RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 23 August 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                                                                                                               23 August 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, 23 August 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 July 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.

CP51/16   14 Close Street, South Coogee (DA/224/2016)......................................... 7

CP52/16   36-38 Gardeners Road, Kingsford (DA/229/2016).................................. 27

CP53/16   903/1 Bruce Bennetts Place, Maroubra (DA/447/2016)........................... 47

CP54/16   22 Clovelly Road, Randwick (DA/176/2016)............................................ 51

CP55/16   27 Shaw Avenue, Kingsford (DA/315/2016)............................................ 59

CP56/16   83 Garden Street, Maroubra (DA/98/2016)............................................. 67

CP57/16   4 Paine Street, Maroubra (DA/54/2016).................................................. 73

General Manager's Report

GM15/16  Review of the Randwick City Council 2015-16 Operational Plan – June Quarter................................................................................................... 89

Director City Services Reports

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF26/16   2016 International Cities, Town Centres & Communities Conference........ 99

GF27/16   Schedule of Meetings for September - October 2016............................. 101

GF28/16   Investment Report - July 2016 ............................................................. 105

GF29/16   Withdrawal of Caveat and Affixing of the Council Seal - 22/75 Broome Street, Maroubra................................................................................... 115  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM35/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Financial assistance for Kensington Chamber of Commerce.......................................................................... 117

NM36/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposing a bicycle hiring program. 119

NM37/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Flagged transference of NSW public housing management to community housing providers ......................... 121

NM38/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Andrews - Proposed Clearway (western side) of Bunnerong Road................................................................................... 123

NM39/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Independent acoustics and vibration report completed for 34 and 36 Fitzgerald Ave, Maroubra...................... 125  

Closed Session (record of voting required)

CS11/16   Tender for Randwick City Council
Town Hall Upgrade Stage 1 - T2017-02

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

 

 

 

CS12/16   Tender for Heffron Park South Amenities Building - T2017-04

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

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil.  

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP51/16

 

Subject:              14 Close Street, South Coogee (DA/224/2016)

Folder No:                DA/224/2016

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

 

Proposal:                  Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of new 3 level dwelling including garage, swimming pool to rear, landscaping and associated works (variation to height control)

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Archebiosis Design

Owner:                     Mr C D Bolton

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=7b17cf10-3929-4b98-8a8f-38c1f21b5381&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application was assessed by an external planning consultant and is referred to Council for determination as a Randwick City Councillor lives in close proximity to the site.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal seeks demolition of the existing semi-detached dwelling at 14 Close Street, South Coogee with the exception of retention of the dividing wall to the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 16 Close Street.

 

The basement level includes a garage with internal access to the ground floor living area.

 

The ground floor contains the bedroom level which contains 4-bedrooms, bathrooms and laundry.

 

The 1st floor living area includes a balcony at its north eastern end which provides coastal views to the north-east.

 

An elevated walkway provides level access from the rear of the living area to the rear yard which improves the relationship of the dwelling with the rear yard.

 

Landscape works are also proposed at the rear of the site to provide for a series of landscaped terraces and a swimming pool at the rear/western end of the site.

 

Amended plans, dated 2 August 2016 were provided which incorporated a privacy screen to the southern side of the 1st floor (as requested by the adjoining southern neighbour at No. 16 Close Street) whilst also lowering the level of the garage at the roller door entrance to RL 32.8, as requested by Council’s engineer, whilst also lowering the parapet height to RL 42.50 to match the overall height of the draft plans for 16 Close Street (ie. the adjoining semi). A ‘cut-out’ (1.5m x 1.5m) has also been provided at the south-western end of the 1st floor to reduce the visual bulk of the proposal where it will protrude beyond the rear alignment of the adjoining semi (as proposed) at 16 Close Street.

 

Site History

 

DA 822/2010 (and DA823/2010) were submitted concurrently for demolition of and the erection of part 2, part 3 storey semi-detached dwellings at 14 and 16 Close Street. This consent lapsed on 14 January 2016.

 

There is a development application to be submitted for the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 16 Close Street. The applicant for the adjoining property has provided a copy of the plans to be submitted and an excerpt of the street elevation of the adjoining proposal (in association with the subject proposal) is shown below

 

The proposal at 16 Close Street seeks to retain the front portion of the garage and ground level above with alterations and additions above and to the rear.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Close Street between Pearce Street to the north and Cuzco Street to the south. The site has a frontage of 8.31m to Close Street, depth of 37.7metres and site area of 313.5sqm.

 

The site contains a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling which forms a pair with 16 Close Street on its southern side.

 

The site slope up steeply from Close Street up to the rear of the site which is overlooked by the elevated properties addressed to Denning Street the west.

 

The rear yard behind the existing dwelling slopes steeply up to the rear boundary and comprises a series of dilapidated terraces as well as a staircase along the northern boundary. There is no connection between the rear of the dwelling house and the rear yard due to the steep slope of the site.

 

The site does not contain any significant vegetation and is not heritage listed.

 

The site shares a common wall and roof with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

Figure 1- the subject semi is on the northern side of the pair, shown above

 

 

Figure 2- rear of the existing semi, showing its interrelationship with the adjoining semi at 16 Close Street to the south

 

Figure 3- photo showing the disconnect between the rear of the dwelling and the stepped/terraced rear yard with retaining walls and fences

 

 

Figure 4- photo showing the unkempt access stairs which lead up to an elevated deck area and grassed areas

 

Immediately to the north of the subject site is a part one, part two storey detached residential dwelling. This dwelling has its primary openings to the front and rear with only opaque glass openings on the southern side which face the subject site. The rear yard of the northern neighbour slopes steeply up to the rear of the site in a similar manner to the subject site.

 

Figure 5- photo of northern neighbouring detached dwelling at 12 Close Street which has a double carport within the front setback.

 

 

 

 

Figure6- photo showing the existing inter-relationship with the northern neighbour, noting that the south-facing windows on the adjoining property at the front are fixed and opaque

 

Figure 7- photo showing the rear of the 1st floor of the northern neighbour and its relationship with its rear yard

 

Figure 8- photo showing the sloping rear yard of the northern neighbour

 

Further to the north towards Pearce Street are contemporary dwellings which are 2-3 storeys in scale.

 

Figure 9- northern dwellings further to the north

 

To the east across Close Street are 2-storey dwellings which are oriented to the north and east towards the coastal views. The intersection with Palmer Street is located immediately to the east of the site.

 

 

Figure 10- 2-storey dwellings across Close Street adjacent to the intersection with Palmer Street

 

Immediately to the south of the subject site is the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 16 Close Street which is a mirror image of the subject semi-detached dwelling. The sloping rear yard up to the west is also consistent with the rear yard of the subject site.

 

Figure 11- adjoining semi to the south of the subject site (as existing)

 

 

 

Figure 12- rear of southern neighbour at 16 Close Street

 

Further south are recently constructed 2-3 storey dwellings towards Cuzco Street.

 

Figure 13- 2-3 storey scale dwellings further south of the subject site

 

To the west of the sites are the rear of the dwellings addressed to Denning Street. These dwellings are sited higher up the slope and have multiple balconies and windows which overlook the rear of the properties addressed to Close Street.

 

Figure 14- elevated dwellings to the rear addressed to Denning Street

 

Request to vary development standard

 

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards

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

 

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

 

The proposed development will increase the maximum building height from 8m to 10.2m from the basement garage slab level to top of the roof profile at the highest point. The height of the proposal exceeds the 9.5 metre height limit by 0.7m and is limited to the front section of the site and is due to the sloping topography. The majority of the dwelling is well below the height limit as shown on the following section:

Figure 15- Section showing that the height variation is limited to the front of the site whilst the majority of the dwelling is well below the overall height

 

Clause 4.3 of the LEP nominates that the height of a building is not to exceed the maximum height on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum building height as shown on the map is 9.5m.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Maximum Height of Buildings

Development Standard

9.5m

Existing Building height

8m

Proposed Building height

10.2m

Excess above RLEP Standard

7%

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

Clause 4.6(3) states that 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 the following requirements as outlined in the following table.

 

 

Clause 4.6(4) states consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the following has been addressed.

 

 

 

Clause 4.6(5) states that in deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Director-General must consider the following.

 

 

Having regarded to the Clause 4.6 variation provisions it is considered that:

 

·     The proposed development is consistent with the zone objectives.

·     The site specific and contextually responsive development is consistent with the objectives of the height standard.

·     There are no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining, adjacent or properties in terms of solar access, visual bulk and privacy.

·     Given the design quality of the development and the developments ability to comply with the zone and density objectives that approval would not be contrary to the public interest.

·     Contravention of the development standard does not raise any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

·     Approval of the proposal will not set a precedent for non-complying applications.

 

Planner’s comments

Notwithstanding the above, the test as to the acceptability of the breach is ultimately the extent to which the proposed development suitably meets the objectives of the height standard in the RLEP.  In summary, it is considered that strict compliance with the height of building development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

 

·      The FSR proposed on the site complies with the control standard in the LEP 2012. The building scale and built form reflects the predominant character of buildings in the streetscape.

·     

The non-compliant portion of the building does not appear as a dominating element as it is localised to the front of the building where the site drops significantly and is consistent with the predominant height and built form of developments along Close Street and in the immediate locality, as shown below and in the photos earlier in this report:

 

Figure 16- Street elevation showing the compatibility of the height and the proposed street presentation

 

·     The proposed limitation of the built form to the eastern end of the site which is also consistent with the footprint of the existing and adjoining semi to the south maintains solar access and outlook for the adjoining semi to the south, now and for any likely future redevelopment of 16 Close Street.

 

·     The proposed height is also not responsible for any adverse view sharing impacts given that the neighbouring properties to the south and west (addressed to Cuzco and Denning Streets respectively) are substantially elevated above the subject site. The abundant separation distances to surrounding properties also ensures that there are no privacy impacts, noting that the non-compliance is limited to the street end of the site where the site is separated by the width of Close Street.

 

·      The proposed development has been skilfully designed to ensure that amenity impacts on neighbouring properties are minimised by following the topography of the site. The non-complying portion of the development will not adversely impact on the amenity of surrounding land uses in terms of privacy, visual bulk and views as discussed in detail in the relevant sections of this report.

 

·      The shadow diagrams demonstrate that the proposed development will comply with the DCP solar access requirements to adjoining properties.

 

·      There are no heritage items within the vicinity of the development that will be impacted by the proposed development.

 

·      Other environmental impacts resulting from the development are considered to be acceptable and comply with the relevant objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 as discussed in the compliance report and in following sections of this report.  The proposed development is consistent with the desired future character of the locality as envisaged by the built form controls incorporated in both the LEP & DCP.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposed development is permissible within the R2 Low Density Residential zone of RLEP 2012. It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is sympathetic to the existing built environment and will not result in unacceptable impacts on the amenity of residents.

 

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

 

The 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.

 

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

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

 

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

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

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·     16 Close Street

 

The issues raised in the above objections are as follows:

 

·     No objection. A 1.8m translucent glass privacy screen on the southern side of the rear 1st floor deck/access bridge has been requested and agreed to by the applicant.

 

Key Issues

 

·     Semi-detached dwelling design considerations

The front alignment matches the existing semi-detached dwelling to the south whilst the contemporary façade is also compatible with the existing and preliminary design for the adjoining semi. The 2-storey scale above the lower level garage is also consistent with other semis in the street and is also consistent with the preliminary plans for the adjoining semi.

 

The overall height of the street facing parapet has been lowered to match the overall height of the adjoining semi (existing and proposed) to avoid exposure of blank party walls.

 

The proposed height maintains a cohesive relationship with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 16 Close Street. The 2-storey plus garage presentation is consistent with the scale and appearance of developments along the western side of Close Street.

 

·     Foreshore Scenic Protection area

The architect has provided a detailed urban design analysis which includes the inspiration and design philosophy for the proposal which responds to the coastal character of the Coogee locality. The proposed contemporary form which includes a clad form above a stone base at the lower level. Such materials provide for an attractive outcome in the streetscape and will be compatible with the adjoining semi despite being contrasting to the predominantly masonry appearance of the adjoining semi (both existing and as proposed in preliminary plans).

 

The proposed colours are black stained timber cladding on a dark grey coloured stone base. The proposed architectural outcome is therefore considered to be appropriate in the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

·     Visual and Acoustic Privacy

The primary openings are to the front and rear whilst the north-east corner living room windows and balcony are opposite the opaque glazed windows of the northern neighbour at 12 Close Street. It is also likely that any future redevelopment of 12 Close Street would have its primary openings facing east/north-east and with minor or non-habitable windows on the southern side, thereby ensuring that there should be no adverse privacy impacts between the existing or likely future dwelings.

 

There are no south-facing windows which preserves privacy between the subject and the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

The proposed west-facing dwellings are 15m from the rear boundary and are substantially lower than the elevated dwellings to the rear which are addressed to Denning Street.

 

It should also be noted that there is a significant degree of mutual overlooking in this area due to properties seeking to optimise coastal views.

 

Overlooking from the rear yard is inevitable given the elevated nature of the rear yards on the subject and adjoining sites. The rear yard is overlooked by the elevated dwellings to the rear. A privacy screen is proposed at the rear of the dwelling to prevent overlooking from the rear bridge and rear windows to the existing and likely future semi at 16 Close Street.

 

The proposed front balcony is oriented towards the coastal views to the east, north-east. This balcony is predominantly oriented to the east which provides an outlook down Palmer Street and is opposite the blank walls and opaque glazed windows of the adjoining northern dwelling at 12 Close Street. The 1st floor balcony is recessed 500m from the northern edge and has a 500mm wide planting zone which recessed the balcony from the northern edge.

 

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 replacement semi-detached dwelling is considered to represent a desirable outcome for the subject site and the broader foreshore scenic protection area.

The proposed FSR is well below that permitted whilst the majority of the height is also well below the overall height limit. The minor variation is limited to the eastern/front end of the site and is due to the sloping nature of the site.

 

The appearance of the dwelling will be compatible with the existing and likely future redevelopment of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

The contemporary design response is considered to be desirable in the foreshore scenic protection area and also achieves a high degree of compliance with the performance criteria and numeric provisions of the DCP 2013.

 

It is noted that there are no objections to the proposal and the proposal is therefore recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 224/2016 for a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling with double garage at No. 14 Close Street, Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non Standard Conditions:

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     A privacy screen having a height of 1.8m above floor level must be provided to the southern side of the deck/access bridge at the rear of the 1st floor.  The privacy screen must be constructed of translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

b.     The garage door shall be recessed 200mm behind the front garage wall.

 

c.      A construction management plan is to be provided to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. Details are to be provided in relation to the maintenance of a dividing wall and roof which extends between the subject site and the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 16 Close Street. Such details are to be to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Development Assessment.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 14 Close Street, SOUTH COOGEE

Included under separate cover

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB 

Director City Planning Report No. CP52/16

 

Subject:                    36-38 Gardeners Road, Kingsford (DA/229/2016)

Folder No:                DA/229/2016

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

 

Proposal:                  Alterations and additions to the existing building including new kitchen for restaurant at ground floor, new windows and doors, removal of internal walls, new entry and exterior terrace for existing first floor dwelling plus two storey addition on Houston Road frontage for Castellorizan Club with cultural centre at ground level with meeting area, outdoor terrace and toilets on first floor

Ward:                        West Ward

Applicant:                Projects TT

Owner:                     Castellorizian Club Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=4296fe13-c1bf-4c20-97aa-3c461cb1e661&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by an external planning consultant and is referred to Council for determination as a Director of the club is related to a Council employee.

 

Proposal

 

Alterations and additions to the existing building including new kitchen for restaurant at ground floor, new windows and doors, removal of internal walls, new entry and exterior terrace for existing first floor dwelling plus two storey addition on Houston Road frontage for Castellorizan Club with cultural centre at ground level with meeting area, outdoor terrace and bathrooms on first floor. Lift access and disabled access is provided.

 

The hours of operation for the restaurant are as follows;

 

Sunday to Thursday 8:00am to 11:30pm

Friday to Saturday 8:00am to 12:30am

(The operation of the kitchen exhaust will be time switched to cease operation at 10:00pm.)

 

The hours of operation of the Cultural Centre are similar hours however the Centre will not be open all hours of each day but will be within the following opening times;

 

Sunday to Thursday 10:00am to 11:30pm

Friday to Saturday 10:00am to 12:30am

 

Site

 

The subject site is located at 36 – 38 Gardeners Road, Kingsford and otherwise identified as Lots 2 & 3 in DP 223374. The site is generally flat and is a regularly shaped corner allotment with frontages to both Gardeners and Houston Road.

 

The frontages are 11.4m and 34.5 meters to Gardeners and Houston Road respectively and the total size of the land is 391.9m2

 

Image 1: Subject site

 


 

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 in the notification period.

 

A letter of support accompanied the DA lodgment which was provided by the western adjacent neighbour at No.40-42 Gardeners Road. The owners of No.40–42 support the proposal subject to a negotiated outcome between the two parties for skylights to be installed (at No.40-42) in place of affected eastern façade windows. This accompanying letter is dated 02/04/2016.

 

Key Issues

 

1.  Traffic and Parking

The proposal includes an existing restaurant use (which has been reduced by 60m2), a self-contained dwelling at the front of the upper floor and also seeks to include a museum displaying education and information of the cultural history of the Castellorizians. The proposed first floor addition will also include amenities and meeting rooms for up to 100 people. Council’s pre-DA feedback referred to the use as Community Facilities but applied Club rates to which it is expected the proposed facility would generate a similar parking demand. In either case, a required Traffic Assessment Study was not submitted but a survey of available parking spaces was conducted on one evening between 4.00pm and 9.00pm. It is anticipated that this is the time at which the Castellorizian Cultural Centre would generate its highest demand on local parking.

 

It is considered that the accompanying Traffic and Parking Report prepared by Colston Budd Rogers & Kafes P/L has provided a reasonable justification for the parking deviation given the site’s favourable proximity to the Houston Road public parking lot (65m), public street parking within the vicinity (between 4.00pm – 9.00pm), the existing bus stop (58m) and future planned transport infrastructure (Light Rail 225m). The parking survey submitted in the traffic report, identified 70-100 available spaces in the surrounding streets. The images below demonstrate the site’s proximity to the abovementioned transport and parking in aerial imaging and maps.

Bus – 58m

Public Parking - 65m

Light Rail –225m

The subject site has in located in excellent proximity to nearby public parking, existing a future public transport options (Source: Nearmap)

 

Subject Site

Kingsford and surrounding Bus Maps also indicating the subject site (Source: Sydney Buses)

 

Subject Site

Kingsford Light Rail Station due for completion late 2017 (Source: Sydney light rail)

 

It is calculated that a 9 parking spaces deficiency will result from the proposal. This accounts for the applied restaurant rates, club premises car parking rates (1 space every 10 persons) and the inclusion of the proposed 3 on-street public parking spaces (refer to the 3D Montage shown below). The proposal suggests that even without the approval for construction of 3 additional public parking spaces adjacent to the development, the 3 spaces could be suitably absorbed in available local parking spaces.

 

The proposed new public parking spaces are depicted in the below existing montage of the Castellorizian Cultural Centre.

 

3D montage indicating 3 new public spaces on Houston Road

 

Proposed Ground Floor Plan indicating the 3 public parking spaces offered with the application

 

Council has also varied DCP parking requirements were suitable public transport in close proximity to a subject site allows for such a deviation. In June 2016, Council approved a shop top housing development which is located only 50m to the east of the subject site at 22-28 Gardeners Road (DA/915/2015). The reduced DCP parking requirement of 54 spaces to 33 spaces was based primarily on the site’s close proximity to future light rail transport and this was in accordance with the Apartment Design Guidelines and applied RMS (Guide to Traffic Generating Development) rates within 800m of light rail stop in the Sydney Metropolitan Area. This example demonstrates that a comparable reduction factor in parking is suitable in the circumstances of the proposed community facilities at 36-38 Gardeners Road.

 

Despite the deficiency in parking, the proximity of the subject site to existing and future public transport provision, in conjunction with a reasonable level of public parking supply outside of peak daytime usage times, renders the proposal satisfactory in regard to anticipated parking outcomes.

 

The 3 new proposed parking spaces on Houston Road could be supported subject to Ausgrid’s concurrent approval for the relocation of the overhead powerline infrastructure, to which one overhead power pole is located within the works area. It is noted that the Randwick Traffic Committee would also need to approve the proposed parking spaces however, in the event of this occurring, the cost of relocating of the power pole and associated civil works would be incurred by the applicant and conditions to this effect have been included by Council’s development engineer.

 

2.  Building Envelope

 

The 2-storey form is well below the 8-storey height permitted for the site. The FSR is also well below the 3.1:1 FSR allowed by the LEP. The corner site location and size of the subject site (391.4m2) reduces the practicality of a two-block approach as stipulated in the D2 Kingsford Centre DCP.

 

In response, this proposal maintains the existing presentation to Gardeners Road and appropriately addresses the secondary frontage of Houston Road with a bulk and scale that is appropriate for the site. A continuous awning will be placed around the corner of the building from Gardeners Road to Houston Road. The new building addition fronting Houston Road will also present with a slightly lower height than the existing highest point of the parapets above the restaurant and dwelling.


Therefore, it is considered that the proposal provides an acceptable alternative solution to the ‘two-block’ approach on the corner site.

 

3.  Building Setbacks

 

The proposed first floor addition which extend towards the rear, results in blocking of some the eastern façade windows to the western neighbour at No. 40 – 42 Gardeners Road. An agreement has been reached between neighbouring parties for skylights to be installed at No. 40 – 42 as a result of the proposed alterations and additions blocking these windows (indicated in the yellow box below). The amenity of the northern-most window along this eastern façade is to be retained through the proposal’s inclusion of an outdoor terrace in the adjacent location. Also, the first floor of the building is to be setback by 700m from the boundary, in the area adjacent to this terrace. It should be noted that the affect windows are associated with a commercial use.

 

Affected windows shown boxed and the window retaining access to light is shown by the arrow

 

The letter of support for the proposal was forwarded to Council by the owners of No.40-42, and the agreement (between neighbours) for the alternative lighting solutions at No.40 - 42 is considered acceptable in this instance.

 

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 meets the objectives of the B2 – Local Centre zoning and provides for a compatible mix of permissible uses that will provide for the cultural needs of a community group. The proposed Castellorizian Cultural Centre, retains an existing restaurant and dwelling and includes a new museum and meeting spaces which will cater for up to 100 people.

 

The Plan or Management confirms that the restaurant capacity will be 90 people and the Cultural Centre museum will have a capacity of 60 persons. The first floor assembly area is limited to 100 persons.

 

The proposal complies with the site’s FSR and height standards and achieves an acceptable degree of compliance with the D2 – Kingsford Centre DCP Controls. The deviation from B7 parking provisions is satisfactory in this instance given that the proposal will create 3 additional on-street car parking spaces (subject to Ausgrid and Randwick Traffic Committee approval) for public use and the close proximity of the site to existing and planned public transport infrastructure as well as a suitable degree of public parking. If the 3 on-street spaces were rejected, the proposal would still result in a satisfactory outcome given the circumstances of the sites location to a number of transport and parking options.

 

The proposal is therefore suitable for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No 229/2016 for alterations and additions to the existing building including new kitchen for restaurant at ground floor, new windows and doors, removal of internal walls, new entry and exterior terrace for existing first floor dwelling plus two storey addition on Houston Road frontage for Castellorizan Club with cultural centre at ground level with meeting area, outdoor terrace and toilets on first floor, 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

 

Civil Works

4.        Prior to lodging a construction certificate for the proposed development the applicant must prepare design plans for construction of the proposed indented three (3) car parking area in Houston Road. The level of detail of the design plans must be to Council’s satisfaction and must be sufficient for the proposal to be submitted to the Randwick Traffic Committee for the committee’s consideration. The design plans must be prepared in consultation with Council’s Development Engineer Coordinator. Conditional upon the proposed indented three (3) car parking area being supported by the Randwick Traffic Committee the applicant must meet all costs for its construction. Costs will include all civil construction works to Council’s specification and requirements (including any alterations to signage and public utility assets such as power poles) and must be completed prior to the issuing of any occupation certificate for the development.

 

Traffic conditions

7.        Plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate the proposed awnings complying with the following council requirements;

a)     The minimum clear distance from the existing footpath to the underside of any new awning in Gardeners Road shall be 3.0 metres.

b)     The minimum clear distance from the existing footpath to the underside of any new awning in Houston Road shall be 3.0 metres.

c)     All new awnings shall be set back a minimum of 600mm from the face of kerb.

 

Stormwater Drainage & Flood Management

10.      The floor level of all new habitable, retail, commercial and storage areas shall be at a minimum RL of 23.23 metres (AHD) or be suitably waterproofed up to this same level. Details demonstrating compliance with this condition are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

The ground floor level located along the Houston Road site frontages shall be designed to structurally withstand hydrostatic pressure/stormwater inundation from floodwater during the probable maximum flood (PMF) event as defined in the Floodplain Management Manual (New South Wales Government, January 2001). Structural Engineering certification confirming that this condition has been complied with shall be submitted to the certifying authority with the construction certificate.

 

This requirement does not necessitate the development being flood proof/water tight up to the PMF event, rather the requirement is to ensure that the development will not be structurally damaged in manner that could endanger lives during the PMF event.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings & Road Openings

39.      The owner/developer must meet the full cost for a Council approved contractor to:

a)      Construct the proposed indented three (3) car parking area in Houston Road conditional upon the prior approval of the Randwick Traffic Committee.

b)      Remove all redundant concrete vehicular crossings and laybacks in Houston Road and to reinstate the area to Council's specification.

c)      Construct a new heavy duty vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the existing 3.048 metre wide right of carriageway at the northern end of the development site.

d)     Construct kerb and gutter for the full site frontage except opposite the vehicular entrance and exit points, to Council’s specifications and requirements.

e)      Re-construct kerb and gutter for the full site Houston Road frontage, to Council’s specifications and requirements. Reconstruction of the kerb and gutter shall include replacement of any existing drainage lintel.

f)      Carry out a full depth, minimum 1.0 metre wide, road construction in front of the kerb and gutter along the full Houston Road site frontage, to Council’s specifications and requirements.

g)     Reconstruct a full width footpath along the Gardeners Road and Houston Road site frontages, in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for the Kingsford Commercial Centre.

 

The landscape design may include pavements, seat and bin installations, trees, tree guards and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect – 9399 0911.

 

The applicant/owner is requested to contact Council’s City Services department on 9399 0537 to arrange for the required works on Council property to be carried out.

 

Hours of Operation

50.      The hours of operation are restricted to the following;

 

a.      The hours of operation for the Restaurant are to be: from;

-       8:00am to 11:30pm Sunday to Thursday, and

-       8:00am to 12:30am Friday to Saturday.

-       The operation of the kitchen exhaust is to be time switched to cease operation at 10:00pm.

 

b.      The hours of operation of the Cultural Centre are to be:

-       10:00am to 11:30pm Sunday to Thursday; and

-       10:00am to 12:30am Friday to Saturday.

 

 

 

54.      The proposed uses and operation of the premises must be in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement (revision 1) prepared by SLR Global Environmental Solutions dated 18th July 2016.

 

55.      The proposed use of the premises must be implemented in accordance with the Plan of Management dated 19 July, 2016 – Revision B.

 

56.      A report/correspondence prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics shall be submitted to Council 3 months after occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates that noise and vibration emissions from the development satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy, relevant conditions of consent (including any relevant approved acoustic report and recommendations).  The assessment and report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 36-38 Gardeners Road, Kingsford

Included under separate cover

2.

Management Plan - Rev B - Amended - 36-38 Gardeners Road Kingsford

 

 

 

 


Management Plan - Rev B - Amended - 36-38 Gardeners Road Kingsford

Attachment 2

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP53/16

 

Subject:              903/1 Bruce Bennetts Place, Maroubra (DA/447/2016)

Folder No:                DA/447/2016

Author:                     Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                  Legitimise the use of a bedroom in Unit 903

Ward:                        Central Ward

Applicant:                Solutions Zane Land Use Planning Services

Owner:                     Mr A F M Spella-Barberet & Mrs N Spella-Barberet

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=9a469777-e928-45ec-9992-4f771cd17202&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by external planning consultant and is referred to Council for determination as the applicant was a previous employee of Council within the City Planning Sections.

 

Proposal

 

The application seeks consent to formalise the use of a room in the apartment as a third bedroom. The Unit was approved as a two bedroom unit with study. Works have been undertaken to enlarge the study and use it as a bedroom. A Building Certificate has been lodged with Council for approval of the works undertaken.

 

Site

 

The unit is located on the ninth floor of an existing mixed use building at 1 Bruce Bennetts Place, Maroubra.

 

Figure 1: Aerial site photo

 

The unit was approved as a two bedroom unit plus a study. Work has been undertaken to enlarge the study (within the footprint of the unit) and convert it to a bedroom.

 

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:

 

·     902/1 Bruce Bennetts Place; Maroubra

·     803/1 Bruce Bennetts Place; Maroubra;

·     801/1 Bruce Bennetts Place; Maroubra;

 

Issues

Comments

Structural and fire safety

A Building Certificate has been lodged with Council to ensure all work is structurally sound and compliant with the Building Code of Australia.

 

Increased population using lift and creating noise

The addition of one bedroom is not considered to have a significant impact on the number of building occupants.

 

Additional traffic

The addition one bedroom is not considered to have a significant impact on the traffic generated by the building.

 

Construction noise

This application is for the use of the altered study as a bedroom. No construction work is required.

 

Unauthorised works

A Building Certificate has been lodged with Council to ensure all work is structurally sound and compliant with the Building Code of Australia.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick LEP 2012

 

The subject site is zoned B2 Local Centre under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal development is classified as residential and is permissible in the zone. The zoning objectives are addressed as follows:

 

•    To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

•    To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

•    To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

•    To create an attractive, vibrant and safe public domain that has both a high standard of urban design and public amenity that is designed to cater for the needs of all ages and abilities.

•    To encourage housing suitable for the needs of an ageing population.

•    To allow for residential dwellings while maintaining active land uses at street level.

•    To provide a mix of compatible land uses and building forms that act as a transition to the surrounding residential neighbourhood.

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone and the new bedroom will be suitably sized. The proposed unit configuration will also meet the SEPP 65 requirements in terms of apartment size and will not compromise the size and useability of the open plan living/dining areas.

 

There are no other relevant clauses of the RLEP 2012 that apply to the application.

 

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 complies with the relevant LEP and DCP controls, It will not have any adverse impact on the surrounding natural or built environment and is worthy of support.

 

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. 447/2016 for Use of the existing residential accommodation as a 3 bedroom unit, at No. 903/1 Bruce Bennetts Place, Maroubra, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

Non-Standard Conditions:

 

2.        A building certificate must be issued for the proposed development prior to its use as a bedroom.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA - Compliance Report -  903/1 Bruce Bennetts Place, MAROUBRA

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP54/16

 

Subject:              22 Clovelly Road, Randwick (DA/176/2016)

Folder No:                DA/176/2016

Author:                     Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Construction of a second floor level addition to an approved two storey dwelling (Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                Vanovac Tuon Architects

Owner:                     Caroline Kaldas

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=563c5b90-fbd2-4801-adea-b9819b9a1bc5&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The application details the construction of an upper level addition to the approved dwelling to provide for a living room, store and bathroom providing for 37m² of additional floor area to the dwelling. The application also includes a new window to the upper level southern elevation of the dwelling.

 

A Class 1 appeal has been lodged with the Land and Environment Court on the basis of a deemed refusal.  As such, it is recommended that Council determine the application so that the Court may be advised of Council’s position.

 

Site

 

The site is on the southern side of Clovelly Road and has a frontage of 12.19m, a depth of 45.72m and a site area of 557m². The site is relatively level with a slight fall to the rear. At present on site there is a somewhat dilapidated single storey dwelling.

 

The immediate locality is a mixture of low density residential and neighbourhood business’.

 

The locality as a whole is within the North Randwick Heritage Conservation area.

 

D02673477  Photo

Image 1: Existing dwelling

 

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:

 

Issue

Comment

 

20 Clovelly Road Randwick

 

-Strongly objects to the bulk and scale of the proposal and also that it may lead to the roof top being used as an entertainment space which will lead to noise issues.

 

-Conditions of any consent should include that the actual roof be inaccessible, including from any windows.

 

-There are concerns that the windows in the western elevation will overlook their living areas and they should be treated to prevent overlooking.

 

 

 

-The feature tree on the western side will block sunlight and warmth and should be limited to a bush or hedge no higher than the fence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 Clovelly Road Randwick

 

-The new windows in the southern elevation will look directly into their living room.

 

 

 

 

-The design of the addition invites the use of the roof as a roof terrace, which will provide direct views into their bedroom.

 

 

-A roof terrace of this kind does not comply with the RDCP.

 

 

 

-The new DA will result in a further reduction in sunlight to their outdoor living area.

 

-This application is neither fair or equitable.

 

 

26 Clovelly Road Randwick 

 

-An original roof top terrace to the dwelling was rejected, this amended DA claims that this third storey is an attic with a smaller accessible area that the original DA, the third storey is still a third storey with a large balcony area.

 

-The proposal will have a great impact upon the remaining available sunlight into their dwelling.

 

-There will be a significant loss of privacy into their private open space and dwelling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The approved DA is an extremely large two storey house and the development will remove more sunlight and privacy.

 

 

24 Earl Street Randwick

 

-The description of the proposal does not comply with the definition of an attic and is for a three storey dwelling and is an attempt to override Councils’ decision on the previous DA.

 

 

 

 

 

-There is additional unacceptable overshadowing impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

-There will be privacy concerns to the adjoining properties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Restrictions should be placed on windows and balustrading to ensure the roof space is not accessible and used as a roof terrace.

 

-The increased roof profile will result in an increased loss of direct sunlight to their outdoor living area.

 

 

 

A condition of consent is included to nominate that the roof is not to be accessible or used for trafficable purposes.

 

 

See comment above.

 

 

 

See comments in the Key Issue Section in relation to overlooking from the new upper level windows. The other windows to the dwelling in the western elevation are as approved under the previous development consent.

 

The subject tree shown on the plans is indicative only and does not form part of a formal landscaping plan which under the conditions of the original consent must be submitted to and approved by Council prior to release of a Construction Certificate. It is also noted that Council does not include any prescriptive controls regarding the casting of shadows from planting.

 

 

 

There is a new window and a modified window in the southern side elevation of the dwelling. A condition of consent is included to require that window to be modified to comply with the DCP controls.

 

A condition of consent is included to nominate that the roof is not to be accessible or used for trafficable purposes.

 

 

The proposal does not include a roof terrace, see comments above in relation to prohibiting the use of the roof for trafficable purposes.

 

See comments in the Key Issue Section with regards to solar access.

 

 

This application has been considered under the relevant assessment criteria adopted by Council.

 

 

 

This upper level addition does not include a balcony area. To confirm that the adjacent roof area is not to be used for trafficable purposes a specific condition is included with this consent.

 

 

See comments in the Key Issue Section with regards to solar access.

 

 

There is a new window and a modified window in the southern side elevation of the dwelling, both of those windows are nominated as having the lower panel below 1600mm of fixed obscured glazing.

The windows to the new upper level are to the front and rear only and neither of those windows will look directly into this adjoining property.

 

The original development as amended by this application satisfies the LEP and RDCP controls with regards to floor area, building height, setbacks and site coverage.

 

 

For the purposes of the assessment the new upper level has been assessed against the DCP controls in relation to maximum height and wall height. There is no storey control in the DCP Section relating to dwelling houses. The DCP Section relating to heritage does refer to attic rooms and this is addressed in the Heritage comments below.

 

See comments in the Key Issue Section with regards to solar access.

 

 

There is a new window and a modified window in the southern side elevation of the dwelling, both of those windows are nominated as having the lower panel below 1600mm of fixed obscured glazing.

The windows to the new upper level are to the front and rear only and neither of those windows will look directly into this adjoining property.

 

A condition of consent is included to nominate that the roof is not to be accessible or used for trafficable purposes.

 

See comments in the compliance report with regards to solar access.

 

 

Key Issues

 

·     Heritage and External Wall Height

The proposal has been considered by Council’s Heritage Planner who has made the following comments;

 

Clause 5.10(4) of RLEP 2012 requires Council to consider the effect of a proposed development on the heritage significance of the HCA. 

 

Section B2 of the DCP provides objectives and controls applicable to Heritage Items and development situated within a HCA including design and character, scale and form, detailing, materials, finishes and colour schemes.

 

Clause 2.3 of the DCP notes in regards to scale and form, that upper floor additions should not dominate the original building and are appropriate only if not readily visible from the street.

Clause 2.7 of the DCP (Roofs and Chimneys) requires that attic rooms be contained within roof forms and not dominate the streetscape or visible side elevations.

 

Guidelines specific to the HCA require that the bulk and prominence of any upper level addition be minimised. Any upper level addition is to be set well to the rear to minimise streetscape visibility and retain the integrity of the original roof.

 

Comments      

When considering the proposal in line with the DCP, it is noted that the proposed attic addition relates to an approved new dwelling, which once constructed, will form a neutral element in the HCA with little heritage value. In this regard, the proposed attic addition will not have an effect on significant heritage architectural features nor historic built fabric.

 

The DCP controls relating to new additions aim to ensure that the scale and form of development is consistent with the predominant scale and form of the HCA, and that any new addition is not dominant when viewed from the streetscape.

 

It is acknowledged that the proposed attic addition will be located above the first floor of the approved new dwelling, as opposed to being confined in the roof space or being set below the primary roof line. It is also acknowledged that the attic addition will be visible in part from Clovelly Road and adjoining properties. Notwithstanding, the proposal will be substantially set back by over 16 metres from the front boundary, and 10.6 metres from the front building line, with the mansard style roof leaning south towards the rear of the site. This will serve to recess the addition when viewed from the public domain and minimise its bulk and prominence. Similarly, the proposed attic addition is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the heritage values of neighbouring contributory buildings as the mansard style roof, together with side setbacks ranging from 1.9-2.3 metres will assist in reducing its visual impact. 

 

In terms of scale and massing, while the predominant scale in the HCA is single storey, the 2 storey scale of the approved dwelling house is considered to provide an appropriate transition between the 2 and 3 storey commercial buildings to the east and the single storey dwelling houses to the west. The proposed attic addition will continue to suitably maintain this transition in massing and scale, principally due to its substantial setback, compounded by the fact that it will still fall under the 9.5 metre height limit stipulated for the site under the RLEP 2012. 

 

The proposed attic addition is unlikely to neither dominate or compete with the approved dwelling house and adjoining contributory buildings, nor create an adverse impact on the heritage streetscape values of the HCA. The contemporary design of the new attic does not attempt to replicate historic buildings in the HCA but is generally appropriate in terms of its streetscape context. The material selection comprising metal sheeting is appropriate for a contemporary addition of this nature. 

 

The proposal is considered to be an appropriate design response for an attic addition, and is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area. On this basis, there are no heritage objections to the proposed attic addition. 

 

As indicated in the heritage assessment above, the upper level addition is sufficiently discreet in its setting given its setbacks and highly articulated form so that it will not compete or dominate the streetscape context.

 

In terms of the exceedance in wall height the proposed upper level is largely set into a mansard roof from and will not be perceived as intrusive element due to its limited footprint. Its change in materiality form the levels below will also assist in it being interpreted as a contemporary response to a traditional roof form. Further, the variation to the wall height control does not lead to any significant an adverse impacts in terms of solar access or privacy.

 

·     Solar access

The assessment of the original application determined that the level of overshadowing to the adjoining properties was not unreasonable or unexpected due to the orientation of the site and the resultant site constraints. Therefore the assessment was made that the proposed development was acceptable and complied with the objectives for solar access and overshadowing, and the loss of solar access to the principle outdoor recreation space is acceptable.

 

A detailed assessment was also undertaken using the planning principles of the Benevolent Society v. Waverley Council, the result being that those planning principles were satisfied.

 

A comparison between the already approved development and the new upper level proposed by this development indicates that the degree of additional overshadowing to the adjoining properties is not significant and will not result in any substantial further impact to the adjoining properties.  

 

·     Privacy

There are no windows within the side elevations of the new upper level. Viewing from the front window will be across the lower level roof of the dwelling and not directly into any private living areas of the adjoining properties.

 

Similarly as the new upper level is centrally located and does not extend to the external building envelope the rear windows will also primarily look directly upon the lower level roof and the rear yard of the subject property. These windows are 20m from the rear boundary and a further 6m from the property at the rear because of the separation of Challis Lane.

 

The new upper level addition will not result in any significant overlooking into the adjoining properties.

 

There are additional windows to the southern side elevation of the dwelling. A condition of consent is included to modify the new windows to comply with the DCP controls.

 

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 will not result in any 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 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. 176/2016 for the construction of a secondary floor level addition to the approved two storey dwelling at 22 Clovelly Road, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

 Non standard conditions

 

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

 

a.      The roof adjoining the new upper level (attic) is not to be used for trafficable purposes.

 

b.      The frosted glazing portion of the windows on the northern and southern elevations at first floor level are to be fixed up to 1600mm above floor level.

 

3.        The works associated with this application are to be carried out in conjunction with Development Application, DA/519/2015.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - DA/176/2016 - 22 Clovelly Road, RANDWICK 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP55/16

 

Subject:              27 Shaw Avenue, Kingsford (DA/315/2016)

Folder No:                DA/315/2016

Author:                     Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  Alterations and additions to dwelling, including first floor addition, construction of a single storey secondary dwelling to the rear of the site and associated site works

Ward:                        West Ward

Applicant:                Beautiful Home Studio

Owner:                     H & H Nguyen

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=5dde1178-e898-44a3-863c-6b2c6799fe21&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The application details alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including a new upper level to provide for two additional bedrooms, bathrooms, a living area laundry and library and alter the existing ground level to install a new bathroom and stairwell and demolish the existing kitchen and remove the laundry to provide for an open plan kitchen and living area. The existing free standing garage to the rear of the site is to be demolished and a secondary dwelling erected in that area.

 

Site

 

The site is on the eastern side of Shaw Avenue and has a frontage of 12.19m, depth of 45.72m and area of 557m². The site is relatively level. The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of single and two storey dwellings.

 

Image 1: Subject site

 

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:

 

Issue

Comment

29 Shaw Avenue Kingsford

 

-The proposal will result in significant overshadowing to their property, the position of their house has been incorrectly shown and the existing mango tree has been shown undersized. The development in combination with the current overshadowing of the mango tree will provide near total exclusion of sun to their northern boundary.

 

-There will be significant overshadowing to their solar panels.

 

-The first floor balcony overlooks their backyard resulting in a total lack of visual privacy.

 

 

 

 

 

-There is a potential for the building to be used as a dual occupancy or a commercial use which will result in a loss of parking in the locality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The springing height of the first floor at 3.1m produces a building of excessive bulk thereby increasing the overshadowing effect of the proposal.

 

-The setback of the building to the southern boundary does not comply with the DCP which does nothing to mitigate the overshadowing.

 

-The SEE document is incorrect in relation to the description of the property as it is not an ‘existing commercial building’, the north and south side setbacks are incorrect, the proposal does not ‘respond to its context and adhere to the predominant scale, height and bulk of existing buildings’, the eastern balcony directly overlooks the neighbouring backyards, the type of trees are incorrect and the conclusion is false.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The 8am shadow diagram is incorrect.

 

 

 

 

 

-The rooms labelled as ‘existing study and store’ are in fact bedrooms.

 

 

-The representation of their house on the streetscape drawing is incorrect.

 

 

 

 

 

-The design of the granny flat is extremely crude and the siting will lead to a loss of visual and acoustic privacy to the northern neighbour.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The proposal fails to incorporate the most basic principles of environmentally sustainable design in relation to heating and cooling, sun control and lack of effective cross ventilation in the granny flat.

 

25 Shaw Avenue Kingsford

 

-There are concerns in relation to visual privacy from the rear deck and first floor windows.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The proposal will result in a loss of acoustic privacy due to the location of the other building entrance on the northern side of the dwelling and the proximity of the granny flat to their southern boundary.

 

 

-The design of the building is effectively a dual occupancy by stealth in contravention of Council regulations and the use of the building will potentially cause an increase of cars and parking.

 

 

 

 

84 Eastern Avenue Kingsford

-The rear balcony will result in overlooking directly into their rear yard, in conjunction with the removal of the existing large tree in their backyard.

 

 

 

See Key Issues Section.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See Key Issues Section

 

 

Privacy screens are proposed to both sides of the rear balcony. A condition of consent is included to nominate the design of the screens to ensure they will perform as required in the DCP controls and to reduce the width of the deck to 1.5m

 

The proposal details alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, which will remain a single dwelling, and the erection of a secondary dwelling within the rear yard. A proposed condition of consent requires retention of the primary building on the site as a single dwelling. The existing off street parking in the driveway remains and there is no requirement for additional parking on site to be provided for secondary dwellings.

 

The overall bulk and scale to the development satisfies the FSR and height controls of the LEP.

 

 

See Key Issues Section

 

 

 

 

The term ‘existing commercial building’ mentioned in the SEE is an extract from the RLEP relating to the objectives of the R2 zone, it is not a description of this building.

There is an error in the SEE as the north and south setbacks have been noted the wrong way around. The correct setbacks are evident on the plans and do not result an incorrect assessment of the proposal or the impacts upon the adjoining properties.

The nature of the development is consistent with other two storey buildings in the surrounding and immediate locality. The general location of the trees on site is accurate on the site and survey plans, the actual species is not relevant to the assessment of this application. It is also noted that the removal of the trees in the location of the works has been approved as part of this application.

 

The shadow diagrams included with the application provide an accurate illustration of the extent or overshadowing upon the adjoining properties.

 

The nominated use of these rooms on the plan reflect the current use by the occupants of the dwelling

 

The streetscape elevation is a diagrammatic representation and is not intended to replace a detailed site inspection of the street which has been carried out as part of the assessment of this application.

 

The secondary dwelling is a small structure sited within the rear yard. This dwelling is of single storey nature and overlooking from the windows will be limited due to the existing side boundary fencing and a proposed condition requires sill heights to be raised to 1.6m above floor level for north facing windows or to have obscured glazing to this height. There is no evidence that the location of the secondary dwelling will result in a loss of acoustic privacy to the adjoining properties.

 

Noted. The proposal does include BASIX Certificates for both the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and the new secondary dwelling.

 

 

 

 

 

The rear deck includes privacy screens are proposed to both sides. A condition of consent is included to nominate the design of the screens to ensure they will perform as required in the DCP controls and a further condition requires the width of the deck to be reduced to 1.5m. The upper level windows are all either of high light design or of obscured glazing to a sill height of 1600mm which satisfies the DCP controls.

 

There is no evidence that the location of the secondary dwelling will result in a loss of acoustic privacy to the adjoining properties. It is noted that the door to the secondary dwelling is not opposite a window or door to the adjoining dwelling as it is sited towards the rear of the site.

 

The design of the alterations and additions to the dwelling does not constitute the creation of a dual occupancy, and the secondary dwelling satisfies the ARH SEPP which allows for secondary dwellings. A proposed condition of consent requires retention of the primary dwellings as a single occupancy dwelling.

 

The rear balcony is sited almost 17m from the rear boundary which is acceptable separation for maintaining privacy in residential environments.

 

Key Issues

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) - Affordable Rental Housing 2009

The SEPP was introduced on 31 July 2009 to increase the supply and diversity of affordable rental and social housing in NSW. The SEPP was amended on 20 May 2011 to require new in-fill development; low rise development; boarding houses, and Housing NSW proposals to be subject to a local character test to ensure that developments are consistent with the design of the local area and the affordable housing component being provided as a percentage of the total floor space. The amendment does not change provisions for other types of accommodation such as granny flats, group homes and supportive accommodation.

 

This application has been submitted seeking consent under Division 2 of the SEPP: Affordable housing 2009 for Secondary dwellings and its provisions will not be affected by the abovementioned review. Under Division 2 the following clauses are relevant:

 

Clause 19 Definition

The proposed development falls within the scope of the definition of a secondary dwelling in that it entails development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling by use of a structure which is not an individual lot in a strata plan or community title scheme.

 

Clause 20 Land to which this division applies

This subject site is located on Zone R2 Low Density Residential identified under the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009 and the development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling is permissible on the land.

 

Clause 21 Development to which Division applies

The proposed development for a secondary dwelling may be carried out with consent under this SEPP subject to Clause 22 below.

 

Clause 22   Development may be carried out with consent

Under Subclause 3(a) & (b) the following criteria apply:

 

(a)      the total floor area of the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling must be no more than the maximum floor area allowed for a dwelling house on the land under another environmental planning instrument, and

 

(b)      the total floor area of the secondary dwelling is no more than 60 square metres or, if a greater floor area is permitted in respect of a secondary dwelling on the land under another environmental planning instrument, that greater floor area.

 

The proposal complies with the LEP for dwelling houses with a floor space ratio of 0.52:1. The proposed floor area of the secondary dwelling does not exceed the 60m² allowable in the SEPP for Affordable Housing, being 27m².

 

Clause 24   No subdivision

The proposed development does not result in any subdivision of the lot on which development for the purposes of the secondary dwelling has been carried out under this Division.

 

Side setbacks

The relevant objectives of the DCP with respect to setbacks seek;

 

a)  To maintain or establish a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the character of the neighbourhood,

b)  To ensure the form and massing of development complement and enhance the streetscape character,

c)  To ensure adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic private and solar access,

d)  To reserve adequate areas for the retention or creation of private open space and deep soil planting, and

e)  To enable a reasonable level of view sharing between a development and the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

The southern boundary setback of the upper level maintains the existing setback of the dwelling between 956mm and 1028mm from the side boundary which is less than the nominated 1200mm setback in the DCP control.

 

An important consideration of this application is that the new upper level is sited directly above the existing walls of the ground level of the dwelling which is common practice when modifying existing dwellings in this manner. However the established pattern of setbacks in the street includes examples of upper level setbacks such as to the adjoining dwelling which are setback further from the ground level which not only increases the side setback of the dwelling but also provides for a greater level of modulation to the building. A condition of consent is therefore included to require that the setback of the upper level of the dwelling to the southern side be increased to 1200mm. This can be readily achieved due to the generous room sizes and configuration at the upper level.

 

Solar access to adjoining properties

The objectives of the RDCP Part 5.1 with respect to Solar Access and Overshadowing seek;

 

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

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

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

 

The relevant controls of the RDCP 5.1 with respect to Solar Access and Overshadowing and existing solar panels on neighbouring dwellings state that where existing solar panels are situated not less than 6m above ground level they must retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

The adjoining dwelling at No.29 Shaw Avenue is a single storey dwelling which has solar panels to the northern side of the roof. The solar panels are less that the 6m above ground nominated in the above control and therefore the requirement to maintain solar access to those panels is not triggered.

 

Due to the site orientation there will be some unavoidable overshadowing upon the adjoining property No.29 Shaw Avenue which is directly to the south of the subject property. It is acknowledged that there will be overshadowing upon their north facing windows and solar panels, however that overshadowing arises because of the site orientation and not because of an inappropriate building design. It is also noted that the alterations and additions to the dwelling will provide for a two storey dwelling that reflects the desired future character of the locality as expressed in the planning controls in the LEP and the RDCP.

 

To restrict any development upon this dwelling in the form proposed to maintain the existing level of solar access to the solar panels of No.29 Shaw Avenue would be an unreasonable restriction upon the owners, especially given that the development also complies with the RDCP controls relating to FSR and building height, and by a condition of consent to increase the side setback of the new upper level of the dwelling on the southern side.

 

Privacy impacts

 

North facing windows W31 & W32 to the secondary dwelling are required by proposed condition to have sill heights raised to 1.6m above floor level or have opaque glazing to this height in order to protect the amenity of adjacent properties.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any 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. 315/2016 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and construction of a new secondary dwelling at 27 Shaw Avenue, 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:

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

 

a.      The privacy screens to the rear balcony are to have a height of 1.6 m above floor level and 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.

 

b.      The depth of the upper level rear balcony is to be reduced to a maximum of 1.5m.

 

c.      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:

 

·     W31 & W32 to the secondary dwelling.

 

d.     The privacy screen to the front balcony is to be deleted to reduce the visual bulk to the façade.

 

e.      The height of the secondary dwelling is to be reduced to a maximum of 3.6m with a maximum external wall height of 2.4m.

 

f.      The side boundary setback of the upper level from the southern side boundary is to be increased to 1200mm.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 27 Shaw Avenue, KINGSFORD

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP56/16

 

Subject:              83 Garden Street, Maroubra (DA/98/2016)

Folder No:                DA/98/2016

Author:                     Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Demolition of existing buildings on site and erection of a new two storey dwelling, including a double garage and new boundary fencing

Ward:                        Central Ward

Applicant:                Liskowski Architects

Owner:                     Mr J Young and Mrs W Cai

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=6b6eb78c-3cab-47e8-8eaf-21b173ee5325&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Andrews, Nash & Stavrinos.

 

1.        Proposal

 

The application details the demolition of the existing buildings on site and the construction of a new two storey dwelling with double garage and perimeter fencing.

 

2.        Site

 

The site is on the eastern side of Garden Street on the corner of Gale Road. The site has a frontage of 19.8m to Garden Street and depth of 18.3. The site area is 364m². The site is relatively level.

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of single and two storey free standing dwellings.

 

Image 1: Existing dwelling

 

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. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

Issue

Comment

81 Garden Street Maroubra

 

-The proposed balcony will to the northern side will have an impact upon their privacy.

 

-The proposed new front fence is higher than the other fences in the street and should be broken up by installing railings at various intervals.

 

-The proposed north south common dividing fence rises to a height of 1.8m and would it be possible to put a railing in front of their air conditioner to allow air to circulate rather than have a brick wall.

 

-The common dividing fence should start at a height of 1m from the front of the properties and gradually rising in height to the front of the dwellings to the proposed 1.8m.

 

-The fence in their side is to be smoothly rendered and painted white.

 

 

 

 

 

-The proposed pergola needs to be free standing and not attached to the common wall between the two properties.

 

 

-The demolition of the garage could result in damage to their dwelling as the walls are connected and could lead to water entering their dwelling.

 

 

-A mesh fence needs to be placed around the property to restrict dust during demolition and building works.

 

-Any trees or shrubs planted close to the side boundary should not grow higher than 2m, be evergreen and not have roots that spread of damage fences, sewerage and foundation.

 

 

 

 

 

The plans have been amended to include a privacy screen to part of the balcony on the northern side of the dwelling.

 

See Key Issues Section.

 

 

 

 

The new boundary fencing will not obstruct ventilation to the air conditioning unit as it does not project over the top or around the unit

 

 

 

See Key Issues Section.

 

 

 

 

 

A condition is included with respect to the colours and finishes of the new building work. The actual colour to the side of the fence facing the adjoining property can be by agreement between the two property owners.

 

A condition of consent is included to nominate that the pergola to the rear al fresco area to be free standing and not attached to the adjoining wall.

 

 

A Condition of consent is included requiring the stability of the existing buildings on the adjoining site to be maintained during demolition.

 

The standard condition is included with respect to site management and a requirement for site fencing.

 

A condition of consent is included to require nominated planting species to be provided to limit the height of planting to a maximum of 3m at maturity which is considered a reasonable height of landscaping to maintain privacy screening between the two properties without any impact to the adjoining property.

 

4.        Key Issues

 

·     Setbacks

The objectives of Part 3.3 of the Randwick Development Control Plan, with respect to setback see to;

 

a)  Maintain or establish a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the character of the neighbourhood,

b)  Ensure the form and massing of development complement and enhance the streetscape character,

c)  Ensure adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access,

d)  Reserve adequate areas for the retention or creation of private open space and deep soil planting, and

e)  Enable a reasonable level of view sharing between a development and the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

The relevant controls of the DCP which relate to this development are the secondary street setback of 1500mm and rear setback of 8m.

 

The dwelling has a setback to the secondary dwelling which varies from 1000mm to the dwelling and nil to the garage portion of the building.

 

There are no objections to the nil setback of the garage as this is consistent with the adjoining garage at No.120 Gale Road and the siting of the garage in this instance will not result in any adverse impacts upon the streetscape amenity.

 

The setback of the dwelling is proposed to be at 1000mm which is less than the DCP control. This setback is considered acceptable as in combination with the garage setback will still provide for a degree of articulation to the secondary street frontage and the overall appearance of the dwelling will not detract from the streetscape character because of the building articulation and the inclusion of planting to the southern elevation of the building.

 

The rear setback of the building is at 900mm which is significantly less than the 5m control. However in this instance there are no objections as the setback of the building is consistent with the closest building at No.120 Gale Road which has the side setback of that dwelling along the rear boundary of the subject property. That adjoining dwelling does not rely on the side setback for light and ventilation as there is an open northerly aspect at rear.

 

It is also noted that to require strict compliance with the DCP control would be an unreasonable constraint given the shallow depth of the site.

 

Therefore there are no objections to the rear setback of the dwelling at 900mm as strict compliance would be unreasonable because of the site constraints and there are no identified adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

·     Fencing

The objectives of Part 7 of the Randwick Development Control Plan relating to fencing and ancillary development include that;

 

a)  The alignment, configuration, rhythm of bays, height, materials, colours and texture of new fences complement the building on the site and the streetscape,

b)  Fences are designed to achieve a balance between privacy, safety and security for the building occupants and visual interaction with the public domain, without adversely affecting the amenity of the pedestrian environment,

c)  Fences are designed to minimize opportunities for graffiti and malicious damage,

d)  To provide for ancillary development that enhances the liveability of dwellings and maintains reasonable levels of visual amenity, solar access and privacy for the neighbouring dwellings,

e)  To ensure ancillary development do not present as prominent features and detract from the streetscape character.

 

The new front fence is of masonry and palisade style infill panels to a height of 1800mm. The palisade infill is restricted to a small portion of the fence.

 

The overall height and design of the front fence is excessive in both the height and solid nature and a condition of consent is included to require the fence to be redesigned to be a maximum of 1500mm in height with the upper two thirds at least 30% open.  

 

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

 

That the application be approved subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/98/2016 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a new dwelling, including a double garage and new fencing at 83 Garden Street, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     The highlight windows within the upper level eastern side elevation must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level.

b.     The height of the boundary fence to the Garden Street and Gale Road frontages is limited to a maximum of 1500mm with the upper two thirds at least 30% open. The fence is to continue at this height to the northern side boundary up to the façade of the dwelling and for the remainder of the boundary may be up to 1800mm and solid.

c.      Any screen planting across the width of the northern side boundary shall be restricted to species that will not exceed 3m in height at maturity, with the Construction Certificate plans nominating the location and quantity of plants installed that can be selected from the following;

 

·      Syzgium or Acema cultivars (Lilly Pillies)

·              Murraya paniculata (Murraya)

·              Dwarf Callistemon (Bottlebrush)

·      Photonia cultivars

·              Pittosporum cultivars

 

d.     The proposed pergola above the al fresco area is to be a free standing structure and not attached to the dividing fence or adjoining buildings.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 83 Garden Street, MAROUBRA 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP57/16

 

Subject:              4 Paine Street, Maroubra (DA/54/2016)

Folder No:                DA/54/2016

Author:                     Chahrazad  Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner      

 

Proposal:                  Alterations, ground and first floor additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including rear in ground swimming pool and use of the area above existing garage as a secondary dwelling (variation to the floor area for secondary dwelling)

Ward:                        Central Ward

Applicant:                Christain Luck

Owner:                     Christain Luck & Bianca Luck

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.png?guid=20a1187e-a9a5-45b9-903e-3428bc068e0b&contentType=image%2Fpng

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The subject application is referred to Council for determination as it contains variations to the maximum floor area standard for secondary dwellings as stipulated within Clause 22(3)(b) of the State Environmental Planning Policy for Affordable Rental Housing 2009 by more than 10%. The applicant has submitted a written request that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant of Clause 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

The Development application is also referred to Council at the request of Councillors Nash, Seng and Stavrinos.

 

Relevant History

 

An inspection of the subject premises by Council’s Building Regulation and Compliance team has disclosed that the approved garage (under BA/245/1979) and storeroom (under BA/245/1992 & BA/245/1992/A) at the rear of the premises has already been altered internally with partition walls, fixtures and fitting and used for the purposed of a secondary dwelling which development consent is required but has not been obtained.  

 

A notice of intention was issued on 15 June 2015 and as result this application is seeking to formalise the use of the existing secondary dwelling and other proposed alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling which have not been carried out on the site.

 

It should be noted that Council cannot grant retrospective approval for the works already completed to the existing rear outbuilding but is able to authorise the use of the space as a secondary dwelling.

 

Proposal

 

The application is seeking approval to carryout alterations, ground and first floor additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including rear in ground swimming pool and to validate the use of the area above existing garage as a secondary dwelling.

 

The proposal comprises the following elements:

 

Ground floor

·     Demolition of the deck and awning structure to the rear of the dwelling and reconstruction of an addition projecting 5.195m into the rear yard with a 3m deck and awning attached.

·     Internal reconfiguration on the ground floor level with new laundry facility, kitchen, dining and living room including new staircase to access the proposed first floor level.

·     Bricking up existing window openings and providing new external window openings.

·     New rear swimming pool.

·     New air-conditioning unit to the western side of the building.

·     New roof skylight above staircase.

 

First floor level

·     Construction of a new first floor level containing two bedrooms, siting room and bathroom.

 

Outbuilding

·     Demolition of external stairs which is located to the south elevation of the outbuilding.

·     Bricking up existing window and door openings. 

·     New rainwater tank to the rear of the outbuilding.

·     New pool filter equipment to the rear of the garage area.

·     Validate use of the area above existing garage as a secondary dwelling.

·     New infill walls and fire rated door between the garage space and entry stairs.

 

Amended plans were receive by Council on the 5th July 2016 to address the objectors concern in relation to the rear portion of the first floor addition being on the boundary causing visual and overshadowing impacts.

 

To reduce the impacts on the adjoining premises, the amended plans include the eastern wall of the rear first floor bedroom being setback 900mm from the eastern side boundary.

 

The assessment is based on this amended plan no. 4/16A sheet 1 of 2 receive by Council on the 5th July 2016 and plan no. 4/16 of sheet 2 of 2 received by Council on 4 February 2016.

 

Subject site & surround development

The subject site is located to the northern side of Paine Street and is currently occupied by a single storey semi-detached dwelling house and rear outbuilding which contains a garage and unauthorised secondary dwelling on the first floor level which are both accessed off Wild lane. 

 

The subject site has a frontage of 7.85m to Paine Street, a western side boundary depth of 48.77m, rear frontage width of 7.565m to Wild Lane and a total site area of 342.1m².  The site is irregular in shape to the eastern side boundary and part of the rectangular land is occupied by the neighbouring two storey semi-detached dwelling at no. 6 Paine Street.  The site has a slight fall of a maximum of 970mm from the front southern boundary to the rear northern boundary.

 

The immediate surrounding area is predominately residential in character and comprises of single and two storey dwelling houses with two storey outbuilding structures located to the rear within Wild Lane.

 

Figure 1: The subject single and adjoining two storey semi-detached dwellings

 

Figure 2: The rear yard of the subject site and existing subject and adjoining outbuilding structures to the rear laneway.

 

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:

 

6 Paine Street, Maroubra

 

Issues

Comment

Solar access impacts

The proposed first floor addition to the rear will impact on solar access to their north facing bedroom and rear deck area at the ground floor.

The north facing living room windows face the rear of the property.  The submitted shadow diagrams demonstrate the additional shadows to the adjoining properties at no. 6 Paine Street are minor and will continue to receive the required 3 hours of solar access between 12pm and 4pm on June. Majority of the shadows will cast onto the street and front yards of the subject and neighbouring properties.

Visual impacts

The proposed first floor addition on the common wall boundary extends further than their first floor level and will be visually overbear and intrusive from the rear facing bedroom window.

The amended proposal increases the side setback of the external wall to the bedroom on the first floor level with a setback of 900mm from the eastern side of the common wall boundary.  This will alleviate the visual concerns raised by the objector in relation to their bedroom window on the first floor level.

 

Further, the amended proposal was viewed by the objector at Council.  The objector agreed that the amended side setback is acceptable and no further submission was received.

 

Privacy concerns

The rear deck extension will cause privacy concerns to their rear yard due to the height of the fence in relation to the extended deck.

Whilst it is noted that the existing deck at the rear of the subject dwelling was slightly elevated by approximately 390mm from the existing ground level. 

 

The proposed development is lowering the level of the living area within the dwelling to RL 23.12 which also lowers the level of the rear deck area to RL 23.07.  This will be only 190mm from the existing ground level which is at RL RL 22.88.  The existing boundary fence is sufficient in height to provide reasonable level of privacy between the properties.

 

FSR exceeds the maximum

The proposed FSR will be over the allowable maximum of 55%.

The allowable FSR on the site is 0.75:1 for a semi-detached dwelling house.  The proposal provides an FSR of 0.66:1 which complies with this control standard in the LEP 2012.

 

Moreover, the bulk and scale as amended complements the desirable future streetscape character and achieves a suitable urban design outcome that is generally consistent in scale and built form with the adjoining semi and existing development in the immediate area.

 

Level of swimming pool

Would like to know if the swimming pool will be elevated from the ground level and if so a higher fence will need to be erected.

The pool level is generally flush with the existing ground level towards the southern end of the pool and the new ground level slight increases to the northern end of the pool by 270mm from the ground level.  It is agreed that the existing fence to the eastern side of the common wall boundary will not be sufficient in height to provide reasonable levels of privacy to the objects property and for this reason a condition is recommended requiring a 1.8m high privacy to be installed to the eastern side of the proposed pool level flush to the eastern boundary fence or alternately consent may be obtained from the neighbouring property at no. 6 Paine Street, Maroubra for a new boundary fence which is not to exceed a maximum height of 2.1m from the existing ground level.

 

Note:  A submission was received from the lessee that is renting the granny flat at the rear of the subject dwelling.  They are not objecting to the development, however, would like the existing fixed kitchen window to the rear of the secondary dwelling be converted to an open window for cross ventilation.  Refer to Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy which addresses this issue.

 

 

Key Issues

 

·     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

Clause 4.6: Exceptions to development standards – Secondary Dwellings 

 

The existing secondary dwelling contravenes the maximum permissible floor space for secondary dwellings contained within the Clause 22(3)(b) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) for Affordable Rental Housing (ARH) 2009.  The applicant has submitted a written request that seeks to justify the contravention of the standards pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP.

 

Secondary Dwellings

Clause 22(3)(b) of the SEPP ARH 2009 allows development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling with a maximum permissible floor area of 60. The unauthorized secondary dwelling has a floor area of 67.6 and exceeds the floor area by 7.6m². This represents a variation to the development standard of 12.67%. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Gross Floor Area (GFA)

Existing development

67.6m2

Permissible FSR / GFA

60m2

GFA in excess of SEEP standard

7.6m2

Variation from the permissible GFA for secondary dwellings

12.67%

 

(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 sub clause (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.

 

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.

 

Comments:

The SEPP ARH 2009 does not include any relevant objectives for Clause 22(3)(b) and simply advises that the floor area must not exceed 60 square metres or 10% of the total floor area of the principle dwelling. Subsequently, the aims of the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009 are assessed accordingly:

 

(a)    To provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing,

(b)    To facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards,

(c)    To facilitate the retention and mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing,

(d)    To employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and incentives for the development of new affordable rental housing,

(e)    To facilitate an expanded role for not-for-profit-providers of affordable rental housing,

(f)    To support local business centres by providing affordable rental housing for workers close to places of work,

(g)    To facilitate the development of housing for the homeless and other disadvantaged people who may require support services, including group homes and supportive accommodation.

 

Whilst there are no specified objectives for Clause 22(3), a Secondary dwelling as defined under the SEPP provides that these types of developments are largely aimed at providing accommodation of inter-family arrangements or local workers on low to moderate incomes where the secondary dwelling remains subservient to the primary dwelling, secondary dwellings are likely to be able to be accommodated on a site with a minimum 450sqm site area, that parking need not be provided for the secondary dwelling and the Consent Authority to undertake an environmental assessment having regard to the suitability of the site to occupy a Primary and Secondary dwelling within relevant building design guidelines and the specific local conditions. In this respect see assessment under the Section: Comprehensive Development Control Plans. A merits based assessment has also been carried out in assessing the reasonableness of the proposal.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

The applicant’s argument has merit and it is considered that the proposal is satisfactory and strict compliance with the floor area standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

·     The minor variation to the SEPP does not result in a breach to the height of building and FSR standards in the LEP 2012.  The very low floor space ratio achieved on the site also demonstrates that the size of the secondary dwelling is appropriate to the proportions of the site and will remain subservient to the principal dwelling house on the site.

·     The secondary dwelling remains compatible with the desired future character of the locality in that the size and scale of the existing outbuilding structure is consistent with the other similar outbuilding structures which are located to the rear of the property along the lane way. 

·     The rear outbuilding structure already exists on the site and the proposal will not be altering the existing building envelope nor will it be impacting upon the amenity of the adjoining properties with respect to overshadowing and visual impacts. 

·     Conditions are included to ensure adequate light and ventilation access is provided to the living areas of the secondary dwelling to comply with the BCA requirements.

·     Subject to conditions, the proposed use of the outbuilding on the first floor level as a secondary dwelling will not unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties with respect privacy.  The existing windows openings to the northern elevation of the secondary dwelling will predominately overlook Wild Lane and garages within the laneway.  To the northern elevation of the secondary dwelling conditions with privacy measures to be implemented are included within the consent for the kitchen and living room windows.  Refer to Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy for further details.

·     The proposed use will be in the public interest as it will provide affordable, safe and accessible house accommodation which is need for the local community.

 

The justification for the proposed contravention of the maximum permissible floor space for secondary dwellings contained within the Clause 22(3)(b) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) for Affordable Rental Housing (ARH) 2009 is considered to be well founded and will meet the aim of the SEPP.

 

(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 proposed variation to the floor area of the secondary dwelling does not create an inconsistency with the zone objectives of the locality and the existing outbuilding 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?

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.

 

Whilst there are no stated objectives to Clause 22(3)(b) the proposal has been assessed on the aims of the SEPP ARH 2009.   

 

It is considered that the proposed use is consistent with the aims and objectives that are relevant in that it will provide affordable house for the occupants of the site whilst satisfying the objectives of the zone, is sympathetic to the existing residential environment and built form, will have an acceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of both the zone and the aims of the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009.

 

 (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 for secondary dwellings under Clause 22(3)(b) of the SEPP ARH 2009.

 

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 & SEPP for secondary dwellings for the site and locality.

 

·     Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 – Part C1 - Low Density Residential

 

Section 2.4 - Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces

The existing permeable landscaped area on the site is approximately 26.6% (or 91m²). The proposed development will reduce the permeable landscaped area to approximately 17% (or 58m²) which does not comply with control.

 

The main reduction of the permeable landscaped surface area is a result of the proposed pool.  It is not considered that the deficiency will have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of the subject and adjoining properties. However, to maximise opportunities for deep soil planting and permeable surfaces on the site it is recommended that a condition be included which requires the new rear timber deck to be constructed in a manner that allows water to pass through the deck and infiltrate into the ground. This can be achieved by constructing the deck with 2-5mm gaps between the timber boards.

 

Despite the non-compliance with the deep soil permeable surfaces control with the inclusion of the above recommendation it is considered that the level of deep soil area provided on the site will be improved and will satisfy the objectives of the control.

 

Section 2.5 - Private open space (POS)

General amenity for the secondary dwelling

There is no specific control for the provision of privacy open space for secondary dwellings under the SEPP and Council’s DCP.  Notwithstanding the above, to ensure that occupants of secondary dwelling have access to private open space to support independent living, the garage which is allocated for the secondary dwelling is to have an opening that allows access to the rear yard for use as private open space.

 

Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy

Objective

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

 

Controls

i)       All habitable room windows must be located to minimise any direct viewing of existing habitable room windows in adjacent dwellings.

 

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)     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.

 

Subject to a condition it is not expected that the proposed development will result in any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties.

 

The window openings to the southern and northern elevations will primarily overlook street and rear yard of the subject site, respectively. Also, the lower half of the window to the rear on the first floor level is of obscure glazing to a sill height of 1.6m which restricts overlooking into the neighbours yards.

 

The window openings to the western elevation on the first floor level are highlight windows with sill heights of 1.6m which restricts overlooking into the neighbours yards.

 

The new window openings on the ground floor are either off set from neighbouring properties window openings, are screened by the dividing fence or is a highlight window with a sill height of 1.6m from the finished floor level.

 

Subject to a condition, the proposed use of the outbuilding on the first floor level as a secondary dwelling will not unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties with respect privacy. The existing windows openings to the northern elevation of the secondary dwelling will predominately overlook Wild Lane and garages within the laneway. However, to the southern elevation the conversion from a storage area to a kitchen window will result in overlooking concerns to the neighbouring properties.  Also, this window alone does not comply with the BCA requirements as it does not provide adequate light and ventilation to the kitchen and living area and for the above reasons the following conditions are to be implemented:

 

·       The kitchen window opening is to be fixed at a sill height of 1.6m from the finished floor level and the upper portion of the window is to be operable. Alternately, the window is to be entirely operable with external privacy louvres to be installed at a sill height of 1.6m from the finished floor level and angled to prevent overlooking. 

 

·       The door opening within the living room is to be retained and converted as a window opening.  To meet the BCA requirements for cross ventilation the window is to be operable above sill height of 1.6m from the finished floor level. Alternately, the window is to be entirely operable with external privacy louvres to be installed at a sill height of 1.6m from the finished floor level and angled to prevent overlooking. 

 

Subject to the above recommendations, the proposed development will meet the privacy controls in the DCP.

 

Sub-section 7.5 - Swimming pools and Spas

A submission was received by the neighbouring semi at no. 6 Paine Street unsure whether the swimming pool is elevated from the ground level and if so concerned that the existing boundary fence is not sufficient in height to provide privacy and will need to be higher. 

 

The swimming pool is located behind the front building line in the rear yard and is located adjacent to POS areas of neighbouring properties, therefore unlikely to impact acoustic amenity. However, whilst the pool level is generally flush with the existing ground level towards the southern end of the pool, the new ground level to the northern end of the pool will be slight increases by 270mm from the existing ground level.  For this reason, it is agreed that the existing fence to the eastern side of the common wall boundary will not be sufficient in height to provide reasonable levels of privacy to the objectors property and therefore, it is recommended that a condition be included requiring a 1.8m high privacy to be installed to the eastern side of the proposed pool level flush to the eastern boundary fence; or alternately consent may be obtained from the neighbouring property at no. 6 Paine Street, Maroubra for a new eastern boundary fence and the fence is not to exceed a maximum height of 2.1m from the existing ground level.

 

With the inclusion of the above recommendation, the existing boundary fence to the western side and rear outbuilding around the perimeter of the pool are sufficient in height to provide reasonable levels of privacy between the properties. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The development application has been assessed against the relevant controls under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 and generally found to be satisfactory.

 

The proposed development will have no unreasonable adverse impact on the bulk and scale of the subject property. The development will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties in terms of privacy, solar access or views.  

 

The Clause 4.6 variation submitted in support of the breach to the FSR limit contained within Clause 22(3)(b) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) for Affordable Rental Housing (ARH) 2009 is considered to be well-founded and the strict imposition of the FSR development standard is considered to be unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances.

 

Having regard to the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the application is considered to be satisfactory and therefore can be approved.

 

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 the Floor Area Standard as detailed in Clause 22(3)(b) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) for Affordable Rental Housing (ARH) 2009 on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the aims of the SEPP for ARH 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/54/2016 for alterations, ground and first floor additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including rear in ground swimming pool and use of the area above existing garage as a secondary dwelling at No. 4 Paine Street, Maroubra, 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.   A privacy screen having a height of 1.8m above the pool level must be provided flush to the eastern side boundary and must run the length of the pool. 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, consent may be obtained from the neighbouring property at no. 6 Paine Street, Maroubra for a new eastern boundary fence.  The fence shall not exceed a maximum height of 2.1m from the existing ground level.

 

b.   To ensure adequate privacy levels, light and ventilation are provided to the kitchen and living area of the secondary dwelling the following measures are to be implemented to the southern elevation of the secondary dwelling:

 

·        The kitchen window opening on the first floor level of the outbuilding shall be fixed at a sill height of 1.6m from the finished floor level and the upper portion of the window shall be operable. Alternately, the window shall be entirely operable and external privacy louvres shall be installed at a sill height of 1.6m from the finished floor level.  The lourves shall be fixed at an angled to prevent overlooking. 

 

·        The door opening within the living room on the first floor level of the outbuilding shall be retained and converted to a window opening.  The window shall be operable above sill height of 1.6m from the finished floor level. Alternately, the window shall be entirely operable and external privacy louvres shall be installed at a sill height of 1.6m from the finished floor level. The lourves shall be fixed at an angled to prevent overlooking. 

 

c.   To ensure that occupants of secondary dwelling have access to private open space to support independent living, the garage must have an opening that allows access to the rear yard for use as private open space.

 

d.  The rear timber deck attached to the dwelling shall be constructed in a manner that allows water to pass through the deck and infiltrate into the ground. This can be achieved by constructing the pool deck with 2-5mm gaps between the timber boards.

 

e.   To confirm that the secondary dwelling meets the NSW government requirements for sustainability a separate BASIX certificate for the secondary dwelling shall be submitted to Councils Manager Development Assessments for approval prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development. 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA  Compliance Report - 4 Paine Street, MAROUBRA 

Included under separate cover

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

General Manager's Report No. GM15/16

 

Subject:              Review of the Randwick City Council 2015-16 Operational Plan – June 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 June 2016 Quarterly Report and fourth and final review of the 2015-16 annual Operational Plan. This report demonstrates our commitment to meeting the actions in the 2015-16 annual Operational Plan.

 

During the June report period, several key projects were completed, including the 2015‑16 Footpath Program; the 2015‑16 Local Road Rehabilitation Program; streetscape documentation for the Coogee Bay Road commercial centre upgrade; drafting of the Randwick Junction Town Centre Issues Paper; the indigenous seed collection project allowing for future revegetation projects; and the drafting of Floodplain Risk Management Plans for the Coogee Bay, Maroubra Bay and Kensington-Centennial Park catchments. 

 

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

 

1a Vision for Randwick City Council

 

 

P001

 

 

Council adopted its 2016-17 Operational Plan and Budget which include: a new synthetic playing field at Latham Park in South Coogee; new amenities at Mahon Pool; new outdoor exercise circuit at Chifley Sports Reserve; extension of the Coastal Walkway to the west of Malabar Headland; new canteen, toilets, change room and storage building in southern Heffron Park and drainage works at Perry Street/Beauchamp Road, Matraville and Hayward Street in Kingsford.

 

Randwick City Council 2016-17 Operational Plan

 

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

1b. Leadership

 

S015

 

Council received and responded to 9,396 service requests during the June quarter and received 32,524 phone calls via the Call Centre.

 

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

1b. Leadership

 

S018

S019

 

A number of significant technology infrastructure improvements have been made such as: commissioning of new wireless network at DRLC, Randwick Administration Centre and Randwick Town Hall; replacing all public PCs at the Library with new; introducing a queue management system at the Customer Service Centre; connection of the Randwick and Waverley Council networks to allow for amalgamation planning; new CCTV system integrations at the Moverly Childcare Centre, Prince Henry Centre, Malabar Library and Community Centre; and the launch of a new remote working system for staff.

 

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

1b. Leadership

 

P004

 

The annual staff performance reviews were finalised with staff demonstrating high performance aligned with the Council values.

 

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

1c. Continuous Improvement

 

 

P013

 

Our staff have worked closely with our merger partners to prepare for amalgamation and this has resulted in great work being done.

 

 

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2a. Understanding Community Needs

 

S029

 

64 events were held at the Prince Henry Centre including: a Sydney Greek Festival's symposium; a 4 day Art Exhibition and activities by the Randwick Art Society; meetings of Randwick and Waverley Councils to launch the joint working groups; and a Ministerial Roundtable discussion ‑ 'Our Kids Our Way' hearing the voices of Aboriginal people.

 

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2a. Understanding Community Needs

 

S031

 

Council celebrated National Youth Week with a music concert at Coogee Beach; a student careers information event at Bowen Library; and a Skate Clinic at the recently opened Chifley Skate Park.

 

Activities hosted during NSW Seniors Week included: an Art 4 Connection Workshop; Back to Prince Henry Day; The Spirits of Prince Henry Twilight Tour; and Abuse of Older Persons Forum.

 

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2a. Understanding Community Needs

 

S033

S034

 

The Library has partnered with community volunteers to provide highly popular English conversation classes and early literacy classes in Russian, Japanese and French. Council increased its program to include Babies Love Books in French.

 

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2a. Understanding Community Needs

 

P018

 

 

The Koojay Corroboree on Coogee Beach was attended by over 2,000 people. The event included the Doonooch Dancers performing traditional Corroboree, Soldiers Settlement Public School Choir singing the National Anthem in ‘language’, the junior Warada Dancers performing traditional and contemporary Aboriginal dance and the women Aboriginal dance group Djaadjawan Dancers.

 

Djaadjawan Dancers at Koojay Corroboree

 

 

2. A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2b. Strong Partnerships

 

S038

 

 

Council gave a presentation on Local Government Reform at the Precinct Coordination Committee meeting which was attended by executives from six precincts.

 

 

2. A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2d. Cultural diversity

 

S040

 

A number of community events were held to officially open new facilities, such as the synthetic turf sportsfield at Heffron Park and the Frenchmans Bay outdoor gym.

 

 

Frenchmans Bay outdoor gym                        Heffron Park Synthetic Field

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

3a. Communicating Effectively

 

S043

 

The winter edition of Scene Magazine included a special feature on the 2017 Budget and how it would affect residents and businesses, as well as a piece on the Coastal Walkway as a destination.

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

3a. Communicating Effectively

 

S045

 

Five different banner campaigns were flown in Randwick City including for Anzac Day, Randwick Rugby Union Football Club and Sydney Children's Hospital Foundation.

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

3b Promoting Services

 

S050

 

Additional funding from Telstra was obtained to allow 5 TECHconnect sessions to be provided free of charge.

 

A new monthly, youth focused series titled How To Adult has commenced, providing teens information about the voting and electoral process.

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

3c Community Involvement

 

S051

 

100 suggestions were made via a survey regarding the management of Kensington Park over the next 10 years while a focus group of 10 selected residents provided valuable insight into how residents use the park and how they would like to see it improved.

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

3c Community Involvement

 

S052

 

The Council's social media during the Sydney Storm provided timely and relevant engagement and information. In particular, Facebook had one post that reached 94,000 people and had 1,600 likes, 493 comments and 271 shares.

 

 

Coogee Beach –storm damage and after the cleanup

 

 

4. Excellence in Urban Design and Development

 

4a. Improved Design

 

P024

P025

 

The K2K ‑ Kensington to Kingsford International Urban Design Competition was launched.

 

 

4. Excellence in Urban Design and Development

 

4b. Robust Development Framework

 

P027

 

Council determined 88 per cent of DAs under delegated authority within 60 days (net time). The mean (net) processing time for DAs was 32 days.

 

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

5a.  Maximise Open Space Use

 

P028

 

Following public consultation, a draft Plan of Management and Landscape Concept Plan has been prepared for Kensington Park.

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

5b. Range of Activities

 

P032

 

Refinements to the design of the Chifley Sports Reserve playground have been undertaken by Council and the Contractor to ensure the best outcomes for this facility.

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

5c. New Open Space Creation

 

 

P033

 

Following an extensive community consultation, Council endorsed the Malabar Headland Western Walking Track Project to proceed.

 

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

5c. New Open Space Creation

 

 

P034

 

TfNSW and Council are working together to provide a temporary urban plaza and activate Meeks Street in Kingsford during the construction period of the light rail project. Meeks Street closure to vehicles is planned for August 2016.

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

5d. Innovative Library Programs

 

S056

 

In the June quarter, Randwick City Library ran 539 individual events, attended by 11,343 people.

 

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

5d. Innovative Library Programs

 

S058

 

The Library partnered with Maroubra Junction Primary School and Learning Links to create outreach program "Library After Dark". This new program was attended by over 300 people over three nights.

 

 

Library After Dark

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6a. Public Asset Management

 

S062

 

Council completed 260 pot hole and road pavement repairs.

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6a. Public Asset Management

 

S062

 

Council completed 260 pot hole and road pavement repairs.

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6a. Public Asset Management

 

P043

 

Construction has commenced on the upgrades to the Coogee and Gordons Bay Fishermen's Clubs and on the new amenities at Coogee Beach.

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6c. Community Safety

 

S070

 

Council in conjunction with TAFE NSW, hosted a food safety regulation seminar for delegates from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India.

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6c. Community Safety

 

S072

 

 

A total of 778 free Child Car Seat vouchers were redeemed for the 2015‑2016 financial year, representing a redemption rate of 47%. This is the highest rate since the program began 5 years ago.

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6d. Strategic land Use Framework

 

P048

P049

 

The online ICON Plan browse/enquiry system was made live in June and is a major improvement to the way in which planning information is accessed and used.

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6e. Housing Diversity

 

P051

 

Council resolved (in relation to the Newmarket Green DCP amendments on affordable housing and open space) to commence drafting a LEP that would reinsert the 5% affordability target and seek gateway determination for this intent.

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6f. Distinctive neighbourhoods

 

 

P052

 

The draft Belmore Road Public Domain Study has been completed and will be expanded to cover the entire Randwick Junction Town Centre.

 

Issues Paper

 

 

7. Heritage that is Protected and Celebrated

 

 

7a. Heritage

 

P053

 

 

Remedial works for Caretaker’s Cottage at Wylies Baths have commenced.

 

8. A strong Local Economy

 

8a Vibrant commercial centres

 

P056

 

A Mayor's luncheon was held for the Randwick City Chambers of Commerce and Business Associations to thank them for their services to the business community and valuable contributions over time to the local economy.

 

 

8. A strong Local Economy

 

8b Hospital and University Precincts

 

 

P058

 

The UNSW has provided an update on the master plan for the University Campus.

 

 

8. A strong Local Economy

 

8c Effective partnerships

 

 

S078

P060

 

 

Council hosted the Tourism, Reputation and Risk Forum in partnership with Randwick City Tourism and UTS, at the Prince Henry Centre.

 

 

 

 

9. Integrated and Accessible Transport

 

 

9a. Active Transport Network

 

P061

 

 

Detailed designs of the bi‑directional cycleway along Doncaster Avenue, Houston Road, General Bridges Crescent and Sturt Street in Kingsford and along Sturt and Bundock Streets in Randwick were completed. 

 

 

9. Integrated and Accessible Transport

 

 

9b. Sustainable Transport

 

 

S079

 

 

The number of car share members in the Randwick Local Government Area continues to rise. From January to June 2016, membership increased from 3,629 to 4,020 members.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10a. Leader in Environmental Sustainability

 

S083

 

Council hosted an interfaith and cultural event at Randwick Community Centre to celebrate World Environment Day, which was attended by around 120 participants.

 

 

World Environment Day

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

 

10c Biodiversity and Natural Heritage

 

S086

 

Council's GIS mapping of remnant bushland is complete and ready to 'go live' on Council's interactive mapping server.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

 

10c Biodiversity and Natural Heritage

 

S086

 

234 street trees were planted throughout the City during the June quarter.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10d. Sustainable Waste Technologies

 

S089

 

681 kerbside inspections of residential recycling bins were undertaken, and feedback and education information provided to 151 households.

 

Recycling contamination rates at properties targeted by inspections and door knocks improved recycling behavior by more than 40%.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10d. Sustainable Waste Technologies

 

P075

 

Over 38 tonnes of unwanted household chemicals and hazardous material was collected at the Chemical CleanOut event held in Clovelly for recycling.

 

 

Chemical cleanout event

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10d. Sustainable Waste Technologies

 

P076

 

Council received a $125,000 litter management grant from NSW EPA.

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10e. Water conservation

 

P078

 

Use of harvested stormwater at 12 Council sites and parks provided approximately 17,037 kilolitres of watering, saving Council approximately $124,000.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

 

10f. Energy conservation

 

P081

 

 

Council's solar panels across 9 sites generated around 10,156 kWh of electricity during the June quarter, saving approximately 19 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction:  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 June 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 June 2016 Review of the 2015-16 Annual Operational Plan be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

2015-16 Randwick City Council Annual Operational Plan June Quarterly Performance Report

Included under separate cover

 

 

   


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF26/16

 

Subject:                    2016 International Cities, Town Centres & Communities Conference

Folder No:                F2005/00646

Author:                     Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

The 2016 Conference of the International Cities, Town Centres and Communities Society (ICTC) will be held in Launceston, Tasmania from 9 November to 11 November 2016.

 

Issues

 

The aims of the ICTC are:

 

·         To assist cities, towns and communities to be as environmentally, socially and economically sustainable as possible.

·         To bring together the required visionary professionals to discuss the challenges of replacing sprawl with compact environmentally, socially and economically acceptable environments.

·         To enhance the quality of life of inhabitants of cities, towns & communities.

·         To facilitate world best practices in the planning, development and management of cities, towns and communities and particularly the planning, development and management of public spaces and infrastructure.

 

The conference program is designed to promote the aims of the ICTC and this year’s conference canvasses a range of topics, including:-

 

·     Life Between Buildings: People Places are Sustainable Places

·     Community building and consultation

·     Sustainable cities and towns

·     Urban lifestyles revitalisation

·     Town Centres/Place making initiatives

·     Development Challenges/Mixed use

·     Regional strategic planning

·     Carbon neutral cities

·     The Power of Partnerships: Public-Private Partnerships and the Managed Business District Movement

·     Transport and urban communities

·     Collaborative design processes/Infrastructure planning and development

·     Housing affordability.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability.

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

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

Councillors’ attendance at this conference has been allowed for in the 2016-17 budget.

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that interested Councillors be authorised to attend the 2016 Conference of the ICTC.

 

Recommendation

 

That any Councillors interested in attending the 2016 Conference of the ICTC in Launceston, Tasmania from 9 November to 11 November 2016, advise the General Manager as soon as possible for registration purposes.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF27/16

 

Subject:              Schedule of Meetings for September - October 2016

Folder No:                F2004/06565

Author:                     Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

The 2016 Meeting schedule was adopted at the 24 November 2015 Council Meeting and was based on the presumption that Local Government elections would be held on 10 September 2016. Now that the elections for Randwick City Council (and all the Councils the subject of merger proposals) have been postponed to September 2017, the meeting schedule for September and October 2016 needs to be updated.

 

Issues

The schedule of meetings for September and October 2016 (as adopted at the 24 November 2015 Council Meeting) is as follows:

 

 

September

October

Thu

1

 

Fri

2

 

Sat

3

1

Sun

4

2

Mon

5

3 Labour Day (Holiday)

Tue

6

4 Council Agenda Issued

Wed

7

5

Thu

8

6

Fri

9

7

Sat

10 Local Govt Elections

8

Sun

11

9

Mon

12

10

Tue

13

11 Council Meeting

Wed

14

12

Thu

  15

13 Deadline: Council 25/10

Fri

16

14

Sat

17

15

Sun

18

16 LGNSW Conference

Mon

19

17 LGNSW Conference

Tue

20

18 LGNSW Conference &

Council Agenda Issued

Wed

21

19

Thu

22

20

Fri

23 Extraordinary Agenda Issued

21

Sat

24

22

Sun

25

23

Mon

26

24

Tue

27 Extra Ord Council Meeting (Elect Mayor & Deputy Mayor)

25 Council Meeting

Wed

28

26

Thu

29 Deadline: Council 11/10

27

 

30

28

 

The amended schedule is as follows:

 

 

September

October

Thu

1 Deadline: Committees 13/9

 

Fri

2

 

Sat

3

1

Sun

4

2

Mon

5

3 Labour Day (Holiday)

Tue

6 Committee Agendas issued

4 Committee Agendas Issued

Wed

7

5

Thu

8

6

Fri

9

7

Sat

10

8

Sun

11

9

Mon

12

10

Tue

13 Committee Meetings

11 Committee Meetings

Wed

14

12

Thu

  15 Deadline: Council 27/9

13 Deadline: Council 25/10

Fri

16

14

Sat

17

15

Sun

18

16 LGNSW Conference

Mon

19

17 LGNSW Conference

Tue

20 Council Agenda issued

18 LGNSW Conference &

Council Agenda Issued

Wed

21

19

Thu

22

20

Fri

23

21

Sat

24

22

Sun

25

23

Mon

26

24

Tue

27 Council Meeting

25 Council Meeting

Wed

28

26

Thu

29 Deadline: Committees 11/10

27

 

30

28

 

Relationship to the City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Given the elections for Randwick City Council (and all the Councils the subject of merger proposals) have been postponed to September 2017, the meeting schedule for September and October 2016 needs to be updated.

 

 


 

Recommendation

 

That the amended meeting schedule of September and October 2016 be adopted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF28/16

 

Subject:              Investment Report - July 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 – July 2016” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of July 2016. All investments have been made in accordance with the Act, Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Investment Commentary

 

As at 31 July 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $62.364 million. The portfolio value decreased during July by ~$4.386 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 June 2012 to July 2016. Peaks are representative of the rates instalment periods.

 

Council’s Portfolio

 

The portfolio has sufficient levels of liquidity with 8% of investments available at call and a further 14% of assets maturing within 3 months. Council also currently has a number of senior FRNs as additional cover for liquidity requirements (accessible within 2 business days)

 

 

The investment portfolio is now roughly equally directed to fixed term deposits and liquid FRNs 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 July 2016. The portfolio is includes term deposits (47% of the portfolio) with the higher rated ADI’s. Credit assets (FRNs) are around 45% 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 July 2013 to July 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 3.10% compared with the benchmark index of 2.13%.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate remained at a historical low of 1.75% during the month of July. A 25 basis point rate cut was announced at the RBA meeting held 2nd August 2016 bringing the rate to a new historical low of 1.50%.

Term Deposits

 

At month end, deposits accounted for 47% of the total investment portfolio.

Four deposits totaling $6 million matured and were withdrawn in July.

As at the end of July, the weighted average deposit yield stood at 3.11%, up 3bp from the previous month or around +110bp over bank bills.

    

Floating Rate Notes (FRNs)

 

The portfolio includes $28.31 million in floating rate notes.

 

On 26 July 2016, Council disposed of its $2 million holding in the Bendigo-Adelaide FRN at +109bp.

 

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

 

Indicative market value of the FRNs as at the 31 July 2016 increased by ~$57k.

 

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 2016-17 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 $1,648,000.00. Investment income to 31 July 2016 amounted to $167,126.95.

 

Conclusion

 

All investments as at 31 July 2016 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer - July 2016

 

 

 

 


Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer - July 2016

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF29/16

 

Subject:              Withdrawal of Caveat and Affixing of the Council Seal - 22/75 Broome Street, Maroubra

Folder No:                F2004/06862

Author:                     Sally Fernandez, Property Officer     

 

Introduction

 

Clause 400 (Part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

Issues

 

It is necessary for the Council’s seal to be affixed to the ‘Withdrawal of Caveat’ forms to remove caveat number ‘L926706’ from the title of property at 77/25 Broome Street, Maroubra (Lots 2 and 28 in Strata Plan 4195).

 

This caveat was put in place in 1970 and expired in 1973.  Council placed caveats on properties forming part of the Stocks and Holdings affordable housing development of South Maroubra to prevent property developers purchasing the properties and reselling at inflated prices.  The caveats placed restrictions on the re-sale of the properties for a period of three (3) years from the date of acquisition by the registered proprietor.

 

The caveat is now redundant.  The proprietor’s Solicitor needs to lodge the Withdrawal of Caveat form with the Land Titles Office to finalise the sale and permit transfer of the property.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

Direction 6a:     Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of service.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

As Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorising the Affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities.

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the Council’s Seal be affixed to the Withdrawal of Caveat form for the property at 22/75 Broome Street, Maroubra also known as Lots 2 and 28 in Strata Plan 4195.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM35/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Financial assistance for Kensington Chamber of Commerce

Folder No:                F2005/00494

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward      

 

 

That Council:

 

a)     acknowledge that due to unforeseen circumstances, the Kensington Chamber of Commerce has become inactive over the last 12 months; and

 

b)     as an incentive and goodwill gesture to Kensington Business Operators, cover 1 years membership subscription (at a cost of $50 per business), in order to restart the Kensington Chamber of Commerce, so that any concerns raised by these businesses can be addressed.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM36/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposing a bicycle hiring program

Folder No:                F2016/00303

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward      

 

 

That Council bring back a report, investigating the feasibility of operating a "Bicycle Hiring Program" in an Amalgamated Council, aimed at encouraging our residents and visitors to ride rather than using other modes of transport, so that our City can be more environmentally friendly.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM37/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Flagged transference of NSW public housing management to community housing providers

Folder No:                F2012/00537

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council requests that the NSW government allow it (or any Council that it is merged into)to have input as a key stakeholder into the flagged transference of public housing management to community housing providers and specifically notes its concern on behalf of our significant number of tenants that potential bidders Serco and G4S have been found by a British parliamentary inquiry to have provided substandard public housing in the UK.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM38/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Andrews - Proposed Clearway (western side) of Bunnerong Road

Folder No:                F2016/00312

Submitted by:          Nancy Kelly, Senior Administrative Support Officer     

 

 

That Randwick City Councils traffic committee consider making Bunnerong Road (western side) a clearway during the morning peak from Maroubra Road to Gardeners Road.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                               23 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM39/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Independent acoustics and vibration report completed for 34 and 36 Fitzgerald Ave, Maroubra

Folder No:                F2004/06140

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council liaise with residents in the 34 and 36 Fitzgerald Avenue area of that road to determine whether the degree of noise and vibration that may be impacting on them from recent repair works is at an acceptable Australian standard and commission an independent acoustics and vibration report to facilitate this intent.