.

 

Site

 

No. 26 Wentworth Street (Lot 15 DP 4589) has a total area of 418.1m2 with a frontage of 9.145m and a depth of 46m. The site currently contains a detached single storey dwelling and a single storey double garage which fronts on to Dangar Lane, which is common with the rear boundary. The site slopes by approximately 0.31m from Wentworth Street to Dangar Lane. The site is located within the Randwick North Heritage Conservation Area.

 

Works have begun on the dwelling, and the garage has been demolished, as approved by DA/640/2014.

 

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.

 

Key Issues

 

Car Parking

Section 3.2 of Part B7 in the Randwick DCP 2013 requires dwelling houses with three or more bedrooms to provide two off street parking spaces. The original development application gave consent to replace an existing double garage with a new double garage, store and tool shed.

 

The applicant was advised in late March that the proposed reduction of two approved parking spaces to one space could not be supported. The applicant was given the opportunity to amend the plans to retain the approved double garage and propose the window changes as part of the modification application. In response the applicant sought legal advice and advised council that the proposal would not be amended and the assessment of the modification application should be continued in its current form.

 

The proposed modification to reduce the parking on site to one space cannot be supported.

 

Engineering Comments

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the application and provided the following comments:

 

The Assessing Officer is advised that Development Engineering does not support the reduction in off-street parking considering a 3 bedroom dwelling requires 2 off-street car spaces. It may be argued that there is sufficient on-street parking within the surrounding streets however Development Engineering has included a condition which possibly negates the dwelling from being issue Residential Parking Permits should a Parking Scheme be implemented in this area in the future. 

 

Heritage Comments

The site is within the Randwick North Conservation Area and is occupied by an early twentieth century single storey detached cottage.  The dwelling contributes to the heritage value of the heritage conservation area through it scale form, materials and detailing.  The proposed modification was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner who provided the following comments:

 

Background

The original application proposed a two storey addition comprising ground floor living areas and upper floor bedrooms etc.  Heritage comments on the original development application were provided by Colin Brady Architecture + Planning.  Concerns were raised in relation to the streetscape prominence of the upper level addition, its impact on existing roof form and the proposed cladding and detailing of the forward section of the additions.  A number of recommendations were made in relation to redesign of the forward section of the proposed first floor additions, conservation of original fabric and detail and provision of a suitable front garden setting for the dwelling.  The proposal was nevertheless approved by Council without significant amendment.

 

Proposal

A Section 96 amendment has now been received which proposes changes to several windows and to the rear garage making provision for a small swimming pool. 

 

Submission

The original application was accompanied by a Heritage Impact Assessment which did not adequately address the contributory value of the dwelling to the heritage value of the heritage conservation area.  The current proposal has been accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects which includes a section addressing Heritage Conservation.  The SEE argues that the Wentworth Street elevation will not be affected and that the changes to the rear will reduce the impact on the garage on Dangar Lane.  The SEE argues that the proposal will have no impact on the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area. 

 

Controls

In relation to Garages, carports, carspaces and driveways, Clause 2.9 of the Heritage section of Randwick DCP 2013 includes an Objective of ensuring parking structures and paved areas are visually discreet and do not dominate or compete with original character buildings.  In relation to Gardens, garden elements and swimming pools Clause 2.11 of the Heritage section of Randwick DCP 2013 includes a Control that swimming pools must be located at the rear of the property, retaining important trees and areas of soft landscaping, and not resulting in significant changes to ground levels on the site. 

 

Comments

Window openings

The proposed changes to openings will not affect original windows and there are no heritage objections to the proposed changes. 

 

Garage and swimming pool

The proposed garage will be reduced in size by deleting a proposed storage area and tool shed and reducing the width of the garage.  The garage will retain its single storey scale, be compatible with the bulk and scale of surrounding outbuildings, and will remain consistent with DCP controls. 

 

The proposed swimming pool will not significantly increase the area previously occupied by the northern half of the garage which was originally proposed.  It appears that no additional trees are to be removed and reasonable areas of soft landscaping are retained, in the form of permeable paving and garden beds. 

 

Recommendation

No further consent conditions are required. 

 

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 reduction in car parking to one space from the approved two spaces does not comply with the minimum number of car parking spaces (two for dwellings with 3 or more bedrooms) prescribed by the DCP and cannot be supported. It will set an undesirable precedent in the area.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No DA/640/2014/A, for deletion of one car space and provision of a small exercise wading pool and two window changes at No. 26 Wentworth Street, Randwick, for the following reasons:

 

1.       Non-compliance with Section B 3.2 – Vehicle Parking Rates of RDCP 2013.  The reduction from two spaces to one space does not comply with the minimum 2 spaces required by the DCP, and will set an undesirable precedent in the area.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP29/16

 

Subject:                  7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/851/2015)

Folder No:               DA/851/2015

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Amendments to approved development consents DA/822/2013 and DA/924/2014 by enclosure of second floor southwest roof garden, increase in size of second floor roof terrace, alteration to finish level of swimming pool and surrounds, addition of privacy louvres on northern side, alterations to cabana, internal reconfiguration, deletion of first floor southern balcony

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               CM Hairis Architects

Owner:                    Ms M Eleftheriades

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=d768095e-3a66-41d3-b735-b3ea2242ef40&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council as the proposed floor space ratio exceeds the standard under Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 by more than 10%.

 

Proposal

 

The subject development application (DA) is an amending DA to approvals issued under DA/822/2013 and DA/924/2014. The details of the proposal are as follows:

 

Second floor level

 

·      Convert street facing first floor garden terrace into a walk in robe. Other works required include extend the roof over towards the street and adding a skylights.

·      Increase extent of usable roof terrace towards the rear and southern side of the non-trafficable roof. A section of non-trafficable roof still maintained around the perimeter of the terrace.

 

Swimming pool (lower ground level plan):

 

·      Raise the pool and coping level by 350mm (from RL17.15 to RL17.50) by removing two steps leading from the lower ground floor patio behind.

·      Increase width of coping along southern side of the pool to 1500mm. This means that the applicant is seeking to delete condition 2a imposed in DA/924/2014 that required a reduction in the width of the coping to 600mm as it was considered that the wider coping along this side of the pool would result in significant overlooking into the rear yard of No. 9 Seaside Parade.

·      A commensurate 350mm increase in height is sought to the southern side retaining wall (RL17.35 to RL17.70). The retaining wall increases in height from 1.73m up to 2.08m in relation to the southern neighbour’s rear yard level (RL15.62) at No. 9 Seaside Parade. This amendment relates to condition 2f in DA/924/2014).

 

Northern elevation

 

·      Replace wire planted vines with vertical louvres configured on a northeastern direction

 

Other amendments relating to conditions imposed in DA/924/2014:

 

·      Ground floor open terrace cantilever reduced as per condition 2a in DA/924/2014.

·      First floor level balcony on the southern side is deleted as per condition 2b in DA/924/2014.

·      Reduction in length of cabana and roof and walls so that they are behind the foreshore building line as per condition 2c in DA/924/2014.

·      Proposed increase in height of southern side retaining wall alongside the rear yard of No. 9 Seaside Parade. This relates to condition 2f in DA/924/2014.

·      Proposed northern side boundary fencing from rear stairs down to the rear boundary. The proposed fencing varies in height from around 1.8m above the stairs to between 2.35m and 2.49m for the fence that runs along the rear yard shared with No. 5 Seaside parade. This part of the application relates to condition 2g which required a new DA for side fencing in this location.

·      Internal reconfiguration of WC and wine cellar –

 

Site history:

 

1.  DA/822/2013: Approved at Ordinary Council meeting on 22/07/2014 for the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new five (5) storey dwelling. The approval indicates the following non-standard conditions:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

 

2.     The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements and as indicated in red on the approved plans. The amendments shall be made to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager of Development Assessment, prior to the issue of a construction certificate:

 

a.     The cantilevered ground floor terrace at the rear of the dwelling shall be reduced in length by 3200mm prior to issue of a construction certificate, as indicated in red on the approved plans;

 

b.     Further detail of fencing on northern and southern side boundaries shall be provided to Council, with the boundary profile of 5 Seaside Parade corrected to accurately reflect the fall of the land. Fencing shall generally measure 1800mm in height when measured at existing ground level on 5 Seaside Parade’s side of the boundary and shall not exceed 2200mm where stepping is necessary;

 

c.     The front fencing shown to the Seaside Parade boundary on the approved plans shall be no higher than 1800mm above existing ground level at any point;

 

d.     The pergola structure shown at the rear of the site along the eastern boundary shall be deleted prior to the issue of a construction certificate;

 

e.     Any retaining wall encroaching upon the Foreshore Building Line must be constructed or clad with sandstone;

 

f.      Lift, pool and air conditioning plant and equipment shall be contained within an acoustically treated enclosure sited centrally within the property;

 

g.     Solar panels and plant shown on the roof of the development shall not be elevated or inclinated to have the effect of increasing the approved maximum height of RL 32.9.

 

2.  DA/924/2014: Approved at Ordinary Council meeting on 8 September 2014 to amend DA/822/2013 by altering the internal configuration of the dwelling, increase the floor area at lower ground and ground floor levels, new cabana at lower ground floor level, increase the size of the terrace area at ground and second floor levels, new balcony on the southern elevation at first floor level, changes to openings on all elevations, and increase the overall height of the dwelling to RL33.07. The approval indicates the following non-standard conditions:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements, as indicated in red on the approved plans. The amendments shall be made to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager of Development Assessment, prior to the issue of a construction certificate:

 

a)     The cantilevered ground floor terrace at the rear of the dwelling shall be reduced in length by 1500mm so that it aligns with the lower ground floor level wall below. Details shall be submitted to Councils Manager of Development Assessment for approval prior to issue of a construction certificate (or amended Construction Certificate) is issued for the development, as indicated in red on the approved plans;

 

b)     The first floor southern side balcony shall be deleted from the development.

 

c)     The cabana roof and walls must be located behind the foreshore building line. All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate shall show compliance with this condition.

 

d)     There are to be no structures locate above the finished ground level within the lower ground floor level that encroaches over the foreshore building line.

 

e)     The pool coping along the southern side of the pool shall be reduced to a maximum width of 600mm and landscaping along the southern side of the pool shall be increased in width by 1000mm to limit the degree to which the coping can be used for extended periods of time and to limit the degree of overlooking into the neighbours rear yard area. The fencing along the northern side boundary is limited to a clear glass BCA compliant balustrade located on the northern side of the landscaped area.

 

f)     No consent is granted for fencing to the southern side boundary. Any new fencing shall be subject to a separate development application unless the fence design meets the exempt and complying development criteria specified under the SEPP Exempt and Complying Codes 2008.

 

g)     The fence along the northern side boundary may only be constructed up to the eastern end of the lower ground level patio level. The northern side boundary fencing extending from the end of the lower ground level patio to the rear boundary shall be the subject of a separate development application.

 

3.       This determination made under DA/924/2014 amends the determination made under DA/822/2013 only in so far as the modifications highlighted on the plans referenced in condition 1 of this consent and any amending conditions attached to this consent.

                     

Site

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Seaside Parade, at the intersection of Seaside Parade and Edgecliffe Ave. The site has single frontage (14m wide) to Seaside Parade with its rear boundary (14m wide) oriented to the east coast. The topography of the site falls significantly to the coast, having a variance of around 11m between the front of the site at Seaside Parade and the rear of the site on the coast. The site has a total area of 670.3sqm with varying side boundaries of 50.29m at the northern side and 46.635m at the southern side.

 

A two (2) storey dwelling is presently contained within the site. The surrounding development is residential, consisting mostly large contemporary dwellings along the foreshore within the predominately low density residential zone (R2 zone).

 

Image 1: Subject site

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

The amending DA requires consideration of the standards for building height, floor space ratio, excavation, foreshore building line, and foreshore scenic protection area.

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 R2 – Low Density Residential. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone having regard to the relevant matters discussed throughout this report and compliance report.

Height of Building (Max)

9.5m

No change to the building height

N/A

 

Floor Space Ratio (Max)

0.6:1

0.69:1

 

No*

 

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Council must be 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.

The proposed development as conditioned will maintain the visual quality of the foreshore in that the proposed contemporary form including appropriate fenestration, modern lines and light-toned colours will complement the natural elements of the coastal area and the aesthetic appearance of the proposal in relation to the foreshore. It is noted that a condition requiring a privacy screen to the roof terrace is not considered appropriate as it will detract from the foreshore area.

 

It is considered that the development meets the requirements specified in (a) and (b) at left.

*See exceptions to these development standards below.

 

4.1.2  Clause 4.4 Floor Space area of the RLEP 2012

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor area standard contained in Clause 4.4 (2A) (c) states that the maximum FSR of a site over 600 square metres in area (the subject site is 670.3 square metres) is 0.6:1. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the proposed variation summarized in the table and illustrated in Figure 1 and 2 below that show the southern elevation of the development and the roof plan. These excerpts of the submitted plans show that the proposed WIR is sited behind the en-suite at this level.

 

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Development Standard

0.6:1

Approved

0.67:1 (12.8% variation)

Proposal

0.69:1

Excess above RLEP Standard

15% (62.275sqm)

 

Figure 1: Southern elevation: Shows the proposed WIR replaces an approved upper level garden area that had louvres along both the southern elevation shown above as well as the western elevation facing the street. The proposed enclosure also seeks to extend the within the red square above and at the front western elevation

 

Figure 2: Roof Plan shows the location of the proposed WIR relative to the site and the approved en-suite behind to the east.

Request to vary development standard

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the maximum floor area standard contained in clause 4.4 (2A) of RLEP 2012, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

(i)      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.

 

(ii)     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 floor space ratio standard are set out in clause 4.4(1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

Assessment comments:

 

It is considered that the proposal is satisfactory and compliance with the floor space ratio development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary based on the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed development does not result in any additional visual bulk as the additional floor area is located behind the timber screens and has almost identical appearance as the previous approved development

 

·      There are no appreciable physical implications on the neighbouring properties having regard to overshadowing as the approved development had louvred walls and a vergola roof over

 

·      There no physical implications having regard to view loss from neighbouring properties due to this area already being enclosed by louvre screens – see Figure 3 excerpt from assessment carried out under DA/924/2014.

 

Figure 3: View loss from previously approved development showing the location of the enclosed WIR within the envelope of the approved development.

 

·      The additional floor space does not add to or alter the perceived bulk, scale and character of the approved development. The additional 10sqm of floor area is minor in the context of the approved building.

 

·      Strict compliance with the standard would be of limited practical effect, given the additional floor area represents a 3% variation between the approved development (DA/924/2014) and that being proposed as part of the subject application. Moreover, a substantial portion of the floor area above the standard is contained within the lower ground floor levels where there is no perceived bulk or scale when viewed from the neighbouring properties or from the public domain.

 

It is considered that the justifications provided in the applicant’s written request have sufficient planning merit, as indicated above. In other words, the applicant’s written request is considered to have successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

 

The proposal has been 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.

 

(iv)    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 floor space ratio standard and the objectives of the R2 zone.

 

The proposed development is permissible within the R2 Low Density Residential zone of RLEP 2012. The proposal provides for an appropriate low-density housing development, both in the context of this site and as contemplated within the R2 zone objectives which seek:

 

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

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

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

•     To protect the amenity of residents.

•     To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposed amending DA has maintained the variation in materials across the front western elevation facing Seaside Parade and the southern elevation facing No. 9 Seaside Parade. The proposed development does not result in any environmental impacts upon neighbouring sites. The built form will maintain the desirable attributes of the approved and desired future character of the residential area. The scheme maintains a highly articulated development of appropriate and similar scale to that approved remaining sympathetic to the foreshore area and allows for an appropriate economic use of the subject site.

 

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

 

(v)     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 floor space within clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical floor space standard will not be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the FSR 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. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary, in this case, for maintaining the low density housing forms in the locality, including dwelling houses and semi-detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

This amending Development Application to the approved developments (DA/822/2013 & DA/924/2014) to increase the floor area at the second floor level   does not increase the bulk and scale of the development and will not result in any adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties or the streetscape character.

 

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:

 

·      8 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

 

Issue: The incremental amendments to this application have sought to enlarge an extremely large house. We request Council not approve any components that modify the approved building envelope. The previous amendments have had adverse impact to our existing view corridors.

 

Comment: The assessment of the proposed amendment to the floor area has been considered in their entirety. In brief, it is considered that the proposed additional floor area will not result in any additional impacts on either the amenity of neighbouring properties or the character of the streetscape character and will satisfy the relevant objectives of the R2 zone and the development standard for Floor space ratio.

 

·      5 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

 

Issue: The only point of clarification is that the application appears to be silent regarding the ‘colour’ of the northern boundary wall (adjoining No.5). I note that condition 5 “external Colours, materials and finishes’ requires details to be provided prior to CC, my client may wish to have some input into the colour on his side of the fence when details are ultimately submitted.

 

Comment: A condition has been recommended for inclusion that requires details of treatment (colours and materials) of the northern side boundary fence to be submitted to Council prior to construction of the fence.

 

Key Issues

 

An assessment is carried out against the key parts of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP).

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013)

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.

 

Each of the proposed amendments are the subject of assessment against S79C of the Act with particular reference made to Part C1 Low Density Residential Development of the RDCP. Following identification of each amendment being sought and assessment is carried out following.

 

Second floor level

 

·      Convert street facing first floor garden terrace into a walk in robe. Other works required include extend the roof over towards the street and adding a skylight.

 

Assessment: See Clause 4.6 assessment above.

 

·      Increase extent of usable roof terrace towards the rear and southern side of the non-trafficable roof. A section of non-trafficable roof still maintained around the perimeter of the terrace.

 

Assessment: The main criteria for assessment of the proposed roof terrace extension relates to the controls and objectives for visual and acoustic privacy under Section 5.3 of Part C1 of the RDCP. The main objective seeks to ensure development minimise overlooking or cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.

 

The setback of the proposed terrace extension from the southern edge of the building will be reduced from 2940mm to 1750mm, which is not considered to be sufficient to  restrict sightlines into the habitable room windows (on Level 4 and 5) and courtyard (on Level 4) of the approved development at No. 9 Seaside Parade (DA/303/2013/A).

 

Whilst the RDCP allows for privacy screening to be used as an additional privacy measure, a screen is not considered to be an appropriate solution in this instance, due to the additional visual bulk from the privacy screen and the potential to detract from the appearance of the development within the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

For this reason it is recommended that the proposed terrace extension shall be deleted.

 

Swimming pool and lower ground level:

·      Increase height of pool and coping level: Raise the pool and coping level by 350mm (from RL17.15 to RL17.50) by removing two steps leading from the lower ground floor patio behind.

 

Assessment:

The proposed 350mm increase in the pool level is accommodated by removing step downs from the lower level patio under the dwelling and behind; This increase in height has merit in that it makes the area more usable; However this amendment has the follow on effect of an increase in the height of the retaining wall along the southern side boundary shared with No. 9 Seaside Parade assessed further below.

 

·      350mm increase in height of retaining wall along southern side boundary: The retaining wall increases in height from 1.73m (RL17.35) up to 2.08m (Rl17.70) in relation to the southern neighbour’s rear yard level (RL15.62) at No. 9 Seaside Parade. This amendment relates to condition 2f in DA/924/2014) which required a new development application or compliance with the exempt or complying development criteria under the SEPP exempt and complying development codes 2008 which allows for a 1.8m or 2.2m high fence respectively.

 

Assessment:

The proposed retaining wall is below the 2.2m fence height permitted as complying development under the Code. It is also noted that the neighbouring property owner has not made a submission in relation to this aspect of the application. Notwithstanding, the approved landscaping within No. 9 Seaside parade runs along this side boundary which provides an buffer against the massing of the retaining wall along their rear yard area. Therefore this part of the application is considered adequate.

 

·      Increase width of coping along southern side of the pool to 1500mm. This means that the applicant is seeking to delete condition 2a imposed in DA/924/2014 that required a reduction in the width of the coping to 600mm as it was considered that the wider coping along this side of the pool would result in significant overlooking into the rear yard of No. 9 Seaside Parade.

 

Assessment:

The 1500mm wide coping was proposed as part of DA/924/2014. As this wide coping along the southern side of the pool would overlook the neighbour’s rear yard and pool area it was determined, as part of condition 2e in DA/924/2014, that the width be reduced to a maximum of 600 and a commensurate increase in the width of the planter box along this side of the pool. As this amending DA does not contain additional privacy measures that restricts outlook into the neighbour’s rear yard it is considered the assessment made in the previous application remains relevant. Therefore it is recommended that condition 2e be included in this recommendation.

 

Northern elevation

 

·      Replace wire planted vines with louvres configured on a northeastern direction

 

Assessment:

The proposed louvres configured in a north easterly direction ensure that there are no direct sightlines into the northern neighbours south facing living room window; Whilst there will be some view of this window from within the living room of the approved development it is considered that this will allow for a similar view from an offset window. The remaining concern is that the louvres be positioned in a fixed position and overlap each other at a 90-degree angle to the northern side boundary. This is to ensure that there are no direct sightlines in a northward direction. It is also considered reasonable to require that the gap between the louvres be no more than 25mm.

 

·      Northern side boundary fencing:

 

The proposed fence along this side of the site runs from the rear stairs down to the rear boundary. The proposed fencing varies in height from around 1.8m above the stairs to between 2.35m and 2.49m for the fence that runs along the rear yard shared with No. 5 Seaside Parade.

 

Assessment:

This fence and some parts of the screen are well above the height of a standard 1.8m high fence. However it is noted that the northern neighbour’s has not raised any objections to the height of the fence. Notwithstanding, of greater importance is the fact that the proposed fence will generally be similar to the height of the fence along the southern side of the site. This will ensure that the development from the foreshore will present uniformly in relation to fence height thus contributing to the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

It is noted that the owner of No. 5 Seaside parade is concerned with the treatment of the fence from their side. As such a condition is included requiring the treatment of the northern side of the fence to be consistent with the colour scheme of the northern neighbours dwelling and carried out to good and proper level of workmanship. The owner representative indicates that the details of fencing are acceptable subject to treatment of the fence facing 5 Seaside Parade being acceptable. An appropriate condition is included requiring the treatment to the opposite neighbour’s to be consistent with the colour schemes of the neighbour’s developments.

 

Other amendments relating to conditions imposed in DA/924/2014:

 

·      Ground floor open terrace cantilever reduced as per condition 2a in DA/924/2014. – Condition 2a is no longer required.

·      First floor level balcony on the southern side is deleted as per condition 2b in DA/924/2014. Condition 2b is no longer required.

·      Reduction in length of cabana and roof and walls so that they are behind the foreshore building line as per condition 2c in DA/924/2014. Condition 2c is not longer required.

·      Internal reconfiguration of WC and wine cellar – There are no objections to this amendment.

 

79C Matters for consideration

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

The site is zoned Residential R2 Low Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent. See table below for compliance with development standards.

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide the housing needs of the community whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents.

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

N/A

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. See assessment above and where relevant key issues section.

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

N/A

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, which are otherwise not addressed in this report, are discussed in the paragraphs below.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the dominant residential character in the locality. The proposal would not considered 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 issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in 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.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

Conclusion

 

The proposed development has been assessed against relevant RLEP 2012 standards and Part C1 of the Randwick DCP 2013 relating to Low Density Residential development. The proposed amending DA is generally considered to be acceptable and where there are concerns that the development will either result in additional unreasonable adverse impacts or additional conditions can reasonably protect or minimise the level of adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties these have been amended or added.

 

The applicant has provided reasonable planning arguments that the proposed additional floor area will not result in a built form will achieve a better planning outcome having regard to the functioning the second floor level without resulting in any adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, views, site planning and privacy (as conditioned). In other words, the variation from the maximum floor space ratio standard under the RLEP 2012 has been adequately justified having regard to the objectives of the zone and the standard.

 

The RDCP requirements have generally been justified, however where necessary it is considered that certain elements such as the extension to the southern side of the second floor terrace and increased width of the pool coping are not considered worthy of support having regard to the visual privacy objectives in Part C1 of the RDCP 2013 and Clause 6.7 of the RLEP relating to the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area objectives. In addition, where ancillary development forms part of this amending DA such as the fencing along the southern and northern side boundaries, additional conditions are included relating to the treatment of fencing from the respective neighbour’s side.

 

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

 

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 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Floor Space Ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 851/2015 for Amendments to approved development consents DA/822/2013 and DA/924/2014 by enclosure of second floor southwest roof garden, increase in size of second floor roof terrace alteration to floor level of swimming pool and surrounds, addition of privacy louvres on northern side, alterations to cabana, internal reconfiguration, deletion of first floor southern balcony at No. 7 Seaside Parade, South 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

 

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

01 Rev a

C.M. Hairis Architects

26/11/2016

2 December 2015

02 Rev a

26/11/2016

2 December 2015

03 Rev a

26/11/2016

2 December 2015

04 Rev a

26/11/2016

2 December 2015

05 Rev a

26/11/2016

2 December 2015

06 Rev a

26/11/2016

2 December 2015

07 Rev a

26/11/2016

2 December 2015

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements, as indicated in red on the approved plans. The amendments shall be made to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager of Development Assessment, prior to the issue of a construction certificate:

 

a)     There are to be no structures locate above the finished ground level within the lower ground floor level that encroaches over the foreshore building line.

b)     The pool coping along the southern side of the pool shall be reduced to a maximum width of 600mm and landscaping along the southern side of the pool shall be increased in width by 1000mm to limit the degree to which the coping can be used for extended periods of time and to limit the degree of overlooking into the neighbours rear yard area. The fencing along the northern side boundary is limited to a clear glass BCA compliant balustrade located on the northern side of the landscaped area.

c)     The treatment of the retaining wall along the southern side boundary shall be consistent with the material and colour scheme of the southern neighbours dwelling at No. 9 Seaside Parade. The retaining wall shall be constructed to the standard of good workmanship. Details of the proposed colours and materials used for the retaining wall shall be submitted to Council’s Manager of Development Assessment prior to the treatment of the wall.

d)     The treatment of the fence along the northern side boundary shall be consistent with the material and colour scheme of the northern neighbour’s dwelling at No. 5 Seaside Parade. Details of Colours and materials and finishes shall be submitted to Council’s Manager of Development Assessment for approval prior to the Construction of the new northern side boundary fence encompassed within this application.

e)     The southern extension to the second floor terrace shall be deleted from the development.

f)     The vertical louvres located on the northern side of the dwelling shall be fixed with individual blades oriented away from the private open space or windows of the adjoining dwelling.

 

3.       This development consent DA/851/2015 amends the development consent DA/822/2013 and DA/924/2014 only in so far as the modifications highlighted on the plans referenced in condition 1 of this consent and conditions attached to this consent.

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

The following conditions of consent must be complied with before a ‘Construction Certificate’ is issued by either Randwick City Council or an Accredited Certifier.  All necessary information to demonstrate compliance with the following conditions of consent must be included in the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent conditions and to achieve reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

Consent Requirements

4.       The requirements and amendments detailed in the ‘General Conditions’ must be complied with and be included in the construction certificate plans and associated documentation.

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

5.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces are to be compatible with the existing building and adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

External materials, finishes and colours of the building are required to compliment natural elements in the coastal area (using light toned neutral hues), and use durable materials suited to coast. To limit the level of reflection and glare, any metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted (e.g. Colourbond) and the reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent.

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

Section 94A Development Contributions

6.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 21 April 2015, based on the additional development cost of $46,200 (to that nominated under DA/822/2013 and DA/924/2014) the following applicable monetary levy (in addition to that required under DA/822/2013 & DA/924/2014) must be paid to Council: $462.00.

 

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.  The development is subject to an index to reflect quarterly variations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the date of Council’s determination to the date of payment. Please contact Council on telephone 9399 0999 or 1300 722 542 for the indexed contribution amount prior to payment.

To calculate the indexed levy, the following formula must be used:

IDC = ODC x CP2/CP1

 

Where:

IDC = the indexed development cost

ODC = the original development cost determined by the Council

CP2 = the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney, as published by the ABS in  respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of payment

CP1 = the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney as published by the ABS in respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of imposition of the condition requiring payment of the levy.

 

Council’s Section 94A Development Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick or at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au.

 

Long Service Levy Payments

7.       The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, must be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

At the time of this development consent, Long Service Levy payment is applicable on building work having a value of $25,000 or more, at the rate of 0.35% of the cost of the works.

 

Security Deposits

8.       The following security deposits requirement must be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for making good any damage caused to Council’s assets and infrastructure; and as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

·           $600.00 -   Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

Security deposits may be provided by way of a cash, cheque or credit card payment and is refundable upon a satisfactory inspection by Council upon the completion of the civil works which confirms that there has been no damage to Council's infrastructure.

 

The owner/builder is also requested to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

To obtain a refund of relevant deposits, a Security Deposit Refund Form is to be forwarded to Council’s Director of City Services upon issuing of an occupation certificate or completion of the civil works.

 

Sydney Water

9.       All building, plumbing and drainage work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s waste water and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if any further requirements need to be met. 

 

If suitable, the plans will be appropriately stamped.  For details please refer to the Sydney Water web site at www.sydneywater.com.au for:

 

·          Quick Check agents details -  see Building and Developing then Quick Check and

·          Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney Water Assets – see Building and Development then Building and Renovating, or telephone 13 20 92.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must ensure that a Sydney Water Quick Check Agent has appropriately stamped the plans prior to issuing the construction certificate.

 

 

 

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

The requirements contained in the following conditions of consent must be complied with and details of compliance must be included in the construction certificate for the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Councils development consent conditions and to achieve reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

10.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).  Details of compliance with the BCA are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the commencement of any works on the site.  The necessary documentation and information must be provided to the Council or the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ (PCA), as applicable.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity.

 

 

Certification, PCA & other Requirements

11.     Prior to the commencement of any building works, the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)     a Construction Certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

A copy of the construction certificate, the approved development consent plans and consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be made available to the Council officers and all building contractors for assessment.

 

b)     a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) must be appointed to carry out the necessary building inspections and to issue an occupation certificate; and

 

c)      a principal contractor must be appointed for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, an owner-builder permit may be obtained in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and the PCA and Council are to be notified accordingly; and

 

d)     the principal contractor must be advised of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority; and

 

e)     at least two days notice must be given to the Council, in writing, prior to commencing any works.

 

In relation to residential building work, the principal contractor must be the holder of a contractor licence, in accordance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

Home Building Act 1989

12.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 must be complied with.

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor and a copy of the relevant Certificate of Home Warranty Insurance or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.

 

Dilapidation Reports

13.     A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer, building surveyor or other suitably qualified independent person must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works, in the following cases:

 

·          excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are proposed to be located within the zone of influence of the footings of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

·          new dwellings or additions to dwellings sited up to shared property boundaries (e.g.  additions to a semi-detached dwelling or terraced dwellings),

·          excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are within rock and may result in vibration and or potential damage to any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

·          as otherwise may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The report (including photographs) are required to detail the current condition and status of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon the adjoining premises, which may be affected by the subject works.  A copy of the dilapidation report is to be given to the owners of the premises encompassed in the report/s before commencing any works.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

14.     Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and NSW EPA Guidelines must be satisfied at all times.

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery, pile drivers and all plant and equipment must be minimised, by using appropriate plant and equipment, silencers and the implementation of noise management strategies.

 

A Construction Noise Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the NSW EPA Construction Noise Guideline by a suitably qualified person, is to be implemented throughout the works.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of works on site.

 

Construction Site Management Plan

15.     A Construction Site Management Plan must be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The construction site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

·          location and construction of protective fencing / hoardings to the perimeter of the site;

·          location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·          location of building materials for construction;

·          provisions for public safety;

·          dust control measures;

·          site access location and construction

·          details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·          protective measures for tree preservation;

·          provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·          location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·          details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·          provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·          construction noise and vibration management;

·          construction traffic management details.

 

The site management measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

A copy of the Construction Site Management Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to commencing site works.  A copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Demolition Work Plan

16.     A Demolition Work Plan must be prepared for the development in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures and relevant environmental/occupational health and safety requirements.

 

The Demolition Work Plan must include the following information (as applicable):

·          The name, address, contact details and licence number of the Demolisher /Asbestos Removal Contractor

·          Details of hazardous materials (including asbestos)

·          Method/s of demolition (including removal of any asbestos)

·          Measures and processes to be implemented to ensure the health & safety of workers and community

·          Measures to be implemented to minimise any airborne dust and asbestos

·          Methods and location of disposal of any hazardous materials (including asbestos)

·          Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

·          Details of re-use, recycling and disposal of waste demolition/building materials

·          Date the demolition works will commence

 

The Demolition Work Plan must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA), not less than two (2) working days before commencing any demolition work.  A copy of the Demolition Work Plan must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

If the work involves asbestos products or materials, a copy of the Demolition Work Plan must also be provided to Council not less than 2 days before commencing those works.

 

Notes

 

§   It is the responsibility of the persons undertaking demolition work to obtain the relevant WorkCover licences and permits.

§   Refer to the conditions within the “Requirements During Construction & Site Work”, for further details and requirements relating to demolition work, removal of any asbestos and public safety.

 

Public Utilities

17.     A Public Utility Impact Assessment must be carried out to identify all public utility services located on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the building works.

 

Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements have been or are able to be satisfied, must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any works.

 

The owner/builder must make the necessary arrangements and meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia, Sydney Water and other authorities to adjust, repair or relocate their services as required.

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

The following conditions of consent must be complied with during the demolition, excavation and construction of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity during construction.

 

 

Inspections During Construction

18.     The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority, in accordance with sections 109 E (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 162A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction, Council’s development consent and the construction certificate.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Site Signage

19.     A sign must be erected and maintained in a prominent position on the site for the duration of the works, which contains the following details:

 

·          name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable)

·          name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority,

·          a statement stating that “unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited”.

 

Restriction on Working Hours

20.     Building, demolition and associated site works must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

All building, demolition and site work, including site deliveries (except as detailed below)

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Excavating of rock, use of jack-hammers, pile-drivers, vibratory rollers/compactors or the like

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

An application to vary the abovementioned hours may be submitted to Council’s Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services for consideration and approval to vary the specified hours may be granted in exceptional circumstances and for limited occasions (e.g. for public safety, traffic management or road safety reasons).  Any applications are to be made on the standard application form and include payment of the relevant fees and supporting information.  Applications must be made at least 10 days prior to the date of the proposed work and the prior written approval of Council must be obtained to vary the standard permitted working hours.

 

Demolition Work Requirements

21.     The demolition of buildings and the removal, storage, handling and disposal of building materials must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·          Work Health & Safety Act 2011 and Regulations

·          WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

·          WorkCover NSW Guidelines and Codes of Practice

·          Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·          The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations

·          Relevant EPA Guidelines

·          Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy

 

A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

22.     Work involving the demolition, storage or disposal of asbestos products and materials must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

·          Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

 

·          Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

 

·          A WorkCover licensed demolition or asbestos removal contractor must undertake removal of more than 10m2 of bonded asbestos (or as otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation).  Removal of friable asbestos material must only be undertaken by contractor that holds a current friable asbestos removal licence.  A copy of the relevant licence must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

·          On sites involving the removal of asbestos, a sign must be clearly displayed in a prominent visible position at the front of the site, containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS’ and include details of the licensed contractor.

 

·          Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.  Details of the landfill site (which must be lawfully able to receive asbestos materials) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

·          A Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council and the Principal certifying authority upon completion of the asbestos related works which confirms that the asbestos material have been removed appropriately and the relevant conditions of consent have been satisfied.

 

A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development Section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

23.     Sediment and erosion control measures, must be implemented throughout the site works in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to Council’s satisfaction.  Details are to be included in the Construction Site Management Plan.

 

Public Safety & Site Management

24.     Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works and the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)     Public access to the building site and materials must be restricted by existing boundary fencing or temporary site fencing having a minimum height of 1.5m, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

Temporary site fences are required to be constructed of cyclone wire fencing material and be structurally adequate, safe and constructed in a professional manner.  The use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

b)     Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials, construction equipment or other articles must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time.

 

c)      The road, footpath, vehicular crossing and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe, clean condition and free from any excavations, obstructions, trip hazards, goods, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway, vehicular crossing, nature strip or any public place must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

d)     Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, nature strips, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

e)     Sediment and erosion control measures, must be implemented throughout the site works in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

f)      Site fencing, building materials, bulk bins/waste containers and other articles must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Health, Building and Regulatory Services department.

 

g)     Temporary safety fencing is to be provided to any swimming pools under construction, pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

Support of Adjoining Land, Excavations & Retaining Walls

25.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 E of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that the adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times.

 

26.     All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations must be properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings.

 

Retaining walls, shoring or piling must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings, if the soil conditions require it.  Adequate provisions are also to be made for drainage.

 

Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring, piling or other measures are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

27.     Prior to undertaking any demolition, excavation or building work in the following circumstances, a report must be obtained from a professional engineer which details the methods of support for the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·      when undertaking excavation or building work within the zone of influence of the footings of a dwelling or associated structure that is located on the adjoining land;

·      when undertaking demolition work to a wall of a dwelling that is built to a common or shared boundary (e.g. semi-detached or terrace dwelling);

·      when constructing a wall to a dwelling or associated structure that is located within 900mm of a dwelling located on the adjoining land;

·      as may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The demolition, excavation and building work and the provision of support to the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, must also be carried out in accordance with the abovementioned report, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Building Encroachments

28.     There must be no encroachment of any structures or building work onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place.

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

29.     A Road / Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to commencing any excavations or works within or upon a road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and all of the conditions and requirements contained in the Road / Asset Opening Permit must be complied with.

 

For further information, please contact Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing an ‘Occupation Certificate’.

 

Note:  For the purpose of this consent, any reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall also be taken to mean ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and amenity.

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

30.     An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent (including alterations and additions to existing buildings), in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

An Occupation Certificate must not be issued for the development if the development is inconsistent with the development consent.  The relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and conditions of development consent must be satisfied prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

Swimming Pool Safety

31.     Swimming pools are to be designed and installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and be provided with childproof fences and self-locking gates, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008.

 

The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a fence having a minimum height of 1.2m, that separates the pool from any residential building (as defined in the Swimming Pools Act 1992) that is situated on the premises and from any place (whether public or private) adjoining the premises; and that is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1926.1 – 2012 (Swimming Pool Safety Part 1 - Safety Barriers for Swimming Pools).

 

Gates to pool area shall be a maximum width of 1 metre, and be self-closing and latching; the gate is required to open outwards from the pool area and prevent a small child opening the gate or door when the gate or door is closed.

 

Temporary pool safety fencing is to be provided pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

A ‘warning notice’ must be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, detailing pool safety requirements, resuscitation techniques and the importance of the supervision of children at all times.

 

Note: This development consent does not approve the design and location of swimming pool fencing and other swimming pool safety barriers. Swimming pool fencing and other safety barriers are required to comply with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and Swimming Pools Regulation 2008. Details of compliance are required to be incorporated into the plans and specifications for a Construction Certificate, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

Swimming Pool & Spa Pool Requirements

32.     Swimming pools (and spa pools) are to be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the following general requirements:

 

a)     Backwash of the pool filter and other discharge of water is to be drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation; and

 

b)     All pool overflow water is to be drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in a nuisance or damage to premises; and

                 

c)      Water recirculation and filtrations systems are required to comply with AS 1926.3 – 2010:  Swimming Pool Safety – Water Recirculation and Filtration Systems; and

 

d)     Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

Notification of Swimming Pools & Spa Pools

33.     The owner of the premises must ‘register’ the swimming pool [or spa pool] on the NSW Swimming Pool Register, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Amendment Act 2012.

 

The Swimming Pool Register is administered by the NSW Government, Department of Premier & Cabinet, Division of Local Government and registration on the Swimming Pool Register may be made on-line via their website www.swimmingpoolregister.nsw.gov.au.

 

Registration must be made before the issue of an Occupation Certificate for the pool.

 

Council’s Infrastructure & Vehicular Crossings

34.     All external civil work to be carried out on Council property (including the installation and repair of roads, footpaths, vehicular crossings, kerb and guttering and drainage works), must be carried out in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works" and the following requirements:

 

a)     All work on Council land must be carried out by Council, unless specific written approval has been obtained from Council to use non-Council contractors.

 

b)     Details of the proposed civil works to be carried out on Council land must be submitted to Council in a Pre-paid Works Application Form, prior to issuing an occupation certificate, together with payment of the relevant fees.

 

c)     If it is proposed to use non-Council contractors to carry out the civil works on Council land, the work must not commence until the written approval has been obtained from Council and the work must be carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent, Council’s design details and payment of a Council design and supervision fee.

 

d)     The civil works must be completed in accordance with Council’s conditions of consent and approved design and construction documentation, prior to occupation of the development, or as otherwise approved by Council in writing.

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

The following operational conditions must be complied with at all times, throughout the use and operation of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health and environmental amenity.

 

 

Use of premises

35.     The premises must only be used as a single residential dwelling and must not be used for dual or multi-occupancy purposes.

 

External Lighting

36.     External lighting to the premises must be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

Plant & Equipment

37.     The operation of all plant and equipment upon the premises 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 Office of Environment & Heritage (EPA) Noise Control Guidelines.

 

 

Swimming/Spa Pools

38.     The pool plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

·       before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on any Sunday or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on any other day.

 

Air Conditioners

39.     Air conditioning plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

·       before 8.00am or after 10.00pm on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 10.00pm on any other day.

 

Rainwater Tanks

40.     The operation of plant and equipment associated with rainwater tanks 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.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, or other relevant legislation and Council’s policies.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

 

A1      The requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times.

 

Failure to comply with these requirements is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million.  Alternatively, Council may issue a penalty infringement notice (for up to $3,000) for each offence.  Council may also issue notices and orders to demolish unauthorised or non-complying building work, or to comply with the requirements of Council’s development consent.

 

A2      This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

A3      In accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, building works, including associated demolition and excavation works (as applicable) must not be commenced until:

 

§  A Construction Certificate has been obtained from an Accredited Certifier or Council,

§  An Accredited Certifier or Council has been appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority for the development,

§  Council and the Principal Certifying Authority have been given at least 2 days notice (in writing) prior to commencing any works.

 

A4      Council’s Building Certification & Fire Safety team can issue your Construction Certificate and be your Principal Certifying Authority for the development, to undertake inspections and ensure compliance with the development consent, relevant building regulations and standards of construction.  For further details contact Council on 9399 0944.

 

A5      A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:

 

§  Install or erect any site fencing, hoardings or site structures

§  Operate a crane or hoist goods or materials over a footpath or road

§  Placement of a waste skip or any other container or article.

 

For further information please contact Council on 9399 0944.

 

A6      Specific details of the location of the building/s should be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed building work will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place.

 

A7      Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

A8      This consent does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the land owner or principal contractor must obtain:

 

§  the consent of the owners of such adjoining or supported land to trespass or encroach, or

§  an access order under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000, or

§  an easement under section 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919, or

§  an easement under section 40 of the Land & Environment Court Act 1979, as appropriate.

 

Section 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 creates a statutory duty of care in relation to support of land.  Accordingly, a person has a duty of care not to do anything on or in relation to land being developed (the supporting land) that removes the support provided by the supporting land to any other adjoining land (the supported land).

 

A9      Smoke alarms are required to be installed in all residential dwellings, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and the Building Code of Australia.  Details should be included in the construction certificate application.

 

A10    Demolition work and removal of asbestos materials:

 

§  A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

§  It is the responsibility of the persons undertaking demolition work to obtain the relevant WorkCover licences and permits.

 

A11    Any external lighting to the premises should be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

A12    Building owners and occupiers should consider implementing appropriate measures to prevent children from falling from high-level window openings and balconies (e.g. by installing window locking devices; installing heavy-duty screens to window openings; limiting the dimensions of any openings to 125mm; ensuring balustrades to balconies are at least 1m high and; locating fixtures, fittings and furniture away from high-level windows and balconies).

 

For further information about preventing falls from windows and balconies refer to www.health.nsw.gov.au/childsafety or pick-up a brochure from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP30/16

 

Subject:                  Report for variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 11 March 12 May, 2016

Folder No:               F2008/00122

Author:                    Kerry Kyriacou, Acting Director City Planning       

 

Introduction

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in November 2008 advising Councils to adopt additional procedures in relation to the administration of variations to development Standard. The additional measures are largely in response to the ICAC inquiry into Wollongong City Council. Those additional measures are:

 

1)     Establishment of a register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6;

 

2)     Requirement for all development applications where there has been a variation greater than 10% in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6 to be determined by full council (rather than the general manager or nominated staff member);

 

3)     Providing a report to Council on the development applications determined where there had been a variation in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6;

 

4)     Making the register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 available to the public on council’s website.

 

This report is in response to point 3) above. A table is attached to this report detailing all SEPP1s and Clause 4.6 exceptions approved in the period between 11 March, 2016 to 12 May, 2016 – thirteen (13) were approved during this period by Planning Committee Meeting, Ordinary council Meeting or under Delegation Authority.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4b:     New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in 2008 advising of additional requirements Councils are required to adopt in relation to SEPP1 objections and Clause 4.6 exceptions. This report is in response to one of those.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Clause 4.6 variation between 11 March to 12 May, 2016

 

 

 

 


Clause 4.6 variation between 11 March to 12 May, 2016

Attachment 1

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP31/16

 

Subject:                  Post Exhibition Report: Planning Proposal 270 Malabar Road, Maroubra

Folder No:               RZ/3/2015

Author:                    Asanthika Kappagoda, Senior Strategic Planner      

 

Introduction

 

A Planning Proposal relating to land at 270 Malabar Road, Maroubra (Cnr Lot 3821, DP 752015) was recently placed on public exhibition (attachment 1). 

 

The site in question is zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) and presently contains a childcare centre lawfully operating as an existing use (approved under DA/328/1996) and a small disused church.

 

The Planning Proposal proposes to amend Schedule 10 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) to include ‘childcare centre’ as an additional permitted use on the site. This will serve to reinstate a use that was formerly permissible on the site under the previous Special Uses zoning of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) (RLEP 1998), however prohibited under the current RLEP 2012 SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) zone. 

 

The Planning Proposal was exhibited from 29 March to 29 April 2016 in accordance with the consultation requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and Regulations. No submissions were received during the exhibition period.

 

This report recommends that Council endorse the attached Planning Proposal, as exhibited, and exercise its delegation under s59 of the EP&A Act to finalise the amendment to the RLEP 2012.

 

Background

 

The subject site presently contains an approved childcare centre accommodating 29 children (DA/328/1996) and a disused church building.

 

The site was previously zoned SP5- Special Uses under the RLEP 1998 (now repealed) which permitted a broad range of uses with development consent, including childcare centre development. The site (along with most churches in Randwick City) was subsequently zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) under the current RLEP 2012. As the nominated use under the SP2 Infrastructure Zone is ‘place of public worship’ (reflecting the original use being a church), the childcare centre is now a non-conforming use, however continues to operate lawfully under existing use rights.

 

The subject Planning Proposal was initiated by the applicant following a pre-lodgment meeting regarding a proposal to expand the existing childcare centre into the disused church building on the site. Legal advice received clarified that the childcare centre is unable to expand into the vacant church building, as under the EP&A Act, “existing use rights” provisions apply to only that part of the land to which the original development consent applies. In other words, any proposal for expansion is limited to the childcare centre building (under DA328/1996), as opposed to the disused church, which is subject to separate development consent.

 

The Planning Proposal

 

The Planning Proposal (the subject of this report) proposes to amend Schedule 10 of the RLEP 2012 to include ‘childcare centre’ as an additional permitted use on the site.

 

The Planning Proposal serves to reinstate a use that was formerly permissible on the site under the previous RLEP 1998, however prohibited under the current RLEP 2012 SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) zone.

 

The current SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) zone has in effect become an anomaly as the church has vacated and the childcare centre is now the lawful primary use on this site.

 

The requested RLEP 2012 amendment provides the planning framework necessary to expand the lawfully established childcare centre in the future, having regard to the fact that the RLEP 2012 had the effect of prohibiting this use in the SP2 Infrastructure zone. It should be noted that any development proposal for the future expansion of the centre would still be subject to a separate Development Application (DA) process.

 

Gateway Determination

 

At its ordinary meeting on 10 November 2015 Council considered the subject Planning Proposal and resolved (Andrews/Smith) that:

 

a)     Council endorse the Planning Proposal (attachment 1) which proposes to amend the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 to include ‘childcare centre’ as an additional permitted use for 270 Malabar Road, Maroubra (Cnr Lot 3821, DP 752015);

 

b)     the Planning Proposal (attachment 1) be forwarded to the Minister for Planning requesting Gateway Determination and endorsement for exhibition in accordance with s.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

 

c)     Council seek to exercise the delegation of the Minister for Planning’s functions under s59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to make the Local Environmental Plan; and

 

d)     Council endorse a review of SP2 Infrastructure zoned land to address anomalies and any relevant issues and that the subject review be included in the Strategic Planning Operational Plan for the 2016-2017 period.

 

The Planning Proposal was referred to Minister for Planning for a ‘Gateway Determination’ process to allow it to proceed to public exhibition. The Gateway Determination (18 December 2015) noted that the Planning Proposal should proceed to public exhibition subject to a number of conditions, including updating the Planning Proposal to demonstrate consistency with the State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55), with regards to the additional permitted use.

 

While the provisions of SEPP 55 typically apply to the use of former commercial or industrial land for residential purposes, the requirements of the policy have been taken into account in this case, as childcare centres are generally considered to be a sensitive land use with assessment guidelines at least equal to residential guidelines applicable.

 

The applicant subsequently submitted the required preliminary contamination assessment (prepared by NG Child and Associates), confirming that a physical inspection of the site has not identified any environmental or contamination issues prejudicial to the childcare centre use on the site (Appendix C in Attachment 1).

 

Public Exhibition Process and Consultation

 

The Planning Proposal was amended in accordance with the Gateway Determination conditions and publicly exhibited, along with other exhibition materials, from 29 March to 29 April 2016. The public exhibition was undertaken in line with the consultation requirements stipulated under the EP&A Act and Regulations.

 

Notice of the public exhibition was provided in the Southern Courier during the exhibition period and on Council’s website.  Copies of the Planning Proposal were also available on Council’s website and on display at Council’s Customer Service Centre and the Bowen, Randwick and Malabar Libraries. Neighbouring properties were advised in writing of the proposal.  

 

No submissions were received during the exhibition period.

 

Council has been authorised to exercise the functions of the Minister for Planning under s59 of the EP&A Act in relation to making the new LEP (i.e. the subject amendment to the RLEP 2012). Accordingly, it is recommended that Council endorse the Planning Proposal, as exhibited, and proceed to finalising the resulting RLEP 2012 amendment. 

 

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.

              4b       New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.     

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The RLEP 2012 SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) zoning for 270 Malabar Road, Maroubra (Cnr Lot 3821, DP 752015) is regarded as an anomaly as the church has vacated and the childcare centre is the primary use on the site. While the childcare centre operates lawfully, its potential to expand is limited under existing use rights legislation.

 

The subject Planning Proposal seeks to amend Schedule 10 of the RLEP 2012 to include ‘childcare centre’ as an additional permitted use on the site. This will serve to reinstate a use that was previously permitted on the site under the RLEP 1998 (now repealed), however prohibited under the current SP2 Infrastructure zoning of the RLEP 2012.

 

It is accordingly recommended that Council exercise the functions of the Minister for Planning under s59 of the EP&A Act in relation to the Planning Proposal and proceed to finalising the subject amendment to the RLEP 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council endorse the Planning Proposal (attachment 1) as exhibited, which proposes to amend the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 to include ‘childcare centre’ as an additional permitted use for 270 Malabar Road, Maroubra (Cnr Lot 3821, DP 752015);

 

b)     Council exercise the delegation of the Minister for Planning’s functions under s59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to make the Local Environmental Plan.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Planning Proposal - 270 Malabar Road, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP32/16

 

Subject:                  Randwick Junction Town Centre Issues Paper

Folder No:               F2015/00431

Author:                    Joanna Hole, Co-ordinator-Strategic Planning     

 

Introduction

 

This report updates the Council on the progress of the Randwick Junction Town Centre Review, and tables a draft Randwick Junction Town Centre Issues Paper (Attachment 1). The draft Issues Paper provides background research and analysis of the social, cultural, economic and environmental influences on the Centre, and identifies key issues and opportunities recommended for investigation in a Town Centre Strategy. This report also includes a Project Plan and Consultation Framework (Attachment 2) for preparation of a Town Centre Strategy.

 

Council’s endorsement is sought for the draft Issues Paper, Project Plan and Consultation Framework for the purposes of informing and guiding the development of a Randwick Junction Town Centre Strategy.

 

Background

 

The Planning framework for Randwick Junction was last reviewed in the mid-1990s. A report to Council on 23 June 2015 outlined the proposed Town Centre Review of Randwick Junction, including a description of the key project drivers, and the proposed project scope and staging. At the meeting Council noted this report, and endorsed the project plan for the first two stages.

 

 

The Town Centre Review comprises 3 stages as noted above. This report addresses the outcomes of the first two stages, and a project plan and consultation framework for Stage 3: Strategy development.

 

Randwick Junction is a vibrant, multi-purpose retail and commercial Centre with a strong interface with the Randwick Education and Health precinct, with benefits from a large residential, visitor and employment catchment, and strong forecast employment growth in the vicinity. Its central position in the historic development of Randwick has generated significant heritage values which have guided the planning framework for the Centre to date.

The Randwick Junction Town Centre Review is being coordinated with the timeframe of the reviews of the Kensington and Kingsford town centres. While the development pressures, stakeholders and drivers impacting Randwick Junction Town Centre are different to those affecting Kensington and Kingsford, common research has been commissioned where relevant, including research into the economic impacts of light rail.

 

The proposed project plan and consultation framework for the Randwick Junction Strategy contains separate milestones and activities to the Kensington to Kingsford strategy development process, in order provide clear differentiation, and to respond to the issues and stakeholders that are unique to Randwick Junction.

 

Issues Paper

 

The Randwick Junction Town Centre Issues Paper is broadly comprised of four sections:

1.  Introduction, objectives and methodology

2.  Strategic context, key trends and drivers

3.  Analysis: land use, demographics, capacity analysis and urban design study

4.  Issues and opportunities

A combination of commissioned specialist advice, stakeholder input, site and desktop analysis has provided input to the Issues Paper. Key specialist consultant input has been provided for a review of the Centre’s heritage characteristics, and an economic impact analysis of light rail.

 

Heritage review

Randwick Town Centre falls within the Randwick Junction Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), identified in Randwick LEP 2012.  Many of the Heritage Inventory Sheets for the heritage items within the HCA were prepared in the late 1980s and do not meet current Heritage Division database standards. 

 

As part of the planning study for the Randwick Town Centre, Council commissioned a Heritage Conservation Area Review for the Randwick Junction heritage conservation area.  Council engaged City Plan Services to re-evaluate the status and condition of existing heritage items and contributory buildings, as well as the reviewing the boundaries of the heritage conservation area and making recommendations for any required adjustments.  The Review included background research and review of individual buildings, and updated Heritage Inventory Sheets for each heritage item. 

 

The Review concluded that the Randwick Junction HCA retains the same level of integrity described in the most recent heritage study (in the mid 1990’s), with few significant changes evident. No Heritage Items are recommended for removal from the LEP, and no items are recommended to be downgraded in terms of their contributions to the Randwick Junction HCA under the current review study. Three (3) potential Heritage Items are recommended for listing and a number of buildings have been upgraded to Contributing level. The curtilage of one Heritage Item is recommended to be expanded. These recommendations will be further investigated during the Strategy development stage.

 

Economic impact of Light Rail

Council engaged MacroPlan Dimasi to provide advice on the potential economic impact of the introduction of light rail to the town centres of Randwick Junction, Kingsford and Kensington. A second stage of advice will inform the Strategy development, and provide forecasts of future floor space and land use demands for each Centre.

 

Preliminary findings indicate that Randwick Junction should expect an uplift in public transport patronage and visitation in the vicinity, and flow-on opportunities for expanded retail/commercial and other functions with synergies with the Education and Health Precinct. The current B2 Local Business zoned area will not meet forecast demand for Town Centre floorspace.

 

Summary of key issues and opportunities

·      Randwick Junction serves a residential and employment catchment of  over 46,000 people within an 800m to 1km radius

·      The Centre is a vibrant and successful place with strong representation in convenience retail, local services and health related land uses.

·      The residents and workforce in the area are relatively young compared to the Sydney average

·      There is an opportunity for the Centre to capitalise on changing retail behaviour and encourage an experiential destination with a combination of convenience retail and commercial uses and with civic, social and cultural opportunities.

·      There is strong forecast employment growth in the adjoining Health and Education precinct, and flow on demand for related land uses in the town centre, including health, medical uses and short term, student and key worker accommodation

·      Available floorspace capacity in the Centre under current controls is not sufficient to meet conservative demand forecasts. Much of the available capacity is of a small footprint, located on upper levels, and not well-suited to contemporary retail or commercial uses.

·      In general there is substantial aging building stock, with limited investment in the preservation of heritage buildings and features, risking future degradation of valued character.

·      A substantial number of existing sites surrounding the Local Business zoned area of the Town Centre accommodate business, health and/or retail uses.

·      Uncoordinated signage, awnings and disjointed streetfront activation detract from the overall streetscape

·      Changed transport patterns and increased pedestrian activity are expected with light rail, and there is a need to address high levels of pedestrian activity in combination with vehicular traffic movements.

·      Opportunities exist to improve the public domain and enhance open space, in conjunction with Council’s commitment to public domain improvements related to the light rail project, to deliver a comprehensive public domain strategy for the Centre.

Summary of Recommendations

·      Investigate town centre boundaries for the potential to expand the Local Business zone to recognise existing business and retail uses, and provide future town centre capacity;

·      Review opportunities for large sites (eg: Royal Randwick Shopping Centre and Randwick Plaza) to meet increased town centre floorspace demands and improve urban design/built form outcomes;

·      Investigate opportunities for incremental changes through site consolidation and infill development, particularly for sites with laneway access;

·      Investigate incentives and options to preserve heritage values, and improve streetscape cohesiveness

·      Review the transport patterns in the Centre arising from introduction of light rail and a redesigned bus network, and investigate options to improve pedestrian safety and amenity, while addressing vehicular access and servicing needs of the Centre to support its ongoing important role.

·      Prepare a comprehensive public domain improvement strategy

 

Town Centre Strategy Project Plan

 

The development of a Randwick Junction Town Centre Strategy will comprise the following key components and stages. Each stage will involve providing information, consulting with, and seeking input from stakeholders as identified in the Consultation Framework in Attachment 2.

 

A.  Detailed Investigations:

·      Investigations of recommended opportunities and issues

·      Input of additional data/analysis (eg: future floorspace demands, transport data) to inform Strategy criteria/objectives

·      Options development with stakeholder involvement 

B.    Scenario / feasibility testing:

·      Detailed options analysis, testing and refinement

·      Coordination and integration with related projects & activities (eg: light rail, District Planning directions, Kensington to Kingsford design competition))

·      Investigate preferred options/approaches with stakeholder involvement

C.    Strategy development and drafting

·    Define preferred options/approaches

·    Strategy drafting

·    Report draft Strategy to Council for public exhibition

 

The proposed timeframe is to develop a draft Town Centre Strategy for reporting to Council by the end of 2016. This is in order to coordinate with the timeframes for the Kensington to Kingsford design competition and Town Centre Strategies, and the expected release of draft District Plans in late 2016.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A liveable City

Direction 6f:      Foster distinct neighbourhoods with commercial centres that meet the needs of our community as places to work, shop, live and socialise.

Outcome 8:       A strong local economy

Direction 8a:     Vibrant business, commercial and industrial sectors that provide ongoing and diverse employment opportunities and serve the community.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Consultant input and consultation costs for developing the Randwick Junction Town Centre Strategy will be sourced from the existing strategic planning budget for 2016/2017.

 

Conclusion

 

The Randwick Junction Town Centre Issues Paper identifies key issues and opportunities to address in planning for the ongoing and future long term success of Randwick Junction, and provides a sound evidence base for developing a Town Centre Strategy that provides for a vibrant character, diverse employment and social, cultural and civic uses to serve the community. It is a key component of ensuring that Council continues to have an up to date and relevant planning framework for its business centres.

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:

 

a)           Endorse the Randwick Junction Town Centre Issues Paper for the purpose of informing development of a Town Centre Strategy, and;

 

b)           Endorse the Project Plan and Consultation Framework for the Randwick Junction Town Centre Strategy, and;

 

c)            Delegate to the Director City Planning minor typographical and formatting amendments in finalising the Issues Paper

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Randwick Junction Town Centre Draft Issues Paper

Included under separate cover

2.View

Randwick Junction Town Centre Review: Consultation Framework

 

 

 

 


Randwick Junction Town Centre Review: Consultation Framework

Attachment 2

 

 

Randwick Junction Town Centre Review

Consultation Framework 

Project:        Randwick Junction Town Centre Review – Stage 3: Town Centre Strategy

 

File Reference: F2015/00431

 

Introduction

 

Background

Randwick City Council is reviewing the Randwick Junction Town Centre, in order to ensure the strategic directions and planning framework for the centre are robust and well aligned with future needs and opportunities. This review is being undertaken in 3 stages:

 

1.  Information gathering and analysis

2.  Issues Paper preparation

3.  Town Centre Strategy development

 

Purpose

This document has been prepared to accompany a report to Council on the outcomes of first two stages of the Town Centre Review. It outlines the consultation framework for the third stage of the Review; and the process of involving the community in developing a new long term Town Centre Strategy, which will address key drivers impacting the Town Centre, identify economic, social, cultural and environmental directions, and inform updated planning controls. It has been prepared in line with Council’s Community Consultation Policy.

 

 

Objectives

 

Effective consultations are timely, user friendly, flexible and responsive to community needs. The principles of community consultation practice are based on the values of integrity, customer focus, accountability, respect and excellence.

 

Principles

The community consultation for the Randwick Junction Town Centre Strategy will use the following principles to underpin its development and implementation:

 

·      multiple and meaningful opportunities for community input

·      involving all relevant stakeholders, including harder to reach sectors

·      strong customer focus and a respect for the community

·      acknowledge the community’s right to be advocates for what they want or need

·      an awareness and understanding by staff of how Council actions impact on the community

·      honesty and transparency in communication

·      accurate and timely information

·      clear explained decisions and actions of Council at all stages of the consultation process

·      actively listening and acknowledging other points of view

·      respecting individuals and cultural differences

 

Consultation framework

 

Impact Level  

This project will have a high level impact within the local area, being a project with an existing or potentially high level of local community or sectional interest. The consultation approaches and activities outlined below are aligned with this level of impact, and are designed to inform, consult and involve the community and stakeholders at key stages of the Strategy development.

 

Council reports / resolutions

The proposal for a review of the Randwick Junction Town Centre was reported to and endorsed by Council in June 2015, and included a project plan for the first two project stages; information gathering, analysis, and Issues Paper preparation. This document accompanies a report to Council on the outcomes of these first two stages, and a project plan for stage three; Strategy development.

 

Stakeholder groups

The following groups are identified as key external stakeholders for this project:

·      Randwick City residents

·      Business owners in Randwick Junction

·      Property owners in Randwick Junction

·      Staff and visitors to the Randwick Health campus

·      Staff and students at the University of NSW and Marcellin College

·      Town Centre visitors

·      Randwick Precinct Committee

·      Randwick Chamber of Commerce, The Spot Business Association

·      Interest groups, including Randwick Historical Society

·      NSW Health Infrastructure and UNSW Strategy/Facilities Management

·      Light Rail stakeholder groups, including Transport for NSW

 

Risks      

Key project risks include:

·      The potential for community/stakeholder resistance to change;

·      Conflicting views on future visions for the Town Centre;

·      Successfully communicating and resolving complex and potentially conflicting planning and design challenges

·      Successfully engaging and on options to address employment growth and land use demands within a heritage context.

 

Consultation activities schedule

 

Stage

Activity examples

Ongoing

Inform stakeholders through:

·      Website information

·      Council contacts list

·      Responses to enquiries and correspondence

Options development

Scenario analysis & testing

Involve stakeholders and user groups through face to face options such as:

·      Meetings

·      Workshops

·      Focus sessions

Strategy preparation

Involve and consult stakeholders and user groups through:

·      Meetings

·      Briefings

Draft Strategy exhibition

Consult stakeholders through:

·      Briefings

·      Social media

·      Dedicated consultation website

·      Collated database of submissions

Inform stakeholders through:

·      Notices

·      Letter box drops

·      Media releases

·      Website information

·      Information sessions/displays

·      Information to Precincts

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP33/16

 

Subject:                  Randwick City Sporting Walk of Fame Committee

Folder No:               F2015/00375

Author:                    Katie Anderson, Manager, Cultural Events and Venues     

 

Introduction

 

Council resolved at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on 28 April 2015:

 

“(Andrews/Stavrinos) that:

 

a)     the Mayor and Councillors Andrews, Stavrinos, Matson and D’Souza be on the working group to set up the guidelines for induction; and

 

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

 

Following Council’s resolution a meeting of the Working Group was held in June. The Working Group reviewed draft guideline documentation and determined that they would like to extend an invitation to external sporting representatives to join the Working Group to assist with the selection of recipients. The invited representatives included the Coogee Chamber and Commerce and 6 representatives from Sporting Clubs.

 

The Working Group also noted that the decision on the final inductees could be made by the Working Group and that this would not need to go to Council for endorsement.

 

Issues

 

The Working Group needs to be re-established to include external representatives that have been nominated by the sporting groups and the Coogee Chamber of Commerce.

 

Nominations were sought from external parties and the following responses have been received by the Working Group:

 

Response

Name

Club

Yes

Jeffrey Sayle

Representing Randwick Rugby Club

Yes

Shannon Donato

Representing Souths Cares

Yes

BJ McHatton

Representing the Coogee Chamber of Commerce

Yes

Scott Kennedy

Australian Turf Club

Yes

Matt Scanlon

Coogee Surf Club

 

Unable to participate this year:

 

Response

Name

Club

No

Mike Whitney

Representing Randwick-Petersham Cricket

No

Marie Kelly

Randwick Netball Association

 

The inclusion of the above representatives would benefit the selection process given their sporting and community backgrounds and validate the credentials of the inductees.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunity.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Following the nomination of new community members to the Working Group, the group would meet to develop selection guidelines and nomination processes.

 

It is suggested that the Working Group will be given the authority to determine the final Sporting Walk of Fame inductees.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     The external representatives noted in this report be added to the Working Group.

 

b)     The Working Group determine the final Sporting Walk of Fame inductees.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP34/16

 

Subject:                  Affordable Housing Dwelling at Lots 1, 15 and 18 in Strata Plan (SP) 89412, 33 Harvey Street, Little Bay.  Classification of Land under the Local Government Act 1993

Folder No:               F2004/07991

Author:                    Warren Ambrose, Senior Social Planner      

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to seek Council resolution to classify its affordable housing unit, being Lots 1, 15, and 18 in Strata Plan (SP) 89412 at 33 Harvey Street, Little Bay, as ‘operational’ under the Local Government Act 1993, for the purposes of Council’s Affordable Rental Housing Program.

 

The proposal to classify the subject properties to operational land has been publicly advertised in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993. No submissions were received.  The report recommends that Council classify the affordable housing units at Lots 1, 15 and 18 in Strata Plan (SP) 89412, 3 Harvey Street, Little Bay, as ‘operational land’ under the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

Background

 

On 4 March 2005 Council successfully negotiated, via a Deed of Agreement with Landcom, to receive a total of eight affordable housing units for its affordable rental housing program. All affordable dwellings received to date have been classified ‘operational land’ by the Council.

 

On 10 March 2016 Council received the land titles of the sixth, seventh, and eighth affordable housing units negotiated via the Deed of Agreement with Landcom; being Lots 1, 15, and 18 in Strata Plan (SP) 89412 at 33 Harvey St, Little Bay. These units have, under the terms of Council’s Affordable Rental Housing Program, been leased out.

 

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

 

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

 

Issues

 

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

 

Methods of classification

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

 

1)  By the local environmental plan (LEP) and public inquiry process

 

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

 

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

 

Public notice

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

 

Public notice of Council’s proposal to classify the subject property as operational land was included in the Southern Courier. The general public was invited to make submissions during the advertised period from 5 April 2016 to 9 May 2016 (34 days). Information was also displayed at Council’s Customer Service Centre, libraries and on its website.

 

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  6:     A Liveable City..

Direction:         6a:   Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of service.

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

.

Financial impact statement

 

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

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council resolve to classify the affordable housing units Lot 1, 15 and 18 in Strata Plan (SP) 89412 at 33 Harvey Street Little Bay as ‘operational’ land in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

General Manager's Report No. GM8/16

 

Subject:                  Review of the Randwick City Council 2015-16 Operational Plan – March Quarter

Folder No:               F2015/03001

Author:                    Karen Hawkett, Coordinator Integrated Planning & Reporting     

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to update Councillors and the community on the implementation of the annual Operational Plan. The 2015-16 Operational Plan was adopted by Council on 23 June 2015. In this report, achievement and status comments are provided for each action in the 2015-16 Operational Plan. Highlights are also provided where appropriate.

 

Issues

 

This is the March 2016 Quarterly Report and third review of the 2015-16 annual Operational Plan.

 

All projects are proceeding as planned and overall all services were delivered to agreed standards.

 

During the March report period, several key projects were completed, including: finalisation of the transfer of the eastern lot of Malabar Headland from Commonwealth to the New South Wales as National Park; go live of Council’s new ePlanning website; the final funding round for the current financial year's Cultural Community Grants Program; the planning stage for the upgrades of the Coogee and Gordons Bay Fishermen's Clubs; delivery of a planned three drug and alcohol intervention projects in partnership with the Randwick Community Drug Action Team; and transfer of the remaining 3 units under the Master Plan Deed of Agreement negotiated with Landcom, to Council ownership.

 

From the activity undertaken by Council during the quarter there were many highlights. The following table lists our significant highlights:

 

 

City theme

City Plan Outcomes

Action code

Highlight

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

1b. Leadership

 

 

S002

S003

 

 

Randwick City Council issued 25 media releases during the quarter and responded to 95 requests from media outlets for information and/or public comment. Council and its activities were mentioned 800 times in the media highlighting Councils rock fishing signs; raising the Rainbow Flag at Town Hall; and restoration of the cenotaph in High Cross Park.

 

 

Cenotaph, High Cross Park

 

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

1b. Leadership

 

S015

 

Council received 35,039 phone calls via the Call Centre during this period, compared to 32,591 phone calls in the previous quarter.

 

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

1b. Leadership

 

S017

 

The Customer Service Centre Kiosk touch screen, which allows customers to access online services and the Department of Planning's Electronic Housing Code in a self-service mode, is now operational.

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

1b. Leadership

 

S019

 

The implementation of a Service Desk tool is improving the way that the Service Desk provides support to the business.

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

1c. Continuous Improvement

 

 

P013

 

The fortnightly Staff news has become increasingly important for communicating key messages about Council's transition towards a new merged entity, to staff.

 

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2a. Understanding Community Needs

 

S029

 

The Randwick Community and Prince Henry Centres were used by the community for 117 events during the quarter.

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2a. Understanding Community Needs

 

S031

 

The International Women's Day Art Competition attracted 96 entries. A selection of entries were displayed at the Bowen Library.

 

International Women's Day Art Competition

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2a. Understanding Community Needs

 

S033

 

 

Randwick City Library received Telstra Tech Savvy Seniors Funding to deliver introductory computing workshops in Mandarin and Greek.

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2a. Understanding Community Needs

 

S034

 

New volunteers have been recruited to deliver Japanese Story Time at the Library.

 

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2a. Understanding Community Needs

 

P018

 

Council assisted the Australian Defence Forces to hold a Plaque Unveiling Ceremony to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land at the site of the Randwick Barracks.

 

2. A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2b. Strong Partnerships

 

P018

 

 

Council assisted the Aboriginal community to launch a memorial garden at Coral Sea Park and provided assistance to Youth Off The Streets to hold a ceremony at Maroubra Beach to celebrate the 8th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations.

 

 

2. A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2c. Community facilities

 

P021

 

A Preservation Needs Assessment for the La Perouse Museum has been completed.

 

2. A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2d. Cultural diversity

 

S040

 

Councils signature event The Spot Festival, and Australia Day celebrations at Coogee and Little Bay, were amongst the 8 community events held by Council.

 

Australia Day Event – Coogee Beach

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

3a. Communicating Effectively

 

S045

 

Council promoted The Spot Festival, Australia Day and Earth Hour on its banner poles throughout the City.

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

3b Promoting Services

 

S050

 

TECHConnect workshops in both English and Mandarin covering topics of Skype, Social Media, Introduction to the Internet, Computer Basics, iPad, iPhone, Galaxy Tablet and Android devices attracted a growing number of attendees.

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

3c Community Involvement

 

S051

 

Consultation on the Malabar Headland Coastal Walkway was one of four key projects undertaken during the January to March period. This consultation was undertaken to learn about residents' thoughts on the planned extension of the Walkway from South Maroubra Beach to Malabar Beach.

 

 

4. Excellence in Urban Design and Development

 

4a. Improved Design

 

P025

 

Council resolved to hold an international design competition for a new strategic vision for Kensington and Kingsford town centres, and strategy to respond to the impacts of light rail along Anzac Parade.

 

4. Excellence in Urban Design and Development

 

4b. Robust Development Framework

 

P027

 

The recommendations of the independent survey of customers' satisfaction with Council's DA processing service are being analysed to investigate opportunity for new efficiencies and an enhanced customer experience.

 

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

5a.  Maximise Open Space Use

 

P030

 

Design of the Walkway has been finalised and community consultation has been completed for the western walking track past Malabar Headland.

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

5b. Range of Activities

 

P032

 

The construction of the Chifley Sports Reserve All Abilities Playground has commenced.

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

5c. New Open Space Creation

 

 

P034

 

Council continues to develop concept designs and consult with the community for streetscape improvement and parking reconfiguration opportunities for side streets along the light rail alignment. As part of this program, parking in Williams Street, Randwick was reconfigured in February.

 

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

5d. Innovative Library Programs

 

S056

 

Usage of downloadable eBooks and eAudiobooks has been rapidly growing. Circulation has gone up 52 per cent compared to the same quarter last year.

 

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

5d. Innovative Library Programs

 

S058

 

The Library held its inaugural Story Time Trail in January, with sessions being delivered at Coogee Beach, Kensington Park, Maroubra Beach, Des Renford Leisure Centre and La Perouse.

 

 

Story Time Trail

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6a. Public Asset Management

 

S059

 

Council responded to several emergency flooding requests triggered by heavy rains between January to March 2016 and successfully cleared drains to alleviate flooding.

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6c. Community Safety

 

S065

 

A new DA referral to Police protocol regarding safer by design matters, has been adopted by Council.

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6d. Strategic land Use Framework

 

P048

 

Computerised 3D models of the Randwick Junction, Kensington and Kingsford town centres was completed.

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6d. Strategic land Use Framework

 

P048

 

Computerised 3D models of the Randwick Junction, Kensington and Kingsford town centres was completed.

 

 

3D models Randwick Town Hall

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6e. Housing Diversity

 

S073

 

The Randwick Home Maintenance and Modification Services Program met all Program Standards and Expected Outcomes of a Quality Review conducted by the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency.

 

 

7. Heritage that is Protected and Celebrated

 

 

7a. Heritage

 

S077

 

During the quarter specialist heritage advice was provided on 37 development applications referrals.

 

 

8. A strong Local Economy

 

8a Vibrant commercial centres

 

P056

 

Council facilitated the Office of the Small Business Commissioner's Small Biz Bus in Kingsford and Randwick Junction.

 

 

Small-Biz Bus

 

 

8. A strong Local Economy

 

8c Effective partnerships

 

 

P059

 

A very successful promotion of local restaurants and cafes was held in partnership with Earth Hour.

 

The Win an Earth Hour Dinner on Us, promoting local food businesses that achieved a Scores On Doors rating for food safety, attracted over 1,000 resident entries.

 

 

9. Integrated and Accessible Transport

 

9a. Active Transport Network

 

P062

 

A RMS funding application has been submitted for a Stage One Wayfinding Strategy at light rail stops.

 

 

 

9. Integrated and Accessible Transport

 

9d. Road safety initiatives

 

 

P064

 

Council has received RMS funding for construction on a roundabout at the intersection of Paine Street and Walsh Avenue, Maroubra, and intersection adjustments at the of Middle Street and Willis Street, Kingsford. These projects have been designed to address identified crash types which are occurring at these locations.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10a. Leader in Environmental Sustainability

 

S083

 

Council conducted its inaugural Earth Hour Twilight Picnic and Food Market at Randwick Community Centre with support from the World Wide Fund for Nature and Randwick Public School Farmers Markets.

 

 

Earth Hour Twilight Picnic

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10b. Management of Environmental Risks

 

P071

 

The new western car park, 4 new natural turf playing fields, and a multi‑purpose synthetic playing surface were opened at Heffron Park in Maroubra.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10b. Management of Environmental Risks

 

P072

 

Randwick City Council has been successful in securing a grant to undertake a Flood Study for the Birds Gully and Upper Bunnerong Creek Catchment.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

 

10c Biodiversity and Natural Heritage

 

S086

 

500 indigenous plants were planted in and near the bushland areas within Burrows Park Clovelly and 300 indigenous plants were planted in Jack Vanny Reserve Maroubra.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10d. Sustainable Waste Technologies

 

P076

 

Council ran an extensive litter reduction campaign at Coogee Beach during the January ‑ March period using various educational interpretation, signage and pledges. More than 1,300 visitors pledged to put their rubbish in the litter bins.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10e. Water conservation

 

P078

 

The land survey and geotechnical assessment is complete for the Maroubra stormwater harvesting project.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

 

10f. Energy conservation

 

P081

 

 

DA approval has been obtained for additional 30 kilowatts of solar panels at Prince Henry Centre.

 

In acknowledgement of our efforts, Randwick City has recently received a number of awards. 

 

·      Multi Unit Dwelling Organics Collection Trial was highly commended for the Outstanding local government initiative in organics collection/processing or marketing category by the Australian Organic Recyclers Association.

·      The Asbestos Awareness Month Campaign was highly commended for the Best Council Asbestos Awareness Month Campaigner (NSW Metropolitan Council) category of the Betty Awards 2015.

 

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.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of the March Quarterly Report is to inform and update Council and the community on the progress of all actions as set out in the adopted 2015-16 Annual Operational Plan. In addition, given that the Operational Plan is based on the 20-year Randwick City Plan and that Council’s reporting format is based on outcomes rather than organisational structure, the March quarterly report also provides a level of accountability against our long term vision for the City of Randwick.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the information contained in the March 2016 Review of the 2015-16 Annual Operational Plan be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

2015-16 Randwick City Council Annual Operational Plan - March Quarter Report

 

 

 

 


2015-16 Randwick City Council Annual Operational Plan - March Quarter Report

Attachment 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

General Manager's Report No. GM9/16

 

Subject:                  Submission to Council Boundary Review - Botany Bay Proposal

Folder No:               F2008/00113

Author:                    Ray Brownlee, General Manager      

 

Introduction

 

A Mayoral Minute was tabled at the April Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 26 April 2016 with the following resolution being made:

 

a)     Council make a submission strongly opposing the proposed amalgamation of the City of Botany Bay, Randwick City Council (part) and City of Sydney (part) local government areas, primarily on the following grounds:

 

i.        Council reiterate our preference to stand alone as articulated in our previous boundaries commission submission;

ii.       Council opposes the splitting up of Randwick City into multiple Council areas;

iii.  Council’s previously resolved amalgamation preference with the City of Botany Bay and Waverley Council was rejected by the City of Botany Bay;

iv.  The financial benefits identified within the proposal are significantly inferior to any of the amalgamation proposals considered by Randwick City Council;

v.  The minor financial savings predicted in the proposal are premised on reducing staff numbers, including corporate services and works staff;

 

b)     Council delegate authority to the General Manager to undertake the necessary due diligence to prepare the submission and report it back to Council.

 

c)     Council respond to the following statement on page 13 of the City of Botany Bay proposal; “Benefits taken into account include staff efficiencies through natural attrition and restructure when the three year statutory period of protection has concluded” by

 

i.    Reaffirming its commitment to the 5 year MOU giving employee protections to the Randwick workforce and note that a similar MOU now exists with Waverley and Woollahra Councils;

ii.   Writing to the United Services Union and other peak Council workforce unions informing them of Botany’s proposal to cut jobs as outlined in their proposal and notifying them that Randwick strongly opposes the proposal.

 

Issues

 

In accordance with part b of the above resolution, due diligence has been undertaken and a submission has been prepared. That submission is attached to this report.

 

The delegate will be holding a public inquiry in relation to the proposal which will be held Friday 27 May 2016 at the Stamford Plaza Sydney Airport. There will be two sessions; 12 noon – 4:00pm and 6:00pm – 9:00pm. Registrations to speak at this inquiry will close 9:00am Thursday 26 May 2016.

 

The closing date for lodging submissions is 5pm EST, Sunday 12 June 2016.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  1. Leadership in Sustainability

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

This submission illustrates that this proposal does not make sense financially, for the community or for the staff.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has undertaken the necessary due diligence and has prepared a submission in relation to the boundary adjustment proposal put forward by The City of Botany Bay Council.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council endorses the submission and lodges it with the delegate Rod Nockles.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Letter to the Delegate from The Mayor of Randwick City

 

2.View

Botany Bay Boundary Adjustment Proposal - Randwick City Council Submission  - Included under separate cover

 

 

 

 


Letter to the Delegate from The Mayor of Randwick City

Attachment 1

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Services Report No. CS6/16

 

Subject:                  Malabar Headland - Western Walking Track - Community Consultation

Folder No:               F2014/00503

Author:                    Joe Ingegneri, Manager Technical Services; Kerry Colquhoun, Coordinator, Open Space Assets     

 

Introduction

 

This report addresses the outcomes of community consultation associated with the construction of the Eastern Beaches Coastal Walkway within the Malabar Headland National Park (MHNP).  This portion of the Coastal Walkway connects the southern part of Maroubra Beach and Pioneers Park. The section is known as the Western Walking Track. 

 

The greater Malabar headland encompasses 177 hectares of open space and remnant bushland at the southern end of Maroubra Beach. The National Park in the western part of the headland is bounded by high density private residential areas to the west and the council managed Cromwell Park and Pioneers Park to the south-west.

 

Malabar Headland National Park (MHNP) is located in separated lots. One portion is located on the west side of the Headland and one on the east side.  Each portion is separated by the Malabar Headland rifle range.

 

The community consultation described in this report specifically addresses the Western Walking Track located in the western lots of the National Park. There was a great deal of interest shown by the community in the proposal, with over 446 survey submissions.

 

The report describes the background to the project as well as the number and types of submissions received.  It addresses the issues and makes recommendations on the way forward for the project.

 

Issues

 

The completion of a continuous coastal walkway from Clovelly to La Perouse is a key priority for Randwick City Council under the Randwick City Plan. Substantial sections of the walkway are completed, particularly to the north of the City. Other sections e.g. routes through the southern golf courses are at different stages of planning and construction.

 

Randwick City Council with the support of the Malabar Headland Interagency Group has lobbied the federal government to return public access to Malabar Headland for a number of years. This lobbying has contributed to the transfer of the Malabar Headland National Park to the community.

 

In December 2012, 17.7 hectares of land that forms the western section of the headland was established as Malabar Headland National Park. In addition, a further 70 hectare of the headland, located to the east of the rifle range was transferred to State ownership and was declared a National Park in January 2016. It is proposed that this portion of National Park be partially opened to the public in mid-2016.

 

Randwick City Council has a proposal to have 2 coastal walkway routes along the eastern and western parts of the Malabar Headland through the National Parks.  The Western Walking Track has been developed as more immediate priority whilst the coastal walk along the eastern part of Malabar Headland is considered a longer term priority.

 

Western Walking Track

The proposed Western Walking Track will formalise access connecting south Maroubra Beach and Malabar Beach. The total length is approximately 1.15km consisting of a new boardwalk with ample seating and viewing areas. This coastal walkway will provide the community access through the National Park as part of the overall Eastern Suburbs Coastal Walkway. This walkway offers some very spectacular views and will be attractive to tourists and those not wanting to spend large amounts of time specifically bushwalking in the National Park. It will give local residents the opportunity to easily access the beach from a large residential catchment.

 

The planning and development of the Western Walking Track has taken over 8 years and has involved a large range of community and government stakeholders. Council officers have met with a range of stakeholders over that period of time and made substantial amendments to the route and design details to accommodate concerns raised by the stakeholders.

 

The route has been designed to avoid any areas and minimise any impacts on the endangered ecological community.

 

Eastern Malabar Headland National Park

NPWS has informed Council that the eastern section of the park is proposed to be open in mid-2016. At the time of the opening the walking track will be largely unformed and will not be available when the Rifle Range is in use. The track is located on top of the coastal cliff line and although at times it offers spectacular views, it is often located well into dense bushland scrub.  This track will be more of a nature based bushwalking experience approximately 3.6km long.

 

The Consultation Plan

A Consultation Plan was developed for the Western Walking Track and a public consultation process was undertaken between 1 March 2016 and 31 March 2016. Some submissions were received after this date, however, they have been included for consideration.

 

The communication methods used for the public consultation period included the following activities:

 

·      Facebook posts to Council’s 10,000+ strong Facebook page

·      Tweets on the @RandwickMayor and @RandwickCouncil accounts

·      Advertising in the Southern Courier

·      Presentations at the Maroubra Beach and Malabar Precinct meetings

·      Promotion in Council’s weekly Randwick eNews sent to 15,000+ subscribers

·      Posters and flyers distributed around South Maroubra and Malabar

·      Letter from The Mayor to residents in Broome Street, Byrne Crescent, Ford Road and Brown Road advising of the consultation

·      Letter from The Mayor to key stakeholders advising of the consultation:

Submissions Received

Participants contacted Randwick City Council in a variety of ways including:

 

 

 

Yoursay website

A dedicated Yoursay webpage on Council’s website was created and featured documentation on the planned track, detailed design information on the boardwalk and stairs, a survey, quick poll and Q&A forum. A full list of questions asked by participants and Council’s response is included in the attached Consultation Report.

 

The online consultation was made available in hard copy, and was on exhibition at all Randwick City libraries and at the Customer Service Centre.  A hard copy survey was received as well as one hard copy quick poll.  

 

Drop-in Session

An informal drop-in session for residents to speak with Council, NPWS and the Consultant Landscape Architects was held on Saturday 19 March 2016 at 9am.  Held at the South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club, the session was attended by approximately 22 residents.

 

Byrne Crescent Resident Meeting

Prior to the meeting, a number of written submissions were received from residents of Byrne Crescent. Due to concerns raised by the residents, it was decided to hold a meeting to specifically discuss their issues.  The meeting was held on 23 March 2016 at the Bowen Library.  The meeting was attended by Councillor Belleli, 10 residents, Council staff, NPWS staff and the Consultant Landscape Architect.

 

Consultation Outcomes

Due to the variety of methods used to express opinions on the proposal, in a number of instances, an individual filled in the online survey as well as submitting a response by proforma or by direct correspondence.  In these cases, their preferences have been noted in the online survey analysis only. 

 

Using this methodology, the summary of submissions received is as follows:

 

Your- say Results

 

·  A total of 1,690 visits to the yoursayrandwick.com.au/malabarwalkway webpage

·      50 quick poll responses

·      27 questions were asked

·      446 survey submissions

 

The submissions received across all media were accompanied by many comments and suggestions for the site.  These comments are too numerous to list or address individually, but are represented in the attachments to this report and will be considered in the design development of the project. 

 

Online survey respondents were asked to undertake a quick poll. The results are summarised in the following:

 

1. Do you support the plan for Coastal Walkway connecting South Maroubra Beach and Malabar Beach?

2. How likely are you to use the new walkway?

 

 

 

3. Why would you use the walkway?  

 

 

 

The top two reasons for using the new walkway were for exercise and recreation, with 357 and 343 responses respectively. 

 

4. Please rate how important each of the following is to you on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is not at all important and 10 is very important.

 

a)  Minimising the impact of the walkway on the natural environment

b)  Providing views of the ocean from the walkway

c)  Providing seats and places to rest along the walk

d)  Using recycled materials

e)  Providing an uninterrupted Coastal Walkway from Clovelly to La Perouse

 

 

 

This table shows that the majority of respondents consider the provision of an uninterrupted coastal walkway (from Clovelly to La Perouse) as the most important element of the planned Malabar Headland coastal walkway.  This is closely followed by minimising the impact of the walkway on the natural environment and providing ocean views from the walkway.

 

Drop-In Information Session

Overall the conversations were very positive and visitors to the session were supportive of the proposed walkway. 

 

Attendees at the session were encouraged to make submissions to Council about their views.

 

Precincts and Key Stakeholders

Staff from Council’s Strategic Planning team attended both the Malabar and Maroubra Beach Precincts to present the proposed coastal walkway and take questions from the residents. 

 

Twenty-three residents attended the Malabar Precinct meeting on 10 March 2016 and resolved “that the Malabar Precinct supports the walkway in principle, and we request that a rep from National Parks and Wildlife attend the June meeting of the Precinct”. 

 

Thirty residents attended the Maroubra Beach Precinct meeting on 22 February 2016.  No resolution was raised by the precinct in regards to the walkway, but residents were encouraged to go online to view more information and contribute to the consultation once it opened on 1 March 2016.

 

Byrne Crescent Residents

The attached Consultation Report shows the full list of issues raised by the Byrne Crescent residents at the meeting and Council’s response to these concerns. As with previous meetings, the main area of concern raised was about safety and security. The following table lists the main issues raised and Council’s response to these issues.

 

Issues raised

Council response

1. The new walkway will result an adverse higher risk of anti-social behaviour and malicious damage for residential adjoining owners in Byrne Crescent.  Therefore the walkway should be fenced with cyclone fencing on both sides.

The walkway has been moved to the eastern boundary of the western lot as far away as possible from the residents.

Additionally, the raised boardwalk route is fenced on both sides. The proposed fence is 1.3 metres on the western side (above the boardwalk) and a chain wire fence between the boundary of the national park and the Commonwealth land (Rifle range).There is already a cyclone fence between the private property boundaries and the firebreak installed by the Commonwealth.

 

Council officers contacted the NSW Police and the representative from the Federal Department of Finance (DOF) to discuss the concerns raised by the nearby residents about inappropriate activities occurring in the park. The Police have advised that they will monitor the situation and are available to take action if required. The DOF representative advised they will be reviewing their security parameters of the Commonwealth land. They can be readily contacted for breaches in the boundary fences.

 

2. Firebreak should be fenced to minimise access from public.

There are already a number of fences and gates that deter any inappropriate access to the area. Fencing of the firebreak would have a significant visual impact and would need to be considered in the fire management practices.

 

3. Firebreak needs to be maintained.

Fire management of the National Park is the responsibility of NPWS. NPWS has a fire management plan for this area.

They have committed that they will be maintaining it to the required standards.

 

4. Protection of Eastern suburbs Banksia Scrub.

NSW National Parks agency (NPWS) has fulfilled all the legislative requirements for the impacts on the eastern suburbs banksia scrub (ESBS). Numerous assessments have been made in regards to this ESBS community and it has been carefully considered in the walkway design.

 

5. Concern that asbestos exists on site.

The remediation of the western lots of Malabar Headland has been the responsibility of the Commonwealth government. Council understands that they have completed the necessary processes to allow the public to access the site. From Council’s discussions with NPWS they have advised that they would not have accepted the transfer of the land unless it was at the acceptable levels.

 

In 2010, Council proposed a walkway known as Option 1 that was closer to the rear yards of the Byrne Crescent properties. At that time, Council met with the Byrne Crescent residents to fully understand their concerns about security and privacy issues. Council subsequently investigated possible alternative routes for this section of the walkway, taking into account residential concerns, ecological values and the coastal walk experience.

 

Council then considered a number of options for an alternative route. The alignments underwent rigorous analysis and consideration by the Malabar Headland Interagency Committee to determine a preferred option. The preferred route was then translated into the updated Malabar Headland Coastal Walk Concept Plan – Option 5. 

 

Overall the route best satisfies the following criteria:

 

1.  Located away from residential properties: the route increases the distance from the residential properties, alleviating visual and physical access concerns.

2.  Through appropriate construction techniques and materials the damage to the EEC ESBS can be minimised. Installation of interpretative signage will significantly enhance the community’s understanding and appreciation of ESBS vegetation and coastal ecology, increasing the coastal walk values and experience.  

3.  With increased pedestrian use of this area, it is anticipated anti-social behavior will decrease.

 

The planning for this project was only able to proceed when the Commonwealth transferred the relevant land to NPWS in January 2010.

 

Overall, the proposed route balances social and ecological values and has been determined as the preferred route that was presented to the Byrne Crescent residents at the meeting on 23 April 2016.

 

Due to concerns raised by residents at the meeting about the fence on the west side of the walkway, the fence will be raised to 1.3 m from 0.9m. The walkway through this land is a raised boardwalk and this will further increase the height above the ground level, discouraging persons from leaving the walkway.

 

Next Steps in the Project

The Community Consultation for the Western Walking Track is now complete.  The outcome has been of overwhelming support for the construction of the walkway. To complete and deliver the project, the following steps will be required:

 

1.  Finalisation of a Memorandum of Understanding between Randwick City Council and NSW National Parks that will detail the responsibilities for the maintenance and repair of the track.

2.  Finalisation of the detailed design and specification of the proposed works.

3.  Issue of works for Tender.

4.  Resolution of Council to select successful tenderer.

5.  Construction of the project.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 3:       An Informed and Engaged Community.

Direction 3c:     The community has increased opportunities to participate in decision                         making process.

Outcome 4:       Excellence in Urban Design and Development.

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

Outcome 5:       Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities.

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

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

Direction 6a:     Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the                                community expectations and defined levels of services.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost estimate for the construction of the Western Walking Track in the Malabar Headland National Park is $2,177,240. There is currently $1.55M available in the 2015-16 Capital Works budget for the coastal walkway project. An additional $800,000 has been allocated to this project in draft 2016-17 Capital Works Budget.

 

Council received $200k Metropolitan Greenspace Grant for the construction phase of this project in December 2014.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has undertaken extensive community consultation on the Western Walking Track proposal and has received overwhelming support from the community and also from NSW National Parks, federal Department of Finance and other interagency organisations.

 

The community members opposed to the proposal were mainly the Byrne Crescent residents. The concerns raised by them have been carefully considered and amendments made to the proposal to further address their concerns. It is considered that the proposal will not create safety concerns.

 

The Eastern Beaches Coastal Walk is a very significant recreational and economic asset to the City of Randwick. Randwick City Council has worked for over six years with a range of stakeholders including the community, state and federal government agencies to be in a position to deliver the Western Walking Track.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Western Walking Track proposal be completed by proceeding to detailed design stage and the tendering of the construction.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Malabar Headland Coastal Walk Map

 

2.View

Malabar Headland Coastal Walkway - Community Consultation Report

 

 

 

 


Malabar Headland Coastal Walk Map

Attachment 1

 

 


Malabar Headland Coastal Walkway - Community Consultation Report

Attachment 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF15/16

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - April 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 – April 2016” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of April 2016. All investments have been made in accordance with the Act, Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Investment Commentary

 

As at 30 April 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $68.47 million. The portfolio value decreased during April by ~$5.10 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 April 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 25% 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 April 2016. The portfolio is dominated by term deposits (50% of the portfolio) with the higher rated ADI’s. Credit assets (FRNs) are around 41% 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 April 2013 to April 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 3.11% compared with the benchmark index of 2.41%.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate was cut by 25bp to a historical low of 1.75% at the May 2016 meeting.

 

Term Deposits

 

At month end, deposits accounted for 50% of the total investment portfolio.

Three deposits totaling $6 million matured and were withdrawn. No new term deposits were invested in April.

As at the end of April, the weighted average deposit yield stood at 3.17%, up 3bp from the previous month or around +90bp over bank bills.

    

Floating Rate Notes (FRNs)

 

The portfolio includes $28.3 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 ~$14k as at the end of April.

 

On 7 April 2016 Council purchased the newly issued 5 year senior ANZ (AA-) FRN at +118bp over the 3 month BBSW.

 

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 30 April 2016 amounted to $1,924,893.65

 

Certification – Responsible Accounting Officer

 

I hereby certify that all investments as at 30 April 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 30 April 2016 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM18/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson -  Increased impacts on Kensington and Kingsford residents from the planned St Peters M5 motorway interchange

Folder No:               F2013/00263

Submitted by:         Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

That Council urgently contacts the local MP’s for Wentworth and Kingsford Smith seeking the holding off of Federal Government approval of the St Peters interchange component of the WestConnex motorway project until Council has had a chance to study traffic modelling on how our suburbs of Kensington and Kingsford will be impacted on by expected increased traffic movements to and from the eastern suburbs.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM19/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Potential legal challenge reflecting Heffron MP’s advice re clause B43 of the consent for the recently approved Stage 2 of the WestConnex motorway

Folder No:               F2013/00263

Submitted by:         Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

That Council notes condition B43 of the consent for the recently approved Stage 2 of the WestConnex motorway. And as a matter of urgency, obtains legal advice as to the success of a court challenge on the grounds that traffic to and from the project’s St Peters interchange component will impact “adversely” on the performance of sections of the road network including Kensington, Kingsford and Randwick for:

 

a)     residents, businesses, and students;

b)     commuters and bike riders;

c)     freight movement;

d)     public transport services including bus services and the approved CBD to South East Light Rail; and

e)     other road users.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM20/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - NSW Government decision to introduce a 10 cent levy on beverage containers

Folder No:               F2006/00597

Submitted by:         Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council commends the NSW Government decision to introduce a 10 cent levy on beverage containers as a positive contribution towards addressing land fill shortages and ocean pollution.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM21/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - Planned redevelopment of Bondi Pavilion

Folder No:               F2012/00347

Submitted by:         Councillor Shurey, North Ward      

 

That Council:

 

a)     notes that Waverley Council has agreed to a $38 million redevelopment of Bondi Pavilion and that there is growing community concern and opposition from the residents of the Waverley, Woollahra and Randwick local government areas in response;

 

b)     resolves that, considering the very likely amalgamation between Randwick, Waverley and Woollahra Councils, that Council writes to the Minister for Local Government contesting the decision on the grounds it was made during the merger proposal period; and

 

c)     resolves to write to the current mayors of Waverley and Woollahra Councils and the Minister for Local Government raising fiscal concerns that ratepayers from the three Council areas will be burdened with a debt of over $20 million.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM22/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Unique Opportunity to recreate tree canopy losses from CSELR construction works

Folder No:               F2008/00506

Submitted by:         Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council notes the recent and pending tree losses along Alison Road, Wansey Road and Anzac Parade and delegates the Greening Randwick Committee to advance the tree preservation objectives of both Council’s CSELR development agreement and the State Government’s CSELR light rail Revegetation Compensation Package by:

 

1)     Drafting a planning policy applicable to any future rezoning of the Long Bay Jail site that will, in addition to normal Section 94 plan calculations, create a boulevard of significantly sized trees of great beauty, ecological value and canopy spread by:

 

a)   A realignment of the south bound lanes of the parade across eastward into the jail site thus widening the current median strip sufficiently to accommodate a row of large trees while retaining options for both an uninterrupted dual lane light rail line and an uninterrupted off road dual lane bike path; and

 

b)   In addition to this setback, the delimitation of a further strip along the site’s frontage to the Parade sufficient in width to contain a second row of large trees paralleling and mirroring those intended for the median strip; and

 

2)     Delegating the General Manager to promote the project to the Transport and Planning Ministers and to negotiate the terms of an appropriate memorandum of understanding for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM23/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson –Potential for a striking canopied southern entrance to the new administrative centre of a merged eastern suburbs Council.

Folder No:               F2013/00263

Submitted by:         Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council:

 

a)  Resolves that the large trees on both sides of the southern Anzac Parade entrance to the Kingsford roundabout be added to Council’s list of significant trees register;

 

b)  Notes that these trees could form a striking canopied southern entrance to the new administrative centre of the proposed amalgamated eastern suburbs Council and seeks dialogue with the Minister for Transport on the potential for a CSELR light rail line design that would retain them; and

 

c)  Resolves that as part of the Kensington and Kingsford town centres redesign sufficient land in the Anzac Parade median strip just below the roundabout and across to including the large trees on the Anzac Parade and Gardeners Road intersection will be re-zoned to ‘Zone E2 Environmental Conservation’ for their ‘high aesthetic value’ as provided for in the RLEP objectives listed for that zone.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM24/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Request for the Premier to investigate Waverley Council’s $38M commitment for Bondi Pavilion upgrade during

Folder No:               F2012/00347

Submitted by:         Councillor Bowen, East Ward

 

That Council notes:

 

1.     that notwithstanding the Boundary Commission restricts the ability of councils subject to merger proposals to make substantial financial commitments, in April 2016 Waverley Council has resolved to proceed with a $38M upgrade of the Bondi Pavilion

 

2.             the plans have attracted substantial opposition from the residents of Waverley, Woollahra and Randwick local government areas (LGAs), in particular that ratepayers funds from Randwick LGA could be used to pay for the upgrade given the pressing needs for expenditure in Randwick LGA such as storm water diversions at Coogee Beach or completion of the Coastal Walkway south from Maroubra Beach; and

 

3.             requests that the Mayor writes to the Premier of New South Wales, requesting a review of the lawfulness of Waverley Council’s decision, pursuant to the Office of Local Government’s (OLG) policy “Council decision making during merger proposal periods”.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM25/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Request for the Premier to investigate Waverley Council’s $38M commitment for Bondi Pavilion upgrade during merger process

Folder No:               F2016/04003

Submitted by:         Councillor Bowen, East Ward

 

That, noting the examination report by the delegate for the Council Boundary Review Dr Lang, endorses the state government’s forced amalgamation of Randwick City Council with Waverley and Wollahara Councils contrary to the preferred position of this Council and the majority of Randwick City Council residents (according to the survey conducted by Micromex in February 2016) this Council:

 

1.     urgently calls on the Member for Coogee Bruce Notley-Smith to support Randwick City Council as a stand alone council; and

 

2.     urgently instructs Senior Counsel to obtain an opinion as to whether the report of Dr Lang can be legally challenged and if so take the necessary steps to commence such a challenge to protect Randwick City Council as a stand alone council.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM26/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Retention of Tree of Knowledge

Folder No:               F2013/00263

Submitted by:         Councillor Matson, East Ward

 

 

That Council urgently propose to TfNSW an eastward realignment of the CSELR light rail lines near the intersection of Wansey Road and High Street from the southern side of Wansey Road into the actual carriage way of Wansey Road itself for a length sufficient to allow for the retention of the conjoined large fig trees known as the Tree of Knowledge.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM27/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Impacts of the AHSEPP within suburbs of Randwick City

Folder No:               F2004/07991

Submitted by:         Councillor Moore, West Ward      

 

That Council, in recognising the increased use of the State Environmental Policy Affordable Renting Housing (AHSEPP) within suburbs of Randwick City and the interest such developments are generating within the community conduct a review and report on;

 

a)     the concerns developments utilising the AHSEPP are generating within the community;

 

b)     the effectiveness of the AHSEPP in meeting its objectives; and

 

c)     actions the Council might consider to improve the application of the AHSEEP.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM28/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Pedestrian, Cyclists and Traffic Safety around the CSELR

Folder No:               F2014/00452

Submitted by:         Councillor Moore, West Ward      

 

That Council monitor the traffic changes resulting from construction of the CSELR and ensure the Department of Transport for NSW and the CSELR Project establish appropriate traffic mitigation actions that include safety for all road users.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM29/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson - Poll on Merger 

Folder No:               F2016/04014

Submitted by:         Councillor Neilson, North Ward      

 

That Council:

 

·          undertakes a Poll as defined in the Local Government Act 1993 of all eligible voters as soon as practical;

 

·          the wording of the Poll to be ‘Do you want Randwick City Council to amalgamate with another Council?’; and

 

·          writes to the Premier and the relevant Boundaries Commission Delegate to inform them of our decision.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM30/16

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson - Urgent request to save The Tree of Knowledge (corner High St & Wansey Rd, Randwick)

Folder No:               F2013/00263

Submitted by:         Councillor Neilson, North Ward      

 

That Randwick City Council request an Urgent meeting with TfNSW to save a 150 year old tree known as The Tree of Knowledge located on the corner of High St and Wansey Rd, Randwick because this tree, frequently described as a botanical miracle is currently listed as a tree that has to go for the Light Rail and note that:

 

i)      This magnificent tree, which in fact, is possibly 4 or 5 separate Fig Trees provides important habitat tree for marsupials, birds and insects.

 

 

 

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                          24 May 2016