RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 25 October 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                                                                                                             25 October 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, 25 October 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 – 23 August 2016

Ordinary Council Meeting - 27 September 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

MM31/16  Maroubra Sports Club - Waiving of Fees..................................................... 1

MM32/16  Waiving of Fees - Surf Life Saving Sydney................................................. 3

MM33/16  Request for Council to waive fees for registered charity to conduct Community Event/Fundraiser within the Randwick LGA............................. 5

MM34/16  Waiving of Fees -  Carols by Candelight Grant Reserve Coogee.................. 7

MM35/16  Coast Centre for Seniors Inc - Request to Waive Hire Fees for Prince Henry Centre....................................................................................................... 9

MM36/16  16th Annual Des Renford Chair of Hearts Research Family Gala and Charity Day - Use of Des Renford Leisure Centre................................................. 11

MM37/16  Indonesian Community Council of NSW - Request to Waive Hire Fees for Randwick Town Hall................................................................................. 13   

Further, 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.

CP58/16   25 Park Street, Clovelly (DA/117/2016).................................................. 15

CP59/16   32-34 Carr Street, Coogee (DA/725/2012/C).......................................... 37

CP60/16   11 Bond Street, Maroubra (DA/535/2015/C)........................................... 49

CP61/16   18 Dundas Street, Coogee (DA/780/2015)............................................. 63

CP62/16   1 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick (DA/99/2016/A)...................................... 81

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP63/16   Draft Kensington Park Plan of Management - Public Exhibition and Submissions Review................................................................................ 91

General Manager's Report

GM17/16  2015-16 Disclosure of Interests Returns............................................... 127

Director City Services Report

CS13/16   Supporting "Sense of Community" Street Parties................................... 129

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF30/16   2015-16 Financial Reports..................................................................... 131

GF31/16   Investment Report - September 2016 ................................................... 137

GF32/16   Withdrawal of Caveat and Affixing of the Council Seal - 72 Broome Street, Maroubra............................................................................................... 147  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM40/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposed Office Location for new Amalgamated Council ........................................................................... 149

NM41/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Seng - Cultural Diversity Policy ....................... 151

NM42/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Reconsideration of previous Heritage Conservation Area expansions in East Ward........................................... 153

NM43/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Byron Shire Council trial of virtual net metering............................................................................................... 155

NM44/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - NOX to become a permanent annual event in the Randwick City Calendar..................................................... 157

NM45/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Green Square to Randwick cycle link 159

NM46/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Innovation Hub ................................ 161  

Closed Session (record of voting required)

Director City Planning Report

CP64/16   325-327 Arden Street, Coogee (DA/695/2015)

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

General Manager’s Report

GM18/16  Fallen Life Savers Memorial, Coogee -  Stage 2 Construction of the Memorial Wall

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

Notice of Rescission Motion (record of voting required)

NR6/16     4/199-203A Malabar Road, South Coogee (DA/153/2015/A)................. 163  

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Mayoral Minute No. MM31/16

 

Subject:              Maroubra Sports Club - Waiving of Fees

Folder No:                F2004/06207

Author:                     The  Mayor, Cr Noel D'Souza      

 

Introduction

 

Correspondence has been received from Mr Tim Mitchell, President, Maroubra Sports Club. Mr Mitchell is requesting the waiving of fees to collect trade waste on a regular basis from their site at Malabar Road, Maroubra.

 

Issues

 

Mr Mitchell has advised:

 

“that the Maroubra Sports Club is a not-for-profit organisation run by volunteers.  The past owners of the club have sold the site to the Catholic Healthcare who intend to redevelop the site. Pending redevelopment the Catholic Healthcare has kindly granted the club an ongoing lease on favorable terms.  The club has been closed since April of this year due to the ownership change and there are little to no funds available so it is being run on good will”.

 

The cost to collect trade waste on a regular basis for a three month period is $1,352.99. This site can be added to the regular trade waste pick up service. 

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial impact to Council would be $1,352.99 for a three month period. This amount would be recognised as a donation and would be funded from the General Trade Waste operating budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The Maroubra Sports Club is a not-for-profit organisation and it is recommended that Council waive the fees for the removal of trade waste at the sports club for a three month period.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)   Council vote to waive the associated fees for the removal of trade waste from the Maroubra Sports Club at Malabar Road, Maroubra for a three month period;

 

b)   This site will be added to the trade waste collection list at a cost of $1,352.99; and

 

c)   This costing be funded from the General Trade Waste operating budget.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Mayoral Minute No. MM32/16

 

Subject:              Waiving of Fees - Surf Life Saving Sydney

Folder No:                F2016/00096

Author:                     The  Mayor, Cr Noel D'Souza      

 

Introduction

 

An application has been received from Ms Victoria Raymond, Administration Sydney Branch, Surf Life Saving seeking Council’s assistance in the waiving of fees for the Branch Carnival to be held at Maroubra Beach on 11 and 12 February 2017.

 

Issues

 

The annual beach carnival gathers the local surf lifesaving community from North Bondi Beach down to Era Beach and draws many competitors to enjoy the day. The carnival includes beach events, (sprint and flag races) and water events (swim and board races). The in-kind support for this event is $1,064.00 beach hire fee for two days.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $1,064.00 and this will be funded from the 2016/17 Council Contingency Fund.

 

Conclusion

 

It is considered that this carnival will benefit the local area and draw many visitors to the beach. It is considered that Council’s assistance be given by waiving the associated fees.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council vote $1,064.00 to cover the fees associated with hosting the Surf Life Saving Branch Carnival to be held at Maroubra Beach on 11 and 12 February, 2017 and funds be allocated from the 2016/17 Council Contingency Fund;

 

b)     the event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event; and

 

c)     the Mayor or the Mayor’s representative be given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Mayoral Minute No. MM33/16

 

Subject:              Request for Council to waive fees for registered charity to conduct Community Event/Fundraiser within the Randwick LGA

Folder No:                F2016/00096

Author:                     The  Mayor, Cr Noel D'Souza     

 

Introduction

 

Ms Jane Hudson of the Australian Mitochondrial Disease Foundation (a NSW registered charity), has requested Council to waive fees associated with the running of a Community Event/Fundraiser.

 

Issues

 

The event, called “The Bloody Long Walk” is a 35km coastal walk to be held on Sunday 13 November, 2016 commencing at Pioneers Park (lower), Malabar and continuing along the coast to Circular Quay.  3000 people are expected to participate and the funds raised will enable the charity to fund research, education and a cure for mitochondrial disease. 

 

Mitochondrial disease is an inherited chronic illness that can be present at birth or develop later in life. It causes debilitating physical, developmental and cognitive disabilities with symptoms including poor growth, loss of muscle coordination, muscle weakness and pain, seizures, vision and/or hearing loss, gastrointestinal issues, learning disabilities and organ failure.  It is estimated that 1 in 4,000 people have the disease which is both progressive and incurable.

 

The organisers of the event have provided a Risk Assessment which has been approved by Council’s WHSRW Officer.   The course will be well signposted, there will be volunteer staff to assist walkers and two check points on the Randwick section of the walk at Maroubra and Clovelly.  Free water will be provided at the check points.

 

Fees associated with the Event are:

 

Application Fee: (1001 – 3000 people)      $    542.00  (no gst applicable)

Connection to Water:                                 $      87.00  (including gst)

Waste Collection:30 bins @$87.00 each       $ 2,610.00  (including gst)                                                                                                           Total                        $3,239.00

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $3,239.00 which will be funded from the 2016-17 Contingency Fund.

 

Conclusion

 

The event/fundraiser will provide local residents and visitors with an opportunity to experience the beauty and accessibility of our coastal areas.

 

It will also enable the Australian Mitochondrial Disease Foundation to raise much needed funds and awareness of the disease.

 

This event is for a good cause and it is recommended that Council supports the event by waiving the fees as requested.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council votes $3,239 from the 2016-17 Contingency fund to cover the fees associated with running “The Bloody Long Walk” on Sunday, 13 November    2016 commencing at Pioneers Park.

 

b)     the event organiser undertakes to appropriately and prominently acknowledge

        and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Mayoral Minute No. MM34/16

 

Subject:              Waiving of Fees -  Carols by Candelight Grant Reserve Coogee

Folder No:                F2016/00096

Author:                     The  Mayor, Cr Noel D'Souza      

 

Introduction

 

Rev Craig Segaert, Rector, St Nicolas’ Anglican Church has advised that the church is currently planning its annual major community event “Carols by the Sea”.  The event is planned to be held in Grant Reserve on Saturday 10 December 2016.  Rev Craig Segaert is requesting that all associated fees be waived for this event.

 

Issues

 

Rev Segaert expresses the church’s appreciation for the support previously given by Randwick Council towards this major community event and again seeks the waving of associated fees to financially meet the high costs of staging such an event.  The event fees include:

 

Application Fee:                                                            $  542.00

Hire of Reserve:                                                            $  380.00

Supply & Removal 5 sulo bins @ $87.00 per bin:           $  435.00

Connection to Power:                                                   $  128.00

Extended opening and cleaning of toilets                     $  187.00

Food Stall                                                                     $  100.00

Total:                                                                            $1772.00

 

St Paul’s and St Nicolas’ Anglican Churches, GracePoint Christian Church and St Brigid’s Catholic Church each contribute to the costs of this event which includes a fireworks display.  This event has been going for 23 years and always draws a good crowd at Grant Reserve.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implications to Council is $1,772.00.  This amount will be funded from the 2016-17 Contingency Fund

 

Conclusion

 

It is considered that this event provides significant benefit to the community and it is recommended that Council waive all associated fees for this activity.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     The fees for the “Carols by the Sea” event in Grant Reserve on Saturday 10 December 2016 be waived and $1,772.00 be allocated from the 2016-17 Contingency Fund;

 

b)     The organisers undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event.

 

c)     The Mayor or his representative is given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

 

d)     The event organisers provide Council with information following the event on the number of attendees.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Mayoral Minute No. MM35/16

 

Subject:              Coast Centre for Seniors Inc - Request to Waive Hire Fees for Prince Henry Centre

Folder No:                F2012/00278

Author:                     The  Mayor, Cr Noel D'Souza      

 

Introduction

 

A request has been received from Ms Linda Mearing, the Manager of the Coast Centre for Seniors Inc. for Council to waive the fees associated with the hire of the Prince Henry Centre for a Christmas Concert to be held on Wednesday 30 November 2016.

 

Issues

 

Mr Jim Haynes OAM, radio 2UE broadcaster and historian has assembled a team of high profile entertainers who are willing to provide their services free of charge to entertain the local community with a Christmas show. The entertainers include Amber Lawrence, Wayne Horsburgh, Melanie Dyer and Frank Ifield. All of these entertainers are exceptional in their own right with many awards and achievements to their credits.

 

Ms Mearing has spoken to all parties involved and has confirmed that all the entertainers and the venue are all available on Wednesday 30th November, 2016 for a concert between 10am and 12.30pm. Accordingly Ms Mearing is seeking a waiving of the hire fees for the use of the Prince Henry Centre between 9am and 1.30pm, allowing one hour either side for setup and cleanup.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The Venue Hire of the Cawood Room and Lobby from 9:00am – 1:30pm comes to $1100.00, such funds to come from the Council Contingency Fund. The refundable bond of $1500.00 will still have to be paid initially by the hirer.

 

Conclusion

 

The Coast Centre for Seniors is seeking for the costs associated with hiring the Centre to be waived for this occasion. Randwick City Council has been a huge supporter of the Coast Centre for Seniors as they provide an invaluable community services for our wonderful senior citizens. Council continues to appreciate the collaboration that exists between the Centre and Council. It is considered appropriate to waive the costs associated with this event.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council waives the Prince Henry Centre hire fees associated with the Coast Centre for Seniors Inc. Christmas Concert to be held on the Wednesday 30th November, 2016 with the funds to come from the Council Contingency Fund 2016/17;

 

b)     the event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event; and

 

c)     the Mayor or the Mayor’s representative be given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Mayoral Minute No. MM36/16

 

Subject:              16th Annual Des Renford Chair of Hearts Research Family Gala and Charity Day - Use of Des Renford Leisure Centre

Folder No:                F2008/00064

Author:                     The  Mayor, Cr Noel D'Souza      

 

Introduction

 

The Des Renford Chair of Heart Research was established in memory of Des Renford who was a famous long distance swimmer and strong supporter of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute.

 

On Sunday 16 October 2016, the Des Renford Leisure Centre will be hosting the sixteenth annual family day and swim challenge to raise money for the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute.  On this day there are many activities including sausage sizzle, water slides, canoe polo and many other free activities run by community groups enabling them to promote their services.   

 

Funds are raised through a $4.00 donation upon entry, sale of food and drinks, raffles, Thong Race and a Swimathon sponsored by family and friends.

 

Issues

 

Randwick City Council has supported this event since it began in November 2000.

Council has been asked to provide support as per previous years by the provision of:

 

·    Stage and Public Announcement system;

·    Tables, chairs, barricades and Sulo garbage bins;

·    Printing of posters and flyers;

·    Advertising the event through the ‘Regarding Randwick’ page in the Southern Courier;

·    Pool lifeguards and first aid officers;

·    Jumping Castle;

·    Use of Des Renford Leisure Centre

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should Council accept the recommendation, the financial implication to Council, inclusive of waiving fees, would be in the vicinity of $8,500.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has been supporting the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute for the past fourteen years in the form of a family open day at the Des Renford Leisure Centre. This event is a major annual fundraiser and has proven very successful for the Institute and very well supported by the local community.

 

The waiving of the fees in question would normally have been approved by Council, however due to the Mayoral Election an ordinary Council meeting was unable to be held in September. Consequently, due to the urgent nature of this request, the waiving of these fees was approved by the General Manager and Mayor in order for this most important event to proceed. It was considered appropriate to advise Council of these circumstances and to seek Council’s endorsement of the waiving of these fees.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council notes the $8,500.00 to cover the costs associated with Council’s contribution towards the organising and staging of the Des Renford Family Day and Swim Challenge to be held on Sunday 16 October 2016 for the purpose of raising money for the Victor Chang Cardiac Foundation and this be funded from the 2016-17 Contingency Fund.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Mayoral Minute No. MM37/16

 

Subject:              Indonesian Community Council of NSW - Request to Waive Hire Fees for Randwick Town Hall

Folder No:                F2004/07674

Author:                     The  Mayor, Cr Noel D'Souza      

 

Introduction

 

A request has been received from Mr Indra Rondonuwu, President of the Indonesian Community Council of NSW for Council to waive the fees associated with the hire of the Randwick Town Hall for a fundraising event to be held on Saturday 12 November 2016.

 

Issues

 

The fundraising event is being held to support the victims of recent floods in the Garut region of Indonesia. There were six regions badly affected by flooding with over a thousand people losing their homes, twenty confirmed fatalities and many more people unaccounted for. Mr Rondonuwu has confirmed that any promotional material for this event will carry the logos of both organisations.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The Venue Hire of the Randwick Town Hall from 4:00pm – 10:00pm comes to $1350.00 plus waste removal charges of $102.00 brings the total to be waived to $1452.00, such funds to come from the Contingency Fund. The refundable bond of $1000.00 will still have to be paid initially by the hirer.

 

Conclusion

 

The Indonesian Community Council of NSW is requesting the costs associated with hiring the Randwick Town Hall be waived for this occasion. Randwick City Council has been a supporter of the Community Council in the past, including a recent event to help support the victims of the Queensland floods, as they provide an invaluable amount of support to those in need. Council continues to appreciate the collaboration that exists between our organisations so it is considered appropriate to waive the costs associated with this event.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council waives the Randwick Town Hall hire fees associated with the Indonesian Community Council of NSW fundraiser to be held on Saturday 12 November 2016 with the funds to come from the 2016-17 Contingency Fund.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP58/16

 

Subject:                    25 Park Street, Clovelly (DA/117/2016)

Folder No:                DA/117/2016

Author:                     Willana Associates, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                  Demolition of existing dwelling, retention of existing retaining walls, construction of new 3 storey dwelling, garage fronting laneway with swimming pool and terrace on level above (variation to floor space control)

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                Miss E Savage

Owner:                     Ms N L Purton &  Mr Z Purton

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=b3ea2375-1070-415f-b618-d8b5f083142f&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 referred to Council for determination as an objector is friend of a Randwick City Council employee.

 

Proposal

 

It is proposed to:

 

§  Demolish the majority of the fabric of the existing dwelling house on the subject site

§  Retain the existing garage, southern and northern retaining walls, the foundation walls of the Lower Ground Floor Level and other internal walls

§  Modify part of the existing sub floor area into a plant room

§  Modify part of the existing garage into a bicycle storage area

§  Construct a plant room, rumpus room and theatre and outdoor living area on the Lower Ground Floor Level

§  Construct an entrance hall, guest bedroom and ensuite, WC, kitchen, dining room and living room on the Ground Floor Level

§  Construct three bedrooms with ensuite bathrooms on the First Floor Level

§  Modify the existing terrace above rear garage

§  Construct a swimming pool at Ground Floor Level, partially on the rear terrace and partially cantilevered above the rear yard

 

After initial plans were lodged with the DA, the applicant was advised of various concerns with the proposal. Amended plans were lodged on 23 August 2016 and those plans are the subject of this report. The only significant amendment to the proposal was an additional setback of the eastern edge of the first floor level from 9m to 10.5m from the eastern (rear) boundary. This resulted in a reduction of the GFA of the proposal by 2sqm.

 

Site

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 81 in DP 2598 and addressed as 25 Park Street, Clovelly. It is located on the eastern side of Park Street and has a 9.145m frontage at this street. The side boundaries are 36.66m and 36.775m in length. The total area of the site is 335.78sqm.

 

There is a fall of approximately 3m from the front boundary of the subject site to the rear boundary. The natural ground level slopes by 1m-2m from north to south but previous cut and fill has largely levelled out this cross fall within the site perimeters.

 

The subject site contains a single storey (with undercroft) dwelling house of rendered brick or masonry construction with a pitched, tiled roof.

 

There are no significant trees on the subject site. Modest areas of landscaping are situated in the front and rear yards. The rear yard also contains a small, in-ground swimming pool.

 

Vehicle access is obtained from Campbell Lane to the rear and parking is accommodated within a large garage situated at the rear boundary. The garage extends across the width of the subject site and presents a parapet to Campbell Lane which is uncharacteristic in bulk and scale with the streetscape of the Lane. A tiled courtyard has been constructed on top of the garage. Planter bed vegetation and a pergola above the terrace further add to the bulk and scale of the rear garage.

 

The adjoining property to the south at 23 Park Street contains a two storey brick dwelling-house with pitched tiled roof. The dwelling house is setback from the front boundary by an additional 3m compared to the dwelling house on the subject site. The property contains a comparatively large landscaped area in both front and rear yards. Vehicle access is obtained from Campbell Lane to the rear, and parking is on an uncovered hard stand driveway in the rear yard. Fencing on both the front and rear boundaries is predominantly low scale and partially open.

 

The adjoining property to the north at 27 Park Street contains a three storey, brick residential flat building with pitched, tiled roof. The building contains nine apartments, the living areas of which are configured to face across the southern side boundary (common boundary with the subject site) toward the ocean to the south.  The property contains landscaped areas in both front and rear yards. An outdoor terrace is also located in the rear yard. Vehicle access is obtained from Park Street, and parking is contained within individual garages. Fencing on the front boundary is low scale and on the rear boundary is constructed of a high concrete block wall.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

1.      Unit 5/27 Park St, CLOVELLY

2.      Unit 5 & 8/27 Park St, CLOVELLY

3.      Unit 6/27 Park St, CLOVELLY

4.      Unit 9/27 Park St, CLOVELLY (x2)

5.      Unit 3/27 Park St, CLOVELLY

6.      Unit 4/27 Park St, CLOVELLY

7.      Unit 1/27 Park St, CLOVELLY (x2)

8.      Unit 7/27 Park St, CLOVELLY

9.      Unit 2/27 Park St, CLOVELLY (x2)

10.    Unit 9/27 Park St, CLOVELLY

11.    23 Park St, CLOVELLY

12.    29 Park St, CLOVELLY

13.    33 Park St, CLOVELLY

14.    31 Park St, CLOVELLY

 

Issues

Comments

Adverse impact on views of neighbours, including rear terrace of 27 Park Street

 

The excess bulk and scale of the proposal will result in unacceptable view loss for neighbours. As it is proposed to refuse the DA, the objectors’ concerns will be fully addressed.

 

Adverse impact on privacy of neighbours

The proposal has been configured to minimise privacy impacts on neighbours and will have an acceptable impact on the objectors in this respect. Nonetheless, it is proposed to refuse the DA on other grounds.

 

Adverse impact on light of neighbours

The impact of the proposal on daylight access of neighbours is equivalent to that of a compliant scheme and is therefore considered inevitable.  Nonetheless, it is proposed to refuse the DA on other grounds.

 

Adverse impact on airflow of neighbours

 

There is no requirement in the relevant controls to preserve airflow.  Nonetheless, it is proposed to refuse the DA on other grounds.

 

Adverse impact on sunlight of neighbour to south

 

The impact of the proposal on sunlight access of neighbor to south is equivalent to that of a compliant scheme and is therefore considered acceptable.  Nonetheless, it is proposed to refuse the DA on other grounds.

 

Visual massing of neighbours

 

The proposal will cause visual massing impacts to neighbouring dwellings, in particular Units 1 and 2 of 27 Park Street. The impacts will occur at least partially due to non-compliance with the relevant building envelope controls. As it is proposed to refuse the DA, the objectors’ concerns will be fully addressed.

 

Original DA 437/2007 has lapsed and is not a relevant reference point for assessment of the current proposal

 

A Notice of Commencement was lodged at Council on 17 July 2008 in respect to DA 437/2007 and that DA has not lapsed. However, the DA was approved under the now repealed Randwick LEP 1998. The commencement of the Randwick LEP 2012 (RLEP 2012) means that DA 437/2007 no longer has any relevance to assessment of the current proposal.

 

The proposal will exceed the FSR limit

 

The proposal will breach the FSR limit and this non-compliance will cause significant impacts on neighbours in terms of view loss and visual massing. As it is proposed to refuse the DA, the objectors’ concerns will be fully addressed.

 

The proposal will breach the objectives of the R2 zone by not protecting the amenity of residents

 

The proposal will cause significant impacts on neighbours in terms of view loss and visual massing and therefore breach the objectives of the R2 zone. As it is proposed to refuse the DA, the objectors’ concerns will be fully addressed.

 

The proposal will extend beyond the rear building line of other dwellings on Park Street

 

The proposal complies with the rear setback control. Nonetheless, it is proposed to refuse the DA on other grounds.

 

The proposal will set a poor precedent for future development

 

If the proposal were approved, it would set a precedent for overdevelopment in Park Street. As it is proposed to refuse the DA, the objectors’ concerns will be fully addressed.

 

The proposed height is above the development standard

 

The proposal complies with the RLEP 2012 building height limit. However, the proposal breaches the external wall height limit and this non-compliance will add to visual massing. As it is proposed to refuse the DA, the objectors’ concerns will be fully addressed.

 

The excessive height will have a detrimental impact on the streetscape

 

The proposal complies with the RLEP 2012 building height limit. However, the proposal breaches the external wall height limit and this non-compliance will add to visual massing. As it is proposed to refuse the DA, the objectors’ concerns will be fully addressed.

 

The proposal will have excessive site coverage

 

The proposal breaches the RDCP 2013 site coverage control and (in combination with breaches of other building envelope controls) will cause significant impacts on neighbours in terms of view loss and visual massing. As it is proposed to refuse the DA, the objectors’ concerns will be fully addressed.

 

Inadequate rear setback will be inconsistent with rear setbacks of neighbours.

 

The proposal complies with the rear setback control. Nonetheless, it is proposed to refuse the DA on other grounds.

 

The rear setback should be 9.5m

 

The proposal complies with the rear setback control. Nonetheless, it is proposed to refuse the DA on other grounds.

 

Existing retaining walls on south side do not comply with current residential borders- they should be amended if reconstruction of the garage and pool.

 

It is proposed to refuse the DA. If the DA were approved, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring that any works are confined to the subject site.

 

Third storey is out of character with locality

 

The proposal complies with the RLEP 2012 building height limit. However, the third storey contributes to the breach the external wall height limit and related building envelope controls. This non-compliance will add to visual massing and view loss. As it is proposed to refuse the DA, the objectors’ concerns will be fully addressed.

 

The flat roof may result in glare being reflected into neighbouring properties

 

It is proposed to refuse the DA. If the DA were approved, a condition is recommended to ensure the relevant reflectivity index is in accordance with the BCA to avoid excessive glare.

DA does not include a geotechnical or dilapidation report

 

Council’s Development Engineer has not required a geotechnical or dilapidation report. As it is proposed to refuse the DA, the objectors’ concerns will be fully addressed.

 

The proposed large trees will result will block views, bamboo is not a permitted species and landscaping will result in a green curtain

 

The proposal does not use appropriate plant species, as they will cause view loss for neighbours. As it is proposed to refuse the DA, the objectors’ concerns will be fully addressed. If the proposal were approved, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring that any vegetation planted to the rear of the dwelling house shall be of species which attain a maximum height of 2m at full maturity.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Bulk and scale

The proposal will breach the floor space ratio control in the RLEP 2012 as discussed in the section below. The non-compliance will go hand–in–hand with breaches of RDCP 2013 controls, including maximum site coverage, minimum landscaping, front setback, maximum wall height, private open space, solar access to ground level private open space and maximum length of side elevations. The non-compliance will cause significant impacts on neighbours in terms of view loss and visual massing. These issues indicate that the proposal will be an overdevelopment of the site.

 

Clause 4.6 Variation – Floor Space Ratio

Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012 requires that the proposal has an FSR of 0.75:1 (251sqm). The applicant’s SEE states that the proposed FSR is 0.82:1 (277sqm). The plans indicate an FSR of 0.85:1 (287sqm), which is a 14% (36sqm) variation of Clause 4.4.

 

It should be noted that the above figure excludes the rear terrace above the garage. The definition of gross floor area (GFA) in the RLEP 2012 excludes terraces or balconies with outer walls less than 1.4m high. The terrace will have 1.8 high walls (therefore above 1.4m) on the eastern (rear) and northern (side) boundaries and a 1m high wall on the southern side boundary. Given that the eastern (rear) and northern (side) boundary walls of the rear terrace will create bulk and scale in relation to Campbell Lane and neighbours to the north, it could be argued that the rear terrace should be included in the FSR calculation. If the area of the rear terrace were included, the total FSR would be 0.99:1 (323sqm). The rear terrace has not been included in the FSR calculation.

 

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012. 

 

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

Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 states:

 

(3)  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.

 

(4)  Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a)  the consent authority is 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

(b)  the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

 

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

In Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] NSWLEC 7, Preston CJ stated (at paragraph 34):

 

One of the established tests to demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is if the development is consistent with the objectives of the development standard…. The objectives of the … FSR standard (which the Commissioner set out in [24]) included ensuring that the development does not cause environmental harm (such as adversely impacting on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land). Hence, establishing that the development would not cause environmental harm and is consistent with the objectives of the development standards is an established means of demonstrating that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

The proposal is assessed against the objectives of Clause 4.4 as follows:

 

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

 

The proposal does not achieve objective (a) for the following reasons:

 

·         The FSR non-compliance will cause the building to have excessive bulk and scale with resulting excessive visual bulk and view loss experienced by neighbouring properties, as discussed below.

 

·         The FSR non-compliance will go hand–in–hand with breaches of Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 (RDCP 2013) controls, including maximum site coverage, minimum landscaping, front setback, maximum wall height, private open space, solar access to private open space and maximum length of side elevations. This is representative of an overdevelopment of the site.

 

·         The proposed landscaping (bamboo and Tuckeroo tress) will cause loss of ocean views from neighbouring properties to the north.

 

·         The front fence will have an excessive height and will be inconsistent with the streetscape in Park Street.

 

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

 

The proposal does not achieve objective (b). The northern side elevation will consist of one section of 22.7m-24.3m in length, with no significant articulation of built form and situated only 0.9m from the northern side boundary. This will create an excessive sense of visual mass for the residents at 27 Park Street, especially those at Units 1 and 2.

 

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

 

Not applicable

 

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

 

The proposal does not achieve objective (d) because it will result in adverse amenity impacts on neighbours in terms of visual bulk and view loss, as follows.

 

Visual Bulk

 

The excessive GFA of the proposal will contribute to adverse visual bulk impacts on neighbours, in particular the following:

 

·     The southern elevation of the First Floor Level will breach the 8m maximum external wall height control in Clause 3.2 Part C1 of RDCP 2013 by 0.88m. This will cause the proposed building to create a sense of visual bulk when viewed from the neighbouring property at 23 Park Street.

 

·     The northern side elevation will not be divided into sections, bays or modules of

less than 12m in length as required by Clause 4.1 (ii). This will result in massive and unrelieved wall 22.7m-24.3m in length, with insufficient articulation, located just 0.9m from the northern side boundary. This will cause the proposed building to create a sense of visual bulk when viewed from the neighbouring properties at 27 Park Street, in particular Units 1 and 2. While even a fully compliant development would cause a sense of enclosure in those Units, that sense of enclosure will be exacerbated by the lack of articulation on the northern side elevation.

 

·     The southern side elevation will be more articulated, particularly on the First Floor Level, but at Ground Floor Level will not be divided into sections, bays or modules of

less than 12m in length as required by Clause 4.1 (ii). This will result in a wall 17.5m in length, with insufficient articulation, located just 0.9m from the southern side boundary. This will cause the proposed building to create a sense of visual bulk when viewed from the neighbouring property at 23 Park Street.

 

Compliance with the FSR development standard would provide opportunity for the design to incorporate sections, bays or modules as required by Clause 4.1 (ii) and reduce the sense of visual bulk experienced by neighbours.

 

View loss

 

As discussed under the section below ‘View Loss’, the proposal will cause loss of views of value ranging from low to high; will cause impacts ranging from negligible to severe; will predominantly result in view loss from living rooms and kitchens; and will cause view loss because of the FSR non-compliance.  The proposal fails the test in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council and breaches Clause 5.6(i) and (ii) of the RDCP 2013.

 

The proposal therefore does not satisfy the objectives of Clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012 and the applicant has not demonstrated that compliance with the FSR development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Has the applicant’s written request adequately demonstrated that sufficient environmental planning grounds exist to vary the FSR development standard?

The applicant has not demonstrated that sufficient environmental planning grounds exist to vary the FSR development standard, because the non-compliance will contribute to adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity in terms of unreasonable visual bulk and view loss. These impacts indicate that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the subject site and inconsistent with the prevailing character of the locality.

 

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. 

 

The proposal will not satisfy the above objectives for the following reasons:

 

·         The proposal will not recognise the desirable elements of the streetscape. The front fence will have an excessive height and will be inconsistent with the streetscape in Park Street; the dwelling house will have an insufficient front setback; and the landscaping in the front yard will be inconsistent with that provided at neighbouring properties.

·         The proposal will cause unreasonable view loss and visual bulk for neighbours.

·         The proposal will be an overdevelopment of the site, as evidenced by the breach not only of FSR, but also maximum site coverage, minimum landscaping, front setback, maximum wall height, private open space, maximum length of side elevations, and solar access to private open space

 

The proposal will not achieve the objectives of the FSR development standard or of the R2 Low Density Residential zone for the reasons set out above. The FSR non-compliance will not achieve a better environmental outcome in terms of impacts on neighbours. The proposal will therefore not be in the public interest.

 

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

The proposal has not demonstrated that the contravention would result in a better environmental outcome than a compliant scheme and has not satisfied the criteria in Clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012. Pursuant to Clause 4.6(3) and (4) it is therefore recommended that the proposal be refused.

 

Landscaping

The proposal will not provide an adequately landscaped setting consistent with the locality. The total landscaping will not achieve the minimum required by the RDCP 2013; the landscaped area in the front yard will be significantly less than that of adjoining properties; the quality of the landscaped area in the rear yard will be poor; the landscaping proposed for the rear yard will be unsuitable for the amount of the soil provided; and the species provided will interrupt high value views of neighbours.

 

Foreshore Protection Area

The presentation of the proposal to the street will be inconsistent with that of nearby properties on Park Street, due to the excessive height of the front wall; the inadequate front setback; and insufficient landscaping in the front yard. Furthermore, the provision of metal cladding painted dark Ferrador Grey will not benefit the character of the locality, which is dominated by light toned neutral hues. The proposed landscaping will also be out of keeping with the Foreshore Protection Area, as discussed above.

 

View Loss

The proposal will cause a range of view loss impacts to neighbouring dwellings, in particular the units at 27 Park Street. The impacts will range from negligible to severe loss of high value view items. Those impacts will occur at least partially due to non-compliance with the relevant building envelope controls.

 

Loss of views has been raised by several objectors including:

 

·         Unit 5/27 Park St, CLOVELLY

·         Unit 8/27 Park St, CLOVELLY

·         Unit 6/27 Park St, CLOVELLY

·         Unit 9/27 Park St, CLOVELLY

·         Unit 3/27 Park St, CLOVELLY

·         Unit 4/27 Park St, CLOVELLY

·         Unit 1/27 Park St, CLOVELLY

·         Unit 7/27 Park St, CLOVELLY

·         Unit 2/27 Park St, CLOVELLY

·         29 Park St, CLOVELLY

·         31 Park St, CLOVELLY

 

Height poles were erected on site and an assessment of the proposed development and its impact on views from all nine apartments at 27 Park Street and the dwelling houses at 29 and 31 Park Street were assessed.

 

Clause 5.6 of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 states:

 

The location and design of dwellings and outbuildings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors or vistas from the neighbouring dwellings, streets and public open space areas.

 

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

 

The above provisions reflect the Land and Environment Court planning principle after Roseth SC pp.25-29 in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 (Tenacity). The following assessment of view loss is carried out in accordance with Tenacity.

 

1.  Quality of Views:

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

 

Planners Assessment:

Unit 1, 27 Park Street

The views currently obtained from Unit 1 are of the wall and roof of the existing dwelling house on the subject site. Modest regional views of surrounding streets and residential development can be obtained toward the north east and south east. These views are of comparatively low value.

 

Unit 1 living room looking directly south

Photograph 1: Unit 1, 27 Park Street (Ground Floor Level)

 

Unit 2, 27 Park Street

The views currently obtained from Unit 2 are of the wall and roof of the existing dwelling house on the subject site. Modest regional views of surrounding streets and residential development can be obtained toward the south east. These views are of comparatively low value.

 

There are also some ocean views to the north east. The fact that it is ocean view raises its value although it is a small pocket view and that decreases its value.

 

Unit 2 -Living room looking east

Photograph 2: Unit 2, 27 Park Street (Ground Floor Level)

 

Unit 2 -Living room looking north -east

Photograph 3: Unit 2, 27 Park Street (Ground Floor Level)

 

Unit 3, 27 Park Street

The views currently obtained from Unit 3 are toward the ocean and the land water interface to the south of Coogee Beach. These views are of high value, as they include significant areas of water and undisrupted land-water interface.

 

Unit 3 -From living room facing south (3)

Photograph 4: Unit 3, 27 Park Street (Ground Floor Level)

 

Unit 4, 27 Park Street

The views currently obtained from Unit 4 are toward the ocean and the land water interface to the south of Coogee Beach. The view affected at standing position is primarily of the immediate suburban locality, although it does frame the views of the ocean. That view is of lesser value. The view affected at sitting position includes land-water interface. While views from a sitting position are harder to defend than those from a standing position, the view itself is of high value.

 

Unit 4 - standing in living room looking S (2) (800x600)

Photograph 5: Unit 4, 27 Park Street (First Floor Level) - standing

 

Unit 4 - sitting in living room (3)

Photograph 6: Unit 4, 27 Park Street (First Floor Level) - sitting

 

Unit 5, 27 Park Street

The views currently obtained from Unit 5 are toward the ocean and the land water interface to the south of Coogee Beach. The view affected at standing position is primarily of the immediate suburban locality, although it does frame the views of the ocean. The standing view is of lesser value. The view affected at sitting position includes land-water interface. While views from a sitting position are harder to defend than those from a standing position, the view itself is of high value.

 

Unit 5 - looking South from living room

Photograph 7: Unit 5, 27 Park Street (First Floor Level) - standing

 

Unit 5 - looking south from living room (sitting)

Photograph 8: Unit 5, 27 Park Street (First Floor Level) - sitting

 

Unit 6, 27 Park Street

The views currently obtained from Unit 6 are toward the ocean and the land water interface to the south of Coogee Beach. The view affected at standing position is primarily of the immediate suburban locality, although it does frame the views of the ocean. The standing view is of lesser value. The view affected at sitting position includes land-water interface and a significant part of the ocean view, which is of a high value.

 

Unit 6 - Looking SW from living room

Photograph 9: Unit 6, 27 Park Street (Second Floor Level) – standing

 

Unit 7, 27 Park Street

The views currently obtained from Unit 7 are of the immediate suburban locality. Due to the angle of sight from this elevation, no views of the ocean or land-water interface are affected by the proposal. The affected views are of lesser value.

 

IMG_2030

Photograph 10: Unit 7 27 Park Street (Second Floor Level)

 

Unit 8, 27 Park Street

The views currently obtained from Unit 8 are of the immediate suburban locality. Due to the angle of sight from this elevation, no views of the ocean or land-water interface are affected by the proposal. The affected views are of lesser value.

 

Unit 8 -Looking SE from living room window

Photograph 11: Unit 8, 27 Park Street (Second Floor Level)

 

Unit 9, 27 Park Street

The views currently obtained from Unit 9 are of the immediate suburban locality. Due to the angle of sight from this elevation, no views of the ocean or land-water interface are affected by the proposal. The affected views are of lesser value.

 

Unit 9 -Looking south from living room

Photograph 12: Unit 9 27 Park Street (Second Floor Level)

 

27 Park Street – rear communal open space

The views currently obtained from the rear communal open space are of the side boundary wall and pergola over the rear terrace on the subject site. No views of the ocean or land-water interface are affected by the proposal. The affected views are of lesser value.

 

IMG_1915

Photograph 13: 27 Park Street – rear communal open space

 

29 Park Street

The affected views from 29 Park Street are from the rear communal open space toward the ocean and the land water interface to the south of Coogee Beach.

 

29-From rear terrace looking south (2)

Photograph 14: 29 Park Street

 

31 Park Street

The affected views from 31 Park Street are from the rear communal open space toward the ocean and the land water interface to the south of Coogee Beach.

 

31 Parks - view from rear yard

Photograph 15: 31 Park Street

 

2.   Reasonable Expectation of View Retention:

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

Planners Assessment:

 

27 Park Street

All of the views are obtained over the side boundary of 27 Park Street. It is considered realistic to protect those views because they are by far the most important views from the living areas and kitchens of the relevant dwellings. Modest views of Park Street are available from west facing windows in the living areas in Units 1, 4 and 7 however these add comparatively little to the amenity of those Units. All of the dwellings are primarily oriented south toward the ocean and the windows predominantly face in this direction.

 

The views from each apartment is from a standing position unless indicated otherwise in the above photographs.

 

29 and 31 Park Street

These views are obtained over the relevant side boundaries from a standing position.

 

3.   Extent of Impact:

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

 

Planners Assessment:

 

27 Park Street

The views from all of the apartments at 27 Park Street are obtained from the living room and kitchen of each respective apartment. Views from the rear communal open space are not specifically mentioned in Tenacity, however in the situation where the most of the dwellings do not have a private open space, the amenity from the common open space has some relevance, although less than that from living rooms and internal areas.

 

The impact on each apartment is as follows:

 

Unit 1 27 Park Street - negligible

Unit 2 27 Park Street – moderate

Unit 3 27 Park Street – severe

Unit 4 27 Park Street – minor (standing), moderate (sitting)

Unit 5 27 Park Street – minor (standing), moderate (sitting)

Unit 6 27 Park Street – minor (standing), moderate (sitting)

Unit 7 27 Park Street - negligible

Unit 8 27 Park Street - negligible

Unit 9 27 Park Street - negligible

 

Rear communal open space - Minor

 

29 and 31 Park Street

These views are obtained from the rear terrace and front yard. The impacts are as follows:

 

29 Park Street – minor

31 Park Street - minor

 

4.   Reasonableness of Proposed Development:

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

 

Planners Assessment:

The view loss is partially caused by the 46sqm non-compliance with the FSR development standard. Reducing the GFA by 46sqm would enable the building to have a greater setback from the rear boundary and reduce the adverse impacts on views of neighbours. As the impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with planning controls, the impact is unreasonable.

 

The view impacts on neighbours will involve loss of views of value ranging from low to high, will cause impacts ranging from negligible to severe, will be incurred predominantly from living rooms and kitchens, and will arise from an unreasonable proposal. The proposal therefore fails the test in Tenacity, breaches Clause 5.6(i) and (ii) of the RDCP 2013 and should be refused.

 

Clause 5.6 (iv) states:

 

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

 

The Landscape Plan indicates that the northern side of the subject site will be planted with Slender Weavers (maximum height of 300mm) and two Tuckeroo trees (maximum volume 100 litres). Slender Weavers typically grow to 6m-8m and Tuckeroo trees typically grow up to 10m, although the small planters proposed to accommodate those trees may to be adequate. On the information available, the proposal does not use appropriate plant species, as they will cause view loss for some dwellings at 27 Park Street and the rear yards at 29 and 31 Park Street. The proposal therefore breaches Clause 5.6 (iv).

 

It is recommended that, if the DA is approved, a condition be imposed requiring that any vegetation to the rear of the dwelling house attain a maximum height of 2m.

 

Visual Massing

 

The proposal will cause visual massing impacts to neighbouring dwellings, in particular Units 1 and 2 of 27 Park Street. The impacts will occur at least partially due to non-compliance with the relevant building envelope 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

 

Based on the assessment of the application, it is recommended that the application be refused in its current form primarily as a result of the excessive bulk and scale, site coverage, external wall height and length of wall elevations and inadequate front setback, ground level private open space and landscaping.  The proposal will result in uncharacteristic massing and unacceptable view loss and visual bulk.  These issues indicate that the proposal will be an overdevelopment of the site. The development will not be in the public interest as it will set an undesirable precedent and is contrary to the objectives of the zone.

 

It is not possible to impose a condition which will remedy the adverse impacts of the proposal. The dwelling house will need to be substantially reconfigured. These adjustments require amended plans.

 

 

A.     That Council does not support the exception to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to floor space ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development does comply with the objectives of Clause 4.4 or the R2 Low Density Residential zone, and will adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/117/2016 for demolition of existing dwelling, retention of existing retaining walls, construction of new 3 storey dwelling, garage fronting laneway with swimming pool and terrace on level above (variation to floor space control) at No. 25 Park Street, Clovelly, for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposed development does not comply with the objectives of the R2 “Low Density Residential” zone of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the proposal will not represent a desirable development.  The bulk and scale of the proposed development will be inconsistent with that of surrounding built forms and will cause adverse amenity impacts for neighbours. In this regard, the proposal will be contrary to the third and fourth objectives of the zone.

 

2.     The proposed development does not comply with the relevant objectives and controls of Part C1, Clause 2.3 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the excessive site coverage of the proposal will contribute to the overdevelopment of the site and not allow for adequate ground level private open space or landscaping.

 

3.     The proposed development does not comply with the relevant objectives and controls of Part C1, Clause 2.4 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the inadequate landscaping will be inconsistent with the character of the locality.

 

4.     The proposed development does not comply with the relevant objectives and controls of Part C1, Clauses 2.5 and 5.1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the proposed private open space will have poor amenity at ground level.

 

5.     The proposed development does not comply with the relevant objectives and controls of Part C1, Clause 3.2 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the external wall height on the southern elevation will contribute to visual massing in relation to the neighbouring property at 23 Park Street.

 

6.     The proposed development does not comply with the relevant objectives and controls of Part C1, Clause 3.3.1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the inadequate front setback will be inconsistent with that of adjoining dwellings and will disrupt the rhythm of setbacks in Park Street. Landscaping in the front yard will also be inconsistent with that of adjoining dwellings.

 

7.     The proposed development does not comply with the relevant objectives and controls of Part C1, Clause 4.1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the inadequate articulation of the northern elevation will create an excessive sense of visual mass in relation to the residents at 27 Park Street.

 

8.     The proposed development does not comply with the relevant objectives and controls of Part C1, Clause 5.6 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that non-compliances with the relevant building envelope controls will cause significant view loss for neighbours.

 

9.     The proposed development does not comply with the relevant objectives and controls of Part B10 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the streetscape presentation will be inconsistent with that of other properties in Park Street; the materials of the proposed development will not be sympathetic to the light toned neutral hues of the Foreshore Protection Area; and the proposed landscaping will block views to the foreshore from neighboring properties and will therefore not enhance the scenic qualities of the foreshore.

 

10.   The proposal is not in the public interest.  The proposal is contrary to objectives of the zone; will result in adverse environmental impacts and will set a poor precedent for other development in Park Street.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA - Compliance Report - 25 Park Street, CLOVELLY 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP59/16

 

Subject:              32-34 Carr Street, Coogee (DA/725/2012/C)

Folder No:                DA/725/2012/C

Author:                     Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Section 96(AA) modification of approved development for new bicycle rack, rain water tank and stormwater pits at basement level, increase height of third floor level, minor internal modifications to window openings, increase size of level 3 balcony with new privacy screen, increase in height of roof parapet by an additional 250mm and new landscape planter at ground floor level

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Apex Constructions Pty Ltd

Owner:                     RPG South Sydney Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=b38b8bb9-27be-422b-9fad-145c7966a1c3&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 


 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to a Council meeting as the original application was refused contrary to the officer’s recommendation and was the subject of conciliation agreement pursuant to Section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act.

 

Proposal

 

The proposed section 96 application seeks the following modifications:

 

Location

Proposed amendments

Basement

·     Minor alterations to the basement level.

Ground level

·     Minor changes to internal layout and access through units.

·     Provide areas of private open space at ground level along the eastern side of units G.01 and G.03 (behind planter box 1.7m from the eastern side boundary adjoining No. 36 Carr Street).

Level 1 and Level 2:

 

·     Minor changes to the internal layout and access through units;

·     Alter glazing along stairwell along the western side boundary.

Level 3 (penthouse three bedroom unit):

 

·     Extend northern balcony (facing Carr Street) towards the western side boundary providing a side setback of 7.6m.

·     Proposed pergola and sliding awning from kitchen and living room to northern balcony.

·     Proposed BBQ area along the western side of the extended deck with 2.05m high wall along the western elevation to RL36.75.

·     250mm increase in parapet height to RL34.95 at the northern and southern end of the level three penthouse unit over non-trafficable roof.

·     Alter glazing to stairwell at the eastern side of the building

Roof Plan: A2.06 E, dated 21/04/2016; (roof over penthouse unit)

Three proposed changes:

·     Proposed roof extension to the lift overrun (780mm above the existing to RL38.48)

·     Proposed chimney flue (780mm above the existing to RL38.48)

·     Proposed increase to the height of perimeter parapet by 250mm to RL37.95.

 

Application history:

 

·     DA/725/2012: Planning Committee Meeting (12 November 2013) refused on 12 November 2013 for demolition of existing dwellings, construction of a part 3/part 4 storey multi-unit development with 10 units, basement car parking for 19 vehicles, landscaping and associated works (SEPP1 objection to floor space ratio and building height controls).

·     DA/725/2012: Land and Environment Court (8 April 2014): Approval granted pursuant to Class 1 appeal proceedings of the above mentioned refusal.

·     DA/725/2012/A: Ordinary Council Meeting (23 September 2014) Approval granted for Section 96 “A” modification of the approved development including amended basement levels and configurations, reconfiguration of residential floors, roof changes, revised landscaping and fence design.

·     DA/725/2012/B: Ordinary Council Meeting (10 February 2015) Approval granted for Section 96 “B” modification of the approved development for the overhead cables to be bundled rather than, as originally required, to be located underground.

            

Site

 

The site is located in Carr Street, which runs from Carrington Road down to the foreshore area at Coogee beach. The subject site is located at Nos. 32 and 34 Carr Street in Coogee and identified as Lot 1 DP 937437 and Lot 14 DP 976802, respectively.

 

The site has a northern frontage of 21.335m to Carr Street, site depth of 44.195m, southern (rear) side width of 21.335m to Waltham Street and an overall site area of 945.03sqm.

 

The subject site has a complex topography with a difference of up to 4m in levels from the existing rear yard to the Waltham Street frontage. RLs across the two sites range significantly, with varying differences in cross fall along the length of both properties.   

 

The adjoining sites to the east and west are presently occupied by single detached dwelling houses. The surrounding area is residential in character and comprises of a variety of development ranging from single storey detached dwellings, double storey dwellings and dual occupancies, non-residential uses (such as Crowne Plaza Hotel on the corner of Carr and Arden Streets to the east, Missionaries of the Sacred Heart to the south and Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney to the north west), two, three and five storey residential flat buildings, shop top housing and townhouses.

 

The surrounding area is inconsistent in terms of allotment size and general subdivision pattern resulting in varied setbacks and building orientation (see locality plan above, subject site bounded in green). Of particular relevance to the subject application are the immediate adjoining sites to the west at No. 30 Carr Street and No. 4A Waltham Street, which each lie on their own Torrens title lots addressing Carr Street and Waltham Street, respectively. The length of the two properties lies along the western side boundary of the subject site with their eastern elevations facing the 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:

 

·     4A Waltham Street, Coogee

·     30 Carr Street, Coogee

·     36 Carr Street, Coogee

 

Issue: Object to the increase in height by 250mm to parapet and 780mm for the lift overrun and chimney flue as it will increase shadows to the neighbouring properties at No. 30 Carr Street, 36 Carr Street and 4A Waltham Street.

 

Comment: The proposed section 96 application will not result in significant increase or unreasonable in overshadowing to the neighbouring properties as considered in the key issues section of this report.

 

Issue: The provision of a 250mm parapet increases risk of trafficability of non-trafficable roof areas. The parapet was removed previously in accordance with the land and environment court decision in imposing condition 2.1 and Condition 2.5 included as part of the Section 96 “A” determination was included requiring the deletion of the 400mm high parapet to ensure consistency with condition 2.1.

 

Comment: The 250mm parapet does not allow for the conversion of the approved non-trafficable roof to become trafficable. It is noted that the section 96 “A” determination imposed Condition 2.5 due to the proposed 400mm extension to the parapet was not adequately described in the proposed modifications and it had the potential to impact on views. The current section 96 application seeks a 250mm parapet for the purposes of roof drainage. The proposed parapet is lower than that sought under the previous section 96 “A” application. An assessment of view loss from the neighbouring property at No. 4A Waltham Street is considered in the assessment of this application and it is not considered that the proposed extension will have any significant adverse impact on the views of the ocean from this property.

 

Therefore the proposed 250mm extension of the parapet can be supported and in order to ensure that the roof beyond the southern elevation of bedrooms 1 and 2 of unit 3.01 remains non-trafficable a condition is included to that effect.

 

Issue: There is no increase to the height of the third level and any increase in the height of the third level is opposed.

 

Comment: Acknowledged, the proposed modifications seek to increase the height of the development associated with the matters discussed in the key issues section of this report. The proposed height increase is considered acceptable having regard to the relevant objectives of the height standard and the medium density zone.

 

Issue: The proposed 250mm parapet for drainage purposes is not justifiable.

 

Comment: The standard parapet or hob height (or hob) is dependent on a number of factors being the surface area of the roof, the size of drainage down pipes and the site conditions. The purpose of hobs or parapets is to assist with controlling stormwater runoff by preventing water from simply falling over the edge of the building which also assists with minimising damage below and creating calcium staining of the vertical walls. Whilst it is noted that the 250mm hob may be excessive purely for the purposes of drainage it is considered that the 250mm parapet extension at level three slab and roof creates greater visual interest from street level by providing a definite edge to the these levels which is distinct from the levels below. In short whilst the parapet has a function to perform in relation to stormwater drainage, it also assists with contributing to the appearance of the development from street level.

 

Issue: The proposed 250mm high parapet, lift overrun extension will increase visual height and bulk.

 

Comment: The proposed 250mm high parapet does not add any significant bulk to the development. It is noted that at level 3 slab the proposed development will remain well below the maximum 10.5m wall height permitted under the RDCP for medium density development. The proposed parapet to the roof whilst exceeding the maximum overall height standard is setback from the street frontages at Waltham Street and Carr Street and remains subservient to the scale of the floor levels below. It is also considered that providing a parapet to the top most level which measures approximately 600mm in height which is considered to be an appropriate bulk head or roof profile element. In other words, it provides a definitive profile for the roof that fits in well with the larger envelopes of built form on the lower levels. The proposed extension of the lift overrun does not add any substantial bulk to the development as a whole as it is located well away from the street frontages and extends only 530mm above the height of the roof parapet and will not dominate the overall size or dominate the development as a whole when viewed from neighbouring properties or the street levels along Carr Street or Waltham Street.

 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed increases in parapet and lift overrun height do not result in any significant adverse visual impact on the neighbouring properties and will not detract from the existing and desired streetscape character.

 

Issue: The fireplace and chimney was not included in the BASIX and consent must be dependent on the fireplace being BASIX certified.

 

Comment: Fireplaces are not a requirement to be included for multi-unit dwellings only single dwellings.

 

Issue: Clarification is required relating to the number of units and parking spaces in the development.

 

Comment:  The total number of units in the development is 10 and there are 18 car parking spaces originally approved.

 

Section 96 Assessment

 

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

 

Substantially the Same Development

 

Council may only approve an application under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 if “it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all) under this section”.

 

The proposed modifications will not result in a change to the nature of the original development. An assessment of the key issues is carried out below.

 

Key Issues

 

The key issues associated with the proposed section 96 application seeking to modify the current consent includes:

 

Height of buildings

 

The proposal seeks to increase the height of the approved development in the following manner:

 

·     A 250mm high parapet to the level three slab (to RL34.95) and the roof (RL37.95). The increase in parapet height is sought for the purposes of roof drainage.

·     Extend the lift overrun by 780mm to RL38.48

·     A new chimney flue to RL38.48.

·     Provide a BBQ area to the northern deck of the penthouse apartment including a 2.05m high wall along its western side

 

The proposed modifications further exceed the 12m maximum overall height standard under the RLEP 2012. It is noted that a clause 4.6 exception to a development standard is not required under a Section 96 modification. However an assessment against the objectives of the standard and the zone is required. In this respect the key objectives requiring assessment is whether the proposed increase in height will be consistent with the desired future character of the streetscape and whether the environmental impacts such as overshadowing, view loss, and visual amenity and streetscape character will not be significant and the impacts will be suitably minimised.

 

In the respect an assessment is carried out against the following objectives of the standard and the R3 medium density residential zone:

 

·     Views

 

The proposed 250mm high extension to the parapet around the perimeter of the level three slab, along the non-trafficable roof areas to RL34.95, are minor extensions and will not result in any significant impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties to the east or west. In relation to views from No. 4A Waltham Street it is noted that the existing slab level at RL34.70 is already above the header of east facing windows at No. 4A Waltham Street (RL33.55/RL34.47/RL34.70) and the first floor deck level (at around RL35.71) which means that the 250mm extension to RL34.95 does not alter the outlook from these windows or deck area.

 

In relation to the 250mm parapet to the upper roof (to RL37.95), the extension of the lift overrun (to RL38.48) and new chimney flue (to RL38.48) these elements will also not impact on the outlook of views with particular reference made to the upper level window of No. 4A Waltham Street which has a header of RL37.68, which is already below the height of the approved upper level at RL37.70.

 

·     Visual amenity and streetscape character.

 

The proposed modifications to the height will not be immediately discernable from the neighbouring properties or attain a height that would present as excessive bulk or scale especially considering that the proposed parapet heights will be well below the maximum wall height control in the RDCP. IN relation to the increases in building height at the roof level, these increases are well setback for the street and side elevations and are not construed as dominant elements of the building especially when viewed from street level.

 

·     Overshadowing

 

Two submissions were received from the neighbouring properties at No. 30 Carr Street and No. 4A Waltham Street raising concerns that the proposed increases in height will result in additional shadow impacts on their properties. An analysis of shadowing from the proposed parapets and increased height of the development associated with the lift overrun reveals no appreciable difference in shadowing to the immediate western neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed 250mm extension of the parapet at level three (to RL34.95) will cast a shadow above the header of windows at the eastern elevation of the dwelling at No. 30 Carr Street. There is no discernable difference in shadows as the approved development (RL34.70). At 10am there is no shadow cast onto the eastern elevation of No. 30 Carr Street from the proposed parapet extension.

 

The proposed extensions to the upper most roof including the parapet, lift overrun and chimney flue do not cast a shadow onto the eastern elevation of No. 30 Carr Street at 9am.

 

In relation to No. 4A Waltham Street, the proposed extension at level 3 parapets will not result in any additional shadows to the north facing windows. The only additional shadows will be cast at 9am to the north facing windows; however there will still be solar access to over half of the north facing window at ground level closest to the subject site (67cm above the 1.29m high window).

 

At 10am there will be no additional shadow cast onto the north facing or east facing windows as a result of the proposed addition to the parapet, lift overrun or flue.

 

The additional shadowing to the eastern adjoining property at No. 36 Carr Street will not be significantly or unreasonably impacted by overshadowing from the proposed increase in height of the development sought under this Section 96 application. 

 

Overall, the proposed modifications will not result in any non-compliance with the relevant RDCP controls for Solar access to neighbouring properties.

 

Privacy

 

·     Proposed landscaped area of private open space along the eastern side of units G.01 and G.03.

 

The proposal seeks to located areas of trafficable private open space for the subject units replacing a portion of the landscaping along this side of the site. The proposed trafficable area has the potential to overlook the neighbouring property at No. 36 Carr Street. As such additional privacy measures are considered necessary along the eastern sides of the private open space areas to these units. A condition is included requiring a 1.6m high privacy screen in front of the planter box’s along the eastern side of units G.01 and G.03 in order to restrict direct sightlines into the rear yard and windows on the neighbouring property to the east at No. 36 Carr Street.

 

Referral comments

 

·     Development engineering

 

The following comments were provided by Councils Development Engineer:

 

A Section 96(AA) application has been received which seeks to modify the Land and Environment Court approved development by amending conditions 16 & 19, minor changes in basement, increase height of third floor level, minor internal modifications to window openings, increase size of level 3 balcony with new privacy screen, increase in height of roof parapet by an additional 250mm and new landscape planter at ground floor level.

 

Court Approved Development: Demolition of existing dwellings, construction of a part 3/part 4 storey multi-unit development with 10 units, basement car parking for 18 cars and 2 motorbike spaces, landscaping and associated works.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·     Statement of Environmental Effects stamped by DPMS Planning dated  2016

·     Architectural Plans by Marchese Partners dated 28th April 2016 and stamped by Council 3rd May 2016.

 

General Comments

Due to amended floor plans being submitted for this S96 application, the applicant is seeking amendments to engineering conditions 16 & 19 to reflect the updated referenced plans. The plans do not represent any significant changes to the vehicle access and basement parking layout from what has already been approved, however since the driveway does represent a variation to the Australian Standard it is recommended condition 16 be amended. Note the variation is different to that sought by the applicant but achieves the same result and compliments amended condition 19.

 

Condition 16 shall be amended as follows;

 

16.      Except when varied by the conditions of this consent, the vehicular access driveways, internal circulation ramps and the carpark areas, (including, but not limited to, the ramp grades, carpark layout and height clearances) are to be in accordance with the requirements of AS2890.1:2004. The Construction Certificate plans must demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

 

In compliment to the above, condition 19 shall be amended as follows;

 

19.      The gradient of the internal access driveway must be designed and constructed in accordance with the approved Section 96 plans stamped by Council 3rd May 2016 and AS 2890.1 (2004) – Off Street Car Parking and the levels of the driveway must match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council). Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

No objections are raised to the other minor changes in the basement relating to bicycle storage room and location of stormwater pits.

 

There are no other engineering conditions required to be amended, added or deleted.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed section 96 application has been assessed against relevant objectives and controls under the RLEP 2012 and Part C2 Medium Density Residential under the Randwick DCP 2013. The proposed modifications are considered to be acceptable modifications to the approved development subject to conditions being included.

 

Approval of the section 96 modifications is recommended as it will be in line with the objectives of the abovementioned instrument and policy guidelines in relation to bulk and scale, height of buildings and the Medium Density Residential R3 zone and will not result in any significant and unreasonable environmental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, views, site planning and privacy (as conditioned).

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. DA/725/2012 for new bicycle rack, rain water tank and stormwater pits at basement level, increase height of third floor level parapets, minor internal modifications to window openings, increase size of level 3 balcony with new privacy screen, increase in height of roof parapet by an additional 250mm and new landscape planter at ground floor level, at No. 32-34 Carr Street, Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Received by Council

A1.01b Rev C

Marchese & Partners Architects

21 Feb 2014

A1.01c Rev C

21 Feb 2014

A1.01d Rev B

21 Feb 2014

A1.01e

21 Feb 2014

A2.01 Rev B

28 June 2013

A2.02 Rev A

15 March 2013

A2.03 Rev B

19 Feb 2014

A2.04 Rev B

19 Feb 2014

A2.05 Rev C

20 Feb 2014

A2.05b Rev B

19 Feb 2014

A2.06 Rev B

19 Feb 2014

A3.01 Rev B

21 Feb 2014

A3.02 Rev C

21 Feb 2014

A4.04 Rev B

20 Feb 2014

A8.01 Rev B

15 March 2013

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

540923M

8 April 2014

8 April 2014

 

as amended by the following Section 96 “A” plans and documentation except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

A2.01 Rev C

Marchese & Partners Architects

27 June 2014

18 July 2014

A2.02 Rev C

27 June 2014

18 July 2014

A2.03 Rev C

27 June 2014

18 July 2014

A2.04 Rev C

27 June 2014

18 July 2014

A2.05 Rev C

10 Sept. 2014

10 September 2014

A2.06 Rev C

10 Sept. 2014

10 September 2014

A3.01 Rev D

24 June 2014

18 July 2014

A3.02 Rev E

24 June 2014

18 July 2014

A4.04 Rev D

10 Sept. 2014

10 September 2014

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

540923M_02

27 June 2014

18 July 2014

 

as amended by the following Section 96 “C” plans and documentation:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

A2.01 Rev F

Marchese & Partners Architects

28 April 2016

3 May 2016

A2.02 Rev H

29 April 2016

3 May 2016

A2.03 Rev G

29 April 2016

3 May 2016

A2.04 Rev G

29 April 2016

3 May 2016

A2.05 Rev G

29 April 2016

3 May 2016

A2.06 Rev E

21 April 2016

3 May 2016

A3.01 Rev J

29 April 2016

3 May 2016

A3.02 Rev J

29 April 2016

3 May 2016

A4.04 Rev G

29 April 2016

3 May 2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

540923M_02

27 June 2014

18 July 2014

 

except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

Amend the following conditions:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

2.5   The roof area south of unit 3.01 shall be non-trafficable.  The parapet height to this part of the roof shall not exceed RL34.95.

 

BASIX Requirements

13.   In accordance with section 80A(11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements and commitments contained in the relevant BASIX Certificate must be complied with.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate must be included on the construction certificate plans, specifications and associated documentation, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

The design of the building must not be inconsistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the BASIX commitments may necessitate a new development consent or amendment to the existing consent to be obtained, prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

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

 

16.   Except when varied by the conditions of this consent, the vehicular access driveways, internal circulation ramps and the carpark areas, (including, but not limited to, the ramp grades, carpark layout and height clearances) are to be in accordance with the requirements of AS2890.1:2004. The Construction Certificate plans must demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

 

19.   The gradient of the internal access driveway must be designed and constructed in accordance with the approved Section 96 plans stamped by Council 3rd May 2016 and the levels of the driveway must match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council). Details of compliance are to be included in the

 

Add the following condition:

 

2.11 Privacy screens having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to the landscaped areas in front of the planter box’s along the eastern side of units G.01 and G.03. This condition has been included to protect the privacy of the adjoining properties. The privacy screens must be setback a minimum of 1.5m from the eastern side boundary. The privacy screens must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screens must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screens may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

2.12 The western wall along the BBQ area of unit 3.01 shall be reduced in height to   1.8m above floor level. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP60/16

 

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

Folder No:                DA/535/2015/C

Author:                     Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Amend the approved development to increase size and width of garages, extend ground floor living areas, provide new privacy louvres, alter external materials, relocate rain water tanks and increase height of boundary fences

Ward:                        Central Ward

Applicant:                E Elski

Owner:                     E Elski, B Meck, A Guerman & A Eykhorn

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=12f24fd8-e53f-48fa-a948-927d07881e1a&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This Section 96(2) application is referred to Council for determination as the original development consent was determined at a Planning Committee Meeting.

 

Proposal

 

The Section 96 (2) application seeks to modify the consent in the following manner:

 

a)    Extend the upper ground living rooms and terraces by 3m for No.11A and 1.5m for No.11B,

b)    Enlarge the garages to the front of each dwelling from a single to double garage sited up to 20mm from the side boundaries,

c)    Provide composite timber cladding to the garage doors,

d)    Modify the brick wall and slated timber fence within the front setback of 11B to match the fence detailing at No.15 Bond Street,

e)    Change W10 to a fixed obscured window below 1600mm above floor height,

f)     Increase the boundary wall height to 2.7m to both dwellings,

g)    Increase the height of the dividing pool wall to 2.1m,

h)    Remove the glass edge from the pool,

i)     The tiling of the lower ground floor deck, and relocate the rain water tanks to beneath the garages.

j)     Delete condition 2b of development consent which nominated that the plant and equipment within the basement be limited to the rear south western end of the passage access stairs and the area beyond the stair accesses backfilled with soil. This condition is no longer practical as the properties are now Torrens titled, under Section 96 ‘A’, and the relevant plant and equipment can only be located beneath each dwelling on their own lot. 

 

Site

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Application History

 

The original development consent which was determined at the Planning Committee meeting of the 9th February 2016 detailed the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a part 2/part 3 storey semi detached dwellings with subdivision, garages to front, swimming pools to rear, landscaping and associated works.

 

The development consent has been the subject of a subsequent Section 96 (1A) application which modified the subdivision from strata to torrens title and a Section 96(2) application which increased the size of the building at upper and lower ground levels, the deletion of the front upper level balconies, alteration to the lower ground decks and plunge pools and new timber pergola to the rear decks. 

 

Both of those applications have been approved.

 


 

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

 

3 Bond Street Maroubra

 

-The proposal to extend the rear living areas and balcony by 3m is unnecessarily extensive and bulky which will impact on their outlook and impact on noise.

 

 

-The proposed double width garage doors will seriously impact on the visual element of the street.

 

5 Bond Street Maroubra

 

-After a number of Section 96 applications the bulk and scale of the building is now proposed to be significantly different to the original approved development application.

 

 

-The bulk and scale of the building now results in an exceptionally long building on a relatively narrow site.

 

 

-The width of the garages will result in a visually dominant building element in the street elevation and does not satisfy the DCP that allows for a single garage for each dwelling and that there will still be two off street parking spaces provided by the approved garage and driveway parking.

 

-Extending the garages to the boundaries will adversely impact the adjoining neighbours and the streetscape, and that precedents noted are not relevant as they are detached buildings erected under previous planning controls.

 

7-9 Bond Street Maroubra

 

-The proposed garage widening does not satisfy the DCP objectives with respect to setbacks relating to streetscape and light and ventilation and impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

- The revised FSR needs to be checked to ensure compliance with the FSR standard.

 

-The ground floor level extension will adversely affect their views from No.9 Bond Street. The building bulk could be reallocated to a lower level which would not cause amenity impacts to the neighbours and therefore fails the reasonableness test in the fourth step of the assessment process laid down in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council.

 

-The proposed rear extension of the building also includes the rear pergola as well which will also project significantly into views of the land water interface. The exact extent of view loss will need to be clarified by the erection of height poles to indicate the outline of the rear extension.

 

15 Bond Street Maroubra

 

-The modification compared to the original represents a significant departure from the original approved development and an argument cannot be made that the changes are of a minor nature.

 

 

-The widening of the garages and siting to the side boundaries will have a an adverse impact upon their amenity in relation to outlook, light and ventilation and the resultant front façade now presents a dominating visual bulk with effectively a wall of garages across the whole front of the site apart from the recessed entry doors.

 

-The altered W10 to include obscured glazing in lieu of the fixed privacy screen will result in a loss of privacy.

 

 

-The proposal as a result of development creep now presents as a wedding cake type of built form which is noted as undesirable under the DCP

 

6/14 Bellevue Street Maroubra

 

-The extension of the garages to the side boundaries will be out of character with the streetscape and inconsistent with the rest of the street and surrounding area.

 

-Approval of the garage width will set a poor precedent for the area.

 

-Additional space for storage could be provided by a lesser increase in the width of the garages.

 

 

 

See view loss assessment.

There is no evidence the suggest that the modification to the approved development will result in any noise impact to the adjoining residents.

 

See Key Issues

 

 

 

 

 

The scope of the modifications do not alter the fundamental nature of the approved development and for the purposes of a Section 96 application satisfies the definition of representing substantially the same development.

 

The development satisfies the relevant controls with respect to building height, FSR, site coverage and setback from the rear boundary.

 

See Key Issues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See Key Issues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See Key Issues

 

 

 

 

 

The amended FSR complies with the FSR standard of the RLEP controls

 

 

See Key Issues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See Key Issues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The scope of the modifications do not alter the fundamental nature of the approved development and for the purposes of a Section 96 application satisfies the definition of representing substantially the same development.

 

See Key Issues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The nominated fixed obscured glazing is at 1600mm above floor level which will maintain privacy in accordance with the DCP control.

 

The proposed building steps down the site and at no point is greater than two stories above ground level which satisfies the Building Design criteria in the DCP.

 

 

 

See Key Issues

 

 

 

 

Noted, see Key Issues

 

 

Noted, see Key Issues

 

 

 

 

Section 96 Assessment

 

Substantially the Same Development

The proposal does not alter the fundamental nature of the approved development and therefore is considered to be substantially the same development as that for which the consent was originally granted.

 

Key Issues

 

Section 96 Assessment

Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the nature of the modifications represent substantially the same development.

 

The modifications to the approved development do not alter the nature of the approved development and therefore for the purposes of considering a Section 96 application the modifications satisfy the definition of remaining substantially within the scope of the original development.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Approved

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.75:1

Lot 11A = 0.485:1 (or 200.5m²)

 

Lot 11B = 0.485:1 (or 200.5m²)

 

Lot 11A = 0.62:1

Lot 11B = 0.615:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

Max. approximately 9.13m from the natural ground level.

 

No change

Yes

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

400sqm per allotment

Site area = 826.8m²

 

Lot 11A = 413.4sqm

 

Lot 11B = 413.4sqm

No change

Yes

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

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

 

2.3

Site coverage

 

301 to 450 sqm = 55%

 

Lot 11A = 47%

Lot 11B = 47%

Complies

2.4

Landscaping and permeable surfaces

 

301 to 450 sqm = 25%

1.    Deep soil minimum width 900mm.

2.    Maximise permeable surfaces to front

3.    Retain existing or replace mature native trees

4.    Minimum 1 canopy tree (8m mature). Smaller (4m mature) If site restrictions apply.

5.    Locating paved areas, underground services away from root zones.

Lot 11A = 26%

Lot 11B = 26%

 

 

 

Complies

2.5

Private open space (POS)

 

Dwelling & Semi-Detached POS

 

 

 

301 to 450 sqm = 6m x 6m

 

7.5m x 9.5m to each dwelling

Complies

3

Building envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio LEP 2012 = 0.75:1

Proposed FSR:

Lot 11A = 0.62:1

Lot 11B = 0.615:1

Complies

3.3

Setbacks

3.3.2

Side setbacks:

Semi-Detached Dwellings:

·     Frontage less than 6m = merit

·     Frontage b/w 6m and 8m = 900mm for all levels

Refer to 6.3 and 7.4 for parking facilities and outbuildings

Proposed = 20mm

 

No, see Key Issues

3.3.3

Rear setbacks

i)   Minimum 25% of allotment depth or 8m, whichever lesser. Note: control does not apply to corner allotments.

ii)   Provide greater than aforementioned or demonstrate not required, having regard to:

-    Existing predominant rear setback line - reasonable view sharing (public and private)

-    protect the privacy and solar access

Minimum = 8m

Proposed = 9.5m

Complies

4

Building design

4.1

General

 

Respond specifically to the site characteristics and the surrounding natural and built context  -

·   articulated to enhance streetscape

·   stepping building on sloping site,

·   no side elevation greater than 12m

·   encourage innovative design

The continuous external wall length is increased from 13m to a maximum of 16.3m at level 2. There are no objections to the length of wall exceeding the controls as the articulation within the levels of the building above and below mitigate any impact of the length of wall to the adjoining properties.

Yes

6

Car Parking and Access

6.3

Setbacks of Parking Facilities

 

i)   Garages and carports comply with Sub-Section 3.3 Setbacks.

ii)   1m rear lane setback

iii)  Nil side setback where:

-    nil side setback on adjoining property;

-    streetscape compatibility;

-    safe for drivers and pedestrians; and

-    Amalgamated driveway crossing

 

The garages are setback 20mm from the eastern and western side boundaries.

No, see discussion below

 

Setbacks of parking facilities

The objectives of the RDCP – Low Density Residential with respect to parking seek to;

 

a)  Ensure car parking and access facilities do not visually dominate the property frontage or streetscape,

b)  Ensure parking facilities are integrated with the architectural expression of the dwelling as an integrated element,

c)  Minimise hard paved surfaces occupied by driveways and parking facilities, and maximize opportunities for deep soil planting and permeable surfaces for stormwater infiltration,

d)  Ensure the location and design of parking and access facilities do not pose undue safety risks on building occupants and pedestrians, and

e)  Ensure the location and design of parking and access facilities do not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

The original proposal as approved detailed single garage to each dwelling with a side boundary setback of 2.8m.

 

The modified development now proposes to increase the width of the garages to be double garages and reducing the side boundary setbacks to 20mm from both side boundaries.

 

The proposed modifications to the garages fail to satisfy the objectives of the RDCP in that the siting of the enlarged garages which extends the façade of the building to almost the whole width of the site will visually dominate the property frontage and streetscape and will be out of character with the established character of the street which provides for minimum side boundary setbacks of at least 900mm. It is also noted that the siting of the larger garages to the side boundaries will result in a solid masonry wall to the boundaries up to 4300mm in height above the existing ground level (i.e. on the south eastern elevation) which will have an adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining dwellings because of impacts to light and ventilation and visual amenity.

 

Views

Section 5.6 of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP Low Density Residential recognises that many dwellings within the Randwick City area enjoy views to the ocean, coastline, parks and distant CBD skyline, with some elements being recognized as prominent natural features, significant man made artefacts which carry scenic and iconic values.

 

The objectives of this section of the DCP seek to ensure that views from the public domain are protected and enhanced and that development is sensitively and skillfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. 

 

This concept of view loss has been defined in the Land and Environment Court by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004).

 

The Commissioner in deciding whether or not view sharing was reasonable adopted a four step assessment as follows.

 

a)     The value of the subject view i.e. water views are more valued than land views with iconic view such as the Opera House of North Head being more valued than views without icons and whole views are more valuable than partial views.

 

b)     From what part of the property are views obtained, for example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult to maintain than views from front and rear boundaries, and in addition whether or not the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position is also relevant, with sitting views being more difficult to protect. The expectation to retain side and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

c)     Assess the extent of the impact from the property as a whole rather than just for the view affected, the impact on views from living areas are more significant than from bedrooms or service areas, then it is useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

d)     The reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact and compliance with planning controls, with a development which satisfies planning controls being considered more reasonable than one that does not. With a complying proposal the question should be asked whether a more skillful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact upon the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

The site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area and submissions have been received from the owners of No’s 3, 7 & 9 Bond Street in relation to the impact from the available views from their properties. The view impact assessment is detailed below.

 

a)     The views are towards the Ocean and include partial views of the Maroubra beach and a major part of Malabar Headland. It is noted that the views to the beach are already partially obscured by existing buildings and vegetation on the surrounding properties. Directions ‘A’ to ‘B’, below indicates the views are obtained in an easterly and southerly directions.

 

 

b)       The views from the adjoining and nearby properties at 3, 7 & 9 Bond Street are obtained from the rear of the properties and are towards the south east across the properties in that direction and includes views of the ocean, part of the beach and Malabar headland. The views to the south in particular are already partially blocked by existing vegetation to the rear of the subject and adjoining properties.

 

The views are obtained from a siting and standing position with the views to the south not impacted at all by either the original or modified development.

 

The two photos below are taken from the closest and most affected property at No.9 Bond Street and are taken from a standing position. The proposed extension of the building and new pergolas are outlined on the photos.

 

 

The photo taken below is from the property at 5 Bond Street and demonstrates the view from the rear of the property which is primarily to the rear with views to Maroubra Beach and Malabar headland.

 

 

c)        The extent of the impact from the adjoining properties is assessed below:

 

As demonstrated by the photos above the enlargement of the building towards the rear of the site is in front of the existing stand of trees and roof tops of the adjoining properties to the east and will not obstruct the views across the subject building to the ocean and Malabar headland.

 

The extent of view loss is regarded as minor as the view impact is an outlook view upon the trees and roof tops of the adjoining buildings. The much higher value view to the ocean and headland are not impacted by the proposed modifications.

 

d)       The proposal overall is reasonable and generally complies with the planning 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

 

That the application to modify the consent be approved.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. DA/535/2015/C of the approved development at 11 Bond Street Maroubra subject to the following conditions:

 

A.       Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

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

Architects Ink

19/01/2016

25 January 2016

Colours, Materials and Finishes Schedule

Architects Ink

-

6 August 2015

 

as amended by the Section 96 ‘A’ modification to alter the determination to reference Torrens Title subdivision not strata

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Sheet 1of 7 to 7 of 7 (Issue

G)

Architects Ink

June 2015

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Single Dwelling

646628S_05

18 March 2016

 

 

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

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

Architects Ink

17 June 2016

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated.

646628S_06

8th June 2016

647877S_06

8th June 2016

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

B.       Condition No. 2b be deleted

 

C.       Add Condition No. 2e

 

2        e.      The extension to the approved garages shown on Sheet 1 of 7, Issue L, dated 17 June 2016 must be deleted. The garages must be implemented in accordance with the approval under the Section 96’B’ application.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP61/16

 

Subject:              18 Dundas Street, Coogee (DA/780/2015)

Folder No:                DA/780/2015

Author:                     Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  Conversion of the existing dual occupancy into a single dwelling, alterations and first floor additions to the proposed dwelling, construction of a new secondary dwelling at the rear with 2 car spaces above (variation to height of buildings)

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Mr. N. A. Murray

Owner:                     Mr. N. A. Murray

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=a908c9c0-fec6-461a-9ff0-1888a88fcfc9&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 Bowen, Moore and Neilson. 

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the conversion of the existing dual occupancy into a single dwelling, alterations and first floor additions to the proposed dwelling, construction of a new secondary dwelling at the rear with 2 car spaces above (variation to height of buildings).

 

Site

 

The subject site is known as 18 Dundas Street, Coogee and formally described as Lot 1 DP 122133. The lot is a rectangular shaped allotment with a street frontage to Dundas Street and an existing right of carriageway at the rear of the subject site. The subject site dimensions consist of a frontage width of 11.685 metres to the east and 11.89 metres to the rear (west). The northern and southern side boundaries are measured at 44.455 metres and 44.495 metres, respectively. The subject site has a site area of 524.1m2.

 

Neighbouring the site to the north is an existing two storey dwelling house and to the south is an existing three storey residential flat building. To the east is Dundas Street and to the west is an existing right of carriageway. The local character consists of predominately low density residential development with a mixture of single and two storey dwelling houses. The subject site is also located within a scenic foreshore protection area. 

 

Application History

 

Amended plans received on the 22 March 2016:

Council raised issues with the applicant to the originally submitted plans with regards to the excessive visual bulk and scale from the secondary dwelling and carport structure above, located at the rear of the subject site. The applicant responded to Council’s concerns and submitted amended plans which included the following:

 

Secondary Dwelling:

·     Reposition the secondary dwelling up to the rear boundary

·     Modification to location of window openings  

·     Increase side setback to the northern boundary by 1.84m

·     Reduce the side setback to the southern boundary by 250mm

·     Increase usable area of private open space on the northern portion of the secondary dwelling

 

Car space/carport:

·     Reduce the number of off-street parking spaces from 4 spaces to 2 spaces

·     Reduce the area of the car space

·     Increase the northern side setback by 900mm

·     Delete the carport roof structure  

 

Amended plans received on the 20 May 2016:

The applicant submitted further amended plans and statement of environmental effects which proposes alterations to the existing dual occupancy development and conversion to a single dwelling. The works involve a new internal staircase between the two occupancies, deletion of all kitchen areas and the removal of any separate access between the attached dual occupancies.

 

Legal Advice

 

Council received legal advice on the 30 August 2016 with respect to Part 2, Division 2 of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 relating to the conversion of the dual occupancy which would become the ‘principal dwelling’ and the new detached dwelling would be the ‘secondary dwelling’.

 

The neighbours at 16 Dundas Street, Coogee have objected on a number of grounds. One of those grounds raises the question of permissibility because of the operation of Clause 22(2) of SEPP Affordable Rental Housing. Council’s legal advice advised that if consent were granted, and the consent were acted upon, the development would not result in there being any dwelling other than the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling on the land and Clause 22(2) does not stand in the way to grant consent to the development application. 

 

Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards

 

Height of Buildings

The proposal contravenes the maximum height of buildings development standard 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 variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Proposed height of building

9.87 metres

Permissible height of building

9.5 metres

Height of building exceeding LEP control

370mm (4% variation from maximum permissible height of building requirements)

 

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 Department of Planning and Environment must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence 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 Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

 

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

 

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

 

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the height 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 justifications in the following key arguments for the departure from the standard are as below:

 

(a) Size and scale is compatible with the desired future character of the locality

 

(b) N/A

 

(c) To ensure 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 development standard referred to above is unreasonable or unnecessary in the particular circumstances of the case and there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening of the standard. I base my request for varying the standard on the following reasons:

 

·     The size and scale is similar to other buildings in the vicinity

·     The impact to neighbours has been considered and they will not be adversely impacted through visual bulk, loss of privacy or views.

·     There is only a minimal increase in overshadowing during winter but not to a principal living area.

·     The section of the site which is over 9.5 metres is clearly below the original natural ground level.

 

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?

 

1.       Consistency with the objectives of the Height of Buildings standard in the LEP objectives:

 

2.       The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

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

 

Assessment:

The proposal complies with the above objectives for the following reasons:

 

·     The area of non-compliance is limited to the eastern most portion of the upper floor roof form which does not comply with the numerical development standard. The breach to the height of buildings development standard is contributory to the steeply sloping nature of the site with a significant fall from west to east by approximately 8.14 metres and a fall from south to north by 2.38 metres. As the dwelling extends towards the west, the sitting of the proposed two storey dwelling will remain well below the maximum height of buildings at 9.5 metres.

 

·     The proposed first floor addition establishes a suitable size and scale to the streetscape and will retain a consistent building height plane to the adjacent dwellings at nos. 16 and 20 Dundas Street. The residential flat building immediately to the south (no. 20 Dundas Street), whilst comprising of an increased front setback, has an RL75.62 as measured from the main ridge and the gable roof end of the two storey dwelling at no. 16 Dundas Street with an RL64.97. The new first floor addition contains an RL66.32 and will comfortable sit between the neighbouring dwellings and will not create any detracting visual bulk and scale from the streetscape.

 

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

 

Assessment:

The proposal is located in close proximity to a heritage item no. L461 denoted as addresses 7-13H Denning Street; 347H Rainbow Street and 6LH Garnet Street and identified as ‘Garnet Street sandstone retaining wall, embankment and street trees’. The subject site is 27.84 metres from the subject site directly south of the subject site. The new upper floor addition will not visually dominate the structure or compromise the heritage significance of the structure within the existing streetscape. The proposal will comply with Clause 5.10: Heritage conservation of the RLEP2012. The proposal is appropriately scaled and fits in with the character of the contributory and other buildings in the vicinity.  

 

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

 

Assessment:

The non-compliance to the maximum height of buildings development standard will not contribute to any adverse amenity impacts to the neighbouring dwellings and is as follows:

 

·     The proposal will not give rise to adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The first floor window openings of the new upper floor addition consist of window sill heights that are more than 1.6 metres above the finished floor level. The rear first floor deck will result in significant overlooking impacts to the rear private open space of the neighbouring dwellings to the north and south at nos. 20 and 16 Dundas Street, Coogee, respectively. To minimise opportunities for overlooking, a condition of consent has been included that the new rear first floor deck shall be setback an additional 1.5 metres from the western edge of the deck. In considering the above, appropriate measures have been included to ensure the development will not contribute to adverse visual privacy impacts to the neighbouring dwellings.

 

·     The extent of additional overshadowing that is cast from the non-compliant building height to the southern neighbouring premises at no. 20 Dundas Street is reasonable. It should be noted that the southern neighbour is significantly elevated above the natural ground level of the subject site and the portion of the roof form that exceeds the maximum permissible height of buildings will fall on the subject sites front setback between 8am – 12pm and at 4pm the shadowing will fall on the existing Dundas Street roadway. The shadowing is not expected to fall on any north-facing window openings to living spaces and a portion of the front landscaped area will retain three hours of direct solar access between the hours of 9am – 4pm and will continue to comply with Council’s controls for overshadowing. The proposal is not expected to contribute to any adverse solar access impacts to the adjacent premises.

 

·     The exceedance to the maximum height of buildings by an additional 370mm above 9.5 metres will not give rise to any view loss impacts, in particular to those neighbours directly to the west/south-west of the subject site. The western/south-western neighbouring premises in particular those along Rainbow Street currently enjoy water views to the north-east/east. As discussed previously, the subject site is constrained given the typography of the site is represented by a significant fall from west to east of the subject site by approximately 8.14 metres. Subsequently, the significant fall will not contribute to any perceivable view loss from the neighbouring dwellings. The reduced level of the new upper floor addition at RL66.32 will be approximately 90mm higher than the ground level (existing) of the existing right of access way along the south-western corner of the site. Subsequently, the development is not expected to result in any significant view loss impacts and will continue to provide equitable view sharing to the neighbouring premises. 

 

·     The development will not result in any adverse visual bulk and scale impacts to the neighbouring dwellings in that the development will maintain a consistent building height plane as the adjoining dwellings. The size and scale of the new upper floor level will remain compatible with the height of buildings within the existing streetscape along Dundas Street. The development will also respect the sloping typography of the site with a fall from south to north.

 

 2.    Consistency with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential 

 

•     To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

•     To recognize 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.

 


 

Assessment:

The conversion of the dual occupancy (attached) to a single dwelling and new upper floor level is a permissible form of development within an R2: Low Density Residential Zoning. The departure from the height of buildings development standard will generally remain consistent with the objectives of the low density residential zone. The marginal non-compliance of 370mm (4%) is limited to mostly the upper most portion of the main ridge of the hipped roof form and does not attribute to any adverse visual bulk and scale impacts given the built form will be consistent with the building heights of the adjacent dwellings with particular regard to the eastern and western neighbour. The proposal will be consistent with the desired future character of the area.

 

3.     Consistency with the State and Regional Planning Policies

 

Assessment: None applicable.

 

4.     The variation for a better planning outcome

 

Assessment: The design scheme provides for a three storey scale along the eastern end and two storeys to the western end of the dwelling which will remain consistent with the existing developments within the immediate streetscape. The additional building height does not form a detracting feature that compromises the streetscape character and the development will continue to comply with the building envelope controls including setbacks, site coverage, deep soil landscaping and general compliance with the objectives for external wall heights. As prescribed above, the variation to the height of buildings development standards will not contribute to any significant adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring dwellings or within the streetscape and demonstrate a compliant development in terms of solar access, visual privacy and views.

 

5.        There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation

 

The following assessment demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the height of buildings variation:

 

·     The proposal involves a minor non-compliance to the height of buildings with the new upper floor level of 9.87 metres. The breach is considered marginal and is contributed by the significant sloping nature of the site with a fall of approximately 8.14 metres from the western to the eastern end of the subject site representing a fall of approximately 18% across the site depth and a fall of approximately 20% from south to north. The marginal breach is contributory to the inherent site constraints.

 

·     The new upper floor level includes a main ridge of RL66.32 and will generally sit between the southern and northern neighbour at RL75.62 and RL64.97, respectively. The new upper floor level will continue to respect the typography of the site and will remain consistent with the established building height plane to the adjacent dwellings.

 

·     The area of non-compliance is limited to the eastern end of the new upper level portion of the roof form. The non-compliant portion will not contribute to any significant overshadowing impacts given most of the shadowing cast will fall on the front setback of the southern neighbour at no. 16 Dundas Street. The southern neighbour will continue to receive the required three hours of direct solar access to the north-facing windows and private open space as prescribed within RDCP2013.

 

·     The area of non-compliance is not expected to contribute to any adverse amenity impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The additional building height is negligible and will not result in any adverse environmental impacts to the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings including overshadowing, visual privacy and view sharing from the neighbouring dwellings. 

 

·     The development provides for generous side setbacks from the southern and northern neighbours at 1,185mm and 1,511mm, respectively. The additional setback above the minimum requirements of 900mm will minimise the perceivable visual bulk and scale from the adjoining premises.

 

·     The development is commensurate in bulk and scale and does not dominate or detract from the appearance of the neighbouring heritage item at no. 7-13H Denning Street; 347H Rainbow Street and 6LH Garnet Street. The size and scale of the first floor level is consistent with the height of buildings within the streetscape and will not create any excessive visual bulk that may compromise the heritage values, fabric and associated setting of the adjacent heritage item.

 

6.        The Variation is within the Public Interest

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal has been 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.

 

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

Department of Planning and Environment 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 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 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 of Buildings 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 low density housing forms envisaged under the LEP for the locality.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·     341 Rainbow Street, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

A new secondary dwelling to the existing dual occupancy development is not a permissible form of development in accordance with the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing 2009).

Noted. The applicant has since submitted amended plans which seek to convert the existing dual occupancy (attached) development to a single dwelling. Subsequently, a new secondary dwelling is a permissible form of development in accordance with the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing 2009) provisions. 

The proposal will exceed the maximum permissible FSR of 0.65:1.

Council has recalculated the gross floor area and the proposal will comply with the maximum permissible floor space ratio of 0.65:1 as prescribed by the RLEP2012.

The proposal will exceed the maximum site coverage requirements.

The RDCP2013 prescribes that a maximum site coverage of 50%. The amended design will result in a site coverage of 45% which complies with Council’s controls.

The proposal does not comply with the minimum soft landscaping requirements.

The RDCP2013 prescribes a minimum soft landscaping treatment of 30%. The amended plans and the repositioning of the secondary dwelling will result in a development that provides for more than 30% of the subject site as permeable soft landscaping.

The new carport structure located at the rear will impact existing water views from the objectors premises.

The applicant has submitted amended plans which deletes the carport structure and lowers the building height from RL69.06 to RL67.23 and will not result in any perceivable view loss impacts from the objectors premises.

The new car space/carport will contribute to the visual bulk and scale of the development.

The applicant has submitted an amended plan which deletes two off-street parking spaces to the rear parking structure, deleted the carport structure, provided a reduced rear building envelope and additional setbacks to the northern boundary. The car parking structure will remain consistent in size and scale as the adjoining rear parking structures within the immediate streetscape and maintains the stepped nature of the built form given the significant sloping nature of the site towards the north. The rear parking structure does not give rise to significant visual bulk and scale impacts visible from the existing streetscape.  

 

·       345 Rainbow Street, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The proposal will breach the maximum permissible building height.

Refer to Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards for Height of Buildings for further details.

 

·       16 Dundas Street, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The secondary dwelling is a prohibited form of development given the existing use as a dual occupancy development.

Noted. The applicant has submitted amended plans seeking alterations to the existing dual occupancy and conversion to a single dwelling. In accordance with the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing 2009), the proposal will remain as a permissible form of development given it will result in there being on the land, any dwelling other than the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling, in accordance with the SEPP.

The submitted application seeks to deceive Council with the proposed ad-hoc additions given to previous approval of consents. 

Council is aware of the development history of the subject site and the unauthorised building works carried out.

The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible FSR.

The proposal complies with the maximum permissible floor space provisions of 0.65:1.

The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible building height.

Noted. Refer to Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards for further details.

The proposal does not comply with the controls for Clause 2.2: Site Layout for Detached Dual Occupancies within the RDCP2013.

The applicant has submitted amended plans and seeks to convert the existing dual occupancy development into a single dwelling. Subsequently, Clause 2.2 of the RDCP2013 does not apply to the subject development.

The proposal does not comply with the controls for Clause 6.6: Carport configuration within the RDCP2013.

Noted. The applicant has submitted amended plans and seeks to delete the carport structure from the plans.

The proposal will exceed the maximum site coverage requirements.

The RDCP2013 prescribes that a maximum site coverage of 50%. The amended design will result in a site coverage of 45% which complies with Council’s controls.

The proposal does not comply with the minimum soft landscaping requirements.

The RDCP2013 prescribes a minimum soft landscaping treatment of 30%. The amended plans and the repositioning of the secondary dwelling will result in a development that provides for more than 30% of the subject site as permeable soft landscaping.

The proposal does not comply with the side setback requirements.

The subject site has a frontage width of less than 12 metres (11.69 metres) and subsequently a minimum side setback of 900mm is required at ground and first floor levels. The amended scheme results in a compliant side setback from the above car parking area at 956mm, the secondary dwelling level at 2.45 metres and the first floor level 1.5 metres, all from the northern boundary, adjacent the objectors premises.

The proposal does not comply with the rear setback requirements.

The Council controls for rear outbuildings prescribes that outbuildings may constructed to the rear boundaries in considering the following:

 

·     The external walls are finished and do not require frequent maintenance;

·     There are no windows or openings facing the adjoining allotments; and

·     Adequate solar access to the adjoining dwellings is maintained.

 

The external walls of the secondary dwelling adjacent the western (rear) boundary is located below the ground level existing and will not involve any maintenance; the north-facing window openings will not give rise to any significant privacy impacts and will not cast any adverse shadowing to the principal outdoor recreation space or the habitable room windows of the neighbouring premises.

The proposal will contribute to adverse visual bulk and scale impacts and will appear significant from the neighbouring premises.

The applicant has submitted amended plans which seek to delete the roof of the carport and will reduce the perceivable visual bulk and scale of the development visible from the objectors premises. Notwithstanding this, the amended proposal amends the sitting and location of the secondary dwelling with an increased side setback of approximately 2.796 metres from the northern boundary and provides a greater building separation from the objectors premises. The single storey nature at the rear of the subject site will not contribute to any apparent visual bulk from the neighbouring premises.    

The proposed carport structure will contribute to the visual bulk and scale of the development and the number of vehicles will add to the smoke, fumes and odours to the objectors premises.

Noted. The applicant has provided amended plans which delete the carport structure and reduce the number of parking spaces to two spaces which will significantly improve the amenity of the objectors premises.

The proposal will provide 13+ bedrooms and is considered an overdevelopment of the site.

The proposal provides a maximum of 6 bedrooms to the primary dwelling and 2 bedrooms to the secondary dwelling as indicated on the submitted plans.

 

A further objection was received by the objectors subject to the amended plans received by Council on the 20 May 2016:

 

Issue

Comment

The secondary dwelling located at the rear of the subject site is not a permissible form of development in accordance with the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing 2009).

Noted. Council has received legal advice that if consent were granted, and the consent were acted upon, the development would not result in there being any dwelling other than the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling on the land.

 

Key Issues and areas of non-compliance:

 

·     Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

Clause 2.4: Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces

The RDCP2013 provides for 23% (120.45sqm) of the site area to be provided for soft landscaping less than the required 30% (157.23sqm) and will result in the shortfall of 36.78sqm. The variation from the Council control is acceptable in considering the development generally satisfies the objectives for landscaping and permeable surfaces as follows:

 

·     To ensure landscaped areas are effectively distributed on the site to achieve a visual balance between building structures and open space.

 

Comment: The proposal will continue to provide an equitable distribution between built and unbuilt upon areas within the site. The development complies with the site coverage requirements of the RDCP2013 with 45% of the site area being covered by the built form less than the maximum requirement of 50%. The reduced site coverage area will achieve a visual balance between the building blocks and the open space and soft landscaping will be evident within the front and rear of the principal dwelling. 

 

·     To provide privacy screening between dwellings.

 

Comment: The reduction in areas of permeable landscaping will continue to provide areas for privacy screening to the neighbouring dwellings. The proposed development is appropriately setback from the northern and southern neighbours by a minimum of 900mm (as required by the RDCP2013) and provides ample area to provide for soft landscaping to be provided to screen any potential privacy impacts between the neighbouring buildings. It should also be noted that the works to the rear involve lowering the ground level (existing) to create a more usable outdoor private open space and any potential overlooking to the immediately adjoining northern neighbour will be reduced from the existing situation. 

 

·     To retain and provide for canopy trees and large shrubs to contribute to the establishment of vegetation corridors across the locality.

 

Comment: The areas provided as deep soil permeable landscaping are suitably sized and dimensioned to accommodate the growth for large and significant trees on the subject premises. This includes the retention of an existing frangipani tree located up to the northern boundary to the rear of the existing dwelling.

 

·     To assist with stormwater infiltration and reduction of overland flow.

 

Comment: The subject site consists of a steeply sloping site with a significant fall from west to east by approximately 8.14 metres and allows for stormwater to be directed to Dundas Street. Substantial vegetation will remain at the rear of the subject premises and any stormwater is likely to drain into the areas of permeable landscaping. Furthermore, suitable conditions of consent have been included by Councils development enginer which advise that stormwater run-off from the development portion of the site be discharged either to the kerb and gutter along the site frontage by gravity or through a private drainage easement to Council’s kerb and gutter. Drainage plans are required to be submitted to demonstrate compliance with the Building Code of Australia.

 

In considering the above, the shortfall of soft landscaping by approximately 37sqm would not have an adverse impact to the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings and the variation from the control is acceptable in that it complies with the objectives of the RDCP2013. The non-compliance is acceptable in this instance.

 

Clause 3.2: Building Height

Clause 3.2: Building Height prescribes a maximum external wall height of 7 metres for sites with a flat or gentle gradient and 8 metres for a significantly sloping site. The existing site is characterised by a substantial fall of approximately 9.16 metres from west to east which is a 20% slope of the site depth. The site also comprises of a fall across the site frontage from south to north of approximately 1.74 metres and is a 15% slope across the frontage width. Therefore, an external wall height of approximately 8 metres to the subject site is acceptable in this instance. The proposed development will result in an external wall height to a maximum of 8.35 metres and will result in a 350mm variation from the Council control. The departure from the Council control is directly a consequence of the constraints of the site and its sloping nature given the external wall will sit well below the maximum external wall height of 8 metres on the southern side of the dwelling at 7.26 metres. In addition to this, the non-compliance to the external wall height control will not contribute to any appreciable amenity impacts with respect to solar access and overshadowing, visual privacy and views and will continue to comply with the northern side setback for building setbacks at the third floor level. In considering the merits of the proposal, the development will generally comply with the objectives for building height as per the RDCP2013.   

 

Clause 3.3.2: Side Setbacks

The RDCP2013 prescribes a minimum side setback of 1500mm at the second storey & above should the frontage width be between 9 and 12 metres in width. At present the existing development comprises of a subfloor level and protrudes more than 1.2 metres above the ground level (existing). Subsequently, the new first floor addition constitutes the second storey and requires a setback of 1500mm from the side boundaries. The proposed second storey is setback 1.185 metres from the southern side boundary and does not comply with Council’s controls. The variation from the Council control is acceptable given the development will integrate with the overall architectural form and detail of the house. The inclusion of an additional setback from the first floor level to demonstrate a compliant side setback would create a stepped built form at the upper floor level which would detract from the appearance of the dwelling within the streetscape. The reduced side setback from the southern boundary will not contribute to any appreciable impacts in terms of overshadowing, visual privacy and bulk and scale given the principal dwelling of the southern neighbour consists of a substantial front setback from the primary street frontage along Dundas Street. The reduced setback from the southern boundary is acceptable and will remain consistent with the relevant objectives for side setbacks.

 

Clause 5.1: Solar access and Overshadowing:

The Council controls prescribe a minimum of three hours of direct solar access to the north-facing window openings and the private open space of the neighouring premises. The immediately southern neighbour at no. 20 Dundas Street is set significantly further back from the front building alignments to the neighbouring buildings within the urban block and is located on the high point of Dundas Street and therefore is set substantially higher than the subject site. With regards to the window openings, the proposal is not expected to contribute to any significant shadowing to the north-facing lower ground floor window openings. A portion of the north-facing lower ground floor window openings will retain solar access through the top half of the window opening and will comply with Council’s controls for solar access and overshadowing. Notwithstanding this, the ground and the first floor level window openings will not be shadowed by the proposed development.

 

In terms of the shadowing to the front open space, the new upper floor level to the principal dwelling will cast some additional shadowing between the hours of 8am – 4pm. The Council’s RDCP2013 requires that the private open space of the neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of three hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. The upper floor level will contribute to some minor shadowing to the northern portion of the front setback at no. 20 Dundas Street, however the extent of shadowing is considered to be negligible. The area of non-compliance is not significant given the residual area of the front open space will retain more than the required three hours and is appropriately sized to accommodate the passive recreational activities to the southern neighbouring dwelling.

 

Clause 5.3: Visual Privacy:

The objectives for visual privacy as per the RDCP2013 prescribe that to ensure development minimizes overlooking or cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy. The proposal will not give rise to adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The first floor window openings of the new upper floor addition consist of window sill heights that are more than 1.6 metres above the finished floor level. However, the first floor deck which adjoins the rear yard will allow for overlooking over the existing side boundary fencing and into the private open space of the neighbouring dwelling to the north. Notwithstanding this, the first floor balcony will also allow for direct overlooking into the habitable room window openings of the southern neighbour. To minimise opportunities for overlooking a condition of consent has been included that a privacy screen be installed along the full northern and southern edge of the rear first floor deck to reduce the potential for overlooking.

 

Objections have also been received from the adjoining neighbour with respect to potential visual privacy impacts on a standing position of the hardstand car parking area.

 

In considering the above, appropriate measures have been included to ensure the development will not contribute to adverse visual privacy impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The proposal will continue to provide a reasonable level of visual privacy and will comply with the respective objectives within the RDCP2013.

 

IMG_7132

View from the first floor level of no. 20 Dundas Street, Coogee to the subject site (no. 18 Dundas Street) and the adjoining neighbour at no. 16 Dundas Street.

 

Clause 7.4: Outbuildings

The Council’s controls specify that except for laneway development, only single storey structures are permitted with a maximum building height of 3.6 metres and external wall height of 2.4 metres. The rear of the subject site adjoins a right of carriageway and is not adjacent to an existing laneway. The proposed secondary dwelling and car parking area above, consists of an external wall height of 2.88 metres as measured from the north-western corner of the parking area and as measured from the ground level (existing). The height of the structure is due to the inherent site constraints with a substantial fall from south to north by approximately 1.78 metres. In considering the hardstand parking area is constructed at grade the sloping nature of the site will result in an increase in the building height from the north-western corner.

 

Overall the height of the existing structure is considered reasonable given visually it will appear 1 metre in height from the south-western corner and increases in height as the site slopes away. The rear structure will continue to comply with the maximum height of outbuildings as per Council’s controls and will comfortably fit within the context of the existing streetscape with the adjoining structures fronting the right of carriageway. The development is reasonable and the minor variation from the wall height requirement by 480mm is acceptable and limited to a small portion of the rear of the site. The variation is acceptable and does not give rise to any adverse environmental and amenity impacts and will continue to provide a reasonable level of visual privacy, overshadowing, views and visual bulk and scale.

 

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 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

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Height of Buildings, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & 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. 780/2015 for the conversion of the existing dual occupancy into a single dwelling, alterations and first floor additions to the proposed dwelling, construction of a new secondary dwelling at the rear with 2 car spaces above (variation to height of buildings), at No. 18 Dundas 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 1.6 m above floor level must be provided along the full northern and southern edge of the rear first floor deck. The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

3.        Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, Development Consent DA/1118//2006 and stamped plans must be surrendered to Council.

 

4.        Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, the construction certificate CC/246/2007 and submitted plans must be surrendered to Council.

 

5.        Prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate the existing dual occupancy must be converted into a single dwelling including all associated works at the sub-floor level.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 18 Dundas Street, COOGEE 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP62/16

 

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

Folder No:                DA/99/2016/A

Author:                     Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Section 96 modification of the approved development by adding an additional car space within basement, increase the area of the dwelling at ground and third floor levels, changes to openings on elevations and new communal open space at the rear of the site

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Ideal Three Pty Ltd

Owner:                     Ideal Three Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=e08670b7-fd4c-42de-9898-cc5bc4a55bff&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

No submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The Section 96 modification is referred to a Council meeting as the original application was determined at a Planning Committee meeting.

 

1.  Proposal

 

The section 96 application seeks to modify the approved development in the following manner:

 

·     Provide an additional car parking space on basement level

·     Provide communal space in the rear setback

·     Increase the size on unit GL.03 on the Ground Floor and unit L3.01 on Level 4

·     Modify condition 2 (c) by allocating the rear communal open space to the southern eastern corner of the site as communal open space.

 

2.  Application history:

 

DA/99/2016 at a Planning Committee Meeting on 14 June 2016 approved the demolition of existing structures, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building with 10 dwellings with semi-basement car parking for 11 vehicles.

 

3.  Site

 

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

 

The subject site sits above street level with a sloping grass verge rising to the elevated ground level within the site. The site is rectangular in shape with a western frontage of 19.65m and a side boundary depth of 30.51m to the south and 30.81m to the north and a total site area of 604.4sqm. it is noted that the applicant has submitted a plan of redefinition with the current section 96 application showing the site area is 610.9sqm (6.5sqm larger than the registered land size).

 

The neighbouring properties consist of the following 9as indicated in the aerial photo below:

 

·     The southern side boundary adjoins a four storey flat building whose address is identified as No. 65 St Pauls Street.

·     The northern side boundary adjoins the rear boundaries of properties identified as No. 3 and 5 Daintrey Crescent.

·     The rear boundary adjoins the rear of a development at No. 11 Daintrey Crescent.

 

Photo of site and adjoining properties.

 

4.  Submissions

 

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

 

5.  Section 96 Assessment

 

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

 

5.1 Substantially the Same Development

 

Council may only approve an application under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 if “it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all) under this section”.

 

The proposed modifications will not result in a change to the nature of the original development. An assessment of the key issues is carried out below.

 

6.  Key Issues

 

The proposed modifications are listed below with an assessment against the key standards and policies applying to each:

 

6.1     Provide an additional car space within basement;

There are no objections to the additional car space proposed as part of the Section 96 application. The application maintains the required motorcycle space (alongside the new carspace) and bicycle spaces (at the end of the shared zone).

 


 

6.2     Increase the area of the ground level unit at the north eastern corner (GL.03) and upper level unit within the mansard roof (L3.01):

The proposal seeks an additional 20.9sqm of floor area resulting in a FSR of 0.925:1 exceeding the 0.9:1 maximum FSR standard under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 by 2.77%. It is noted that the original approval had an FSR of 0.89:1 and the proposed section 96 application seeks an additional 20.9sqm of floor area located at ground level and level 3.

 

A clause 4.6 exception to the development standard is not required for a Section 96 application. Notwithstanding, an assessment is required against the relevant objectives of the FSR standard and the R3 medium density residential zone.

 

The relevant objectives of the R3 zone and FSR standard are listed below followed by an assessment comment:

 

R3 Medium Density residential zone objectives:

 

·     To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment and to provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

 

The proposed additional floor area to the two bedroom ground level unit provides a larger area than the minimum required under the Apartment Design Guide which is considered to contribute to the variety of housing in the medium 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.

 

The proposed additional floor areas are predominately contained at the rear ground level, front and rear of the upper level and will not be noticeable from the public domain. The proposed additional floor area at the upper level front north-western corner is moving bedroom 2 closer to the front elevation (inclusive of a reduction in size of the terrace in front). The additional mass added at the upper level is considered to achieve a more symmetrical appearance at the upper level mirroring the depth and massing of the sliding doors to bedroom 1 at the opposite corner of the upper level unit. In other words, the additional floor area to bedroom 2 closer to the front boundary achieves a balanced built form and appearance across the front façade of the mansard roof. It is noted that the applicant has clarified that condition 2b of the original determination which requires the mansard roof to be setback 500mm further from the front elevation will be complied with and condition 2 (b) is retained.

 

·     To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The amenity of residents having regard to solar access, visual amenity, privacy and views will not be affected by the additional floor area.

 

·     To encourage housing affordability.

 

Comment: The proposal does not alter the dwelling numbers or the mix of dwelling type and will provide variety of housing choice to meet the need of the local community.

 

Floor space ratio objectives:

 

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

 

The majority of the additional floor area is not immediately discernable from the street level or the neighbouring properties as it is located at the rear of the site at ground level under the floor level above and within the mansard roof form. As noted earlier, the extension of bedroom 2 at the upper level closer to the front will not detract from the built form across the front and will not result in any adverse impacts on the streetscape character or the significance of The Spot Heritage Conservation Area in close vicinity of the site.

 

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

 

The proposed modifications will continue to provide a well-articulated form of development. The additional floor area at ground level improves levels of solar access to the ground level living space.

 

 

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

 

The proposed modifications will remain compatible with the scale and character of the development within The Spot Heritage Conservation Area. The proposed modifications are predominately contains within the approved building envelope and the mansard roof and will not detract from the qualities of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area. The proposed modification does not alter the additional 500mm front setback at the upper level which was partially imposed to minimise the massing of the upper level relative to the building envelope below.

 

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

 

The additional floor area sought is generally contained within the approved building envelope and the additional floor area at ground level and within the mansard roof will not result in any additional adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties having regard to overshadowing, visual amenity, view loss or privacy.

 

6.3     Modification of openings on elevations

The modifications to the openings and facades across the building at ground and third floor mansard roof level are considered adequate and will not result in any appreciable difference in the approved envelope, result in any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties or the streetscape character.

 

6.4     Amended communal open space at the rear of the site (reduction of communal open space required by condition 2c of the original approval).

The proposal seeks to reduce the area of communal open space down to 32sqm (5.5%) of the site area from the 20% of the total site area as required by condition 2 (c).

 

Condition 2c reads as follows:

 

2c.    An area within the rear yard measuring a minimum of 4m from the rear boundary shall be dedicated as communal open space. This area shall be appropriately screened to ensure that suitable privacy is provided to the ground level two-bedroom apartment at the rear.

The additional communal open space (equating to 75sqm) with a depth of 4m from the rear boundary opposite the rear ground level unit (GL.03) was included to provide a larger area of communal open space at ground level for passive recreational use by units not directly connected to ground level.

 

The proposed communal open space area is similar to the area originally sought which is 5.7% of the total site area, 14.3% below the conditioned increase in communal space and 19.3% below the 25% minimum control under the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) the guiding policy document required to be considered under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65).

 

It is noted that the original assessment considered that the shortfall was justified on the basis that greater than minimum areas of private open space for the units not directly connected to the ground level area.

 

The applicant has reiterated this as well as providing the discussion that the privacy of the rear ground level unit is compromised by the required communal open space along the rear yard being directly opposite this ground level unit (GL.03) bedrooms and areas of living space.

 

It is generally considered that the privacy of the rear ground level unit whilst a key design criteria is not the only matter required to be assessed and that a merit assessment is required to be carried out against the design guidance provided for in the ADG under Part 3D Communal open space.

 

Part 3D of the ADG provides the following explanation for the provision of communal open space

 

The size, location and design of communal open space will vary depending on the site context and the scale of development. The function of open space is to provide amenity in the form of:

·     landscape character and design

·     opportunities for group and individual recreation and activities

·     opportunities for social interaction

·     environmental and water cycle management

·     opportunities to modify microclimate

·     Amenity and outlook for residents.

 

The useable part of the communal open space area may be supplemented by:

·     Additional landscape area, circulation space and areas for passive use and outlook

·     Public land used for open space and vested in or under the control of a public authority.

 

High quality open space is particularly important and beneficial in higher density developments (for private open space requirements see section 4E Private open space and balconies).

 

The following points are made in relation to the above ADG discussion and the proposed reduction of communal open space:

 

·     The landscaped character of the site will not be unduly impacted by the reduction of communal open space maintaining approved environmental and water cycle management;

·     The proposed communal open space whilst smaller than that conditioned provides all the necessary facilities with a northern aspect ensuring good opportunity for social interaction

 

Further to the above, it is also considered that the proposed reduction of communal open space to that being proposed as part of this application is suitable for the following reasons:

 

·     There are only a small number of units within the development and it is reiterated that these units have larger areas of private open space than the minimum required under the ADG and

·     Parkland at the corner of Carr Street and Dudley Street. and beaches is in relatively close proximity to the site that can be utilised to meet the additional outdoor recreational needs of the future occupants.

 

Having regard to the above discussion of communal open space it is considered that the proposed reduction in communal open space is acceptable in the circumstances having regard to the small scale of the development, the provision of greater than minimum areas of POS for all the units and in some instances very large areas of POS. It is therefore recommended that condition 2c be deleted.

 

Referrals

 

·     Design Review Panel (DRP)

 

The application was referred and considered by the Design Review Panel having regard to the requirements under SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide and not significant objections were raised.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed section 96 application has been assessed against relevant objectives under the RLEP 2012 having particular regard to the R3 medium density zone, the RDCP 2013, SEPP 65 and Apartment Design Guide. It is considered that the proposed modifications are supportable and approval of the section 96 modifications is recommended as it will be in line with the objectives of the abovementioned documents and will not result in any significant and unreasonable environmental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, views, site planning and privacy.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. DA/99/2016 by adding an additional car space within basement, increase the area of the dwelling at ground and third floor levels, changes to openings on elevations and new communal open space at the rear of the site at No. 1 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

A.     Amend condition 1 to read:

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

A-1.01 Issue C

MKD Architects

30/03/2016

A-1.02 Issue C

30/03/2016

A-1.03 Issue C

30/03/2016

A-1.04 Issue C

30/03/2016

A-1.05 Issue C

30/03/2016

A-2.01 Issue C

30/03/2016

A-3.01 Issue C

30/03/2016

A-3.01A Issue C

30/03/2016

A-3.02 Issue C

30/03/2016

A-3.03 Issue C

30/03/2016

A-3.04 Issue C

30/03/2016

A-3.05 Issue C

30/03/2016

A-4.01 Issue C

30/03/2016

A-4.02 Issue C

30/03/2016

A-4.03 Issue C

30/03/2016

A-4.04 Issue C

30/03/2016

A-4.05 Issue C

30/03/2016

A-5.01 Issue C

30/03/2016

A-5.02 Issue C

30/03/2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

701808M

18 February 2016

 

As amended by as amended by the following section 96 plans and documentation:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

A-1.01 Rev. B

MKD Architects

01/08/2016

A-1.02 Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-1.03 Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-1.04 Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-1.05 Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-2.01 Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-3.01 Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-3.01A Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-3.02 Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-3.03 Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-3.04 Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-3.05 Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-4.01 Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-4.02 Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-4.03 Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-4.04 Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-4.05 Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-5.01 Rev. B

01/08/2016

A-5.02 Rev. B

01/08/2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

701808M_02

27 July 2016

 

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

 

B.     Delete condition 2c

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP63/16

 

Subject:              Draft Kensington Park Plan of Management - Public Exhibition and Submissions Review

Folder No:                F2014/00598

Author:                     Ting Xu, Senior Strategic Planner      

 

Executive summary

 

The draft Kensington Park Plan of Management (PoM) has been prepared to provide a long term strategic framework for the future recreational use and environmentally sustainable management of Kensington Park (the Park). The draft PoM was placed on public exhibition from 22 August to 23 September 2016.

 

A total of 100 submissions were received during the public consultation period, including:

 

·     5 submissions received at the two drop-in sessions;

·     18 online submissions made via the yoursayrandwick webpage;

·     1 submission from the Kensington West Kingsford Precinct; and

·     76 pro forma submissions received from a group of residents in Kingsford and Kensington.

 

All submissions received have been summarised, with corresponding responses provided in the attached response to submissions table (Attachment 1). Key issues that have been commonly raised are also outlined and analysed in this report.

 

Following careful consideration of the community feedback, this report recommends that the Council adopt the attached PoM for Kensington Park (Attachment 2), as exhibited.

 

Background

 

Council resolution

The draft PoM has been prepared in response to the Council resolution of 23 September 2014 (Attachment 3), which requires the preparation of a site-specific PoM for Kensington Park and land immediately surrounding the Park.

 

Guiding Council plans and policies

The need for a site-specific PoM for Kensington Park is also identified in the following Council plans and polices:

 

·     Randwick City Plan (2013). One of the key actions identified in Council’s 20-year City Plan is to “progressively update open space plans of management, in accordance with an established priority list and the Recreation Needs Study, focusing on active and passive recreation opportunities”;

·     District Parks Generic PoM. The District Parks Generic PoM is one of the eight generic PoMs which provide a comprehensive management approach for open space and recreational facilities in Randwick City. It recognises the importance of preparing site-specific PoMs for a number of district parks (including Kensington Oval) to provide clear and specific management recommendations; and

·     Recreation Needs Study (2008). The Study was commissioned in 2008 to help Council gain a better understanding of the role of open space and sporting facilities for residents and visitors and how changing needs may impact upon current and future provision. It includes a “Strategy Implementation Plan” which requires the preparation of a Plan of Management for Kensington Park to guide its planning, use, development and management.

 

Other drivers

Other key drivers for preparing this PoM include:

 

·     Light Rail. Given its close proximity to future light rail stops, any traffic and parking changes as a result of light rail may have a direct impact on the street network surrounding Kensington Park. It is therefore important to develop a site-specific PoM which not only reviews the function and layout of the Park but also includes contextual analysis to address traffic, parking and access to the park; and

·     Increasing demand on public open space. Kensington Park is the only district park in northern Randwick providing for both active and passive recreation. Increasing recreational demand of the growing and changing population requires optimal planning and management of existing parkland, including the provision of multi-purpose park facilities to cater to the needs of a wider range of user groups.

 

Preparing the plan

 

The following activities were undertaken prior to the preparation of the draft PoM:

 

Activities

Details

In-house consultation

Consultation with Councillors and Council staff from various disciplines to understand issues relating to the day-to-day operation of the Park and potential improvements that need to be explored.

Stationary/observation surveys

10 park surveys carried out between October 2015 and March 2016 to identify the current usage pattern and gaps in provision.

Desktop analysis

Analysis of the trends in recreation participation in Randwick City and demographic characteristics of Kensington and Kingsford, to provide the evidence base for the design and planning of the Park.

Initial community consultation

Stage 1 community consultation undertaken prior to the development of the draft PoM to identify positive features, key issues and improvements required.

 

The draft PoM

 

Overview

The draft PoM provides the community, sporting groups and Council with a clear direction and framework for the future use and management of the Park. It contains:

 

·     an overview of the guiding planning framework;

·     detailed description of the park, current uses and existing facilities;

·     a summary of the results and implications of background research and analysis;

·     an outline of the planning process to explain how the plan has been developed;

·     a vision statement and associated management objectives;

·     a draft Landscape Concept Plan showing the indicative design and proposed layout of the Park; and

·     a draft Action Plan with detailed actions to facilitate the upgrade and ongoing management of the Park.

 

Long term vision

The draft PoM aims to set a long term (10-year) vision for the Park in response to the community’s sport and recreational needs, values and expectations. It contains a clear vision statement which provides the overarching strategic direction for all future decisions affecting the Park:

 

“Kensington Park provides good quality multi-use facilities for both active and passive recreation to cater to the diverse and changing needs of the community while maintaining and enhancing the Park’s natural landscape character and aesthetic values.” 

 

Draft Landscape Concept Plan

Future key improvements proposed in the draft Landscape Concept Plan include:

 

·     provision of well-connected pedestrian pathways throughout the Park, including a continuous walking track around the oval;

·     improved connectivity with the adjacent community centre and Council Nursery;

·     expansion of the children’s play area to provide diverse play opportunities;

·     additional and upgraded park facilities, such as all age outdoor gym, BBQ with shelters, ping pong tables, new seating and lighting and bike racks;

·     additional car parking within and around the Park;

·     investigating options to achieve a safer and more efficient street network around the Park; and

·     supplementary planting and associated landscaping works.

 

Draft Action Plan

The draft PoM also includes a detailed Action Plan, which has been developed to achieve the long term vision and management objectives of the Park, in line with the proposed improvement and future upgrade works shown in the draft Landscape Concept Plan. Key strategies identified to guide the implementation of these actions include:

 

·     Provide quality recreational facilities that meet the needs of a broad range of user groups;

·     Provide car parking in suitable locations in and around the Park and minimise parking impacts on surrounding residential streets;

·     Encourage and support the use of active transport by Park visitors;

·     Provide safe and pervious pedestrian pathways linking activity points within the Park, connecting to areas outside the Park, while also providing opportunities for informal exercise and other passive recreational activities;

·     Improve the safety, accessibility, efficiency and legibility of the surrounding road network;

·     Enhance the connectivity with the adjoining Council Nursery;

·     Provide well designed, secure, energy and water efficient and conveniently located facilities and amenities to cater to the needs of the sporting groups and the community;

·     Provide well designed and water efficient landscaping to enhance the ecological and visual qualities of the Park while ensuring safety and comfort of the park users;

·     Ensure that the Park is designed and managed to maximise safety and security;

·     Provide consistent and legible signage at suitable locations within the Park;

·     Maintain appropriate animal control measures;

·     Ensure that Kensington Oval is well maintained to appropriate standards with good quality playing surfaces appropriate to its function and usage levels;

·     Ensure environmental sustainability for the design, development and management of the Park;

·     Promote the use of the Park for sporting and cultural events;

·     Ensure efficient and cost-effective delivery of the Landscape Concept works;

·     Ensure that the sporting field and park facilities are used to their highest potential and that seasonal and casual bookings are efficiently and equitably managed;

·     Ensure best practice and accountability in the financial management of the Park’s assets; and

·     Promote and encourage the use of the Park as a multi-purpose recreational facility.

 

Consultation activities

 

The preparation of the draft PoM has been largely informed by a two-staged consultation process. The first stage consultation (as noted above) was undertaken between 17 June and 1 July 2016 to identify the key usage pattern and collect ideas on how the park could be improved. Key activities undertaken include an online survey, a focus group discussion session (on 29 June 2016) and meetings with local precinct and key sporting groups (see Attachment 4 for a summary of the consultation outcomes).

 

The Stage 2 consultation, which involved the public exhibition of the draft PoM and draft Landscape Concept Plan, was rolled out between 22 August and 23 September 2016 through the following activities (see Attachment 5 for a summary report on the consultation activities):

·     notices via Southern Courier, Council’s website, Randwick eNews and Facebook/Twitter;

·     public exhibition through yoursayrandwick website;

·     display of the draft PoM at Council’s Administration Building and libraries;

·     posters and flyers distributed around Kensington and Kingsford;

·     presentation at the Kensington West Kingsford Precinct meeting on 12 September 2016;

·     direct written notification to Department of Industry – Lands, key sporting groups and other interested groups; and

·     two drop-in sessions (on 3 & 7 September 2016).

 

Submissions and responses

 

A total of 100 submissions were received during the public exhibition period, including 76 pro forma submissions from residents in Kingsford and Kensington, 5 submissions collected at the drop-in sessions, 18 online submissions and a submission made by the Kensington West Kingsford Precinct.

 

Key issues raised in the submissions are summarised as follows:

 

Issue: Future detailed design

Many submissions sought clarification of improvements and suggested alternative solutions to the proposed dimensions and locations of park facilities indicated in the draft Landscape Concept Plan.

 

 

 

 

Comments

It is important to note that the dimensions and locations of all proposed new facilities in the draft Landscape Concept Plan are indicative only and will be subject to final detailed design development and documentation prior to construction.

 

All relevant submissions will be forwarded to Council’s landscape design team for consideration during the detailed design stage, which will involve further consultation with the community.

 

Issue: Need for PoM - Planning for the future

A number of submissions noted that the park is functioning well and does not require much improvement. Some noted that Kensington Park does not have capacity to accommodate too many leisure activities.

 

Comments

The purpose of this PoM is to provide a long term strategy for the Park to guide its future use and management in the next 10 years. This requires consideration of the recreational needs of the current and future population, to ensure that the Park will continue to function well in the coming decade.

 

As noted, Kensington Park is the only district park in northern Randwick that supports both active and passive recreation, providing for a range of sporting and leisure activities. In the context of growth in local apartment living, the park will become more valuable and popular and will warrant future sustainable improvements to achieve optimal park layout with new park facilities to cater to a wider range of user groups. It will continue to provide for both passive and active activities.

 

Issue: Ping pong tables

A number of submissions expressed concerns about the potential noise issues relating to the proposed ping pong tables. Some submissions noted that these facilities are likely to be used by university students at night, causing disturbance to surrounding residents.

 

Comments

The idea of providing ping pong tables in the Park largely responds to the demographic analysis which indicates that there is a larger proportion of people born overseas and a higher percentage of people aged 18-34 years in Kingsford and Kensington compared to Randwick City. The proposal is also inspired by the popularity of an all-weather ping pong table recently introduced in Frank Doyle Park, Randwick Street, Randwick. The ping pong tables at Frank Doyle Park are utilised by a cross section of the community and have been operating successfully without interfering with the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

Ping pong tables have become an increasingly popular leisure facility for all age groups and people from different cultural backgrounds. Close to 20% of the respondents of the online survey (as part of Stage 1 community consultation) think that it is important or very important to have ping pong tables in Kensington Park.  A number of visitors interviewed during the drop-in sessions also noted that ping pong tables would be a fun addition to the Park.

 

As shown in the draft Landscape Concept Plan, the ping pong tables are proposed to be located away from the surrounding residential areas to minimise potential noise impact.

 

Issue: Widening of the through-site pathway

A large number of submissions objected to the proposed widening of the existing through-site pathway linking Barker Street and Edward Avenue given the following reasons:

 

·     it is unnecessary to upgrade this footpath to an informal cycleway as there are a number of existing designated cycle paths in the area; 

·     this pathway currently accommodates high pedestrian movements and shared use by cyclists should not be encouraged for safety concerns; and

·     a pathway with a minimum width of 3.5m will result in a considerable reduction of green parkland. 

 

Comments

According to the park stationary surveys, this footpath is popularly used by cyclists. In order to create a safe and pleasant environment along the length of the path, the potential for conflict between pedestrians and bike riders needs to be carefully considered. Council’s Integrated Transport team has recommended a 3.5m wide pathway to better facilitate reasonable separation and reduced conflict of movement between pedestrians and bike riders. It is expected that this path will be primarily used by recreational bike riders as a facility specifically catering to commuter bike riders will be built along Houston Road, a short distance from the Park and parallel to the footpath in question.  

 

It is important to note that other safety measures will also be considered in the detailed design, such as

·     altering the geometry of the footpath in sections to slow bike riders when approaching points of potential conflict;

·     clear signage with instructions for safe use of the footpath;  

·     linemarking and surface treatments to help reduce the speeds of cyclists;

·     careful selection of plant species for clear sightlines along the path; and

·     lighting upgrades.

 

The visual dominance of this widened footpath could be softened and mitigated by adopting various paving patterns/colors and integration of appropriately designed street furniture and landscape elements along both sides of the path. Detailed design solutions, including the exact dimensions of the pathway will be further confirmed at the final design stage.

 

The PoM proposes a series of new pathways throughout the Park. Even though the introduction of these footpaths will result in removal of some of the grassed area, on balance this will improve permeability and accessibility which is consistent with the identified strategies for the management of Kensington Park.

 

Issue: A dog off-leash area in the Park

The request to have a dog off-leash area in the Park has been raised by many submissions.

 

Comments

Council recognises the importance of off-leash areas in providing a safe place for dogs to exercise and play and for dog owners to interact and socialise. Randwick City currently has 14 designated off-leash dog areas, which is well above the “one off-leash area per local government area” requirement set out in the NSW Companion Animals Act 1998 (the Act). There are two existing dog off-leash parks within a short distance of Kensington Park, being Paine Reserve in Randwick City and an off-leash park in Tweedmouth Avenue, Rosebery.

 

Additional dog off-leash areas should be established following careful consideration of the suitability of the locations and subject to extensive community consultation. Under the Act, dogs are prohibited (whether leashed or unleashed) in any public place that is within 10m of a children’s play area or a food preparation/consumption area (like a barbecue). After applying a 10m buffer from the proposed extended children’s play area and proposed BBQ facilities, the area available and suitable in the Park for dog off leash is limited.

 

The above analysis is consistent with the outcome of the previous consultation process for the new community centre, which concluded that it is not appropriate or necessary to include a dog off-leash area in Kensington Park (refer to the Council report endorsed at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 11 July 2014 for details).

 

It is to be noted that ancillary facilities, such as dog drinking fountains, are proposed to be provided in the Park to create a dog-friendly environment.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:     Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities

Direction 5a:  Maximise opportunities for residents and visitors to enjoy both active and passive open space uses

 

Financial impact statement

 

The draft PoM has been prepared in-house while the cost for engaging a landscape consultant to prepare the draft Landscape Concept Plan is approximately $26,000 (GST exclusive). Other costs for printing of posters and distribution of flyers to surrounding residents has totaled appropriately $1200.

 

Conclusion

 

This draft PoM for Kensington Park has been prepared following a comprehensive planning process, comprising preliminary desktop research, park observation surveys, in-house staff consultation and consideration of matters raised during two community consultation stages.

 

A range of future park improvements have been proposed to enhance the Park’s function for both passive and active recreation for Council’s diverse community while maintaining its most valued natural landscape character, in line with the directions and principles set out in the Randwick City Plan, District Park Generic Plan of Management and Recreation Needs Study.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)       endorse the Kensington Park Plan of Management for finalisation;

 

b)       forward the Kensington Park Plan of Management to the Department of Industry – Lands for information; and

 

c)     agree that the Director, City Planning may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors as required in finalising and printing the Kensington Park Plan of Management.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Response to Submissions Report

 

2.

Draft Final Kensington Park Plan of Management

Included under separate cover

3.

Action Sheet NM88 14 Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Proposed Kensington Park - Plan of Management (Ordinary Council - 23 September 2014)

 

4.

Outcomes of the Stage 1 Consultation

 

5.

Kensington Park PoM Consultation Report stage 2

 

 

 

 


Response to Submissions Report

Attachment 1

 

 

Attachment 1 Response to Submissions

No

Name

Submissions received

Council Officer’s Response

1

Resident, Doncaster Avenue Kingsford (survey forms collected during drop-in sessions)

Move the proposed children’s play area towards the south so that it’s half way between Edward Avenue and Barker Street.

 

 

 

Move the proposed outdoor gym away from Edward Avenue so that this equipment is placed further into the Park for reduced noise impact on neighbouring residential areas at night.

 

 

 

 

It is unnecessary to introduce table tennis tables in the Park as they would probably be used at night by university students and create a lot of noise late at night.

 

The proposed BBQ facilities will encourage people to drink and stay in the Park late at night. If this facility has to be provided, it should be a coin operated facility to discourage use by university students.

 

The width of the through-site path between Edward Avenue and Barker Street should only be 2 metres. A 3.5m wide path will enable car access through the Park.

 

Although the south-eastern corner of the Park is identified as the “Play Provision” area, the core play/activity area will be set away from Edward Avenue for children’s safety and minimised impact on the adjacent residential areas.

 

Noted. The outdoor gym is considered to be a “low-impact” facility causing limited noise impacts and is unlikely to attract intensive use at night time. It is important to note that the locations of all proposed new facilities in the Landscape Concept Plan are indicative only and are subject to final detailed design prior to construction. 

 

See response provided in the Council report.

 

 

 

Noted. Operation of the BBQ facility will be determined at the detailed design stage.

 

 

 

See response provided in the Council report. To clarify, vehicular access is not permitted through the Park, except for emergency and maintenance purposes.

2

Resident, Mooramie Avenue Kensington

(survey forms collected during drop-in sessions)

Retain existing green features as much as possible and design and arrange the Park for community use.

Supported. 

3

Resident, Leonard Avenue Kingsford (survey forms collected during drop-in sessions)

“The park plan is great. Thanks.”

 

Request that the following traffic issues be addressed:

·         Narrow streets around the Park, especially with parking allowed on either side of the street;

·         Poor sightlines/blind spots near the corner of Cottenham and Edward Avenues, with views of traffic largely blocked by parked cars right up to the corner.

 

 

 

Noted. These comments will be forwarded to Council’s Integrated Transport team for investigation and appropriate actions.  

4

Resident, Maitland Avenue Kingsford (survey forms collected during drop-in sessions)

Provide an off-leash area for dogs.

 

Introduce ping pong tables.

 

Upgrade the grandstand (medium to long term action) to provide better seating and visual features.

 

See response in the Council report.

 

Supported.

 

Noted. The comment will be forwarded to Council’s Buildings for our Community team for consideration.

5

Not stated (survey forms collected during drop-in sessions)

Trees to be planted along the southern edge of the Park should be tall big trees (e.g. 20-30 meters high).

 

The idea of providing BBQ facilities is supported. Given that this will be a really popular facility, more burners should be provided.

 

The floodlighting for the Oval should not be turned on if nobody is using it.

Noted. The selection of tree species will be confirmed at the detailed design stage.

 

Noted. This will be considered at the detailed design stage.

 

 

Supported. This comment will be forwarded to Council’s Open Space team for investigation and action.

6

General comments raised during the drop in sessions

Request for chess tables in the Park.

 

 

The majority of the solar lighting near the children’s playground are not working.

 

Request for more seating in the landscaped area to the north of the new community centre.

 

Request for mature trees from the light rail to be relocated to Kensington Park.

 

 

 

Request that any BBQ facilities be automatically switched off at sunset to decrease alcohol consumption and associated antisocial behaviour.

 

Request for security cameras in the Park.

 

 

 

Request from various people to retain a particular bench seat at the south eastern corner of the Park due to its popularity.

 

Request for grassed area to be retained as much as possible in the proposed children play provision zone.

 

Request for the Oval to be used as an off leash dog area when not in use by a formal sporting activity.

 

Concerns about parking shortage in the area especially during university terms. Suggest considering time restricted parking for adjoining streets during weekdays. 

 

Request to relocate BBQ facilities closer to the basketball court.

 

Concerns expressed regarding the duplication of fitness nodes in the Park.

 

 

 

 

 

Request for additional bathroom facilities in the eastern part of the Park.

Noted. The suitability of a chess table in the park could be considered at the detailed design stage.

 

Noted. This will be reported to relevant Council team for investigation.

 

The landscape setting (including furniture) will be provided in accordance with the approved DA.

 

Noted. Kensington Oval has been identified as a potential location for additional tree planting as part of the CBD and South East Light Rail Vegetation Offset Plan. 

 

Noted. Timed BBQ’s can be implemented. 

 

 

 

Noted. Due to the high cost of implementation and maintenance, security cameras are not a priority for this park.

 

Noted. All seats in suitable locations will be retained.

 

 

 

Noted. Maximum grass areas will be part of development.

 

See response in the Council report.

 

 

Noted. This will be investigated by Council’s Integrated Transport team. Refer to Action 1.6 in the proposed Action Plan.

 

Noted. This will be considered at the detailed design stage.

 

Noted. The intent of having three fitness nodes alongside the proposed walking track is to create an attractive fitness trail. To avoid duplication, different types of equipment could be provided at the three fitness stations, which will be determined during the detailed design phase.

 

Noted. The approved community centre is not designed to include public toilets for management and maintenance reasons. Public toilets in the grandstand are open daily. Given the size of this park, additional public toilets are not proposed.

7

Resident, Kensington road, Kensington

(Online submission)

Request for a dog off-leash area.

See response in the Council report.

8

Resident, Borrodale Road, Kingsford

(Online submission)

“Thank you for preparing the Draft Plan of Management.  It looks very comprehensive and addresses nearly all issues. Well done.”

 

Request for a public kiosk/café in the Park.

 

 

 

 

Request for public use of the community centre toilets, 7 days a week (during reasonable daylight hours).

 

 

 

 

Noted. A mobile café cart could be a possible option. This request will be forwarded to relevant Council section for consideration. 

 

 

See response to Submission 6.

9

Resident, Doncaster Ave Kingsford

(Online submission)

“I think the plan for the park is fantastic. It is a well-designed park. Thank you very much”.

 

Suggest that the extended children’s play area be moved closer to the Oval in the “Active Zone”, away from the through-site pathway for safety reasons.

 

 

 

 

Request to relocate the proposed BBQ facility near Barker Street to the south-eastern corner of the Park near a popularly used seat.

 

 

 

The children’s play area is proposed to be extended to respond to the increasing demand while achieving a close relationship/interaction with the adjoining community centre. It is to be noted that the core play area will not be located immediately next to the through-site pathway.

 

It is not considered appropriate to locate the two BBQ facilities too close to each other. As noted, the exact locations of proposed park facilities will be determined at the detailed design stage.

10

Resident, 1-3 See Street, Kingsford

(Online submission)

“I think the plan is great and I'm looking forward to the improvements”.

 

Request for a dog off-leash area.

 

 

 

 

See response in the Council report.

11

Resident, Paine St, Maroubra (Online submission)

“Draft Plan looks good”.

 

Support for the proposed outdoor fitness stations and request that similar equipment to the Alan Davidson Oval fitness area be provided in the Park.

 

 

Support noted. This comment will be considered during the detailed design stage.

12

Resident,

Goodrich Avenue Kingsford (Online and email submission)

“Love Kensington Park and appreciate Council’s commitment to its rejuvenation”.

 

Change the area east and north of the ½ basketball court, on the former bowling greens, from active zone to passive zone, as DA/87/2015 intended. Provide more seats in this area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provide tables with bench seats in shaded areas. The “Passive Recreation Zone” identified in the Landscape Concept Plan is too close to a road and the sporting field, not suitable for quiet recreation activities such as reading and socialising.

 

Retain the much used bench seat near the corner of Doncaster and Edward Avenues.

 

 

Retain more open grass area intermittent with playground surface when extending the children’s playground. Retain the open grassed area as is, east and southeast of the existing playground, without any built structures apart from the shelter and BBQ.

 

Reduce the width of the proposed 3.5m wide through-site pathway so that it is not a shared path, but a safer high pedestrian pathway which links walking tracks.

 

Switch off barbecues at sunset due to the residential context.

 

Provide security cameras to prevent/monitor vandalism.

 

 

 

To clarify, the area to the east and north of the proposed basketball court will be constructed and landscaped as per the DA approval.

 

Different zones (e.g. Sporting Zone, Active Zone) are created in the Landscape Concept Plan to demonstrate the proposed core functions of different sections of the Park. For example, an “Active Recreation Zone” is identified as it contains a cluster of facilities specifically provided for active recreation, such as basketball court, outdoor gym, ping pong tables and space for personal training. However, an Active Zone does not rule out passive recreation uses. In fact, as shown in the concept plan, the majority of this Active Zone is still reserved for passive purposes, such as walking, seating and dog walking.

 

Noted. This will be considered at the detailed design stage.

 

 

 

 

Noted. All seats in suitable locations will be retained.

 

 

 

Noted. This will be considered at the detailed design stage.

 

 

 

 

See response in the Council report.

 

 

 

Noted. Timed BBQ’s can be implemented.

 

 

Noted. Due to the high cost of implementation and maintenance, security cameras are not a priority for this park.

13

Resident, Barker St, Randwick

(Online submission)

Support for the proposed walking track around oval.

 

Provide a dog off-leash area and/or clear signage of animal control rules in the Park as unleashed dogs are often seen in the Oval and near the children’s playground.

 

 

Support for the provision of BBQ facilities.

 

Request to retain the kids’ cycle track around the existing playground - lots of children use it to practice cycling and scootering and learn road rules.

 

Provide water play area as part of play area extension (check example at new Glenelg beach/foreshore playground, City of Holdfast Bay, South Australia).

 

Provide public toilet facilities closer to the children’s play area as part of the new community centre or in the form of a standalone self-cleaning unit.

Support noted.

 

See response in the Council report. Additional regulation signage may be introduced near main entrances to the Park and other key areas (refer to Action 1.43 of the proposed Action Plan).

 

Support noted.

 

Noted. No proposal to remove cycle track.

 

 

 

Noted. Given installation and maintenance costs, a water play area is not suitable for this park.

 

 

See response to Submission 6.

14

Resident, Leonard Ave Kingsford

(Online submission)

Same as submission 12

See response to Submission 12.

15

Resident, Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

(Online submission)

“I really appreciate the work that the Council is putting in to developing the plan of management for Kensington Park, and I thank you for giving us a say”.

 

Request that the Park be retained as a quite green space, and not to accommodate too many facilities and activities.

 

Objection to the proposed BBQ facilities due to associated noise, drinking and anti-social behaviour issues especially at night time. 

 

 

 

 

Not prefer having ping pong tables in the Park as they will take away more green space.

 

The through-site pathway should be 1.5 metres wide and only for pedestrians.

                          

 

 

 

 

See response in the Council report.

 

 

It is not considered that the BBQ facilities will be intensively used at night causing significant disturbance to the surrounding residential area. Timed BBQ’s can be implemented.

 

 

 

See response in the Council report.

 

 

See response in the Council report.

16

Resident, Doncaster Ave, Kingsford

(Online submission)

Retain the open grassed area as is, east and southeast of the existing playground, without any built structures apart from the shelter and BBQ.

 

Retain the much used bench seat near the corner of Doncaster Ave and Edward Ave.

 

Switch off barbecues at sunset due to the residential context.

 

Support for the provision of all age outdoor gym facilities.

 

Provide security cameras to prevent/monitor vandalism.

 

Provide tables with bench seats in shaded areas.

 

Reduce the width of the proposed 3.5m wide through-site pathway so that it is not a shared path, but a safer high pedestrian pathway which links walking tracks.

 

See response to Submission 12.

17

Resident, Doncaster Ave, Kingsford

(Online submission)

Move the proposed children’s play area away from the road.

 

Not a good idea to have BBQ facilities in the Park as dogs may behave aggressively towards people who are cooking.

 

 

 

Not a good idea to have table tennis tables in the Park. A more passive game, say “Bocce” should be considered.

 

Concerns about the proposed widening of the through-site pathway which may lead to faster bike movement and hazards to children and dogs.

 

Provide more flower/garden beds.

 

 

Consider recognition of fallen soldiers in wars in the Park.

Noted. The core play area is located away from the road.

 

Noted. Relevant signs may be installed near the proposed BBQ facilities noting that dogs (either leashed or unleashed) are prohibited in any public area within 10m of a BBQ facility.

 

See response in the Council report.

 

 

See response in the Council report.

 

 

 

Noted. This will be considered at the detailed design stage with advice from council nursery manager.

 

Noted. This will be forwarded to relevant Council section for consideration.

18

Resident, Doncaster Ave, Kingsford

(Online submission)

The proposed BBQ facilities may lead to aggressive dog behaviour.

 

The table tennis tables are proposed in an area meant to be used for passive recreation.

 

 

 

Move the children’s play area towards the Oval rather than near the edge of the Park due to the risk of children running out onto the road.

 

Install security cameras for improved safety.

 

 

 

Objection to the proposed widening of the through-site pathway which may lead to faster bike movement and hazards to children and dogs.

See response to Submission 17.

 

 

The ping pong tables are proposed to be co-located with other proposed active recreation facilities so that the rest of this section of the Park could still be available for passive recreation uses.

 

Noted. The core play area is located away from the road.

 

 

Noted. Due to the high cost of implementation and maintenance, security cameras are not a priority for this park.

 

See response in the Council report.

19

Resident, Houston Road, Kingsford

(Online submission)

“I use Kensington Park on a daily basis and appreciate Council’s commitment to its rejuvenation. I am glad the proposed Plan overall reflects surveys by Council that show a very high proportion of Randwick City residents engage in informal fitness and passive recreation activities”.

 

Suggestions:

 

Change the area east and north of the 1/2 basketball court, on the former bowling greens, from active to passive recreation, as DA/87/2015 intended.

 

Provide tables with bench seats in shaded areas and provide more seats north and east of the basketball court.

 

Retain open grassed area east and southeast of the existing playground, without any built structures in that section apart from the shelter and barbecue area.

 

Locate the proposed children’s play area away from the road for safe concerns and extend the play area west of the current bike circuit up to the proposed walking track around the Oval.

 

Retain open grass areas intermittent with playground surface when extending the children’s playground.

 

Retain the much used bench seat near the corner of Doncaster and Edward Avenues.

 

Provide good picnic spots around the barbecue.

 

 

Narrow the proposed 3.5 m wide path to 1.8m as per DA/87/2015, to prevent car access and cyclists from

speeding, which is more proportionate to the size of the Park.

 

Switch off barbecues at sunset due to the residential context.

 

Install security cameras to prevent/monitor vandalism and increase the safety of park users.

 

 

Support for the proposed walking track around the Oval.

 

Support for the improved visual connection with Council’s Nursery, which will better promote this Council asset, leading to greater usage of native plants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See response to Submission 12.

 

 

 

Noted. This will be considered at the detailed design stage.

 

 

Noted. This will be considered at the detailed design stage.

 

See response to Submission 9.

 

 

 

 

Noted. This will be considered at the detailed design stage.

 

Noted. All seats in suitable locations will be retained.

 

 

Noted. This will be considered at the detailed design stage.

 

See response in the Council report.

 

 

 

 

Noted. Timed BBQ’s can be implemented.

 

 

Noted. Due to the high cost of implementation and maintenance, security cameras are not a priority for this park.

 

Support noted.

 

Support noted.

20

Resident, Edward Avenue, Kingsford (Online submission)

“The Draft Plan of Management provides a well-researched approach to the future development of Kensington Park.  In particular, the provision of BBQ and fitness facilities would be well utilised by the community”. 

 

Concerns about the proposed loop path around the Oval as it will replace grass with concrete surface.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Request for a concrete footpath to Barker Street, providing a continuous pathway along all four sides of the Park.  Suggests that the existing footpath to Edward Avenue be retained as it is (no need for widening). 

 

 

 

 

Request for pedestrian crossings to provide better and safer access to the Park. 

 

 

Concerns about the problematic intersections at Day Lane. Suggests that Day Lane be closed off to provide a green link to the nursery and scout hall. 

 

Request for public access to toilet facilities at the new community centre for people using the eastern side of the Park (e.g. BBQ, fitness, and playground).

 

Request for appropriate architectural treatments to the grandstand and nearby storage facility to improve the aesthetics of the western end of the Park.

 

Request for close monitoring of large trees around the Park to ensure that large branches are trimmed before they become a safety problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The loop path is a key feature proposed in the draft Landscape Concept Plan, which provides a continuous and designated facility to support informal exercise (e.g. walking, jogging) and other leisure activities (e.g. kids’ bike riding, dog walking). This loop path, together with other proposed connecting paths will help maximise the useability of areas currently inaccessible due to limited through routes, surface tree roots and level changes. The proposed loop path has been recognised as a positive improvement largely supported by many submissions.

 

Initial investigation indicates that it may be technically difficult to install a concrete footpath along the southern side of Barker Street due to the exposed tree roots. However, the issues raised (including the suitable width of the Edward Avenue footpath) will be considered during the detailed design stage.

 

Supported. This will be forwarded to Council’s Integrated Transport team for consideration.

 

 

Noted. This will be forwarded to Council’s Integrated Transport team for consideration.

 

 

 

See response to Submission 6.

 

 

Noted. This will be forwarded to Council’s Buildings for our Community for consideration.

 

 

Supported. Refer to Action 1.34 in the proposed Action Plan.

21

Resident, Mooramie Ave, Kensington

(Online submission)

Request that the Park be retained as a quite green space, and not to accommodate too many facilities and activities.

 

Support for the outdoor exercise gyms.

 

Request for more green space for passive recreation where people can sit, read a book, meditate, be in nature.

 

Retain the grassed area to the east, south east and south of the children’s playground as grassed area as it is, without any built structures on it.

 

Change the area east and north of the ½ basketball court, on the former bowling greens, from active zone to passive zone and provide more seats in this area.

 

Provide tables with bench seats in shaded areas.

 

 

Retain the popular bench seat near the corner of Doncaster and Edward Avenues.

 

Retain all existing grassed areas as is, with few built structures on top.

Reduce the width of the proposed 3.5m wide through-site pathway so that it is not a shared path, but a safer high pedestrian pathway which links walking tracks.

 

Objection to the proposed barbeques due to the unpleasant smell and potential anti-social behaviour (e.g. drinking) and noise issues at night. If barbeques are to be provided, make sure they are automatically switched off at night due to residential context.

 

Provide security cameras to prevent/monitor vandalism and night drinking.

 

Noted. See response in the Council report.

 

 

Support noted.

 

Noted.

 

 

Noted. This will be considered at the detailed design stage.

 

 

See response to Submission 12.

 

 

 

Noted. Tables and benches will be provided in the detailed design stage.

 

Noted. This will be considered at the detailed design stage.

 

 

Noted.

See response in the Council report.

 

 

 

See response to Submission 15.

 

 

 

 

 

See response to Submission 6.

22

Resident, Mooramie Ave, Kensington

(Online submission)

Objection to the provision of barbeques due to the unpleasant smell and potential anti-social behaviour (e.g. drinking) at night.

 

Support for the proposed additional seating and tables.

 

Objection to the proposed widening of the through-site pathway which will result in loss of the existing grassed area.

See response to Submission 15.

 

 

 

Support noted.

 

See response in the Council report.

23

Resident, Mooramie Ave, Kensington

(Online submission)

Objection to the proposed BBQ as this will possibly result in food waste being left behind, causing sanitary issues (e.g. rats).

 

Objection to the proposed widening of the through-site pathway so that it is not a shared path for the safety of children and the elderly.

 

Objection to the proposed table tennis tables as they will take up valuable green space.

Noted. This could be addressed by suitable measures, such as signs installed near the BBQ facilities requesting proper cleanup after usage.

 

See response in the Council report.

 

 

 

See response in the Council report.

24

Resident,

See Street, Kingsford

(Online submission)

Support for the provision of outdoor gym equipment at three different locations.

 

Support for the proposed walking track. Suggests that the track be made of a soft material (like an athletics track) and be dog friendly.

Support noted.

 

 

Support noted. The loop path will be suitable for walking, jogging, kids bike riding and walking dogs. However, it is likely to adopt concrete surface for maintenance purposes.

25

Kensington West Kingsford Precinct

“Residents appreciated the information from council officers attending the precinct meeting”. 

 

Provide more passive recreation space north of the ½ basketball court as indicated in the DA/87/2015.

 

Provide more benches around the perimeter alongside Barker street as well as around the Oval.

 

Provide tables with bench seats in shaded areas for people to meet, chat and perhaps have a picnic.

 

Retain as much open natural grass area as possible when

extending the children’s playground.

 

Level out the grassed area between the oval and the playground as much as possible.

 

Objection to the proposed table tennis tables.

 

Retain the open grassed area as is, east and southeast of the existing playground, without any built structures apart from the shelter and barbecue area.

 

 

 

Reduce the width of the proposed 3.5m wide through-site pathway so that it is not a shared path, but a safer high pedestrian pathway which links walking tracks.

 

Switch off barbecues at sunset due to the residential context.

 

Provide security cameras to prevent/monitor vandalism.

 

 

 

Request that no off-leash dog areas be provided in the Park, which is a safety hazard and not compatible with children and sports users.

 

Request that bike riding be separated from pedestrian footpaths for safety reasons.

 

 

 

 

This area will be constructed and landscaped as per the approved DA.

 

Noted. More benches will be included as part of the detailed design stage.

 

Noted. Tables and benches will be provided in the detailed design stage.

 

Noted. Maximise grass areas will be part of the detailed design development

 

Noted. Site contouring will occur at the detailed design stage.

 

See response in the Council report.

 

Noted. Only park related furniture such as a BBQ, picnic shelters will be provided in the park. Consideration will be given to ensure facilities do not create excessive visual clutter.

 

 

See response in the Council report.

 

 

 

Noted. Timed BBQ’s can be implemented.

 

 

Noted. Due to the high cost of implementation and maintenance, security cameras are not a priority for this park. 

 

Supported.

 

 

 

Noted. See response in the Council report.

26

Facebook post

“Draft plan looks great. Love the additional tree and shrub planting, bike storage and BBQ area. Also very happy to hear the improved pedestrian connections and landscaping, and especially the rain garden.”

 

Support noted.

27

Pro-forma submissions (from 76 residents)

Points raised in all 76 submissions:

 

Change the area east and north of the ½ basketball court, on the former bowling greens, from active zone to passive recreation, as DA 87/2015 intended.

 

Retain the open grassed area as is, east and southeast of the existing playground, without any built structures apart from the shelter and BBQ.

 

Additional points raised by several submissions:

 

Reduce the width of the proposed 3.5m wide through-site pathway so that it is not a shared path, but a safer high pedestrian pathway which links walking tracks.

 

Keep all trees and grassed areas currently used for passive recreation.

 

 

 

 

Concerns about the proposed ping pong tables as they take up valuable green space.

 

Provide more tables and seats in shaded areas.

 

 

Request that the Park be retained as a quite green space, and not to accommodate too many facilities and activities.

 

Switch off BBQ at subset due to the residential context.

 

Keep the park as it is - this area needs more greenery.

 

Support for the proposed outdoor gym facilities.

 

Provide security cameras.

 

 

 

Plant new trees on the former bowling green site.

 

 

Retain the seat at the intersection of Doncaster and Edward Avenues.

 

 

 

See response to Submission 12.

 

 

 

Noted. See above.

 

 

 

 

 

See response in the Council report. 

 

 

 

Existing trees and grassed area in the Park will be retained as much as possible. However, trees posing safety issues will be investigated for possible removal. This will be informed by a detailed arborist report (see Action 1.34 in the proposed Action Plan).

 

See response in the Council report.

 

 

Noted. This will be considered at the detailed design stage.

 

See response in the Council report.

 

 

Noted. Timed BBQ’s can be implemented.

 

See response in the Council report.

 

Support noted.

 

Noted. Due to the high cost of implementation and maintenance, security cameras are not a priority for this park. 

 

This area will be landscaped as per the approved DA.

 

Noted. All seats in suitable locations will be retained.

 


Action Sheet NM88 14 Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Proposed Kensington Park - Plan of Management (Ordinary Council - 23 September 2014)

Attachment 3

 

 


Outcomes of the Stage 1 Consultation

Attachment 4

 

 


Kensington Park PoM Consultation Report stage 2

Attachment 5

 

 


Kensington Park and Oval:
Draft Plan of Management

 

Community Consultation – Stage 2
22 August to 23 September 2016

 

Results and report

Prepared by Amanda Mather, Precinct Coordinator, Randwick City Council

Date: 6 October 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

Executive Summary

Background

Consultation

Yoursay webpage

Written submissions4

Drop in Sessions

Communication

Precinct

Yoursay Results

Submissions

Appendices

Appendix A – Drop in sessions overview

 

Executive Summary

This report outlines the consultation process undertaken during the public exhibition period for the Draft Plan of Management for Kensington Park and Oval. 

The consultation was open from 22 August 2016 to 23 September 2016 and used a number of communication tools to inform residents of the exhibition and encourage their participation in the consultation.  Firstly, the dedicated YourSay webpage created during the first stage of the consultation was updated to include a copy of the draft Plan and draft Landscape Concept Plan.     The draft plans were also on exhibition at all Randwick City Libraries and at Council’s Administration Building.

Council hosted two drop-in sessions on-site at Kensington Park in an attempt to capture users of the park and show them the draft plans as well as meet with local residents to discuss their concerns or answer any questions.  Similarly, Council officers attended the Kensington West Kingsford Precinct meeting in September to present the draft plan and answer questions.

Council used a range of methods to communicate and encourage participation in the consultation, including Facebook posts, tweets, Instagram, advertising in the Southern Courier, discussion at the Kensington West Kingsford precinct meeting, promotion in Randwick eNews, posters and flyers distributed around Kensington and the Park. 

Results from the YourSay webpage show that there were a total of 375 visits to the site with 18 submissions made via YourSay.  Council also received a submission from the Kensington West Kingsford Precinct, 5 submissions at the two drop-in sessions and 76 pro forma submissions from a group of residents in Kingsford and Kensington.

 

Background

Council resolution NM88/14 requires the preparation of a Plan of Management for Kensington Park

i)           is consistent with the goals outlined in the current District Park Generic Management Plan including the objective to establish a site specific Plan of Management for Kensington Park

ii)       gives consideration to the historical and established use of the park, recognises the changes that have occurred since previously adopted and outlines a vision for the future of the park

 

iii)      explores opportunities to create linkages with the Randwick City Council Nursery as integral to the Park and Community Centre

 

iv)       comprises land owned or in the care or control of Council within and the immediately surrounding Kensington Park

 

v)        includes consideration for the following aspects PoM

1.        Kensington Oval

2.        proposed Kensington Community Centre

3.        John Calopedos Memorial Reserve

4.        the broader Kensington Park open space

5.        Randwick City Council Nursery

6.        park amenities and facilities

7.        car parking and access.

Consultation

The Kensington Park and Oval Plan of Management consultation was conducted in two stages.  The first stage was open from 17 June to 1 July 2016 and aimed to find out how residents and visitors use the park, what they love about it, and what improvements they would like to see.

The Stage 2 consultation was open from 22 August to 23 September 2016 and involved the public exhibition of the draft Plan of Management for Kensington Park.

Yoursay webpage

www.yoursayrandwick.com.au/kensingtonpark

The dedicated YourSay webpage created for the Stage 1 consultation was updated to include the draft Plan of Management and draft Landscape Concept Plan with the option for visitors to lodge a submission via the webpage. 

The draft Plan of Management was also made available in hard copy, and was on exhibition at all Randwick City libraries and at Customer Service. 

Written submissions

A number of written submissions from residents were received by Council via email.

Drop in Sessions

Council hosted two drop-in sessions on-site at Kensington Park in an attempt to capture users of the park and show them the draft plans as well as meet with local residents to discuss their concerns or answer any questions.  The sessions were held on Saturday 3 September from 9am to 1pm and on Wednesday 7 September from 3pm to 5pm. 

The majority of enquiries on Saturday 3 September were regarding a dog off-leash area, with most disappointed that the plan does not include space for dogs to run off-leash.   The planned extension of the playground was also a popular enquiry, with concerns that it would take up too much green space.  All the visitors were happy with the proposed circular walking track.  Most liked the outdoor gym.

 

On Wednesday 7 September some enquires included the building of new footpaths and pedestrian access to the park.  There was some concern that any new additions to the park, such as the BBQs and ping pong table would increase noise in the park after dark.  Other visitors were very happy with the planned BBQ’s and thought the ping pong table would be a fun addition to the park.  Overall the conversations were positive and visitors to the sessions were supportive of the draft plan.

 

A total of 5 written submissions were received at the two drop in sessions.


See Appendix A.

Communication

Council used a range of methods to communicate and encourage participation in the second stage of the consultation.

The communication methods included:

·         Facebook posts to Council’s 10,000+ strong Facebook page

·         Tweets on the @RandwickMayor and @RandwickCouncil accounts

·         Advertising in the Southern Courier

·         Email blast to eNews subscribers in the Kensington and Kingsford postcodes

·         Presentation at the Kensington West Kingsford Precinct meeting on 12 September

·         Promotion in Council’s weekly Randwick eNews sent to 15,000+ subscribers

·         Posters and flyers distributed around Kensington and Kingsford

 

Image: Facebook post 26 August 2016 

Image: Poster and Flyer 


Precinct Meeting

Ting Xu, Senior Environment Planning Officer and Stella Agagiotis, Coordinator Strategic Planning attended the Kensington West Kingsford Precinct meeting on 12 September 2016 to present the draft Plan of Management and draft Landscape Concept Plan and take questions from residents.  Residents were encouraged to contribute to Council’s online consultation.

Council received a written submission from the Precinct on 26 September 2016.

Yoursay Results

·     A total of 375 visits to the yoursayrandwick.com.au/kensingtonpark webpage

·     41 maximum visits in one day (on 2 September)

·     18 submissions

Submissions

A summary of the submissions received via the YourSay website have been tabled in the Council Report: Draft Final Kensington Park Plan of Management – Public Exhibition and Submissions Review. 

Key issues that were commonly raised are outlined and addressed in the report include the proposed ping pong tables, upgrade and widening of the existing through-site pathway and request for a dog off-leash area.

 

 

Age:

Most of the online submissions were from residents aged 50-64, followed by 65+ with 6 and 5 respondents falling into the age ranges respectively.  

 

Gender:


This graph shows that 9 submissions were received from female residents followed closely by  8 submissions from male residents.

Appendices

Appendix A – Drop in sessions overview


Kensington Park Draft Plan of Management

Drop-in Sessions: 3 and 7 September 2016

Kensington Park

 

Attendees:

Ting Xu, Senior Environment Planning Officer, RCC

Emese Ruttley-Wolf, Strategic Planning, RCC

Amanda Mather, Precinct Coordinator, RCC

 

Number of visitors to the sessions: approx. 33 (22 visitors on 3 September, 11 on 7 September)

 

Types of enquiries:

The majority of enquiries on Saturday 3 September were regarding a dog off-leash area, with most disappointed that the plan does not include space for dogs to run off-leash.   The planned extension of the playground was also a popular enquiry, with concerns that it would take up too much green space.

 

All the visitors were happy with the proposed circular walking track.  Most liked the outdoor gym.

 

Councillor Moore also attended the session and chatted with residents.

 

On Wednesday 7 September some enquires included the building of new footpaths and pedestrian access to the park.  There was some concern that any new additions to the park, such as the BBQs and ping pong table would increase noise in the park after dark. 

 

Other visitors were very happy with the planned BBQ’s and thought the ping pong table would be a fun addition to the park.

 

Overall the conversations were positive and visitors to the sessions were supportive of the draft plan.

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

General Manager's Report No. GM17/16

 

Subject:              2015-16 Disclosure of Interests Returns

Folder No:                F2016/00361

Author:                     Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

The Local Government Act requires Councillors and designated staff to lodge Disclosure of Interest Returns in accordance with Section 449 of the Local Government Act.  Section 450(A) of the Act requires the General Manager to keep a Register of Returns and to table Returns at the first Council meeting after the last date for lodgement (30 September 2016).

 

Issues

 

In tabling the Register of Returns for 2015-16, I report that all Councillors and designated staff have submitted their duly completed returns within the prescribed timeframe.

 

Anyone is entitled to inspect the ‘Returns of the Interests of Councillors, designated persons and delegates’ under Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

It is necessary for the Disclosure of Interests Returns (for the period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016) to be tabled at this Council Meeting for the purpose of legislative compliance.

 

Recommendation

 

That it be noted that the Register of Disclosure of Interests Returns for 2015-16 has been tabled at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 25 October 2016.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Services Report No. CS13/16

 

Subject:              Supporting "Sense of Community" Street Parties

Folder No:                F2009/00454

Author:                     Joe Ingegneri, Manager Technical Services      

 

Introduction

 

Council receives a number of requests to temporarily close roads for street parties. Street parties can be a positive way of allowing residents and neighbours to interact, reinforcing community values and creating a true “Sense of Community”.

 

Under the Roads and Maritime Services guidelines, temporary road closures for such street parties are able to be approved by Council directly, provided that the applicants adhere to the guidelines. The standard conditions that Council imposes on event organisers are to keep the general public and the participants of the event safe, to direct traffic safely around the event, to inform the emergency services of the event and to reduce the impacts of the event on non-event users.

 

Issues

 

We have currently received four requests; however, most of the requests are received in the month of December.

 

The usual way to manage traffic for temporary road closures, in order to comply with the relevant WHS act, is to create a Traffic Control Plan (TCP). A TCP describes the layout of traffic control devices such as barriers and signs. The layout should be designed by suitably qualified traffic control designers.

 

To further assist residents of Randwick in planning street parties, it is proposed that traffic control measures required for neighbourhood street parties be arranged by Council, on behalf of the event organiser.

 

Council’s insurers confirm that approved street party events may be able to be provided cover under Council’s Casual Hirers protection through Statewide Mutual.  This cover is for a public liability claim arising from an incident which occurs upon the street.  Event organisers will need to satisfy the requirements of Council’s insurer prior to the approval of the street party being granted.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:     A Vibrant and Diverse Community.

Direction 2c:    Strong partnerships between the Council, community groups and government agencies.

Outcome 6:     A Liveable City.

Direction 6c:    the safety of our community is paramount and is acknowledged and supported through proactive policies, programs and strategies.

 


 

Financial impact statement

 

Depending on the dates and times of the proposed street party, the traffic control would be undertaken by Council staff or by external contractors.  In 2015, Council received nine applications for street parties to be held during the months of November and December.

 

The cost to resource and support these events in 2015 was approximately $10,500.  It is proposed to use the funds from the Community Donations budget. It is expected there will be additional applications in 2016.  It is estimated that a budget of $12,000 will cover the associated fees.

 

Conclusion

 

As part of Council’s commitment to building “a sense of community”, support should be given towards neighbourhood street parties. To safely close the road to facilitate street parties, appropriate traffic control needs to be implemented. To assist residents and encourage them to hold neighbourhood street parties, it is proposed that Council arrange and fund, on behalf of the residents, all traffic control measures associated with street parties.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

1.     support “Sense of Community” street parties in 2016 by arranging, on behalf of residents:

 

a)   traffic control plans

b)   the preparation of traffic management plans and road occupancy licences for submission to the RMS (if necessary), and

c)   all traffic control measures associated with street parties including all signage and equipment as well as labour on the day of the event.

 

2.     vote $12,000 to cover the costs associated with the 2016 street party applications with funds being allocated from the Community Donations budget.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF30/16

 

Subject:              2015-16 Financial Reports

Folder No:                F2015/00182

Author:                     Mitchel Woods, Manager Corporate and Financial Planning      

 

Introduction

 

Under the provisions of s418 the Local Government Act 1993, Council is required to present its Financial Statements together with the Auditor’s Report to the public.

 

Issues

 

The Local Government Act contains specific requirements to be followed in relation to the preparation of its statutory Financial Statements.

 

In summary, the procedures are shown below:

 

1.     The Financial Statements are to be prepared and these reports are required to contain a Certificate which is signed in accordance with a resolution of the Council. Council authorised the signing of the certificate by resolution at the Ordinary Council Meeting held 26 July 2016.

 

2.     The Financial Statements and the Certificate referred to in (1) are then referred to the Auditor for audit.

 

3.     As soon as practicable after receiving the Auditor’s Report the Council must send a copy of the Auditor’s report and the audited Financial Statements to the Chief Executive of the Division of Local Government. These documents were forwarded on 12th August 2016 in compliance with this requirement.

 

4.     As soon as practicable after receipt of the Auditor’s Report a date must be fixed when Council proposes to present the Auditor’s Report and the audited Financial Statements to the public. This date has been fixed as 27 September 2015.

 

5.     Public Notice of the proposed meeting including a summary of the Financial Statements must be given. Copies of the documents are to be made available for inspection at the office of the Council. In accordance with this requirement public notice was given in the Southern Courier on 9 September 2014. Copies of the document were made available to the public at the Customer Service Centre and the Libraries. The document is also available on the Council’s website.

 

Copies of the Financial Statements including the Auditor’s report have been separately circulated to each Councillor.

 

The Auditor’s Report provides detailed comments in relation to the Council’s sound financial position and is attached.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

Council’s auditor advises “Council’s overall financial position is, in our opinion, sound”.

 

Conclusion

 

The Council’s Financial Statements have been finalised for the 2015-16 Financial Year. The Council is in a strong and stable financial position.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Financial Reports for the 2015-16 financial year be adopted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Randwick City Council 2015-16 Statement of Financial Performance Indicators

 

2.

Randwick City Council 2015-16 Statement of Asset Management Indicators

 

3.

Randwick City Council 2015-16 Financial Reports

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Randwick City Council 2015-16 Statement of Financial Performance Indicators

Attachment 1

 

 


Randwick City Council 2015-16 Statement of Asset Management Indicators

Attachment 2

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF31/16

 

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

 

Investment Commentary

 

As at 30 September 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $77.972 million. The portfolio value increased during September by ~$1.744 million. The increase is representative of a positive cash flow for the month reflecting the net effect of revenue receipts (rates, grants & miscellaneous) offset by capital works expenditure and other operational payments.

 

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

 

The following graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from Sept 2015 to September 2016. Peaks are representative of the rates instalment periods.

 

Council’s Portfolio

 

The portfolio has sufficient levels of liquidity with 10% of investments available at call and a further 18% of assets maturing within 3 months. Council also currently has a number of senior FRNs as additional cover for liquidity requirements (accessible within 2 business days)

 

 

The investment portfolio is directed to fixed term deposits ahead of 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 September 2016. The portfolio includes term deposits (53% of the portfolio) with the higher rated ADI’s. Credit assets (FRNs) are around 37% of the portfolio.

 

 

The entire investment portfolio is diversified across the higher rated ADI’s (A- or higher).

The investment portfolio is regularly reviewed in order to maximise investment performance and minimise risk. Comparisons are made between existing investments with available products that are not part of the Council’s portfolio. Independent advice is sought on new investment opportunities.

 

Credit Quality

 

The portfolio is of very high quality from a ratings perspective. Credit quality is entirely directed amongst the higher rated ADI’s (A- or higher), in compliance with Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Council’s Investment Policy restricts allowable investments to only Prime, High Grade and Upper Medium Grade Investments. This will result in all new investments having a minimum Standard and Poors long term credit rating of A-. Council no longer invests in any products with a credit rating of BBB+ or less.

 

 

^ Under the Financial Claims Scheme (FCS), the first $250,000 is guaranteed by the Federal Government (rated AAA by S&P), per investor, per ADI

 

All of these are within Policy limits.

 

Counterparty

 

The table below shows the individual counterparty exposures against Council’s current investment policy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Individual counterparty exposures comply with the Policy.

 

 

Performance

 

The following graph shows the investment returns achieved against the AusBond Bank Bill Index and the official Reserve bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate for the period September 2013 to September 2016.

 

 

 

Investment performance for the financial year to date is above the industry benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index with an average return of 2.93% compared with the benchmark index of 1.94%.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate remained at the historical low of 1.50% at the 4 October 2016 meeting.

 

Term Deposits

 

At month end, deposits accounted for 53% of the total investment portfolio.

Four deposits totaling $7 million matured and were withdrawn in September. Seven new term deposits were taken up totaling $11.5 million.

As at the end of August, the weighted average deposit yield stood at 2.93%, down 2bp from the previous month or around +100bp over bank bills.

This remains relatively attractive as it is higher than most deposits in the marketplace out to 3 years.

    

Floating Rate Notes (FRNs)

 

The portfolio includes $28.4 million in floating rate notes.

 

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

 

The indicative market value of the FRN’s as at the 30 September 2016 increased by ~$15k.

 

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 30 September 2016 amounted to $514,142.42

 

Conclusion

 

All investments as at 30 September 2016 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer - September 2016

 

 

 

 


Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer - September 2016

Attachment 1

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF32/16

 

Subject:              Withdrawal of Caveat and Affixing of the Council Seal - 72 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’ form to remove caveat number ‘K490980’ from the title of property at 72 Broome Street, Maroubra (Lot 36 in Deposited Plan 226181).

 

This caveat was put in place in 1966 and expired in 1969.  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 72 Broome Street, Maroubra also known as Lot 36 in Deposited Plan 226181.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM40/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposed Office Location for new Amalgamated Council

Folder No:                F2016/04003

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

a)     Acknowledge that the geographical centre of an amalgamation between        Randwick City, Waverley & Woollahra Councils, is the suburb of Kingsford; and

 

b)     Re-iterate its position and strongly push in the event of an amalgamation between the 3 councils, that if any new council offices are to be built, that these buildings be located in Kingsford, at the old Kingsford Markets Site.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM41/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Seng - Cultural Diversity Policy

Folder No:                F2004/07109

Submitted by:          Councillor Seng, Ted Seng     

 

 

That Randwick City Council formalise a reconciliation statement and update its Cultural Diversity policy as an acknowledgement and recognition of the indigenous and multicultural values of its' community.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM42/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Reconsideration of previous Heritage Conservation Area expansions in East Ward

Folder No:                DA/455/2016

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council or its merged successor brings back a report revisiting previous proposals for a minor boundary adjustment of the Heritage Conservation Area covering Dudley Street Coogee as canvassed in the discussion papers to Draft Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan of 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM43/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Byron Shire Council trial of virtual net metering

Folder No:                F2012/00583

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council, or its merged successor, brings back a report on the outcomes of the trial of virtual net metering conducted by Byron Council in collaboration with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the Institute of Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney and the NSW Renewable Energy Advocate.”

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM44/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - NOX to become a permanent annual event in the Randwick City Calendar

Folder No:                F2016/00050

Submitted by:          Councillor  Shurey, North Ward      

 

 

That the NOX event in the Environment Park is incorporated into the event calendar for Randwick City Council into the future.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM45/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Green Square to Randwick cycle link

Folder No:                F2010/00077

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council or its merged successor write to the City of Sydney and BIKE east reiterating our support for the development of regional bike path links such as the Green Square to Randwick cycle link and advises them of Council’s intent to achieve an off-road cycle path along the Anzac Parade medium strip to the southern areas of LGA.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM46/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Innovation Hub

Folder No:                F2012/00347

Submitted by:          Councillor Roberts, East Ward      

 

 

That Council: 

 

1.     Investigate and bring back a report on the potential use of the federal government’s Incubator Support initiative. 

2.     Note the grant is valued at up to $500,000 and is open to local government. 

3.     Note the grant is part of the federal government’s “National Innovation and Science Agenda". 

3.     Note Council’s previous resolution to commission a report on the viability of establishing a startup incubator in Randwick. 

4.     Note Randwick’s close association with its health precinct and the UNSW education precinct. 

5.     Note the potential successful synergies such associations could have for any potential startup incubator in the Randwick area. 

 

 

 

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                             25 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Notice of Rescission Motion No. NR6/16

 

Subject:              4/199-203A Malabar Road, South Coogee (DA/153/2015/A)

Folder No:                DA/153/2015/A

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward; Councillor  Shurey, North Ward; Councillor Stevenson, Central Ward      

 

That the resolution passed at the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 11 October 2016 reading as follows:

 

RESOLUTION: (Smith/Roberts) that Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/153/2015 for permission to convert the rear car parking area to courtyard patron outdoor seating; increase the outdoor footpath seating at 4/199-203A Malabar Road, South Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

Non-standard conditions

 

Amend Condition the following conditions:

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

 

Plan No./ Documents

Drawn by

Dated

Received

The Lion and Buffalo 203a Malabar Road, South Coogee

-

-

25 March 2015

Sketch Plan K

Caroline Beresford Design

19 January 2015

10 March 2015

A-01

IQ Homes

5 March 2015

10 March 2015

A-02

IQ Homes

5 March 2015

10 March 2015

A-03

IQ Homes

5 March 2015

10 March 2015

Statement of Environmental Effects

Anna Allison

-

10 March 2015

 

as amended by the Section 96 plans and documentation listed below, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application,

 

Plan No./ Documents

Drawn by

Dated

Received

Site plan sheet 1 of 1

Classic Plans

    11/11/15

30 May 2016

 

except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

Waste Management

17.      A Waste Management Plan detailing the waste and recycling storage and removal strategy for all of the development is required to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Development Assessment.

 

The Waste Management plan is required to be prepared in accordance with Council's Waste Management Guidelines for Proposed Development and must include the following details (as applicable):

 

·     The use of the premises and the number and size of occupancies.

·     The type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development.

·     Demolition and construction waste, including materials to be re-used or recycled.

·     Details of the proposed recycling and waste disposal contractors.

·     Waste storage facilities and equipment.

·     Access and traffic arrangements.

·     The procedures and arrangements for the on-going waste management of the café including collection, storage and removal of waste and recycling of materials.

·     Requirements for a screen, management and size of the waste bin area imposed in this consent.

 

Further details of Council's requirements and guidelines, including pro-forma Waste Management plan forms can be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre.

 

Environmental Amenity

33.      An acoustic report from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics for the subject development shall be provided to Council within 1 month of commencement of use and from time to time as reasonably requested by Council may be requested by Council from time to time, which demonstrates and certifies that noise from the use and operation from the development complies with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW EPA/DECC Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s consent.

 

The acoustic report is to include (but not be limited) to;

§   Noise emission from the proposed development (e.g. operational noise, mechanical noise, monitoring from nearest affected residential premises during the use and operation of the premises when there is maximum occupancy to satisfy intrusiveness and amenity criteria)

§   Patron noise from the development having regard to the footway dining and the proposed hours of operation

§   Background noise levels shall be in the absence of any other businesses operating in the area.

§   The validation acoustic report shall be conducted at the nearest sensitive receivers including but not limited to residential occupancies above 119-203A Malabar Road, South Coogee. A copy of the report is to be forwarded and approved by Council.

 

Operational Hours

35.      The operating hours of the café including the footpath dining area must be restricted to the following and are subject to a review period in accordance with Section 80A (10B) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Division 14 of the Environmental & Assessment Regulation 2000:

 

·      Sunday to Thursday:                7:00am – 8.30pm

·      Friday & Saturday :          7:00am – 9.30pm

 

Footpath trading:

 

•    Sunday to Thursday:        7.00am - 6.00pm

•    Friday & Saturday:            7:00am – 9.30pm

 

All food services to customers in footway dining area shall only be provided within the abovementioned hours of operation and all patrons must vacate the area and all outdoor furniture is to be removed within 30 minutes of the specified hours.

 

The operating hours will be reviewed by Council in six months and at the end of twelve months from the date of this amended consent. Appropriate supporting evidence (including but not limited to, relevant acoustics measurements) must be provided at the end of these review periods to demonstrate compliance with all conditions of this consent as part to the review. 

 

36       Deliveries of goods are restricted to the following hours:

 

Monday to Friday:   7:00am- 5:00pm

Saturday:                8:00am- 1:00pm

Sunday:                  No deliveries of any goods allowed                        

 

When in operation, all deliveries shall be undertaken from the Randwick Traffic Committee (RTC) approved Loading Zone located approximately 20m north of the site on Malabar Road.

 

37.   The footpath dining area is to be limited to twenty (20) persons.

 

Add the following conditions:

 

Amended of plans and documentation

The following parts of the Section 96 application shall be amended and submitted to Council for approval prior to an amended license being drawn up and a construction certificate being issued for the works encompassed within this section 96 application:

 

77.      The bins shall only be placed for collection outside of the premises along Malabar Road. Bins shall only be placed on the public footpath during morning periods. The waste bin area shall be increased in size to accommodate the additional bins required for the premises. A 1.8m high screen shall also be installed along the waste bin area fronting Denning Street. The screen shall be designed so that it is 25% open across the whole of the screens surface area. Details shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to an amended construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Carparking

78.      The 700mm wide planter box underneath the rear window shall be removed to allow for the provision of 1 carspace for staff. A carspace of minimum dimensions 5.0m x 2.4m (or 2.7m if adjacent to an obstruction) shall be provided.

 

Footpath Dining

79.      The proposed 1.2m extension of the footpath dining area on the Malabar Road frontage incorporating table 4 (and three chairs) on the approved plans is not supported as it will be a hindrance for pedestrian access to the café and footpath to Denning Street. It shall be deleted from the application.

 

80.      The extension of the footpath dining area to incorporate Table 11 (four chairs)on the approved plans is not supported and shall be deleted from the application.

 

81.      The addition of the single seat to the northern end of Table 1 on the approved plans is not supported and shall be deleted from the application.

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following conditions of consent.

 

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

 

82.      The L10 noise level emitted from the licensed premises shall not exceed the background noise level (L90) in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5Hz – 8kHz inclusive) by more than 5dB between 7.00am and 12.00 midnight at the boundary of any affected residence.  The background noise level shall be measured in the absence of noise emitted from the licensed premises.

 

The LA10 noise level emitted from the licensed premises shall not exceed the background noise level (LA90) in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5Hz – 8kHz inclusive) between 12.00 midnight and 7.00am at the boundary of any affected residence.  The background noise level shall be measured in the absence of noise emitted from the licensed premises.

 

Notwithstanding compliance with the above, the noise from the licensed premises shall not be audible within any habitable room in any residential premises between the hours of 12.00 midnight and 7.00am.

 

83.      The licensee must establish and maintain a formal and documented system for the recording and resolution of complaints made to the licensed premises by residents. All complaints are to be attended to in a courteous and efficient manner and referred promptly to the licensee or duty manager. The appropriate remedial action, where possible, is to be implemented immediately and the licensee or duty Manager is to contact the complainant within 48 hours to confirm details of action taken.

 

Upon reasonable prior notice, the licensee must make available the incident book to the police and Council officers.

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

 

Waste Management

84.      All waste collection shall be undertaken from Malabar Road during the morning (AM) period and waste bins must be immediately removed from the footpath area once collection has been undertaken.

 

85.      The café operators are not permitted to deliver to patrons on the reserve. The café operators are not permitted to provide seating to patrons in the reserve.

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

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

 

That this Development Application be deferred for mediation.