RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 22 November 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                                                                                                         22 November 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, 22 November 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 - 25 October 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.

Urgent Business

Mayoral Minutes

MM42/16  Supply of 5 recycling bins for the South Coogee Childrens' Services.......... 1

MM43/16  Waiving of Fees Greek Orthodox Church................................................... 3   

 

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

 


 

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.

CP65/16   27 Duncan Street, Maroubra (DA/234/2016)............................................. 5

CP66/16   16 Close Street, South Coogee (DA/616/2016)....................................... 15

CP67/16   11 Hooper Street, Randwick (DA/907/2015)............................................ 23

CP68/16   24 Ocean Street, Clovelly (DA/432/2016)............................................... 39

CP69/16   26 Eastbourne Avenue, CLOVELLY (DA/286/2016).................................. 57

Director City Planning Report (record of voting NOT required)

CP70/16   CBD and South East Light Rail - proposed modification to permit tree works                                                                                                                77

General Manager's Reports

GM19/16  Review of the Randwick City Council 2016-17 Operational Plan - September Quarter................................................................................................... 81

GM20/16  Sydney Light Rail Project - Proposed New Rail Depot on Defence Land in Bundock Street, Randwick..................................................................... 115

GM21/16  2015-16 Annual Report and Financial Statements ................................ 121

Director City Services Report

CS14/16   Temporary use of Paine Reserve by Rainbow Street Public School........... 125

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF33/16   Schedule of meetings for 2017 and arrangements for decision making over the Christmas/New Year period.............................................................. 129

GF34/16   Code of Conduct complaint statistics..................................................... 133

GF35/16   Council operating hours - Christmas and New Year 2016-17.................. 137

GF36/16   Investment Report - October 2016 ....................................................... 141

GF37/16   Quarterly Budget Review - September 2016.......................................... 151

GF38/16   Continuation of Community Partnership with South Sydney Rugby League Football Club in 2017............................................................................ 171  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM47/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Public Domain Improvements to Support Local Businesses ...................................................................... 175

NM48/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Introduction of Wi-Fi in Town Centres                                                                                                              177

NM49/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Alternative storage solutions and facilities for boat trailers........................................................................ 179

NM50/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Bicycle Safety ................................... 181

NM51/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Completion of all-weather perimeter walking path for Randwick Environment Park ........................................ 183  

Closed Session (record of voting required)

CP71/16   Design Excellence Panel - No. T2017-05

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

 

CS15/16   Tender for Latham Park Synthetic Fields Construction -T2017-06

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

 

GF39/16   Tender for Rapid Response and Disposal of Illegally Dumpted Asbestos - Tender No. SSROC T2016-01

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 Motions

Nil.  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM42/16

 

Subject:              Supply of 5 recycling bins for the South Coogee Childrens' Services

Folder No:                F2016/08174

Author:                     The  Mayor, Cr Noel D'Souza      

 

Introduction

 

Correspondence has been received from Ms Jennifer Mather a parent associated with the South Coogee Children’s Services requesting the waiving of fees to collect 5 recycling bins on a regular basis from the premises located at the South Coogee Public School. 

 

Issues

 

Ms Mather has advised that the South Coogee Children’s Services is a not for profit community based service with a parent committee to oversee the operations of both the learning centre and the Out of School Hours Care (OOSH).  The learning centre caters for 60 children each day.  Both centres are inclusive of children who have additional needs.  It also provides assistance to families through fee reductions and referrals to agencies to further assist the child and family.  Both centres are teaching the children to reduce waste and how to recycle various items.

 

The cost to supply and remove 5 recycling bins to be collected fortnightly is $107.00 for a six month period.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial impact to Council would be $107.00 and this amount would be funded from the 2016-17 Contingency Fund.

 

Conclusion

 

The South Coogee Children’s Services is a non for profit organisation providing important services for the local community.  It is recommended that Council waive the fees for the removal of 5 recycling bins for a six month period.

 

Recommendation

 

The Council waive the associated fees for the supply and servicing of 5 recycling bins from South Coogee Children’s Services located at South Coogee Public School for a six month period.  The costs, $107.00 be funded from the 2016-17 Contingency Fund.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM43/16

 

Subject:              Waiving of Fees Greek Orthodox Church

Folder No:                F2016/00096

Author:                     The  Mayor, Cr Noel D'Souza      

 

Introduction

 

Bishop Seraphim of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese has advised that the annual Epiphany Festival at Bicentennial Park, Yarra Bay will be held on Sunday 8 January 2017 from 9.00am until 5.00pm.  The Bishop has requested that the associated fees be waived.

 

Issues

 

The annual Epiphany service and festival is one of the most important events on the Greek Orthodox calendar and it is anticipated that it will be widely attended. A religious service will be conducted on this day and after the service there will be a day of traditional Greek festivities.

 

The fees associated with this event are as follows:

 

Administration/Application Fee                                                                     $542.00

Supply and remove additional bins (based on 10 by 240 litre bins)                       $870.00

Application for registration of temporary food stalls x 10                                       $500.00

Lifeguard x 2 for 8 hours @ $238.00 p/h                                                   $3,808.00

Traffic Control Plan, staff and equipment from 6.30am – 3.00pm               $4,377.59

Total:                                                                                                    $10,097.59

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $10,097.59 and this will be funded from the 2016-17 Contingency Fund.

 

Conclusion

 

The Epiphany festival is a very high profile and popular annual community event, attracting up to 10,000 people.  Randwick Council has supported this event as it benefits the local and wider community.  It is recommended that the 2017 event be supported by waiving the associated fees.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council vote $10,097.59 to cover the fees associated with the Greek Epiphany Festival to be held Sunday 8 January, 2017 and funds be allocated from the 2016-17 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                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP65/16

 

Subject:                    27 Duncan Street, Maroubra (DA/234/2016)

Folder No:                DA/234/2016

Author:                     Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                  Alterations and additions to the existing building, garage and fencing with associated works and conversion to childcare centre catering for 43 children

Ward:                        Central Ward

Applicant:                Mainey Group Pty Ltd

Owner:                     Mr M A Riddell & Mrs A P Riddell

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=92e8c48f-9e83-4eca-b75d-bc3f7b113939&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 Stavrinos, Andrews and Nash.

 

Proposal

 

The development application seeks approval for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house to provide for a child care centre. Physical works include the following:

 

·     New ramp from front boundary to the rear play area;

·     Conversion of an existing outbuilding into an art space and childrens toilet;

·     4.5m long 2.1m high screen from the front fence to screen the existing garage from the front outdoor play area;

·     New balustrade to front porch and acoustic screens on the edges of the porch;

·     Internal modifications to provide required facilities for the child care centre;

·     Shade structure to be located between the house and the outbuilding;

·     New sand pit with shade structure;

·     2.8m high acoustic screen in north western corner of yard;

·     Covered play area between house and rear fence; and

·     Increase height of rear fence to 1.8m.

 

The centre will cater for 32 children of ages 0-2 years. Up to 8 full time and 1 casual staff will be employed. The operating hours of the centre are proposed as 7.00am – 6.00pm on Monday to Friday and 10.00am – 4.00pm on Saturday and Sunday when requested by parents and the community.

 

Note: The original development application proposed a maximum of 43 children in care. This figure was reduced to 32 in response to concerns raised in relation to parking numbers and capacity of the site.

 

1.  Site

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Duncan Street and contains a single storey dwelling house with detached garage and an attached outbuilding. The site is adjoined by single storey dwelling houses, with older style residential flat buildings further north along Duncan Street.

 

Image 1: Subject Site

2.  Submissions

 

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

 

·     2/71 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     1/71 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     3 Sackville Street, Maroubra

·     4 Sackville Street, Maroubra (Head of petition)

·     6 Sackville Street, Maroubra

·     35 First Avenue, Maroubra

·     38 First Avenue, Maroubra

·     39 First Avenue, Maroubra (Head of petition)

·     41 First Avenue, Maroubra

·     43 First Avenue, Maroubra

·     44 First Avenue, Maroubra

·     46 First Avenue, Maroubra

·     2 Bond Street, Maroubra

·     3 Bond Street, Maroubra

·     4/4 Bond Street, Maroubra

·     10 Bellevue Street, Maroubra

·     12 Bellevue Street, Maroubra

·     14 Bellevue Street, Maroubra

·     2/14 Bellevue Street, Maroubra

·     6/14 Bellevue Street, Maroubra

·     14 Bellevue Street, Maroubra

·     6/14 Bellevue Street, Maroubra

·     1/15 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     5/17 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     3/19 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     9/23 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     23 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     25 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     29 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     30 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     32 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     36 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     38 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     40 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     47 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     48 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     50 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     54 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     57 Wild Street, Maroubra

 

There is significant overlap of issues raised in submissions and therefore the key issues have been categorised and addressed in the table below.

 

Issues

Comments

Parking impact

The proposed development provides for a single parking space on site whereas 8 are required by the DCP including pick up and drop off. The development will impact the availability of on-street parking in the locality. See discussion at Section 3.1.

 

Acoustic impact

Mitigation measures are possible to ensure acoustic privacy is preserved. Conditions of consent in relation to child care centre operation and noise monitoring could be imposed if consent was to be granted. See discussion at Section 3.2.

 

Air pollution

Air pollution generated by a child care centre is likely to be imperceptible and is certainly unlikely to adversely impact the amenity of neighbours.

 

Traffic impact

Traffic generated by the development is anticipated to have minimal impact on the performance of the local road network. See discussion at Section 3.3.

 

Pedestrian safety

The application has been referred to Council’s Development Engineers who have not raised concern regarding pedestrian safety.

 

More staff would be required than is stated in the application based on Government Guidelines

The proposed staff numbers (8) satisfy the ratios prescribed by the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority for a 32 place child care centre i.e. educator to child ratio of 1:4 for 0-2 year olds.

 

Proposed hours of operation not appropriate

The child care centre is proposed to operate between 7.00am and 6.00pm on Monday to Friday and 10.00am to 4.00pm on Saturday and Sunday, as requested by parents.

Weekday hours are considered reasonable and typical of standard operating hours for a child care centre.

It is noted that measurements of background noise levels were recorded over the Easter Long Weekend and were subsequently excluded from the analysis, presumably because this data produced a result that was not representative of a typical weekend.

In the absence of noise monitoring data over a weekend period, it is difficult for the assessing officer to determine if weekend operating hours are appropriate from an acoustic privacy perspective.

Childcare centres nearby with availability

Demand for the use is not a matter for consideration under s79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

3.  Key Issues

 

3.1.    Parking

Part B7 of Randwick DCP 2013 contains vehicle parking rates for various forms of development. The objective of the controls is to ensure that an appropriate level of off-street vehicle parking is provided. Control 3.2(i) states that development must comply with the vehicle parking rates as detailed in Table 1 Vehicle Parking Rates. Table 1 indicates that the parking for child care centres should be provided at the rate of 1 parking space per 8 children for drop-off and pick-up and 1 space per 2 staff.

 

The proposed child care centre will cater for 32 children and will require 8 full time staff on the site at any given time. Applying the abovementioned parking rates, the child care centre requires 4 parking spaces for drop-off and pick-up and 4 parking spaces for staff. The development application proposes to utilise the existing garage for staff parking which will cater for a single car. Otherwise, no off-street parking is proposed to be provided. Three timed parking spaces are proposed on the street at the property frontage for pick-up and drop-off.

 

The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) to address, among other things, the parking requirements of Randwick DCP 2013. The TIA identifies that the proposal, which provides a single off-street space, is deficient by three staff spaces. The TIA explains that it is not possible to provide additional parking due to physical constraints and therefore proposes a range of ‘initiatives’ to reduce staff parking demands. Initiatives include reimbursing staff for use of public transport, provision of car share memberships, provision of bicycle parking facilities and car-pooling incentives.

 

Regarding drop-off and pick-up facilities, the TIA explains that three 15 minute parking spaces are proposed to be sign-posted along the site frontage. The spaces will operate during morning and evening peak periods, Monday to Friday. The TIA states that the signposted spaces will have minimal impact on the area which, during peak periods, has a minimum of forty-seven unrestricted car parking spaces available, according to survey results.

 

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment in relation to parking and traffic matters. In relation to staff parking, the Development Engineer notes that the DCP parking rate already acknowledges that some staff members will be arriving to work via alternative modes of transport and therefore a parking deficiency of 75% is excessive in regard to the provision of staff car parking, despite proposed initiatives. The Development Engineer notes that parking surveys provided with the TIA suggest some spare capacity in the surrounding street however surveys parking zones closest to the centre are close to capacity.

 

In relation to the proposed pick-up and drop-off scenario, the Development Engineer identifies that the timed zone will encroach partially across the neighbouring frontage at 29 Duncan Street and states that this is generally not supported by Council as future development may compromise or be compromised by the timed zone. The Development Engineer indicates that on-street pick-up and drop-off zones are only supported when restricted to the frontage of the subject site and this is often used as a method for determining appropriate child numbers.

 

The Development Engineer explains that only 3.5 spaces can be accommodated within the site or along the site frontage meaning that the deficit must be catered for within the surrounding road network. The Engineer notes that surveyed parking zones closest to the subject site are close to capacity for morning and afternoon peak times, indicating that the additional demand associated with the child care centre would cause these zones to reach or exceed capacity, extending parking impacts to more than 100m from the site.

 

The Development Engineer concludes that nearby residents are likely to be impacted by the operation of the proposed child care centre and considers the parking deficiencies and subsequent impacts on the availability of on-street parking to be unacceptable in this scenario. The Development Engineer recommends that the development application be refused.

 

Control 5(ii) of Part D11 of Randwick DCP 2013 states that a reduction in car parking controls in Part B7 may be considered where: the site is located in proximity to high frequency public transport; the site is co-located or in proximity to other trip generators; there is sufficient on street parking available at appropriate times within proximity of the site; the development is not likely to result in any adverse impact on the safe operation of the surrounding road network.

 

The subject site is approximately 230m from a bus stop that is serviced by routes to Bondi Junction and into the City, however the site is relatively isolated in terms of proximity to other trip generators. While parking surveys indicate that there is some on-street parking capacity nearby the site, the Development Engineer’s analysis confirms that demand is likely to outstrip supply during peak times. There is no suggestion that the development is likely to compromise the safe operation of the surrounding road network although lack of parking availability near the site is likely to result in parents moving up and down Duncan Street looking for a parking space, and this is not desirable from a traffic safety perspective.

 

Although control 5(ii) envisages a reduction in parking provision in certain circumstances, it is considered that the proposed shortfall (i.e. provision of 1 space where 8 are required) is beyond what was anticipated by the control and not appropriate in this scenario. The lack of on-site parking means that the staff parking and drop-off and pick-up demands of the development are transferred to the local road network. This will have an adverse impact on on-street parking availability in the locality, particularly during peak times, and this is contrary to the objectives of Randwick DCP 2013. Ultimately, the fact that the site cannot cater for the parking demands of the development demonstrates that the site is not suitable for a child care centre of the scale proposed.

 

3.2.    Acoustic impact

Section 4.1 of Part D11 of Randwick DCP 2013 contains controls relating to acoustic amenity and privacy for child care centres. The objectives of the controls are to minimise adverse impacts on the acoustic privacy of neighbouring properties and to protect the acoustic privacy of children and staff.

 

Control 4.1(i) states that an acoustic report must be submitted with a development application for a child care centre and must demonstrate that: adequate site planning and building design measures are proposed to minimise noise impacts; noise levels generated from the child care centre will not exceed 5dBA above background noise level; suitable noise attenuation measures have been incorporated into the proposal.

 

A Noise Assessment Report (NAR) has been submitted with the development application and provides an assessment of noise likely to emanate from the child care centre. The NAR confirms that noise mitigation measures are required to control noise emanating towards the surrounding residential area.

 

The NAR concludes that the child care centre will comply with the residential noise criterion recommended by the Draft Noise Guide for Local Government, providing the following mitigation measures are incorporated:

 

-    A 1.8m high noise barrier is constructed adjacent to the entrance path extending from the front boundary to the porch using at least 12mm thick timber or at least 12mm thick polycarbonate transparent panel without gaps;

 

-    One screen is constructed at each end of the porch extending from floor to ceiling using at least 12mm polycarbonate panel;

 

-    A timber fence at least 12mm thick without gaps sitting on top of the existing fence / retaining wall to the height of 1.8m above the ground level in the rear yard of 2 Bond Street is constructed along the full length of the rear boundary; and

 

-    A 2.8m high noise barrier is constructed 1m inside the north-eastern boundary extending from the Art Space to the rear boundary using at least 12mm thick timber or at least 12mm thick clear polycarbonate without gaps.

 

The NAR explains that measurements of background noise levels were recorded over the Easter long weekend and were subsequently excluded from the analysis, presumably because this data produced a result that was not representative of a typical weekend. In the absence of noise monitoring data over a weekend period, it is difficult for the assessing officer to determine if weekend operating hours are appropriate from an acoustic privacy perspective.

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) for advice relating to acoustic privacy and food safety. In relation to acoustic privacy, the EHO referral advice makes reference to the abovementioned NAR and recommends that, if the proposal is approved, conditions of consent be imposed to manage the acoustic amenity of the surrounding area and to ensure compliance monitoring is undertaken. The recommended conditions align with the mitigation measures proposed by the NAR and the operational parameters described in the development application.

 

The mitigation measures proposed are considered to be visually acceptable from both a streetscape perspective and from the perspective of neighbouring properties. The 1.8m barrier along the rear property boundary will be akin to a common boundary fence and is acceptable in this residential context. The 1.8m fence within the front setback will be largely concealed by the existing brick wall situated along the front property boundary. The 2.8m barrier proposed along the northern edge of the play area is situated 1m inside the north-eastern property boundary thus mitigating its visual presence from the perspective of the neighbour at 25 Duncan Street.

 

3.3.    Traffic impact

Section 5 of Part D11 of Randwick DCP 2013 requires that a Parking and Access Report be submitted with a development application for a child care centre. The Report is to address traffic conditions, impacts of the proposal on traffic flow, pedestrian and traffic safety, and arrangements for safe and convenient pick-up and drop-off at the site. A Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) has been submitted with the development application.

The TIA refers to the traffic generation rates for long day care centres prescribed in the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments and indicates that the proposed 32 place centre will generate 26 additional vehicle trips per hour in the morning peak period and 22 vehicle trips per hour in the afternoon peak period.

The TIA suggests that one additional vehicle trip per 4-5 minutes is anticipated through the Torrington Road / Duncan Street and Duncan Street / Maroubra Road intersections during both morning and afternoon peak periods. These additional vehicle trips will have minimal impact on the performance of the surrounding road network, according to the TIA.

The TIA was referred to Council’s Development Engineer who generally concurred with the estimated traffic generation rates provided in the report, confirming that additional trips generated by the proposed child care centre are expected to have minimal impact on the performance of the surrounding road network. The Development Engineer indicates that expected additional trips may be noticeable during peak times but is not expected to create any significant impact on traffic flow.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of Randwick LEP 2012 and Randwick DCP 2013 and the impacts of the proposal are considered to be unacceptable, particularly in relation to a lack of on-site parking. Specifically, the proposal provides for a single on-site parking space where eight spaces are required by the DCP.

 

The lack of on-site parking means that the staff parking and drop-off and pick-up demands of the development will be transferred to the local road network. This will have an adverse impact on on-street parking availability in the locality, particularly during peak times, and this is contrary to the objectives of Randwick DCP 2013.

 

Ultimately, the fact that the site cannot cater for the parking demands of the development demonstrates that the site is not suitable for a child care centre of the scale proposed and does not satisfy the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Sections 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 234/2016 for the change of use from an existing dwelling house to a child care centre and associated alterations at 27 Duncan Street, Maroubra for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposal does not satisfy the objective of the R2 Low Density Residential zone in relation to protecting the amenity of residents, which is specified in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

2.     The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives and controls in relation to on-site parking provision contained within Randwick DCP 2013, Part B7, Clause 3.2(i) and Part D11, Clause 5.

 

3.     The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant considerations under Section 79C(1)(c) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for suitability of the site, and the public interest.

 

4.     The proposal does not satisfy the relevant submission requirements contained within Randwick DCP 2013, Part 4.4(i), which requires the submission of a landscape plan identifying elements including proposed plantings.

 

5.     The development application does not provide sufficient supporting information to demonstrate that the proposed hours of operation are compatible with adjoining land uses, as required by Randwick DCP 2013, Part 6(i).

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 27 Duncan Street, MAROUBRA 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP66/16

 

Subject:              16 Close Street, South Coogee (DA/616/2016)

Folder No:                DA/616/2016

Author:                     Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                  Alterations and additions to existing dwelling at basement and ground level, new front first floor, construction of secondary dwelling and swimming pool to rear with associated works

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Mr J J Maree

Owner:                     Mrs S L Cole & Mr J J Maree

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=09c7fb8a-ec4e-4b51-9a63-9a4d44e625f3&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The proposed development includes alterations additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling house, a new swimming pool and a detached secondary dwelling. Specifically, the proposal includes:

 

·     Alterations to existing semi-detached dwelling:

Basement level – storage area adjoining existing garage

Ground level – terrace above basement level storage room, new access stairs from street along southern boundary, internal layout changes, new WC and laundry

Proposed first floor – master bedroom and ensuite with street facing balcony

·     New swimming pool in the rear yard

·     Secondary dwelling located at the rear of the property which contains a kitchen, bathroom and studio apartment-style combined living room/bedroom area

 

Site

 

The site is located on the western side of Close Street and is currently occupied by  two semi-detached dwellings, known as No. 14 and No. 16 Close Street, South Coogee. The subject site is located on the southern side of the site and has vehicular access from Close Street. The site has an area of 309.1m2, a frontage of 8.335m to Close Street and slopes from the rear boundary to the street with a fall of around 10m. The existing dwellings are shown in the figures below:

 

Figure 1: Existing development at Nos. 14 and 16 Close Street, South Coogee

 

Figure 2: No. 16 Close Street

 

Figure 3: Rear of the existing dwelling

 

Adjoining Development

 

No. 14 Close Street, the semi to the north of the subject site, has recently received approval from council under DA/224/2016 to demolish the existing semi-detached dwelling and construct a new three storey dwelling. The approved site plan is shown below in Figure 4.

 

Figure 4: Approved site plan at No. 14 Close Street

 

Development in the locality generally consists of semi-detached dwellings and dwelling houses. Many dwellings have garages forward of the building line and reduced front setback with stairs to access the dwellings from the street due to the steep slope of the land on the western side of Close Street.

 

There are water views from the site along Close Street to the north.

 

Figure 5: Adjoining development to the north and south of the site

 

Figure 6: Looking south along Close Street

 

Figure 7: Looking north along Close Street from the front yard of existing dwelling

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·     14 Close Street, South Coogee

 

Issues

Comments

Potential sightlines from front balcony into master bedroom

A condition has been included in the consent for a 1.8m high privacy screen to be provided to the northern side of the ground floor terrace.

 

Potential overlooking from secondary dwelling

An area of cut (up to 1m) is indicated which will ensure the floor level of the proposed secondary dwelling is such that the boundary fence, at 1.8m high, will provide a suitable level of privacy across the side boundary.

 

To further reduce the potential for overlooking a condition has been included in the consent for the sill height of 1.6m to W2 of the proposed secondary dwelling.

 

Key Issues

 

SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

A secondary dwelling is permissible with consent in Zone R2 Low Density Residential in accordance with SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARH SEPP).  The ARH SEPP states:

 

“(4)  A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on either of the following grounds:

(a)  site area
if:

(i)  the secondary dwelling is located within, or is attached to, the principal dwelling, or

(ii)  the site area is at least 450 square metres,”

 

The site is 309m2. The area of the site is not considered grounds for refusal of the proposal.  The secondary dwelling meets the relevant requirements of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) with regard to building height and floor space ratio as well as meets the relevant requirements of the Development Control Plan.  The scale of the proposal is considered to be compatible with the proportions of the site.

 

The site is capable of accommodating a secondary dwelling without adverse impacts on neighboring properties or the natural environment.

 

Randwick LEP 2012

Randwick LEP 2012 applies a height of buildings control of 9.5m and the maximum building height of the additions to the dwelling comply with this height control.  The maximum floor space ratio (FSR) that applies to the site in accordance with Randwick LEP 2012 is 0.75:1 and the proposal has a compliant FSR of 0.61:1.

 

Randwick DCP 2012

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

 

A DCP compliance table is provided in Section 3 of the attached Compliance Report. The proposal complies with all relevant provisions of the DCP with the exception of the minimum deep soil permeable surface.  The DCP requires a minimum deep soil permeable surface equivalent to 25% of the site area with a minimum dimension of 900mm.  The proposal provides a deep soil permeable surface equivalent to 11% of the site area with dimensions of 5m x 7m.  The objectives of the DCP control for deep soil permeable surfaces are as follows:

 

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

·     To provide privacy screening between dwellings;

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

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

 

The proposed deep soil area of 5m x 7m provides an effective landscape visual buffer between the secondary dwelling and pool and the principal dwelling.  Privacy screening with planting has limited impact on this site due to the natural topography.  New canopy trees are capable of being supported in the 5m x 7m landscaped area although there are no established vegetation corridors to which new trees would contribute.

 

Council’s Development Engineer and Landscape Planner have reviewed the proposal and have raised no objection to the proposal subject to suitable conditions of consent.

 

For these reasons the proposed area of deep soil landscaping is considered to meet the relevant objectives of the control within the limitations of the site.  The proposed variation will not result in detrimental environmental, amenity or streetscape impacts.  The variation to the DCP control can be supported in this case.

 

The proposed design is considered to be adequately compatible with the other half of the semi-detached pair – No. 14 Close Street.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone and the maximum building height and FSR standards of the LEP. The proposal generally complies with the DCP controls and the variation to the minimum requirement for deep soil permeable surface is considered to be acceptable on merit.

 

The proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 616/2016 for Alterations and additions to existing dwelling at basement and ground level, new front first floor, construction of secondary dwelling and swimming pool to rear with associated works, at No. 16 Close Street, South Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

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

 

·         W2 (secondary dwelling)

 

b)     A Privacy screen having a minimum height of 1.8m is to be provided to the norther edge of the ground floor terrace and details of compliance are to be provided in the constructions certificate plans. The total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.

 

c)     The terrace above the storeroom is to be setback behind a planter box to the street edge of the terrace to soften the built form and achieve consistency with the streetscape.  The planter bed is to be of dimensions suitable to achieve a soil depth of 600mm and bed width of 1m.  The planter bed is to be planted with drought tolerant and wind tolerant small shrubs or hedging plants.  Details of the planter bed and plant species are to be included in the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - DA/616/2016 - 16 Close Street, SOUTH COOGEE 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP67/16

 

Subject:              11 Hooper Street, Randwick (DA/907/2015)

Folder No:                DA/907/2015

Author:                     Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Demolition of the existing dwelling, construction of a part 2/part 3 storey residential flat building in 2 building forms containing 5 dwellings, basement car parking for 7 vehicles, landscaping and associated works (variation to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                Drivas Dimitrios

Owner:                     PDI Drivas Group Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received (some out of shot)

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The application is referred to Council as the total development cost of the proposal exceeds $2 million.

 

Proposal

 

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and then to construct a part 2/part 3 storey residential flat building in 2 building forms containing 5 dwellings, basement car parking for 7 vehicles, landscaping and associated works.

 

Revisions

The Council’s assessing officer raised a number of concerns with the applicant post-lodgement. The concerns related to the proposed height of the building, excessive use of screens on the front façade, and a lack of side elevation articulation. Also the applicant was requested to address the Design Review Panel Comments. The applicant undertook the following revisions:

 

1.  The building height was dropped by 200mm.

2.  Screening on the front façade was removed.

3.  Window awnings and timber battening were introduced to the side elevations for articulation.

4.  Private terrace encroachments to the central terrace area were reduced.

5.  The access path from the street was relocated from the west to the east of the building. The side of private terraces were increased to the west of the building.

6.  Additional screening was added between private and communal outdoor spaces. This includes 1.6m high privacy screens and planter boxes.

7.  Originally proposed privacy screens to upper-level terraces facing the central courtyard were specified as louvres with fixed orientations to the side boundaries.   

8.  The driveway width was reduced to 3.6m.

9.  A basement lift was deleted.

10. Clear sheeting was added to the entry canopy.

11. Hoods were added to western and eastern facing windows.

12. Ceiling fans were added to all bedrooms.

13. Retractable clothes drying lines were added to the rear yards of units 101, 102 and 103.

14. Skylights were labeled as ventilating.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Hooper Street.  The relatively narrow street contains on-street parking, footpaths, grassed nature-strips and some street trees. The southern side of Hooper Street contains a variety of dwelling styles, including residential flat buildings, single occupancy dwellings and semi-detached dwellings.  The subject site, like those on either side, is rectangular shaped. The site slopes down from the front boundary to the rear by approximately 3m. The subject site contains a single storey brick bungalow dwelling. The dwelling shares a similar frontage alignment to buildings on adjacent sites. The front of the site features a low brick and metal fence, landscaping and a single car park space. The rear of the site contains grassed areas and a large Lemon Scented Gum Tree.

 

Figure 1. Photograph of the frontage of the subject site and the existing dwelling on the site (centre).

 

Key Issues

 

Floor Space Ratio – Clause 4.6 Exception

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council.

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012, the floor space ratio of the building must not be more than 0.75:1 on the site. A floor space ratio of 0.77:1 is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio

Development standard

0.75:1

Proposal

0.77:1

Excess above the standard

0.02:1 or 2.67%

 

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

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

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

 

Assessment Against the Applicant’s Written Justifications for the Contravention of the Development Standard

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

The stated objectives of the RLEP which apply to floor space ratio are:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

1. Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case – clause 4.6(3)(a) I submit that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case because the proposal complies with the objectives of the standard and the zone. Please see the assessment under 4 – The proposed development will be in

the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out – clause 4.6(4)(a)(i).

In addition to consistency with the objectives of the standard and the zone, the proposed development represents a high degree of compliance with the predominant LEP and DCP building envelope controls which therefore demonstrates that the FSR can be supported on the site and that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

The proposed development complies with the LEP height control and predominately complies with the 8m wall height control, with the entire southern building being well under the 8m wall height allowance. Furthermore, the proposed development represents a high degree of compliance with the Randwick DCP controls and in particular with the front, side and rear setbacks, landscaped open space, solar access and natural ventilation. 

 

The high degree of compliance and lack of amenity impacts to neighbouring properties is confirmation that the proposed additional FSR of 5.3m2 is supportable by way of this Clause 4.6 Variation. Furthermore, it is considered that the additional FSR will not be reasonable for any greater impacts than that which is contemplated by the LEP and DCP controls and will not result in any additional bulk or scale impacts beyond that of a complying development. 

 

The compliant 3 storey nature of the proposed residential flat building is consistent with the residential flat buildings in the streetscape which therefore ensures that the FSR variation would be indiscernible in this circumstance. Given the minor nature of the variation, in that it represents a GFA of 5.3m2 and the high degree of compliance with the other building envelope controls, the proposed residential flat building will not appear as a dwelling that is over the permissible floor space ratio. 

 

The recessed and highly articulated nature of the building combined with the use of a variety of different materials and finishes further minimises the perception of bulk and scale from a streetscape perspective whilst the central landscape courtyard provides for a pleasant outlook from the neighbour properties and further diminishes the visual impact of the additional floor space, when viewed from the east or west.

 

The absence of environmental impacts associated with the proposed additions in regard to view loss, shadows and privacy further underlines the reasonableness of the FSR variation in this instance.

 

The combination of these aspects of the proposal as well as its landscaped setting, confirm that the variation is justified in this instance. 

 

It is thereby considered that the circumstances are particular to the subject site which confirms the reasonable nature of the variation in this instance.

 

The Variation Allows for a Better Planning Outcome 

 

The variation also allows for a better planning outcome internally whilst also supporting apartment typologies that are well sought after in this locality. It is considered that the provision of an additional 5.3m2 floor space allows for a greater degree of high quality residential accommodation in a compliant form of development (as established by the compliant height and setbacks and thus the desired building envelope). Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed FSR is associated with a more appropriate building density than if it were associated with a compliant FSR, given that the variation supports compliant 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom unit sizes which results in a desirable form of development in this highly sought after location.

 

I therefore submit that strict compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the particular circumstances of the case.

 

2. Sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard – clause 4.6(3)(b) The additional FSR is not responsible for any greater environmental impacts than a proposal with a compliant height. Given the lack of overshadowing, view and privacy impacts, there is no sound planning justification to reduce the proposed FSR. 

It is also reiterated that there are no external impacts associated with the additional FSR nor are there any bulk or scale impacts. It is considered that the additional FSR is associated with an appropriate form of development for the subject site and is compatible with the residential flat building to the west and south of the subject site, in addition to being of a similar form, bulk and scale to the semi-detached dual occupancies to the east of the site. It is therefore confirmed that the increased FSR is not associated with an overdevelopment of the subject site, particularly given that it complies with the height and setback controls and therefore the recommended building envelope for the subject site.

 

The positive streetscape and landscape outcomes associated with the proposed

development, high internal amenity and lack of external amenity impacts as well as the replacement of an outdated dwelling house with 5 high quality residential units within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone, confirms that there are sufficient environmental grounds to support the additional FSR of 0.09:1 or 5.3m2. Given the minor nature of the variation and indiscernible streetscape impacts, there is no sound planning justification in maintaining the FSR standard in this instance. 

 

3. Adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrative by subclause (3) – clause 4.6(4)(a)(i)

Please see submission in relation to clause 4.6(3)(a)(i) and (ii) above.

 

4. 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 – clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii)

The proposed FSR variation is considered to be justified on the following basis:

 

RLEP 2012 FSR Objectives:- 

4.4 Floor Space Ratio 

(1)  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: It is considered that the proposed building envelope which is established by the Council height limits and setbacks is appropriate for the site and determines the style of development along this section of Hooper Street.

 

As demonstrated throughout the Statement of Environmental Effects and on the

accompanying architectural plans, the proposed front, side and rear setbacks are compliant with the DCP setback objectives and provisions, given that the site has a width of less than 12m and as such, is subject to a merit based assessment. In this regard, the setbacks are consistent with the eastern and western neighbour properties and the bulk and scale of the development is compatible with those other residential flat buildings to the west and south of

the site and three blocks to the east. 

 

This confirms that the proposed development is of a size and scale that is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality as the floor space ratio is contained within a compliant building envelope and the overall built form is consistent with the existing pattern of development along this section of Hooper Street. 

 

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

 

Assessment: The proposed residential flat building has been designed to be highly articulated to allow for all dwelling units to have a dual aspect and north-south orientation. This has been achieved through the arrangement of apartments and overall built form, including the provision of 4 split level apartments that have balconies on both the northern and southern sides allowing for a high degree of natural ventilation and sunlight. 

 

The choice of colours, materials and finishes combined with this design response provides for a high quality and excellent streetscape outcome for this section of Hooper Street. The proposed floor space ratio is also provided in an articulated manner within the built form which provides for a high degree of compliance with solar access, light and ventilation to each of the units.

 

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

 

Assessment: The proposed development is not in a conservation area and is not adjacent to any heritage items. 

 

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

 

Assessment: Importantly, the proposed floor space ratio beyond the 0.75:1 is not considered to be responsible for any significant or discernible impacts from that associated with a compliant development. There are no significant shadow impacts associated with the additional floor space ratio as demonstrated by the shadow diagrams. 

 

In addition, there are no adverse privacy impacts generated by the additional FSR through the provision of north and south facing living areas, placement of windows and bedrooms to ensure there is no direct overlooking and the incorporation of a high quality landscaped setting. 

 

Furthermore, the above assessment demonstrates that the floor space ratio beyond the 0.75:1 is not responsible for any significant or unreasonable impact beyond that of a compliant building. In this regard, it is reiterated that the proposed building envelope is of a compliant nature and that it provides for excellent streetscape and internal amenity outcomes whilst also having limited external impacts. The Clause 4.6 variation submitted with the proposal is also considered to comprehensively address the relevant objectives of the standard identified in the contention.

 

Consistency with the Objectives of the Zone R3 Medium Density Residential

Zone R3 Medium Density Residential

Objectives of zone

 

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

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

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

 

Assessment: The replacement of the existing outdated dwelling house with 5 high quality residential units is considered to achieve the primary objectives of the medium density residential zone.

 

The proposed floor space ratio provides for 5 x 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom units which is consistent with the density of development provided within the adjacent residential flat buildings to the south of the subject site. 

 

It is therefore considered that the FSR variation does not raise any conflict with attainment of the zone objectives.

 

In addition to compliance with the objectives of the standard and the zone there are further circumstances that support that the submission that the proposal is in the public interest.

 

The variation is considered to be in the public interest, given that there are no adverse amenity impacts associated with the additional FSR. The articulated nature of the building and recessed upper level ensures that the development will be perceived in a harmonious manor with the surrounding built context, which further ensures that there is no public interest matter associated with this variation. Therefore, it is reiterated that the proposal is thereby in the public interest.

 

Other Matters - Consistency with State and Regional Planning Policies 

Assessment: The increased density on the subject site is entirely reasonable and appropriate given its proximity to a host of services including shops, public transport and high quality recreational areas. The additional density is therefore suited to the site and provides for additional housing a high quality and appropriate manner. The replacement of a low density form of development with a medium density form as encouraged by the controls, is consistent with the desired future character and intent to increase densities in well serviced areas. 

 

Conclusion 

The above assessment has demonstrated that the FSR control is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances and that there would be no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance. 

 

It has also been demonstrated that the proposed FSR meets the objective to an equal or better degree than a compliant development. 

 

This is due to the demonstration that the proposed additional FSR will provide for improved amenity to the proposed dwelling units whilst having no adverse visual, streetscape or amenity impacts that would preclude support of the proposal. This is displayed by the modest street presentation of the residential flat building to the streetscape and the lack of environmental impact. The provision of 5 high quality residential dwelling units with compliant solar access, daylight, ventilation and outlook represents superior amenity to the subject site, thereby achieving a better planning outcome. 

 

For reasons mentioned herein, this Clause 4.6 variation is forwarded to Council in support of the variation to the FSR associated with the development proposal at 11 Hooper Street, Randwick and is requested to be looked upon favourably by Council.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comments:

 

·     The proposal consists of two separate built forms and is an appropriate response to the site and its constraints. The front building addresses the street and has a frontage setback which matches those on either side. The two forms provide for greater solar access and cross ventilation for each unit within the buildings.

·     The building is partly below existing ground level, thereby minimising its visual bulk.

·     The overall height of the proposed development is consistent with other residential flat buildings along the street. 

·     The proposal will provide sufficient private open spaces. A comprehensive landscape plan has been proposed. Large vegetation on the site, including the large Gum tree within its rear, will be maintained, and existing and proposed vegetation will visually blend the building into the existing context.

·     It is considered that the proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of the standard - the size and scale of proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality. Further, the height of the building will be comparable to buildings on either side and the proposal complies with the maximum building height standard of the RLEP 2012.

·     The proposed building complies with the view sharing, and visual privacy provisions of the RDCP 2013.

·     The proposed building features articulation along its side elevations, which will minimise the appearance of building bulk.

·     The proposal will not directly result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of perceived bulk and scale, overshadowing and privacy.

 

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

 

The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. As discussed above, the proposal achieves the objectives of the Floor Space Ratio Standard (Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012), the size and scale of the proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

The proposed building is an appropriate response to the site and its constraints. The proposal is divided into two built forms which address the street, while providing for solar access and cross ventilation. The proposal will provide more than adequate private open space and deep soil areas. A comprehensive landscaping plan is proposed and vegetation will blend the building into its surroundings. The proposal will not directly result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of perceived bulk and scale, overshadowing and privacy.

 

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

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard of the RLEP 2012. The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R3 - Medium Density Residential) are:

 

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

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

In respect of these objectives, the proposal is not inconsistent with the relevant zone objectives in that:

 

·     The size and scale of proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality and the proposal will comply with the maximum building height control of the RLEP 2012.

·     The amenity of residents in the vicinity and the broader context of the area will not be adversely impacted by the additional floor area. The proposal will not directly result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties or the adjoining reserve in terms of perceived bulk and scale, overshadowing and privacy.

·     The proposal will provide for the housing needs of the community.

 

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

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

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008)) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed for the proposed contravention to the maximum floor space ratio control.

 

Variation from the adherence to the maximum floor space ratio control on this occasion is considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is a no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

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

 

 

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:

3 Hooper Street

3a Hooper Street

6 Hooper Street

7 Hooper Street

9 Hooper Street

12 Hooper Street (x2)

13 Hooper Street

13A Hooper Street

14 Hooper Street

20 Hooper Street

34 Hooper Street

37 Hooper Street

41 Hooper Street

42 Hooper Street

45 Hooper Street (x2)

46 Hooper Street

52 Hooper Street

53 Hooper Street

Unit 4/59-61 Gilderthorpe Avenue

Residents of Hooper Street (x2) – unknown and unobtainable addresses

 

Issue

Comment

1.   General safety concerns relating to building works and construction traffic. Asbestos removal also needs to be adequately managed. 

2.   Concerns about construction times and construction management. The amenity of adjoining rental property will be impacted during construction.

3.   Accessibility and safety issue for trucks during construction. Further, trucks should not attend the construction site on weekends.

4.   Excavations could damage adjoining property and they should be set back further from the boundaries. A dilapidation report should be prepared.

5.   The large tree within the rear of the site should be retained and protected during construction.

6.   “Heritage” features of the existing dwelling on the site should be retained.

7.   Residential noise will increase from the site.

8.   The building will not be in character with the streetscape and is an overdevelopment of the site.

9.   The proposed building will overshadow No. 13, 13a and 15 Hooper Street.

10. The building will overlook the rear yards of No. 13 and 13a Hooper Street.

11. The proposal lacks landscaped open space.

12. Concerns about additional on-street parking demands and additional traffic volumes.

 

1.   Conditions are recommended concerning the development of a construction traffic management plan and asbestos management.

2.   Standard conditions are recommended to limit construction impacts.

3.   These issues will also be addressed by the submission of a Construction Traffic Management Plan which has been conditioned in this consent. This will include a Work Zone along the Hooper Street site frontage. In recognition of the relatively narrow width of Hooper Street it has also been conditioned in this consent that all trucks serving the site be restricted to a maximum length of 12.5m rigid. No B-Doubles will be permitted to serve the site.

4.   Appropriate conditions are recommended to protect and support adjoining property and require the preparation of a dilapidation report where the works are in the zone of influence of the footings of neighbouring buildings.

5.   The large Gum tree is to be retained and protected. Refer development engineering’s landscaping comments.

6.   The existing dwelling on the site has no heritage protection under Council controls.

7.   The proposal will result in additional residents on the site. Additional residents may generate increased noise, but this is not an unexpected outcome within the Medium Density Residential zoning.

8.   The proposal is generally compliant with the controls of the RDCP 2013 and the Apartment Design Guide, and the height standard of the RLEP 2012. The infringement of the RLEP 2012’s floor space ratio standard has been assessed under key issues, above.

9.   Refer to assessment below.

10. Appropriate privacy measures are proposed to preserve the privacy of these sites, including high level windows and fixed privacy screens.

11. The proposal complies with the RDCP 2013’s minimum landscaped open space requirements.

12. The proposal complies with the parking requirements of the RDCP 2013. Additional traffic is likely on Hooper Street; however, the intent of the zone is to allow for medium density residential development, and the additional traffic generated will be accommodated in the existing street network.  

 

Communal Open Space

 

The proposal provides 10.3% of communal open space within a central courtyard. The courtyard features limited usable space and is to be dominated by pathways. The RDCP 2013 requires useable communal open space and the Apartment Design Guidelines (ADG) requires usable communal open space that has an area equal to 25% of the site area. 

 

The proposed non-compliance is not inconsistent with the intent of the ADG or the objectives of the RDCP 2013, and will generate no significant adverse impacts in terms of onsite residential amenity. In particular, the site will exceed the minimum landscaped open space requirements of the RDCP and existing and proposed trees will feature prominently on the site. The site is located in close proximity to local parks and the Frenchmans Road local centre, which will provide further amenity to future residents. Further, the proposal will provide quality private balcony and terrace spaces, which all exceed the ADG requirements and have adequate space for residents to utilise for a variety of recreational uses.

 

Solar Access

 

The proposal will reduce solar access to west facing living area windows of the site to the east – 13 Hooper Street to less than the 2hrs on 21 June that are required by the Apartment Design Guidelines. Note: The private open spaces and balconies of surrounding neighbours will continue to receive over 2hrs of direct solar access on 21 June. 

 

The proposed non-compliance is not inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the ADG, and will generate no significant adverse impacts in terms of onsite residential amenity. The solar access reduction does not result from poor design as the proposal will comply with the height controls of the RLEP 2012. Larger side setbacks would not result in significant solar access improvements. Solar access will be maintained to north facing windows and verandahs of the building on 13 Hooper Street and significant indirect light will still be received by west facing balconies and living area windows on 21 June. Further, the proposed development will feature a central courtyard design which will allow direct solar access to some west facing windows and balconies of the adjacent development during the late afternoon of 21 June.  

 

It is noted that solar access to the windows and verandahs will be retained during other times of the year due to the higher positon of the sun.

 

Building Façade – Sub-Section 4.1

 

The proposed maximum segment length of the side elevation of the front building will be 16.8m (west) and 15.8m (east). That of the rear building will be 12.6m (both sides). The RDCP 2013 sets a maximum side elevation segment length of 10m.

 

The proposed non-compliances are not inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will not generate adverse impacts in terms of the residential amenity of neighbouring sites or the character and amenity of the streetscape. In particular, articulation is provided through window and door placement along the side elevations and material choices, including proposed sun hoods, awnings and composite timber battens. The proposed elevations will comply with the side setback requirements of the RDCP 2013. Landscape screening is proposed adjacent to both side boundaries, and this will partly screen and minimise the built form when viewed from adjoining sites. The proposed development will have more articulation than several buildings along Hooper Street, due to its two building forms.   

 

External Wall Height – Sub-Section 4.4

 

The proposal has a maximum external wall height of 8.66m-8.96m (east) and 8.61m-9.32m (west) for building block ‘A’ and wall heights between 7.19m-7.76m (east) and 7.36m-8.05m (west) for building block ‘B’. The RDCP 2013 sets a maximum wall height of 8m for the site.

 

The proposed non-compliance is not inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will not generate significant adverse impacts in terms of the residential amenity of adjoining sites or the character of the area. The external wall height will not directly result in non-compliances with the solar access or visual privacy provisions of the ADG or RDCP 2013. The proposed wall height non-compliance mainly results from the slope of the site and not from poor design. The proposed building features two built elements with adequate material articulation to minimise visual dominance in its setting. Therefore, the resulting built form will not be overly dominant in the setting. The proposal will comply with the overall building height control of the RLEP 2012 and the overall height and form of the building is comparable to existing buildings and the desired future character, set by the Medium Density zoning, along Hooper Street.

 

Side and Rear Setbacks

 

Due to the frontage width of less than 12m, the RDCP 2013 requires a merit assessment of the proposed side setbacks. Setbacks of 1.5m (west) and 1.46m (east) are proposed for all levels.

 

The proposed setbacks are considered to comply on merit. In particular, building massing will be adequately broken-up into two main forms and will not result in long unrelieved walls adjoining side boundaries. Side setbacks are comparable to those on surrounding sites and the proposed setbacks will therefore be consistent with the established character within the context. Further, access pathways and podium landscaping are proposed within side setbacks, and these features will contribute to the proposed buildings blending in with the existing context.

 

The proposed ground floor level rear decks will not comply with the required rear setback of 7.34m as they will be raised more than 1.2m above ground level and will be setback a minimum of 4.1m from the rear boundaries. A condition is recommended to reduce the depth of the rear decks to 1m. This will result in a rear setback between 6.6m and 7.1m. Such a rear setback will comply on merit as the decks will be small and non-bulky projections into the rear setback. The setbacks will be comparable to the rear setback of the apartment building on the adjoining site to the west. Further, separation distances and side wall projections of the building will generally preserve the privacy of adjoining sites.   

 

Visual Privacy

 

It is considered that the proposal generally satisfactorily addresses visual privacy by way of high level windows and fixed privacy screens. Some privacy protection is required due to raised pedestrian walkways down both side boundaries. A condition is recommended to require privacy screens 1.6m high above the finished levels of the walkways to ensure privacy is maintained to adjoining sites.  

 

A condition has been recommended that require all openings within privacy screens to not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.

 

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 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 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 complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Environment be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/907/2015 for the demolition of the existing dwelling, construction of a part 2/part 3 residential flat building in 2 building forms containing 5 dwellings, basement car parking for 7 vehicles, landscaping and associated works (variation to floor space ratio control), at No. 11 Hooper Street, Randwick, subject to the following non-standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-Standard Conditions:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.     The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements with details to be shown on construction certificate plans:

 

a.      Bedroom 2 of Apartment 101 shall be increased in size to not less than 9m2, using floor area from adjoining rooms.

b.      Operable high-level windows shall be installed within all north and south facing balcony doors to allow for secure ventilation of the interior of the apartments.

c.      The metal rails of the frontage fencing and the whole of the gates shall be designed to be a minimum of 30% open.

d.     The ground floor level decks to the rear of building ‘B’ shall not exceed a depth of 1m from the rear wall line of Building ‘B’. This does not apply to access stairs below 1.2m above ground level.  

e.      A privacy screen with a height of 1.6m above the finished level of the walkway shall be installed along the western side of the western walkway for a length of 8m from the walkways southern edge.

f.      A privacy screen with a height of 1.6m above the finished level of the walkway shall be installed along the eastern side of the eastern walkway from the walkways southern edge to the front wall line of building ‘A’.

g.     All 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 screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 11 Hooper Street, RANDWICK 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP68/16

 

Subject:              24 Ocean Street, Clovelly (DA/432/2016)

Folder No:                DA/432/2016

Author:                     Chahrazad  Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                          Demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new part 2/part 3 storey dwelling house with new in ground swimming pool and associated site and landscape works

 

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                A77 Designs Pty Ltd

Owner:                     John Edwin Loye & Glenys Joan Loye

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=af8649c5-2ce3-4315-8143-52f18d12a4ee&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 Shurey, Matson & Neilson.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal seeking approval to demolish the existing structures on site and construct a new part 2/part 3 storey dwelling house with new in ground swimming pool and associated site and landscape works.

 

The proposal includes the following components:

 

Basement/Lower ground floor - Double garage, au pair room, laundry, storage and stair access to the ground level, pool equipment and steam room.

 

Ground floor - Primary living area which contains a kitchen with pantry, two (2) dining areas, two (2) living spaces, powder room, coats/pram cupboard, front balcony and rear yard including swimming pool.

 

First floor level – Four (4) bedrooms, main bathroom, master bedroom with ensuite, walk-in-robe and balcony at the front.

 

Amended plans were received by Council on 12 September 2016 to address concerns raised by the objector at no. 22 Ocean Street.  The proposed changes are as flows:

 

·     The upper level balcony (first floor) is reduced by 700mm by increasing the front setback to 5.2m from the front boundary.

·     A privacy screen is added between the ground floor bathroom window at no. 22 Ocean Street and the front entry door at no. 24 Ocean Street.

·     Confirmation of the glass window elements on both the ground and first floor level of the northern side elevation of no. 24 Ocean Street fronting the ground floor bathroom of no. 22 Ocean Street are opaque glass.

 

The assessment is based on these amended plans received by Council on 12 September 2016.

 

Site Description and Surrounding Area

The subject site is described as Lot 1 in DP 301166, known as 24 Ocean Street, Randwick.  The subject and surrounding adjoining sites are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential, however, there are a number of residential flat buildings within the immediate vicinity.

 

The allotment is rectangular in shape and is located on the western side of Ocean Street in Clovelly. The site is presently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling house which is elevated from the street level.

 

The site has a frontage width of 11.43m to Ocean Street (east boundary), a depth of 40.235m to the northern and southern side boundaries and an overall site area of 459.9m².  The site slopes up from the Ocean Street frontage (RL 24.11) to the rear (RL 28.82) with an approximate difference in levels of up to 4.71m. 

 

The subject site is located within the foreshore area and has unimpeded ocean view over Burrows Park in an easterly direction and views of Clovelly Bay and coastline to Malabar headland in a southerly direction. The immediate locality comprises predominately of a mixture of low to medium density residential development in the form of single, double storey detached dwellings and up to four storey residential flat buildings. 

 

Immediately to the north of the subject site at 22 Ocean Street is a 2 storey dwelling house and to the south of the subject site at 26 Ocean Street is a single storey dwelling.  The western adjoining neighbor is orientated north south and is addressed to Surfside Avenue and has a secondary frontage to the rear to Warner Avenue.

 

Image 1: Subject site and street view

 

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:

22 Ocean Street, Clovelly

Issue

Comment

Front setbacks

The proposed front setback is forward of the existing building line on the site and is also inconsistent with the average setback of adjoining dwellings.  This results in loss of views from the font of the adjoining site to their property. 

A letter and amended plans have been received signed by the owners of no. 22 Ocean Street, Clovelly confirming that they have reached an agreement and would like to withdraw their objection to the proposed development.  The amendments agreed to are outlined below:

 

·     Reducing the upper level balcony (first floor) by 700mm by increasing the front setback to 5.2m from the front boundary

·     Adding a privacy screen between the ground floor bathroom window at no. 22 Ocean Street and the front entry door at no. 24 Ocean Street.

·     Confirming the glass window elements on both the ground and first floor level of the northern side elevation of no. 24 Ocean Street fronting the ground floor bathroom of no. 22 Ocean Street are opaque glass to ensure privacy levels are maintained between the properties.

 

The amended plans received by Council on 12 September 2016 reflect these changes negotiated and the assessment is based on these amended plans.

 

 View obstruction

The proposed development does not comply with the DCP objectives relating to view sharing in that their south views from their first floor living room window will be totally obstructed by the proposed development.

 

A detailed assessment of view loss in accordance with existing planning principles established by the Land and Environment Court of NSW has not been undertaken.

Safety and Security

The front entrance should be located to the front of the dwelling facing the street not to the side elevation.  Its location cause privacy impacts to their bathroom window and does not comply with the control objectives in the DCP under Safety and Security.

Visual Privacy

The west elevation of the proposed development does not indicate the first floor rear windows having fixed privacy screens.  Concerned that the proposed development will cause overlooking and acoustic concerns to their back yard.

 

The proposal will not only severely affect the amenity of their home, but will also impact on the value of their property.

 

The established trees and vegetation at the rear of both properties presently provide appropriate visual privacy and as well is the domain for possums and native birds.  As such they object to the removal of any trees.

 

26 Ocean Street, Clovelly

 

Issue

Comment

Zoning

The proposed development is inconsistent with the zone objectives in that it will have major adverse impacts upon the amenity of their property.

 

The inconsistent finished built form of the proposal will result in an unsymmetrical built form from the streetscape point of view.

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of the R2 Zone because it is sympathetic to the existing residential environment and built form and subject to conditions would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of residents in terms of privacy, visual bulk, overshadowing and views.

 

The proposed development is also consistent with the desired future character of the locality as envisaged by the built form controls incorporated in both the LEP 2012 & DCP 2013.

 

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 and streetscape.

 

Height

The proposed development is non-compliant with the objectives of the maximum height control as prescribed by Clause 4.3 of the Randwick LEP 2012.  In particular the proposed development does not fulfil objectives (a) and (c) due to the significant detrimental impact of the proposal in terms of its bulk and scale which leads to significant loss of amenity and privacy.  The development is inconsistent with the bulk, form and scale of other development within the immediate surrounding neighbourhood.

The proposed development complies with the height of building standard in the LEP 2012 and also meets the objectives of the control for the following reasons:

·      The building scale and built form reflects the predominant character of buildings in the streetscape and in the immediate locality.

·      As demonstrated in the relevant sections below subject to conditions the amended development will not result in unacceptable amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties in terms of visual privacy and acoustic privacy, overshadowing and views.

·      The proposed development has a contemporary form with articulation provided along all elevations ensuring that the appearance of the walls from both street level and neighbouring properties is not obtrusive.

Floor space ratio

The proposed development is non-compliant with the objectives of the maximum FSR control as prescribed by Clause 4.4 of the Randwick LEP 2012.  In particular the proposed development does not fulfil objectives (a), (b) and (d) due to the design and sitting of the new building beyond the existing footprint of neighbouring properties.  The three storey development causes detrimental impacts to their property due to its visual bulk, loss of visual and acoustic privacy and overshadowing.

The proposed development generally complies with building envelope controls in the DCP and complies with the FSR standard in the LEP.  Subject to a condition, as discussed in the relevant sections of this report, will not contribute to any unreasonable loss of amenity to the neighbouring properties.  The bulk and scale of the building design is consistent with other development in the streetscape. 

 

As discussed in the relevant Key Issues section of this report the proposed development subject to conditions will not result in any unreasonable acoustic and privacy concerns.  Refer to Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy which addresses the objectors concerns in relation to noise and privacy.

 

Solar access

Due to the excessive height, bulk and scale of the proposed development their entire north facing windows will be overshadowed and will not comply with the minimum 3 hours of solar access required under the DCP.

 

The extent of additional overshadowing has not been properly described by the applicant.

Refer to Key Issues section of this report, which addresses Solar Access and Overshadowing to neighbouring properties.

 

Visual and Acoustic privacy

The proposed development will result in direct unobstructed overlooking from the rear of the first and second/third floors onto the rear yard of their property.  The large windows to the southern side will dramatically reduce their privacy and although with shutters, these windows can be opened.  The increased doors on the side will also decrease their privacy.

 

The proposed development so close to their boundary and its bulk and scale will result in a significant amount of noise transmission and echoing into their dwelling disrupting their amenity currently enjoyed in the private open space.

Refer to Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy which addresses the objectors concerns in relation to acoustic and visual privacy.

 

Key Issues

 

Part C1 - Low Density Residential

 

Subsection 3.3.1 - Front Setbacks

 

Controls

i)    The front setback must be consistent with the average setbacks of the adjoining dwellings. Where there are no adjoining dwellings, the setback must be no less than 6m.

 

Where a development is proposed in an area identified as being under transition in the site analysis, the front setback will be determined on a merit basis.

       

ii)   For corner allotments, the setback from the secondary street frontage must be in accordance with the following minimum requirements:

 

             -           900mm for allotments with primary frontage width of less than 7m

             -       1500mm for all other sites

 

iii)   The front setback areas must be free of structures, such as swimming pools, above-ground rainwater tanks and outbuildings.

 

Note: Transitional areas can be areas of mixed character, without clearly prevailing characteristics or features. They can also be precincts or localities in the process of undergoing change in terms of character or built form.

 

The front setbacks along Ocean Street vary from 2.8m to the northern end of the street and increases to the southern end of the Street by up to 7.7m.  Figure 2 demonstrates the approximate location of the front building setbacks along Ocean Street, which has been provided by the applicant.

 

The immediate adjoining dwelling at no. 22 Ocean Street is setback approximately 6m from the front boundary and the dwelling at no. 26 Ocean Street is setback between 5 -6m from the front boundary.

 

The subject development on the lower ground floor level is setback 3.7m from the front boundary and the amended plans show the ground and first floor level being setback 5.2m from the front boundary as negotiated and agreed with the neighbouring dwelling at no. 22 Ocean Street.

                      

The proposed front setback is considered to be acceptable in that it will allow the northern neighbour to retain some of their southern views of Clovelly Bay and the coastline to Malabar headland.  The amended front setback will be generally consistent with the front setback of adjoining and neighbouring dwellings established along Ocean Street and will satisfy the objectives of the control.

 

Figure 1: Photo of established front building line to the south direction from the subject site.

 

Proposed under DA/705/2008 – 7.7m

Figure 2: Approximate location of front building setbacks along Ocean Street.

 

Sub-section 5.1 - Solar Access and Overshadowing

 

Objectives

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

 

Solar access to proposed development:

 

i)   A portion of the north-facing living area windows of proposed development must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June (in so far as it does not contradict any BASIX requirements).

 

ii)  The private open space of proposed development must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. The area covered by sunlight must be capable of supporting passive recreation activities.

 

The living areas are located to the front and rear of the dwelling and north facing windows have been proposed to the living areas.  The proposal will receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

The private open space is located the rear of the dwelling and will receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

Controls

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

 

iii) A portion of the north-facing living area windows of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

iv) The private open space of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. The area covered by sunlight must be capable of supporting passive recreation activities. 

 

v)  Existing solar panels on neighbouring dwellings, which are situated not less than 6m above ground level (existing), must retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. Where the neighbouring dwellings do not contain any solar panels, direct sunlight must be retained to the northern, eastern and/or western roof planes of neighbouring dwellings, which are at least 6m above ground level (existing), so that future solar panels capturing not less than 3 hours of sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June may be installed.

 

vi) Any variation from the above requirements will be subject to a merit assessment having regard to the following factors:

 

-      Degree of meeting the FSR, height, setbacks and site coverage controls.

-      Orientation of the subject and adjoining allotments and subdivision pattern of the urban block.

-      Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

-      Location and level of the windows in question.

-      Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

One submission was received from the adjoining owners at no. 26 Ocean Street, Clovelly objecting to the development on the grounds of significant loss of solar access. 

 

The shadow diagrams submitted demonstrate that there will be unavoidable overshadowing impacts to the north facing windows of the adjoining property at no. 26 Ocean Street due to the orientation of the site.  This is not an unreasonable expectation when the southern neighbouring property is single storey.

 

In addition to the above, the proposed development complies with the FSR and Height of Building development standards of the LEP 2012.  The development also complies with the external wall height and rear and side setback controls in the DCP 2013.  The scale and design of the proposed development is considered to be suitable for the site in the context of the surrounding residential area.

 

Overall, the additional overshadowing impacts to the subject and neighbouring properties are acceptable in that they are largely unavoidable, are a consequence of the site’s orientation and are not a result of a poorly designed development, and given the developments overall compliance with the building envelope controls.

 

The objectives and controls of the DCP for solar access are satisfied.

 

Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy

 

Objective

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

 

Controls

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

 

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

·      Front or rear of the allotment;

·      Side courtyard.

 

ii)      Where a balcony, deck or terrace is likely to overlook the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings, privacy screens must be installed in positions suitable to mitigate the loss of privacy.

 

Submissions were received from the neighbouring properties at no.’s 22 Ocean Street, Clovelly and 26 Ocean Street, Clovelly objecting to the development relating to visual and acoustic privacy concerns.  An agreement was reached from the owner at no. 22 Ocean Street, Clovelly as their privacy concerns have been addressed along the northern elevation.  In relation to the southern adjoining neighbour the majority of the window openings are acceptable with the exception of the ground floor louvred window openings which may cause overlooking concerns to the neighbouring property at no. 26 Ocean Street and for this reason the louvred windows along this level are to be of obscure glazing and when open are to be fixed at an angle to prevent overlooking, as recommended by proposed condition.

 

The window and glazed door openings to the eastern and western elevations are acceptable as they will either overlook the street or rear yard of the subject site. 

Privacy screens are provided to the sides of the rear ground floor balcony which minimises overlooking into the neighbouring properties in an oblique angle.

 

Planting is provided around the perimeters of the front ground floor terrace which will minimise overlooking impacts.

 

It is not anticipated that there will be significant acoustic concerns as adequate separation provided between the properties and the property will be used for domestic purposed.

 

Subject to the above recommendation, the development will satisfy the objectives of the DCP control for Visual privacy.

 

Sub-Section 5.6 - View Sharing

 

The objectives of the view sharing control are as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

§ To ensure development is sensitively and skilfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

Controls

 

i)      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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

vi)    Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted.

 

View loss assessment

 

Introduction

Sharing of views is a design performance requirement in Randwick Council’s Development Control Plan 2013.

 

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

 

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

 

One objection was received in relation to view loss from the neighbouring property to the north of the subject site at no. 22 Ocean Street, Clovelly.  The views in question are currently enjoyed from the front bay windows of their first floor living area to the south of Clovelly Bay and the iconic coastline to Malabar headland as shown in figures 3 to 6.

 

Council requested that a height pole be erect to the south eastern corner at the front of the building on the subject site to determine the extent of impact the proposed development will have to the front north and east facing bay windows of the objector’s property at no. 22 Ocean Street.  As a result amended plans were received by the applicant increasing the front setback by 700m which was agreed to by the objector at no. 22 Ocean Street.  Figures 7 & 8 demonstrate the approximate location of the amended front building line.

 

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

 

The views are obtained from the north to the south at the front of the dwelling

Figure 3: Location plan and direction of views obtained.

 

Location of Views – The pictures below are taken from the rumpus room/informal living area nestled between the bedrooms on the first floor level of the property.  Figures 4 to 6 indicates the direction the view is taken which has been provided by the applicant.

 

Rumpus room/informal living area

 

   

Figure 4: View taken approximately 2m from the window in an easterly direction at an approximate eye level height of 1.7m from the first floor level.

Note: The view impacts in the 3 images below in Figures 5 to 7 differ because of the differing positions within the room from where the photos were taken.

 

    

Figure 5: View taken approximately 20cm from the window in a southerly direction at an approximate eye level height of 1.7m from the first floor level.

 

   

Figure 6: View taken approximately 10cm from the window in a southerly direction at an approximate eye level height of 1.7m from the first floor level.

 

Approx. location of amended front building line shown in red hashed line.  

Figure 7: Height poles installed which indicates the location of the proposed front building line.

 

Current south views of Clovelly Bay and the iconic coastline to Malabar headland are enjoyed from the front bay windows of their first floor living area in a sitting and standing position.  The views extend from this window in northerly, easterly and southerly directions.

 

Study/bedroom window

South facing windowEast facing windowApprox. location of amended front building line shown in red hashed line.

Figure 8: View taken from the study/bedroom windows on the first floor level.

 

Current east south views of the ocean are enjoyed from the study/bedroom windows of their first floor level in a sitting and standing position. The views extend from this window in northerly, easterly and southerly directions.

 

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

 

Rumpus room/informal living area

The height pole indicates that part of Clovelly Bay ocean views and the entire iconic coastline views to Malabar headland will be lost. The northerly and easterly views from this window will be retained.

 

Study/bedroom window

It was established that the ocean views from the south facing side window will be entirley lost.  Only an easterly corridor view inbetween the buildings will be maintained if standing 10-20cm from thsouth facing window.  The easterly views to the front east facing window will be maintained.  This is not unreasonable given that side views are difficult to be retained.  The view lost is moderate to servere.

 

Step 4: The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skillful 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.

 

Following a site inspection by Council and with benefits of the height pole, amended plans were received by the applicant increasing the front setback.  This was negotiated and agreed by the objector at 22 Ocean Street and owners of the subject site.  The amended front setback will allow this northern neighbour to retain some of their southerly views of Clovelly Bay and the coastline to Malabar headland.  The northerly and easterly views from Rumpus room/informal living area and study/bedroom windows will be retained.

 

It was determined that the overall view-loss from surrounding properties as a result of the amended proposal would be moderate and an adequate level of view sharing will be retained to the surrounding properties.

 

The development complies with the LEP numerical controls in relation to building FSR and Height of Building Standards.  As discussed in the relevant section of this report the height, bulk and scale of the development is compatible with other dwelling houses in the neighbourhood and is an appropriate design that relates to the topography and its context.

 

The proposed development will relate to the contours of the land and is similar in height to neighbouirng development. Further, the proposed development satisfies the relevant objectives and controls of the DCP with regard to Building Envelope and Building Design.

 

The development has been carefully configured to achieve a satisfactory level of view sharing between the site and the neighbouring properties.  Accordingly, the resultant view loss impact is justified.

 

Sub-section 5.5 – Safety and Security

 

Objectives

·     To reduce crime risk and minimise opportunities for crime.

·     To ensure relevant crime prevention principles are applied in the siting and design buildings and landscaping.

·     To ensure the siting and design of buildings and spa contribute to the actual and perceived security to dwellings and the personal safety of residents and visitors.

 

Controls

i)    The main entry to the dwelling must be located on the front elevation facing the street and be readily identifiable, unless the site has a narrow frontage width.

 

The main entrance to the dwelling is located to the northern side of the dwelling.  Whilst it is encouraged that the main entrance be located to the front of the dwelling, the location of the entrance is considered to be acceptable as the lower ground floor level contains the garage and au pair room and the only way to gain access directly from the living space is through the side of the dwelling.  The front entry gate and pathway to the dwelling is identifiable from the street and therefore, the development will satisfy the objectives of the control.  The front entry to the dwelling is separated from the driveways to permit safe access for the residents and visitors to the site.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the objectives and control requirements of relevant State and Local planning controls.

 

Subject to the recommended conditions, the development scheme will not generate unreasonable adverse impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access, view loss and privacy. Also, when considered on balance with resultant environmental impacts the application eventuates in a generally positive development outcome for the site, the streetscape and surrounds.

 

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

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/432/2016 for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new part 2/part 3 storey dwelling house with new in ground swimming pool and associated site and landscape works at 24 Ocean Street, Clovelly, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.      The louvred window openings to the southern elevation on the ground floor shall be of obscure glazing and when open shall be fixed at an angle to prevent overlooking of the adjacent property to the south.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 24 Ocean Street, CLOVELLY 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP69/16

 

Subject:              26 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly (DA/286/2016)

Folder No:                DA/286/2016

Author:                     Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                  Substantial alterations and first floor additions to existing dwelling house including new front swimming pool, spa and roof top terrace (variation to floor space ratio control)(variation to height of building controls).

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                Mr K J Turner

Owner:                     Mr K J Turner

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=35d77b31-eb65-48af-9a6c-1746bcdd8679&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as Clause 4.6 variation request in relation to floor space ratio exceeded the development standard by more than 10% in the plans originally submitted with the application and the value of work is approximately $2 million.

 

1.  Proposal

 

The proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house, including triple garage, pool and spa in the front building setback area, rooftop terrace and associated landscaping works. The proposal as originally submitted involved variations to the building height and floor space ratio standards.

 

Proposed building works involve the following:

 

·     Street level – Realigning the front wall of the garage and reconfiguring the internal space. Pedestrian access adjacent to the eastern property boundary will be maintained. Planter boxes and awning style structure will be provided forward of garage alignment.

 

·     Lower ground floor – Internal reconfiguration to provide equipment store, gym, laundry, sauna, bathroom and pool pump room. A spa and pool is proposed in the front setback area in the south western corner of the allotment, above the garage.

 

·     Ground floor – Internal reconfiguration and extension at the rear. The external wall at the eastern elevation is proposed to be realigned. South facing living area will open onto reconfigured deck, adjacent to pool. Retaining wall at eastern property boundary to be constructed.

 

·     First floor – Extension of first floor towards the rear of the site and internal reconfiguration to provide five bedrooms, two bathrooms and ensuite. South facing balcony is proposed to be extended.

 

·     Roof – The hipped roof to be replaced with two hipped elements with a central glass component situated above the hall through the middle of the roof form. Construction of a yoga deck above the southern end of the dwelling with planter beds at perimeter.

 

Amended plans were submitted in response to a request for additional information. Amendments include lowering the level of the pool and spa in the front setback area by 780mm, lowering the level of the ground level deck in the front setback area by 580mm, removing storage space under decking thus increasing front setback, an overall reduction of gross floor area of 16.7m2, and deletion of the upper level roof terrace.

 

The proposal no longer contravenes the building height standard following the deletion of the roof terrace. The floor space ratio variation remains and equates to less than 10%.

 

2.  Site

 

The site is situated on the northern side of Eastbourne Avenue and is north of Clovelly Beach. The site comprises a single irregularly shaped allotment and has a 12.15m frontage to Eastbourne Avenue, is approximately 43m deep and has an area of 503.3m2. The site falls roughly 7m from the rear to the street.

 

Existing on the site is a two storey rendered brick dwelling with hipped and tiled roof. The dwelling sits above street level with a front setback that is consistent with the prevailing streetscape pattern. A triple garage is positioned at the street edge with a balcony space above.

 

The land use composition in the immediate locality is characterised by large multi storey dwelling houses, positioned above street level with garage facilities at the street edge. It is evident that many dwellings in the locality have been, or are currently undergoing, substantial renovation.

 

Image 1: Subject Site

 

3.  Key Issues

 

3.1.    Floor Space Ratio (clause 4.6 variation)

 

Extent of Variation

 

The development application seeks to vary the floor space ratio development standards contained within Randwick LEP 2012. The extent of the variation is described below:

 

·     Clause 4.4 (Floor space ratio) of Randwick LEP 2012 prescribes a maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 for the subject site. The proposal has a gross floor area of 358.72m2 which equates to a floor space ratio of 0.71:1 and a percentage variation of 9.6% from the standard.

 

The applicant has submitted a written justification to address the non-compliance, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2013.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In 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 floor space ratio standard are set out in clause 4.4(1) of RLEP

2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

The applicant has argued that the proposal remains consistent with the relevant objectives of the FSR development standard, providing the following discussion in respect of each objective.

 

 

 

Assessing officer comments

 

The arguments provided by the applicant are generally supported for the following reasons:

 

-    In relation to objective (a), the proposed development is considered to be of a size and scale that is compatible with the desired future character of the locality. The locality has no specific desired future character statement and therefore the desired character of the area is derived from applicable planning controls as well as decisions made in relation to recent development applications.

 

The proposal complies with the maximum building height control (which, in combination with floor space ratio, determines desired scale) and is therefore of a more consistent scale with surrounding development than the existing dwelling on the site and is compatible with the desired height of development in the locality. Furthermore, the proposal is largely compliant with external wall height, site coverage and setback requirements.

 

The applicant points to a series of development approvals in the immediate vicinity of the subject site which have a floor space ratio similar to or exceeding that of the proposal. It is noted that the approvals pre-dated the current LEP and that the particular circumstances surrounding each decision would have differed. Notwithstanding, it is evident that dwellings larger than the 0.65:1 maximum floor space ratio are common in the locality and define neighbourhood character.

 

-    In relation to objective (b), the proposed development is considered to display a suitable degree of articulation and responds adequately to environmental and energy needs, despite non-compliance with the FSR development standard.

 

Projecting balconies at the front and rear elevations, recesses along each side elevation, an appropriate ratio of solid to void and material combinations afford the proposal a considerable degree of articulation. Orientation, room configuration and protection of openings ensures the building will have a satisfactory degree of internal amenity and will reduce energy consumption.

 

-    In relation to objective (d), the proposed development has no significant impact on the amenity of adjoining development in terms of overshadowing, loss of privacy, view loss and, importantly, visual bulk.

 

As detailed within this report, the proposal satisfies the requirements of the DCP in respect of overshadowing and visual and acoustic privacy, despite proposed additional floor area. Consideration of view loss is discussed at Section 4.6 and is determined to be acceptable.

 

For the reasons stated above, in addition to those arguments put forward by the applicant, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the objectives of the floor space ratio development standard, despite the proposed extent of non-compliance.

 

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

 

The written request provides the following discussion to demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the floor space ratio standard:

 

 

Assessing officer comments:

 

The applicant argues that the proposal satisfies the objectives of the floor space ratio development standard despite non-compliance. In addition, the applicant indicates that the proposal is unlikely to result in significant adverse amenity impacts on neighbours and will result in a building that is consistent with existing and emerging housing types along Eastbourne Avenue. For these reasons, the applicant is of the view that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. This assessment concurs with that justification.

 

In addition to those arguments put forward by the applicant, it is noted that most of the additional floor space is concentrated at the rear upper level of the dwelling and in this regard the additional building mass will not be immediately evident from the street. That is, one would need to view the site at an oblique angle from surrounding public spaces to observe the additional bulk.

 

In the context of the streetscape (which is characterised by dwellings larger than the maximum floor space ratio standard) and in the absence of significant adverse amenity impacts on neighbouring dwellings, it is considered that strict compliance with the floor space ratio development standard is unnecessary in this instance. The arguments presented by the applicant demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify variation to the standard.

 

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

 

It has been established that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives of Zone R2 Low Density Residential, despite non-compliance, and therefore is can be said that the proposal is not contrary to the public interest.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for floor space ratio within clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation to the numerical floor space ratio standard will not be detrimental to the use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance. Further, the proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

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:

 

26 Shackel Avenue, Clovelley

 

Issues

Comments

Concern regarding roof top terrace and associated privacy impacts.

The roof top terrace has been deleted from the proposal.

Concern regarding any increase in building height.

The building height has been reduced with the deletion of the roof top terrace and now complies with building height standard. The maximum building height is lower than the maximum building height of the existing dwelling.

 

20 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly

 

Issues

Comments

Development has a significant bulk, large balconies, walls that stretch to maximum height rather than having pitched roof allowing sunshine, light and views to be shared.

The additional gross floor area results in a non-compliant FSR, which is discussed at section 3.1 and determined to be acceptable. It has been determined that the bulk of the development will have not adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring development i.e. the proposal complies with privacy and solar access provisions and will not result in significant view loss.

Decks built to the street will have impacts on views to the east from properties to the west.

No significant view loss will occur as a result of the structures in the front setback, which are equivalent in height to the deck structure in the front setback of the property immediately to the east of the subject site.

 

38 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

 

Issues

Comments

Concern regarding roof top terrace and associated privacy impacts.

The roof top terrace has been deleted from the proposal.

 

34 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

 

Issues

Comments

Concern regarding roof top terrace and associated privacy impacts.

The roof top terrace has been deleted from the proposal.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

·     Permeable Area

 

Section 2.4 of the Randwick DCP 2013 contains controls relating to landscaping and permeable surface. The objectives of the controls are to ensure landscaped areas are effectively distributed on the site, to provide screening between dwellings and to assist with stormwater infiltration and reduction of overland flow.

 

Control 2.4 (i) states that for a site with an area between 451m2 and 600m2, the minimum area of deep soil permeable surfaces is 30% of the site area.

 

Comment: The proposed landscaped area is 130m2 which equates to 26% of the site area and is therefore non-compliant with the numeric standard. It is noted that the deep soil area associated with the existing premises is 101m2 or 20% of the site are and therefore the proposal is a notable improvement on the current situation.

 

The primary contiguous deep soil area is situated in the rear yard, with another linear area running along the eastern boundary. The area at the rear has sufficient dimensions and is suitably configured to accommodate landscaping, including large shrubs and trees.

 

Although marginally non-compliant, the proposal provides a greater area of deep soil than presently exists on the site and in this regard will enhance the permeability of the site and reduce the quantum of stormwater that is retained on site. The stormwater concept plan submitted with the application indicates that an infiltration system will be incorporated into the drainage system.

 

For the above reasons, the proposal is considered to achieve the objectives of the landscaped area controls despite marginal non-compliance with the numeric standard.

 

·     External Wall Height

 

Section 3.2 of the Randwick DCP 2013 contains controls relating to building height, including specific controls relating to the height of external walls. The objectives of the controls is to ensure development establishes a suitable scale to the street and contributes to character, to ensure development height does not cause unreasonable amenity impacts on neighbouring dwellings and to ensure that form and massing respects topography of the site.

 

Control 3.2 (i) states that the maximum external wall height for steeply sloping sites is 8m while control 3.2 (iii) allows an alternative design that departs from external wall height controls having regard to site topography, site orientation, allotment configuration and dimensions and potential impacts on amenity of adjoining properties.

 

Comment: Non-compliance with the numeric external wall height controls is considered acceptable in the context of the subject site and locality for the following reasons:

 

-    The external wall height breaches the 8m limit at the south-western corner of the roof and applies to a 2.6m long section of the roof, as indicated on the plan extract below. The extent of non-compliance is approximately 250mm which equates to 3% and is therefore marginal.

 

 

-    The external wall height breach occurs as a result of site topography which is more severe at the south-western corner of the site. The external wall height is otherwise comfortably compliant in areas where site topography is less severe. The DCP acknowledges that departures from the external wall height control are permitted in circumstances where the site is constrained by topography.

 

-    The external wall height breach makes no substantive difference to the scale of the proposed development and will have no adverse impact on streetscape character. Furthermore, the shadow cast by the non-compliant element of the development will fall over the street and will not compromise the amenity of adjoining dwellings.

 

In summary, the proposal satisfies the objectives of the external wall height controls, despite minor non-compliance. It is evident that the proposal could be adjusted to comply with the numeric requirement however this would necessitate reducing floor to ceiling heights within the development. As the development is otherwise compliant with the external wall height control and results in no adverse impact on streetscape character or amenity of neighbours, it would be unreasonable to require such a modification which would reduce the internal amenity of the dwelling.

 

·     Setbacks

 

Section 3.3 of the Randwick DCP 2013 contains controls relating to building setbacks. The objectives of the controls is to maintain a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and to ensure form and massing complement streetscape character, to ensure separation of buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access and to reserve adequate areas of private open space and deep soil planting.     

 

·     Control 3.3.1 (iii) states that the front setback areas must be free of structures, such as swimming pools, above-ground rainwater tanks and outbuildings.

 

Comment: The application proposes positioning a pool and spa in the front setback area above the reconfigured garages and therefore contravenes the control which unambiguously states that swimming pools are not permitted in front setback areas. The pool and spa are proposed to be constructed to the edge of the garages upon which they are perched, and will therefore be evident from the street and surrounding public places, as well as neighbouring properties.

 

The top of the spa edge is at RL 18.070 which is 0.9m higher than the top of the existing garage at RL 17.080. The top of the pool edge is at RL 17.720 and will be 0.64m higher than the existing garage wall. The pool, which is adjacent to the western side boundary, is 0.87m higher than the brick wall situated on the eastern boundary of 24 Eastbourne Avenue. Proposed and existing levels are shown on the plan extract provided below.

 

 

The swimming pool and spa structures are highly exposed and will be evident from the street and surrounding public places, as well as from neighbouring properties, particularly 24 Eastbourne Avenue to the west. As such, the proposed swimming pool and spa structures disrupt the rhythm and character of street setbacks in the locality which are, for the most part, free of structures other than decks above street level garages.

 

Furthermore, the swimming pool will have an unacceptable visual presence when viewed from the neighbouring property at number 24 Eastbourne Avenue due to the proposed elevated position of the structure and its close proximity to the western property boundary. Screening or planting to soften the appearance of the structure and minimise cross-viewing could be provided however this would not sufficiently mitigate visual impact based on the levels of the structures proposed.

 

In addition to the front setback control that precludes swimming pools in the front setback area, Randwick DCP provides additional controls that apply to swimming pool location and design on land identified as Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. Control B10(viii)  states that “any exposed coping structures of swimming and spa pools must be minimised and screened from view from the public domain”. 

 

As discussed, it is evident that the pool and spa will be readily visible from the public domain as well as neighbouring properties and this is due to the elevated position of the pool and spa and their respective positions at the garage edge. Spa and pool levels could be dropped such that the structures are not visible from the street however this would compromise the function of the garage below. As proposed, the pool and spa do not satisfy the objectives of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

It may be that a cohesive redesign of garaging, the pool and spa may achieve an acceptable solution, however the current design fails to reconcile these three features in achieving appropriate levels and an acceptable streetscape outcome.

 

It is recommended that a condition of consent be imposed requiring that the pool and spa be deleted from the plans and replaced with decking or landscaped area, or combination of both, with a finished level ranging between RL 16.11 (being the level of the existing lawn area) and RL 16.850 (being the level of the top of the wall on the eastern boundary of 24 Eastbourne Avenue).

 

·     Control 3.3.2 (i) states that, in the case of sites with a frontage width of 12 and above, the minimum side setbacks are 1200mm for the ground and first storey and 1800mm for the second storey and above.

 

Comment: The subject site has a property frontage of 12.15m and therefore the side setback requirements are as stipulated above. The existing setback to the western side boundary is 0.8m while the existing setback to the eastern side boundary is 2m. The proposal generally seeks to utilise existing external walls and in this regard side setbacks will remain largely unchanged.

 

The rear upper level addition extends the rear alignment of the dwelling by 6.2m on the western side and 8.5m on the eastern side. The proposed external walls follow the alignment of the existing external walls (i.e. 0.8m to western side and 2m to eastern side) and therefore the addition contravenes the side setback control on the western side.

 

Although non-compliant with the numeric control, the proposal is considered to meet relevant objectives in that the proposed side setbacks are consistent with existing setbacks and, by extension, consistent with the rhythm of side setbacks in the locality. The assessment demonstrates that there are no adverse impacts in terms of visual and acoustic privacy, or overshadowing. Similarly, view loss has been considered and discussed at Section 4.6 and is demonstrated to be acceptable in the circumstances.

 

·     Building Design

 

Section 4.1 of the Randwick DCP 2013 contains controls relating to building design. The objectives of the controls are to ensure the form, scale, massing and proportions of dwellings relate to the topography, orientation, configuration and surrounding built context of a site, to ensure facades are articulated to complement or enhance streetscape character and to encourage contemporary and innovative designs to establish a preferred neighbourhood character in transitional areas.

 

Control 4.1 (iii) states that side elevations are to be divided into sections, bays or modules of not more than 12m in length, separated by measures, such as recesses or side courtyards, in order to avoid massive or unrelieved walls.

 

Comment: The existing ground floor of the development has an ‘unbroken’ western elevation at ground level measuring approximately 18.2m in length. The existing upper level has an external wall length of 12m. The proposed rear addition to the upper level will align with the rear elevation of the ground floor, resulting in an ‘unbroken’ upper level western elevation of 18.2m.

 

Although non-compliant with numeric requirements, the proposal is considered to meet the relevant objectives in that long, ‘unbroken’ side elevations are characteristic of this locality where the lots are relatively narrow and the dwellings typically larger. In addition, an appropriate ratio of window openings to masonry wall are provided to break down the visual bulk of the western elevation.

 

At the western elevation, the building appears to be divided into two elements through the positioning of window openings that align with the internal stair and essentially run the vertical length of the elevation. The west facing roof plane is also broken into two elements and thus contributes to the degree of articulation on this elevation.

 

·     View loss

 

Subsection 5.6 of Randwick DCP 2013 contains controls relating to view loss. The objectives of the controls are to acknowledge the value of views to significant scenic elements and to ensure that development is skillfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

Control 5.6(i) states that the location and design of dwellings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors or vistas from neighbouring dwellings.

 

Comment: Council has received submissions from neighbours at 34 Shackel Ave and 20 Eastbourne Ave concerning potential view loss as a result of the development. In should be noted that the submission received from the occupant of 20 Eastbourne referred to view loss in general terms, stating that views to the ocean from the west will be compromised.

 

The view from 34 Shackel Avenue is depicted at Photograph 1. Photographs of the view from the the neighouring property to the west at 24 Eastbourne Avenue were not able to be obtained as the dwelling was vacant at the time of assessment.

 

Photograph 1 – View from 34 Shackel Avenue

 

The applicant has prepared a view loss analysis which assesses the impact of views from specific spaces on neighbouring land. An extract from the view loss analysis prepared by the applicant is provided below. The analysis from 24 Eastbourne Avenue is based on survey information.

 

View loss analysis – 34 Shackel Avenue

 

View loss analysis – 24 Eastbourne Ave

 

It is evident from the view loss analysis and inspections of the site that existing views from neighbouring properties will be partially obscured by the proposed development. Although some view loss will occur, it is considered that view corridors and vistas from neighouring dwellings will be reasonably maintained and will therefore comply with the DCP requirement.

 

Notwithstanding the above, it is prudent to consider view loss as per the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle for views, established in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004], for each of the potentially affected properties:

 

1. The first step is the assessment of view 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.

 

Comment:

 

34 Shackel Avenue: The view obtained from the south-facing living room and rear deck of 34 Shackel Avenue is a fragmented view of the coastline and ocean, including the headland to the south. View corridors to the ocean are obtained between the buildings fronting Eastbourne Avenue. The view includes the interface between the ocean and the coast. The view is considered to be significant.

 

24 Eastbourne Avenue: The views obtained from the south facing windows of the property at 24 Eastbourne Avenue and properties further west include largely uninterrupted views of Clovelly Beach and headland, including land and water interface. The view that will be obscured by the development is a fraction of the available view and incorporates ocean and horizon view only.

 

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

 

Comment:

 

34 Shackel Avenue: The view in question is obtained across a rear boundary from both a sitting and a standing position, although the view is substantively reduced when in a seated position. The view is obtained from a south facing deck which is accessed from the primary living area. It is perhaps a reasonable expectation that some of the view be retained. 

 

24 Eastbourne Avenue: The view in question is obtained across a side boundary, over the front setback area of the subject site. It is understood that the view loss analysis depicts the view from a standing position. As the view is obtained across a side boundary the expectation that this view can or should be protected is less reasonable.

 

3. The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas. The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

Comment:

 

34 Shackel Avenue: The view loss analysis prepared by the applicant indicates that the proposal will obscure a portion of the fragmented water view, most notably the view corridor on the western side of the existing building, and also a fraction of the view on the eastern side of the existing building. Much of the view will however be retained.

 

It is noted that both view are already obscured to some degree by existing vegetation on both the subject site and neighbouring allotments. The proposed dwelling has a dual ridge roof form and thus the maximum height of the building is less than that of the existing dwelling. The view over the building will therefore be improved.

 

On balance, the extent of the impact is considered to be moderate.

 

24 Eastbourne Avenue: The view loss analysis prepared by the applicant indicates that the proposal will obscure a small portion of the distant water view. In the context of the view available from the property, and properties further west, the view loss resulting from the proposal is considered to be negligible.

 

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

Comment:

 

34 Shackel Avenue: The proposal is non-compliant with a number of planning controls including floor space ratio, side setbacks and external wall height. However, it is only the non-compliant side setback that makes a material difference to the extent of view loss. The side setback proposed is considered to be appropriate in the circumstances as the alignment of the proposed upper level rear addition follows that established by the existing building envelope. The rear setback is comfortably compliant, as is the maximum building height and external wall height in the location where view loss occurs. The proposal is considered to be reasonable, despite numeric non-compliances.

 

24 Eastbourne Avenue: The front setback proposed is consistent with that of existing development in the streetscape (particularly those buildings to the east), and complies with setback controls contained in Randwick DCP. It is characteristic of the locality to have a principal area of private open space in the front setback, given the amenity benefits afforded by the view to Clovelly Beach and the ocean beyond. Note however recommended conditions relating to deletion of the proposed pool and spa which will have a minor benefit to available views from the west.

 

As demonstrated by the above assessment, the proposal will result in a degree of view loss, particularly in relation to views obtained from the property to the north, at 34 Shackel Avenue. The view is identified as being a significant water view and the view loss impacts are moderate. Notwithstanding, the development complies with height and rear setback requirements in the location where view loss occurs. The FSR variation does not contribute directly to the view loss. It would therefore be unreasonable to refuse the application on this basis.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant RLEP 2012 standards and Randwick DCP 2013 controls and is considered to be acceptable, despite areas of non-compliance. The assessment demonstrates that key areas of non-compliance, including FSR, external wall height and building setbacks can be justified due to the nature of surrounding development and also due to the fact that there will be no significant adverse impact on neighbouring properties. It is recommended that the consent authority determine the application by granting consent subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 286/2016 for substantial alterations and first floor additions to existing dwelling house (variation to floor space ratio control), at No. 26 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.      The swimming pool and spa must be deleted from the plans and replaced with decking or landscaped area, or combination of both, with a finished floor level of RL 16.1 (being the level of the existing lawn area) for the area within the front setback west of the western wall to the lower ground gym; and, RL 17.39 (being the level of the top of the existing deck for the area east of the western wall of the lower ground gym).

 

The existing wall to the western area may be retained and a balustrade to meet BCA requirements shall be placed around the eastern deck area, setback a minimum of 1.5m from the southern alignment of the deck.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 26 Eastbourne Avenue CLOVELLY  NSW  2031

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP70/16

 

Subject:              CBD and South East Light Rail - proposed modification to permit tree works

Folder No:                F2014/00453

Author:                     Joanna Hole, Co-ordinator-Strategic Planning     

 

Introduction

 

This report provides information on a proposed Modification to the approved CBD and South East Light Rail (CSELR) project, which seeks approval to modify condition B47 to allow for crown and root pruning of two fig trees, located on the corner of Alison and Darley Road Randwick.

 

This report seeks Council’s endorsement to make a submission objecting to the Modification.

 

Details

 

The Department of Planning and Environment has notified Council of a proposed Modification to the approved CSELR. Submissions on the Modification must be received by 23 November 2016. Details of the Modification are available at the major projects website:

 

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=8007

 

The Modification is requesting amendment of the current project approval to modify condition B47 to allow for pruning of two fig trees shown in the figure below, in order to enable construction of a shared path.

 

The Modification notes that the proposed tree works would require the removal of less than 10% of the crown from each tree. Minor pruning would be required in future, to maintain the clearance around the overhead wires of the light rail line. It is noted that the 3 metre clearance as stated in the report is incorrect; 2.7 metre clearance has been previously adopted for Alison Road.

 

Root pruning is also required for the construction of the shared path and potentially the CSELR track slab. The Modification considers that long term impact to the health and vigour of the two mature trees is not anticipated as a result of these pruning works.

 

Currently Condition B47 of the project approval specifically notes that these trees are not to be impacted by the CSELR.

 

The Modification seeks to change condition of approval B47, outlined in red text below.

 

B47: The Proponent shall, to the greatest extent possible, minimise the removal of vegetation, including at Circular Quay, Moore Park and surrounds, Anzac Parade, Centennial Park and surrounds, Royal Randwick Racecourse (along Alison and Wansey Roads), High Cross Park, Arthur Street, High Street and within the UNSW lands. Where vegetation has been removed, reinstatement and supplement landscaping shall be undertaken in accordance with the Revegetation Compensation Package required by condition B52. The two mature fig trees located on Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust lands at the end of the heritage listed perimeter fence on the corner of Alison Road and Darley Road shall not be impacted by the SSI unless identified in the Tree Report prepared for B48.

 

Condition B48 refers to a Tree Report and the process for assessing the impact of the CSELR on trees:

 

B48. The Proponent shall commission an independent arborist, approved by the Secretary, to prepare a comprehensive Tree Report for the SSI. The report shall be prepared in consultation with the UDRG and identify the impacts of the SSI on trees and vegetation within and adjacent to the construction zone. The report shall recommend measures to avoid the removal of trees or minimise damage to existing trees and is to ensure the health and stability of those trees to be protected. This includes details of any proposed canopy or root pruning, excavation works, site controls on waste disposal, vehicular access, storage of materials and protection of public utilities. Where it is found that tree removal is necessary, the arborist shall identify whether trees to be removed can be transplanted within the vicinity of their current locations. The locations shall be determined in consultation with the relevant Council and/or the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust. A copy of the report shall be submitted to the Secretary prior to the commencement of construction. All recommendations of the report shall be implemented by the Proponent, unless otherwise agreed by the Secretary.

 

The Modification notes that the proposed change to include a reference to the Tree Report required by Condition B48 provides the mechanism for the independent arborist to assess and recommend appropriate management measures for the specific trees referenced in Condition B47 and all recommendations in the Tree Report to be satisfied.

 

Issues

 

Council’s Tree Management Coordinator has assessed the proposal to remove less than 10% of the crown canopy from each tree and advises that there should be no adverse impacts that will affect the health and vigour of the trees.  It is noted that Council’s tree preservation policy for trees in the Randwick LGA allow for 10% of tree canopy to be removed without a Council consent.

 

Most importantly to the health of the trees is adherence to the appropriate root pruning practices in accordance with the Australian Standards, as stated in the Modification Report.  Council advises that prior to any root pruning works, a hand dug trench 1.5m deep by 200mm wide be excavated along the southern side of the structural root zone (Alison Rd side) for an independent arborist to further assess impacts to tree roots.

 

Council is currently seeking an independent arborist report on this proposed modification.

 

The extent of tree works would be subject to supervision and advice of the independent arborist, and would be included in the Tree Report referenced in Condition B48. This Condition requires Council to be consulted regarding tree works where relevant, although the trees that are the subject of this Modification are within Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust (CPMPT) land. The Modification notes that CPMPT has preferred alterative options that avoid or reduce the extent of tree impact.

 

The key concern with this proposed Modification is that it provides insufficient protection of the trees from impact beyond the 10% currently anticipated. The proposed changed wording of the Conditions of Approval does not limit the extent of tree work allowed to the trees, and creates conditions in which additional and potentially substantial tree work, or even removal, could occur without further formal approval requirements.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Although advice from Council’s arborist notes that crown and root pruning of the two fig trees of up to 10% would not adversely impact the health and vigour of the trees, the proposed Modification does not limit the extent of tree works that may be undertaken, and does not provide sufficient protection to the trees.

 

 

Recommendation

 

It is recommended that

 

1.          Council endorses making a submission to the Department of Planning and Environment objecting to the Proposed Modification, and;

 

2.          Council recommends that the proposed modification be re-evaluated on the basis of a 2.7 metre clearance around the overhead wires for the light rail.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

General Manager's Report No. GM19/16

 

Subject:              Review of the Randwick City Council 2016-17 Operational Plan - September Quarter

Folder No:                F2016/03001

Author:                     Karen Hawkett, Coordinator Integrated Planning & Reporting      

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to update Councillors and the community on the implementation of the annual Operational Plan. The 2016-17 Operational Plan was adopted by Council on 28 June 2016. In this report, achievement and status comments are provided for each action in the 2016-17 Operational Plan. Highlights are also provided where appropriate.

 

Issues

 

This is the September 2016 Quarterly Report and first review of the 2016-17 annual Operational Plan.

 

All projects are proceeding as planned and overall all services were delivered to agreed standards.

 

During the September report period, several key projects were completed, including: construction of the Chifley Sports Reserve All Abilities Playground and the successful staging of the annual Eco-living Fair and NAIDOC Week celebrations.

 

From the activity undertaken by Council during the quarter there were many highlights. The following table lists our significant highlights:

 

City theme

City Plan Outcomes

Action code

Highlight

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1a. Vision for Randwick City Council

 

 

S001

 

All of the financial performance indicators for the first quarter of the financial year are on or above target.

 

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1b. Leadership

 

 

S015

S018

 

 

 

HEAT ticketing software has been rolled out to several departments to allow for improved tracking and prioritising of internal work flows.

 

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1b. Leadership

 

 

S018

 

 

Rollout of new telephone system and handsets.

 

 

New Phone system and handsets

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1c. Continuous Improvement

 

 

P012

 

 

The BEF principles have underpinned the delivery of leadership workshops.

 

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2a. Meeting Community Needs

 

S029

 

 

The Polish Embassy held its V4 Summit 'Reliable Business Partners and Tourist Destinations in Europe at the Prince Henry Centre.

 

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2a. Meeting Community Needs

 

S032

S038

 

 

Council celebrated NAIDOC Week through four separate events.

 

 

NAIDOC Week Celebrations

 

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

 

2a. Meeting Community Needs

 

S035

 

 

 

Council began hosting TechConnect classes in Russian.

 

 

2. A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2b. Strong Partnerships

 

S041

 

 

Council gave a presentation on the 2016/17 Budget and Operational Plan at the August Precinct Coordination Committee meeting.

 

 

2. A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

 

2c. Community facilities

 

 

P023

 

 

Work has begun on a lease agreement for the La Perouse Museum.

 

 

2. A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

 

2d. Cultural diversity

 

S043

 

 

Events hosted during the quarter included Bastille Day celebrations and Beach Breaks.

 

 

Beach Breaks

 

 

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

 

3a. Communicating Effectively

 

S045

 

Council implemented six communication plans to inform and engage the community on various Council activities including the opening of the Frenchman's Bay Outdoor Gym.

 

 

Frenchman's Bay Outdoor Gym

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

 

3a. Communicating Effectively

 

S049

 

 

 

An eNotices form was added to the website enabling property owners to request to receive their Rates Notice electronically.

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

 

3b. Promoting Services

 

 

 

S054

 

 

860 people attended the lifelong learning activities delivered through the Library during the quarter.

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

 

3c. Community Involvement

 

 

 

S055

P028

 

 

Council undertook a public exhibition and consultation on the K2K urban design.

 

 

K2K urban design exhibition

 

 

4. Excellence in Urban Design and Development

 

 

4a. Improved Design

 

 

P027

 

 

Council is working with representatives from the Prince of Wales Hospital and TfNSW to improve pedestrian access and visual amenity for the Randwick Light Rail Terminus at the end of High Street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Excellence in Urban Design and Development

 

 

4b. Robust Development Framework

 

 

 

S057

 

 

In the September quarter, Council determined 73% of DAs under delegated authority within 60 days (net time). The mean (net) processing time for DAs was 33 days.

 

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

5a. Maximise Open Space Use

 

 

 

P032

 

 

Tender documentation has been prepared for the extension of the Coastal Walkway in the western section of the Malabar Headland National Park.

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

 

5b. Range of Activities

 

P033

 

 

Construction of the Chifley Sports Reserve All Abilities Playground was completed.

 

All Abilities Playground, Chifley Reserve

 

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

5b. Range of Activities

 

P034

 

 

Council has received quotations for the installation of outdoor gym equipment at Chifley Reserve.

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

5c. New Open Space Creation

 

P036

 

TfNSW and Council are working together to activate Meeks Street in Kingsford during the construction period of the light rail project, and provide a temporary urban plaza.

 

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

5d. Innovative Library Programs

 

S059

 

The Library has added another film streaming service –Artfilms- allowing users another option to access movies to watch from home.

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

 

 

6a. Public Asset Management

 

 

 

P041

 

 

 

Council completed construction of a new meeting room at the Maroubra Beach Pavilion for use by Surfing NSW.

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6c. Community Safety

 

S072

 

 

Council made seven submissions to the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority in respect to applications for a liquor licence.

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6d. Strategic Land Use Framework

 

 

P047

 

 

New look Section 149 Certificates are now in use.

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6e. Housing Diversity

 

P049

 

 

Council made a submission to the Greater Sydney Commission and the NSW Government on behalf of South Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Affordable Housing Working Group, on the need to deliver affordable housing as part of the district planning process.

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6f. Distinctive neighbourhoods

 

P050

 

 

Community engagement for the Randwick Junction Town Centre Strategy and Public Domain Study has commenced.

 

 

7. Heritage that is Protected and Celebrated

 

7a. Heritage

 

S081

 

 

An estimated 150 persons visited the month-long exhibition of Randwick: Our Victorian Neighbours, at the Library.

 

 

Randwick: Our Victorian Neighbours Exhibition

Avonmore Terrace c 1919, The Avenue, Randwick (Courtesy RJM Collection Randwick City Library) 

 

 

7. Heritage that is Protected and Celebrated

 

 

7a. Heritage

 

P051

 

 

A tender has been awarded for the installation of a lift and re-roofing for the Randwick Town Hall.

 

 

8. A strong Local Economy

 

8a. Vibrant commercial centres

 

 

 

P054

 

 

The Win Dinner on Us competition which promotes local food businesses who have achieved a food safety star rating was undertaken.

 

9. Integrated and Accessible Transport

 

 

9a. Active Transport Network

 

 

P058

 

 

Council is working closely with others on the design of the cycleway along Doncaster Avenue, Houston Road, General Bridges Crescent and Sturt Street in Kingsford.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10a. Leader in Environmental Sustainability

 

 

S088

 

Solar PV and electric vehicle technologies on display at this year’s Eco-living Fair.

 

Solar vehicle, Eco-living Fair

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10b. Management of Environmental Risks

 

P067

 

 

The Maroubra Bay Floodplain Risk Management Plan has been placed on public exhibition.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10d. Sustainable Waste Technologies

 

P070

 

 

The Regional Illegal Dumping Squad’s activities and Council's education activities have helped achieve a reduction in illegal dumping. 253 tonnes of illegally dumped material was collected in the September quarter, which is 4.5% less than the amount collected this period last year.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10e. Water conservation

 

P071

 

Through the use of recycled and bore water, Council saved 21.2 million litres of potable water (as an alternative to mains supplied water) and saved $42,436 in water usage cost in the September quarter.

 

 

Stormwater for irrigation at Dunningham Reserve

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10f. Energy conservation

 

 

P075

 

 

The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage has approved the installation of 30kWs of PV panels on Prince Henry Centre. 

 

 

In acknowledgement of our efforts, Randwick City has recently received a number of awards.

 

Randwick City Council won the Overall Metropolitan Sustainability category of the Keep NSW Beautiful Blue Star Sustainability Awards.

 

Also at the Keep NSW Beautiful Blue Star Sustainability Awards:

 

·       Council’s refurbishment of its Perry Street Recycling Centre won the Waste Less, Recycle More Award;

·       our Marine and Coastal Discovery Program won the Going Green Education Award; and

·       our Honey and Native Bee Apiary Trail won the Habitat and Wildlife Guardianship Award.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of the September Quarterly Review is to inform and update Council and the community on the progress of all actions as set out in the adopted 2016-17 Annual Operational Plan. In addition, given that the Operational Plan is based on the 20-year Randwick City Plan and that Council’s reporting format is based on outcomes rather than organisational structure, the September quarterly report also provides a level of accountability against our long term vision for the City of Randwick.

 

Recommendation

 

That the information contained in the September Quarterly Review of the 2016-17 Annual Operational Plan be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

2016-17 Randwick City Council Annual Operational Plan - September Quarter Report

 

 

 

 


2016-17 Randwick City Council Annual Operational Plan - September Quarter Report

Attachment 1

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

General Manager's Report No. GM20/16

 

Subject:              Sydney Light Rail Project - Proposed New Rail Depot on Defence Land in Bundock Street, Randwick

Folder No:                F2014/00453

Author:                     Alan Bright, Manager Strategic Planning     

 

Introduction

 

Transport for NSW and Acciona Infrastructure representatives recently met with Council Officers to advise of plans for the storage of rail track and related equipment to a proposed new depot on the Department of Defence land fronting Bundock Street, Randwick. This would then free up additional land on the Rainbow Street depot site for car parking, a total of 58 additional spaces. Acciona Infrastructure wrote to Council on 8 November 2016, seeking Council’s support to this proposal. A copy of this letter is attached.

 

In principle support of Council was provided to Acciona Infrastructure subject to the provision of the following information:

 

·       Community Consultation and Communication Strategy,

·       Traffic Management Plan (including sole point of access points i.e Council’s at the existing location opposite the eastbound bus stop - west of the intersection with Ellen Street),

·       No impacts to surrounding trees,

·       Noise and Vibration Assessment, and

·       Ongoing traffic control and management of the site.

 

The in principle support was also given subject to the formal consideration of the matter by Council as outlined in this report and recommendation.

 

Council has no approval role in relation to this proposal, however the Department of Defence has requested that Council’s support to the proposal be obtained.

 

Issues

 

Acciona has advised that the proposed new depot site at Bundock Street is urgently required for the delivery of rail track. The proposed new depot would be accessed via Rainbow Street and Bundock Street, with access to the site via an existing driveway located to the west of intersection of Bundock Street and Ellen Street. A plan of the proposed layout of the site and access is attached to this report.

 

Both Rainbow Street and Avoca Street, along the proposed delivery route, are State Roads with Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) being the road authority.   The Bundock Street part of the delivery route is a local road with the road authority being Randwick Council.  The proposed limited use of these roads by Acciona for the light rail project is deemed to be acceptable.  From a road geometry perspective the long vehicles transporting the lengths of rail can be accommodated with the use of active traffic control.   The traffic control would be momentary in nature (implemented on a truck by truck basis) and the truck movements are not proposed during any heavy traffic periods.  It is considered that the proposed access toward the western end of the available defence department land is appropriate and is preferable to the more easterly access.  Some minor adjustment to parking in this area may be required to accommodate larger vehicle swept paths (maybe 3 parking spaces).

 

The potential noise and vibration impacts need to be managed and Council has previously requested this information to be provided. As previously mentioned, at the time of writing this report this information had not been received.

 

The use of the Bundock Street site would result in the freeing up of land in the current Rainbow Street depot site that would allow for the provision of an additional 58 car parking spaces. A plan provided by Acciona illustrating this additional parking is attached to this report. This additional parking would be of benefit to the Kingsford town centre and also to the adjacent Souths Juniors. It should be noted that the parking in the central median island carpark opposite Souths Juniors will be unavailable to the public from early next year – increasing significantly the importance of maximising the number of parking spaces in this area.

 

Acciona have advised that the proposed use of the site does not require the development consent of Council and would be implemented under Part 5 of the EP&A Act, 1979. Council officers concur with the position that the consent of Council is not required for the use of the site as a ‘rail depot’.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  6.   A liveable city.

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

 

Outcome:  8.    A strong local economy.

Direction:  8a.  Vibrant business, commercial, and industrial sectors that provide                    ongoing and diverse employment opportunities and serve the                               community.

 

Outcome:  9.   Integrated and accessible transport

Direction:  9c.  Advocate and/or plan for integrated local and regional transport                     improvements, including high capacity transport such as                              light/standard rail.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter, subject to TfNSW undertaking the works required on the additional car parking at Rainbow Street.

 

Conclusion

 

The use of the Defence land fronting Bundock Street for a proposed new rail depot is supported subject to the provision of information outlined previously relating to community consultation, environmental and traffic management that demonstrates that the proposed use can be carried out with minimal impact on surrounding residents. The benefit flowing from the proposal is the freeing up of land at the Rainbow Street site that will allow for the provision of at least 58 additional car spaces. However, support for the proposal should only be on the basis that this parking area be provided at no cost to Council and be provided sealed and line marked for use in conjunction with the adjoining existing car park.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council support the use of the Bundock Street site as a new  light rail depot subject to:

 

(a)        The provision of a community consultation and communication strategy, environmental and traffic management mitigation measures that demonstrate that the use of the site will have minimal environmental impact on the surrounding area.

 

(b)         The provision of 58 sealed and line marked car parking spaces  adjacent the existing Rainbow Street car park for use as a public car park at no cost to Council.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Mike Millar - Light Rail Project - Lease of Randwick Barracks Site - Noel D'Souza

 

2.

Site Layout Plan

 

3.

Rainbow Street - additional car spaces

 

 

 

 


Mike Millar - Acciona - Sydney Light Rail - Lease of Randwick Barracks Site

Attachment 1

 

 

 


Site Layout Plan

Attachment 2

 

 


Rainbow Street - additional car spaces

Attachment 3

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

General Manager's Report No. GM21/16

 

Subject:              2015-16 Annual Report and Financial Statements

Folder No:                F2015/03005

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

 

Introduction

 

The 2015-16 Randwick City Council Annual Report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009.

 

The 2015-16 Randwick City Council Financial Reports have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993, Australian Accounting Standards, and the NSW Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.

 

As required under s419 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council presented its audited financial reports, together with the auditor’s reports, at the Ordinary Council Meeting held in October.

 

Issues

 

2015-16 Annual Report

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

 

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

 

·         Responsible management

·         A sense of community

·         Places for people

·         A prospering City

·         Moving around

·         Looking after our environment.

 

The 2015-16 Randwick City Council Annual Report details the achievements of Council over the last financial year against the 2015-16 Operational Plan which was adopted in June 2015. It includes details of Council's financial and operational position for the year ending June 2016 and includes a supplementary State of the Environment report.

 

Some of the main achievements for the 2015-16 operating year have been:

 

·         Completion of several sporting facilities such as the new Skate Park at Chifley Reserve and new synthetic sports fields at Heffron Park

·         The upgrade of the Coogee Eastwood Senior Citizens Centre

·         Installation of an outdoor gym at Frenchmans Beach

·         Completion the refurbishment of the Lionel Bowen Library

·         Renovations at the Randwick Recycling Centre

·         recognition through a number of industry awards, and

·         burying the stormwater pipe at Malabar Beach.

 

State of the Environment Report

 

In addition to required statutory reporting, Randwick City’s Annual Report includes a supplementary State of the Environment (SoE) report. This supplementary report will complement the comprehensive SoE report which must be prepared in an election year in accordance with the Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009.

The key element required of Council in the preparation of the supplementary SoE report, is to report against the environmental objectives identified in Council’s 20-year City Plan.

 

Council’s 2015-16 SoE report directly aligns with and provides accountability for the six environmental objectives (10a to 10f) adopted by Council within Outcome 10, A Healthy Environment.

 

City Plan Outcome

Direction

10. A Healthy Environment.

10a. Council’s programs and partnerships foster sustainable behavioural changes and outcomes.

10b. Policies and programs are developed and implemented in response to environmental risks and their potential impacts.

10c. Bushland, open spaces and biodiversity are protected and enhanced for future generations.

10d. Waste is managed sustainably to ensure highest level of resource recovery.

10e. A total water cycle management approach including water conservation, re-use and water quality improvements is adopted.

10f. Energy conservation and efficiency programs are implemented.

 

The supplementary SoE intends to update changes across our environmental indicators over the 12 month period since the last report.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:           Leadership in sustainability.

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

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

Council reported an $11.508 million Net Operating Surplus for the 2015-16 financial year, and a $4.093 million Net Operating Surplus before Capital Revenue. This headline result, combined with the Statement of Financial Indicators and the Asset Management Indicators shown in Attachment 2, illustrate the successful past year in terms of the management of Council's finances and its assets.

 

In their Audit Report for the 2015-16 Financial Statements, Council’s auditors, Hill Rogers, advised "Council’s overall financial position is, in our opinion, sound."

 

Conclusion

 

The 2015-16 Randwick City Council Annual Report provides a detailed analysis of Council’s numerous achievements and positive financial performance over the previous year. The report provides an account to the community of our progress in meeting our objectives as set out in the 20-year Randwick City Plan.

 

The Council’s Financial Statements have been finalised for the 2015-16 Financial Year and the Council finances are in a strong and stable position.

 

Recommendation

That:

 

a)     the Randwick City Council Annual Report 2015-16 be received and noted;

 

b)     the General Manager be authorised to make any minor changes if required; and

 

c)     a copy of the Annual report be submitted to the Chief Executive, Office of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Link to the 2015-2016 Annual Report

 

2.

Link to the 2015-16 Financial Statements (consolidated)

 

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Services Report No. CS14/16

 

Subject:              Temporary use of Paine Reserve by Rainbow Street Public School

Folder No:                F2005/00834

Author:                     Kerry Colquhoun, Coordinator, Open Space Assets      

 

Introduction

 

The Department of Education is upgrading Rainbow Street Public School (RSPS) to accommodate an increase in enrolments. During the construction period, January 2017 until April 2018, the school will lose access to the majority of the onsite playground areas. Council has received a request for use of part of Paine Reserve, to provide playground space for the students during the construction phase.  The area is adjacent to the western school boundary fence as shown in attachment 1.

 

The applicant has requested that the allocated area be fenced due to the school being a regional centre for special needs students.  The cost of the proposed fencing, temporary gates and remediation will be borne by the Department of Education.

 

It is proposed that Council enter into a licence agreement with the Department of Education to allow temporary formal occupation of a section of the park, approximately 30m X 90m (refer attachment 1), for exclusive use by the school.  It is proposed that this agreement be for a period of up to 15 months.

 

Issues

 

The request is for exclusive use of part of Paine Reserve during school hours only. Council officers have assessed the impact of this request on the functioning of the park to be minimal. The sports fields will not be impacted and there are other large areas of passive open space available within the park.

 

The proposal will result in a temporary loss of open space within an “off leash dogs” area.  However, it is considered that the remaining space for this activity is satisfactory.

 

Paine Reserve is classified as community land.  The use specified in the application will be consistent with the core objectives for management of community land categorised as a park, as outlined in Section 36G of the Local Government Act:

 

(a)    to encourage, promote and facilitate recreational, cultural, social and educational pastimes and activities, and

 

(b)    to provide for passive recreational activities or pastimes and for the casual playing of games.

 

Council can licence the land to the Department of Education in accordance with Section 45 of the Local Government Act, 1993 and for the purposes as defined in Section 46 of the Act.  As it is a community group, it is planned to charge a minimal rent of $100 per week.

 

Randwick Council frequently supports local schools by allowing them to utilise local parks for play and sport. Rainbow Street Public School is an important part of the local community. In particular the School’s support for autistic and special needs children makes it necessary to have a fenced area that will be supervised by school staff.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2a:     Meet the needs of our diverse community and provide equitable                            access to social services and infrastructure.

 

Financial impact statement

 

All construction and remediation costs are to be borne by the Department of Education.  The Council will charge a minimal rental fee of $100+GST per week for the licence payable monthly.  This fee will total $5,200+GST per annum.

 

Conclusion

 

We have received a request to use part of Paine Reserve for a children’s playground by Rainbow Street public school.  This request is for the use of the reserve as a playground during construction works at the school over a period of up to 15 months from January 2017.  Following an assessment of the request, it has been determined that an exclusive use is required due to the number of students, supervision and security needs.  It is proposed that the area be fenced to control access to the area from the school grounds only.

 

The agreement will be formalised by issue of a licence under S45 of the Local Government Act, 1993.  A minimal licence fee of $100+GST per week is proposed.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council allocate part of Paine Reserve adjacent to the Rainbow Street Public School for a playground area for use by the school subject to a formal agreement between Randwick Council and the Department of Education.

 

b)     the formal licence agreement be for a period of one year withholding over provisions on a monthly basis.

 

c)     the department of education pay the costs associated with installation and removal of a fence around the designated area and any restoration of the park to a satisfactory condition.

 

d)     Council delegate the General Manager to sign the agreement on behalf of Randwick Council.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Paine Reserve - Proposed temporary fencing mark up

 

 

 

 


Paine Reserve - Proposed temporary fencing mark up

Attachment 1

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF33/16

 

Subject:              Schedule of meetings for 2017 and arrangements for decision making over the Christmas/New Year period

Folder No:                F2004/06565

Author:                     Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

This report outlines a method for matters to continue to be processed during the Christmas/New Year meeting recess period and suggests a Council and Committee meetings schedule for the forthcoming calendar year.

 

Issues

 

This year the meetings recess will commence after the ordinary Council Meeting scheduled to be held on 13 December 2016. A meeting schedule for the 2017 calendar year has been prepared (based on the practice of past years) and is attached for Council’s endorsement.

 

It should be noted that the April Council Meeting has been scheduled for the 3rd Tuesday of the month, as Anzac Day falls on the 4th Tuesday (25 April 2017).

 

Should the necessity arise for any meeting dates to be altered, the provisions of Council’s delegation to the General Manager ‘Council & Committee Meetings – Authority to vary dates and times’ will be utilised.  The delegation is as follows:

 

‘That the General Manager is authorised to vary the schedule of meeting dates and times for meetings of Committees and the Council, when it is not practicable or desirable to hold meetings on a particular designated night.’

 

It has been the practice for many years for the council to take a recess following the last ordinary meeting in December, to give Councillors and officers the opportunity to either take a break over the Christmas holiday period or to finalise the year’s activities and plan for the following twelve months.  During previous recess periods, Council policy ‘Council in Recess Procedure’ has prevailed.  This policy provides a means of attaining decisions on urgent or important matters during the meeting recess and provides:

 

‘The Mayor, the Chairpersons of the Planning Committee, the Administration & Finance Committee, the Community Services Committee and the Works Committee or, in his/her absence (or if the Mayor is the Chairperson of the Committee) the Deputy Chairpersons, and the General Manager jointly be authorised to make decision which would otherwise be made by the Council and any such decision are to be unanimous and circulated to Councillors for their information.’

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Urgent and important Council business can be dealt with during the Christmas/New Year period without the requirement for formal Council and Committee meetings by utilising the ‘Council in Recess Procedure’ during that time.  Any matters that are unable to be dealt with under the Council in Recess Policy, due to extenuating circumstances, could be dealt with at an Extraordinary Council Meeting.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)      the Council Meeting recess commence following the ordinary Council Meeting scheduled to be held on Tuesday 13 December 2016 and meetings be resumed on Tuesday 14 February 2017 (with Committee meetings being held on that night) and during the recess period the ‘Council in Recess Procedure’ be utilised, subject to the need for any extraordinary Council Meetings, which may be called in extenuating circumstances; and

 

b)      the Meeting Schedule for the 2017 calendar year be adopted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Draft 2017 Meetings Schedule

 

 

 

 


Draft 2017 Meetings Schedule

Attachment 1

 

 

 


 



Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF34/16

 

Subject:              Code of Conduct complaint statistics

Folder No:                F2004/06569

Author:                     Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

Under part 12 of the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct (Reporting on Complaints Statistics) Council's complaints coordinator must arrange for the following statistics to be reported to the council within 3 months of the end of September of each year:

 

a)     the total number of code of conduct complaints made about councillors and the general manager under the code of conduct in the year to September,

b)     the number of code of conduct complaints referred to a conduct reviewer,

c)     the number of code of conduct complaints finalised by a conduct reviewer at the preliminary assessment stage and the outcome of those complaints,

d)     the number of code of conduct complaints investigated by a conduct reviewer,

e)     the number of code of conduct complaints investigated by a conduct review committee,

f)      without identifying particular matters, the outcome of code of conduct complaints investigated by a conduct reviewer or conduct review committee under these procedures,

g)     the number of matter reviewed by the Office of Local Government and, without identifying particular matters, the outcome of the reviews, and

h)     the total cost of dealing with code of conduct complaints made about councillors and the general manager in the year to September, including staff costs.

 

The council is to provide the Office of Local Government with a report containing the statistics referred to in clause 12.1 within 3 months of the end of September of each year.

 

The following is a summary of Code of Conduct complaint statistics for the period September 2014 to September 2015:

 

Part 12.1 - Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct (Reporting on Complaints Statistics)

Sept 2015 -

Sept 2016

 

 

Number of Complaints

 

 

 

1

a

The total number of complaints received in the period about councillors and the general manager under the code of conduct

0

 

 

 

b

The total number of complaints finalised in the period about councillors and the general manager under the code of conduct

1

 

 

Overview of Complaints and Cost

 

 

 

2

a

The number of complaints finalised at the outset by alternative means by the general manager or Mayor

0

 

 

 

b

The number of complaints referred to the Office of Local Government under a special complaints management arrangement

0

 

 

 

c

The number of code of conduct complaints referred to a conduct reviewer

0

 

 

 

d

The number of code of conduct complaints finalised at preliminary assessment by conduct reviewer

0

 

 

 

e

The number of code of conduct complaints referred back to GM or Mayor for resolution after preliminary assessment by conduct reviewer

0

 

 

 

f

The number of finalised code of conduct complaints investigated by a conduct reviewer

1

 

 

 

g

The number of finalised code of conduct complaints investigated by a conduct review committee

0

 

 

 

h

Number of finalised complaints investigated where there was found to be no breach

0

 

 

 

i

Number of finalised complaints investigated where there was found to be a breach

1

 

 

 

j

Number of complaints referred by the GM or Mayor to another agency or body such as the ICAC, the NSW Ombudsman, the Office or the Police

0

 

 

 

k

Number of complaints being investigated that are not yet finalised

0

 

 

 

l

The total cost of dealing with code of conduct complaints within the period made about councillors and the general manager including staff costs

$16,000

 

 

Preliminary Assessment Statistics

 

 

 

3

The number of  complaints determined by the conduct reviewer at the preliminary assessment stage by each of the following actions:

 

 

 

a

To take no action

0

 

 

 

b

To resolve the complaint by alternative and appropriate strategies

0

 

 

 

c

To refer the matter back to the general manager or the Mayor, for resolution by alternative and appropriate strategies

0

 

 

 

d

To refer the matter to another agency or body such as the ICAC, the NSW Ombudsman, the Office or the Police

0

 

 

 

e

To investigate the matter

0

 

 

 

f

To recommend that the complaints coordinator convene a conduct review committee to investigate the matter

0

 

 

Investigation Statistics

 

 

 

4

The number of investigated complaints resulting in a determination that there was no breach, in which the following recommendations were made:

 

 

a

That the council revise its policies or procedures

0

 

 

 

b

That a person or persons undertake training or other education

0

 

 

5

The number of investigated complaints resulting in a determination that there was a breach in which the following recommendations were made:

 

 

a

That the council revise any of its policies or procedures

0

 

 

b

That the subject person undertake any training or other education relevant to the conduct giving rise to the breach

0

 

 

c

That the subject person be counselled for their conduct

0

 

 

d

That the subject person apologise to any person or organisation affected by the breach

1

 

 

e

That findings of inappropriate conduct be made public

0

 

 

f

In the case of a breach by the general manager, that action be taken under the general manager’s contract for the breach

0

 

 

g

In the case of a breach by a councillor, that the councillor be formally censured for the breach under section 440G of the Local Government Act 1993

1

 

 

h

In the case of a breach by a councillor, that the matter be referred to the Office for further action

1

 

6

 

Matter referred or resolved after commencement of an investigation under clause 8.20 of the Procedures

0

 

Categories of misconduct

 

 

7

The number of investigated complaints resulting in a determination that there was a breach with respect to each of the following categories of conduct:

 

 

a

General conduct (Part 3)

1

 

 

b

Conflict of interest  (Part 4)

0

 

 

c

Personal benefit  (Part 5)

0

 

 

d

Relationship between council officials  (Part 6)

0

 

 

e

Access to information and resources  (Part 7)

0

 

Outcome of determinations

 

 

8

The number of investigated complaints resulting in a determination that there was a breach in which the council failed to adopt the conduct reviewers recommendation

0

 

9

The number of investigated complaints resulting in a determination that there was a breach in which the council's decision was overturned following a review by the Office

0

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of investigating Code of Conduct complaints has been allowed for in the legal expenses budget for Administrative Services.

 

Conclusion

 

The reporting of Code of Conduct complaints is a requirement under part 12 of the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Code of Conduct statistics for the period September 2015 to September 2016 be forwarded to the Office of Local Government (Department of Premier and Cabinet) in accordance with part 12 of the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF35/16

 

Subject:              Council operating hours - Christmas and New Year 2016-17

Folder No:                F2006/00304

Author:                     Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

For a number of years Randwick City Council has reduced opening hours during the Christmas/New Year period in line with community expectation and usage during this time of year. It is proposed to continue with this arrangement during the 2016-17 Christmas/New Year period similar to past years, while ensuring minimal impact on Council’s customer service levels.

 

Issues

 

The following arrangements are proposed for the Administration Building, Depot and libraries during the Christmas and New Year period this year:

 

 

Administration  Building and Depot( normal operating hours with the following exceptions)

Friday 23 December (Xmas Eve operating hours)

Normal operations closing at 12pm

Saturday 24 December (Xmas Eve)

Closed

Sunday 25 December (Xmas Day)

Closed

Monday 26 December (Boxing Day)

Closed

Tuesday 27 December (Public Holiday in lieu of Xmas Day falling on Sunday)

Closed

Wednesday 28 – Friday 30 December

Closed

Saturday 31 December (New Year’s Eve)

Closed

Sunday 1 January (New Year’s Day)

Closed

Monday 2 January (Public Holiday in lieu of New Year’s Day falling on Sunday)

Closed

Tuesday 3 January

Normal operating hours

 

Des Renford Leisure Centre:

 

Friday 23 December (Xmas Eve operating hours)

Normal operating hours

Saturday 24 December (Xmas Eve)

7am to 5pm

Sunday 25 December (Xmas Day)

Closed

Monday 26 December (Boxing Day)

8am to 5pm

Tuesday 27 December (Public Holiday in lieu of Xmas Day falling on Sunday)

8am to 5pm

Wednesday 28 – Friday 30 December

Normal operating hours

Saturday 31 December (New Year’s Eve)

7am to 5pm

Sunday 1 January (New Year’s Day)

8am to 5pm

Monday 2 January (Public Holiday in lieu of New Years Day falling on Sunday)

8am to 5pm

Tuesday 3 January

Normal operating hours

 

 

Lionel Bowen Library and Community Centre:

 

Friday 23 December (Xmas Eve operating hours)

9am - 12pm

Saturday 24 December (Xmas Eve)

9.30am – 2pm

Sunday 25 December (Xmas Day)

Closed

Monday 26 December (Boxing Day)

Closed

Tuesday 27 December (Public Holiday in lieu of Xmas Day falling on Sunday)

Closed

Wednesday 28 – Friday 30 December

Closed

Saturday 31 December

9.30am – 2pm

Sunday 1 January (New Year’s Day)

Closed

Monday 2 January (Public Holiday in lieu of New Year’s Day falling on Sunday)

Closed

Tuesday 3 January

Normal operating hours

 

Margaret Martin Library:

 

Friday 23 December (Xmas Eve operating hours)

9am - 12pm

Saturday 24 December (Xmas Eve)

9.30am – 2pm

Sunday 25 December (Xmas Day)

Closed

Monday 26 December (Boxing Day)

Closed

Tuesday 27 December (Public Holiday in lieu of Xmas Day falling on Sunday)

Closed

Wednesday 28 – Friday 30 December

Closed

Saturday 31 December

9.30am – 2pm

Sunday 1 January (New Year’s Day)

Closed

Monday 2 January (Public Holiday in lieu of New Year’s Day falling on Sunday)

Closed

Tuesday 3 January

Normal operating hours

 

Malabar Community Library:

 

Friday 23 December (Xmas Eve operating hours)

9am - 12pm

Saturday 24 December (Xmas Eve)

9.30am – 12pm

Sunday 25 December (Xmas Day)

Closed

Monday 26 December (Boxing Day)

Closed

Tuesday 27 December (Public Holiday in lieu of Xmas Day falling on Sunday)

Closed

Wednesday 28 – Friday 30 December

Closed

Saturday 31 December

9.30am – 12pm

Sunday 1 January (New Year’s Day)

Closed

Monday 2 January (Public Holiday in lieu of New Year’s Day falling on Sunday)

Closed

Tuesday 3 January

Normal operating hours

 

The days of reduced opening are relatively quiet in terms of contact with the community and a number of staff take annual leave over this period.  There will be a staff function at lunch time on 23 December 2016 to celebrate the Christmas season and thank the staff for their efforts during 2016.

 

In addition, as a vote of thanks to our staff for their efforts during 2016 in relation to Local Government reform and other initiatives, as a one-off arrangement, it is recommended that the Council offices be closed, and the staff be given the 3 days off, between Xmas and New Year. Essential operational services including Waste Service, Rangers, Storey Street Depot, Leisure Centre and the Beaches will be maintained through the Christmas/New Year period. Staff required to work during this period will be paid the appropriate penalty rates in accordance with our Award.

The early closing times will be advertised in the Randwick News column and notices will be displayed at council offices and the libraries to minimise any inconvenience for members of the public.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The financial impact for this matter has been allowed for in the 2016-17 budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed hours of Council operations are in line with community expectation for this time of year and have been in place for a number of years.  Given adequate publicity, it is felt that the reduced opening hours will create minimal impact on Council’s customer service levels.

 

Recommendation

 

That the proposed 2016-17 Christmas and New Year opening hours for the Administration Building, Depot, Libraries and Leisure Centre, be endorsed.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF36/16

 

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

 

Investment Commentary

 

As at 31 October 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $73.528 million. The portfolio value decreased during October by ~$4.428 million. The decrease is representative of a negative cash flow for the month reflecting the net effect of revenue receipts (rates, grants & miscellaneous) offset by capital works expenditure and other operational payments.

 

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

 

The following graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from September 2015 to October 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 19% 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 marginally directed towards 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 October 2016. The portfolio includes term deposits (51% of the portfolio) with the higher rated ADI’s. Credit assets (FRNs) are around 39% 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 October 2013 to October 2016.

 

 

 

Investment performance for the financial year to date is above the industry benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index with an average return of 2.81% compared with the benchmark index of 1.83%.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate remained at the historical low of 1.50% at the meeting held on 1 November 2016 meeting.

 

 

Term Deposits

 

At month end, deposits accounted for 51% of the total investment portfolio.

Two deposits totaling $4 million matured and were withdrawn in October. There were no new term deposits taken up during October.

As at the end of October, the weighted average deposit yield stood at 2.93%, unchanged 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 31 October 2016 decreased by ~$16k.

 

Ministerial Investment Order

 

In late 2007, the NSW Government commissioned a review of NSW local government investments. The review, known as the Cole Report included eight recommendations that were all adopted by the NSW Government and incorporated into the Ministerial Investment Order dated 31 July 2008. A revised Investment Order was issued on the 12 January 2011 and includes changes that:

 

·         Remove the ability to invest in the mortgage of land;

·         Remove the ability to make a deposit with Local Government Financial Services Pty Ltd;

·         And includes the addition of “Key Considerations” with a comment that a council’s General Manager, or any other staff, with delegated authority to invest funds on behalf of the council must do so in accordance with the council’s adopted investment policy.

 

Investment Register

 

The investment register is maintained with details of each individual investment including; financial institution; amount invested; date invested; maturity date and the applicable interest rate.

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction:  Long term financial viability is achieved.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Funds are invested with the aim of achieving budgeted income in the 2016-17 financial year and outperforming the AusBond Bank Bill Index over a 12 month period. The current budget provision for investment income from this source is $1,648,000.00. Investment income to 31 October 2016 amounted to $668,885.29.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer - 31 October 2016

 

 

 

 


Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer - 31 October 2016

Attachment 1

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF37/16

 

 

Subject:                    Quarterly Budget Review - September 2016

Folder No:                F2016/00402

Author:                     Mitchel Woods, Manager Corporate and Financial Planning      

 

Introduction

 

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

 

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

 

Section 203(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that at the end of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that indicates the latest estimates of income and expenditure for the 2016-17 year.

 

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

 

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

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

 

Issues

 

This report is a review of the Council’s 2016-17 current budget and recommends adoption of a revised budget for the 2016-17 financial year.

 

It proposes variations to Council’s adopted budget, which will result in a projected budget surplus at year end of $14,864.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The proposed variations in this report and listed in the attachment will result in a projected budget surplus at year end of $14,864.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

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

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS) - September 2016

 

 

 

 


Quarterly Budget Review Statements (QBRS) - September 2016

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF38/16

 

Subject:              Continuation of Community Partnership with South Sydney Rugby League Football Club in 2017

Folder No:                F2010/00282

Author:                     David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services      

 

Introduction

 

At its ordinary Council meeting held 23 February 2016 Council resolved:

 

“(Andrews/Stavrinos) that:

 

a)     Council continue the “Community Partnership” with the South Sydney Football Club with the $40,000.00 (incl GST) contribution to come from the Community Services budget;

 

b)     the General Manager be delegated authority to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the South Sydney Football Club; and

 

c)     a report on the success of the 2016 Community Partnership to come back     before Council.

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council in accordance with clause (c) of the above resolution of the continued outstanding success of this partnership throughout 2016 and to recommend extending this partnership into 2017 to continue with a number of wonderful community service initiatives.

 

Issues

 

As part of our 2016 partnership Council received ten tickets to all South Sydney home games. These tickets were distributed to targeted schools and youth service providers which were identified as being in the best position to take advantage of this new initiative. The schools and service providers identified were La Perouse Public School, South Sydney High School, Maroubra Bay Public School, Chifley Public School, Matraville Soldiers Settlement Public School, Matraville Sports High School, La Pa Youth Haven, The Shack Youth Services, Kool Kids Club and Father Chris Riley’s Youth Off The Streets.

 

The feedback Council received from all groups has been outstanding. At each school the tickets were used as a reward to students for positive behaviour, attendance and participation at school and, according to the School Principals, the response from the kids was overwhelming. The youth service providers reported that they used the tickets to encourage attendance by targeted youth in order to keep them involved in the respective Centres.

 

In addition, two ambassador tickets to all home games were distributed to those community members identified as having made the most outstanding contribution to our community in a voluntary capacity. As part of the partnership tickets were distributed to volunteers from:

 

·          NSW/ACT Youth Cancer Services Youth Advisory Committee;

·          La Perouse Youth Haven / La Pa Bummers Programs;

·          La Perouse United Rugby League Club and the Pearlers Netball Club;

·          Kooloora Community Centres Veg Co-op Program;

·          Council’s Corroboree event at Coogee Beach for Reconciliation Week;

·          Youth Off The Streets;

·          Kool Kids Club;

·          Organiser of the Blak Markets at Bare Island;

·          Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council;

·          Soroptomist in La Perouse Public School Library;

·          Outreach Program (Jump Rope for Heart); and

·          La Perouse United Junior Rugby League Football Club.

 

Council also received 20 tickets for use throughout the year at The Legends Lounge. Council made the decision to provide them to all our junior rugby league clubs as a reward for long serving clubmen or women or to use as fundraisers. As part of the partnership these tickets were distributed to:

 

·          La Perouse United, who raffled the package as part of their annual fundraising night;

·          Maroubra Lions, who raffled the package as part of their annual fundraising night;

·          Matraville Tigers, who raffled the package as part of their annual fundraising night; and

·          South Eastern, who raffled the tickets as a fundraiser for the club. The raffle proceeds were used to help fund the cost of trophies and end of season gear for the junior players.

 

A coaching clinic was held at Yarra Oval on 2nd May 2016. Students were invited from all our target schools. The clinic was attended by most of the first graders, a number of under 20’s players, reps from the ARL, Brock Schaefer and Leellen Lewis from Souths’ Cares, David Kelly and Gary Ella from Randwick Council.

 

Council also received a table for 12 at the South Sydney Football club’s annual business networking event held at the Australian Technology Park in August 2016. Tickets were given to representatives from Randwick City Tourism and the Kingsford, Maroubra and Matraville Chambers of Commerce.

 

A number of community service initiatives were conducted throughout 2016 by Souths Cares (the Community Services arm of the football club) in partnership with Council. These initiatives are summarised below and have been of immense benefit to the youth in our targeted schools.

 

The Teacher’s Aide Program continues to assist schools to improve students’ attendance and engagement. With a strong focus on numeracy and literacy there have been improved results as identified by the Education Departments NAPLAN testing program. Souths’ NRL playing group continue to make a very valuable contribution to schools in our area and the whole NRL Squad have engaged in this important program. The Healthy and Active Lifestyle Program continues to deliver a year 5 and 6 specific program to schools throughout our region. This program combines the NRL initiative, ’Eat Well, Play Well, Stay Well’ and two Life Education programs, ‘All Systems Go’ and ‘Think Twice’, to offer the students a fun educational excursion outside of the school environment.

 

The Schools to Work Transition Program has achieved some outstanding results with Year 11 and 12 Indigenous students from schools such as Matraville Sports High School, South Sydney High School and Marist Pagewood well on the road to extremely successful and rewarding careers. This program is proudly supported by the Australian Government through the Learn, Earn, Legend program.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2c:              Strong partnerships between the Council, community groups and government agencies.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The current sponsorship amount of $40,000.00, including GST, has been allowed for in the 2016-17 budget.

 

Conclusion

 

This unique and exciting “Community Partnership” with the South Sydney Football Club continues to provide major benefits for both our organisations and, more importantly, our local community. These benefits include:

 

·         Both organisations raising their profile in the community through the local media and with mutual marketing and advertising opportunities;

·         Better targeting of particular disadvantaged groups using high profile footballers who can better connect with these traditionally difficult areas;

·         Greater community awareness of the programs being run by both organisations; and

·         Being able to reward our volunteers and disadvantaged youth for their efforts.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council continue the “Community Partnership” with the South Sydney Football Club with the $40,000.00 (incl GST) contribution to come from the Community Services budget;

 

b)     the General Manager be delegated authority to enter into a Memorandum of         Understanding with the South Sydney Football Club; and

 

c)     a report on the success of the 2017 Community Partnership to come back      before Council.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM47/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Public Domain Improvements to Support Local Businesses

Folder No:                F2005/00015

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

a)     bring back a report investigating the feasibility of using the Meeks Street Plaza, as a pilot for temporary installations and activities to create good places for people. The installations aim to improve the public domain and create a space for people to meet, interact and spend time while also supporting local businesses. The temporary space created can also be further used for other special activities, such as markets, exhibitions, performances, etc; and

 

b)     monitor the success and community support of these types of temporary installations and activities, with the aim of adopting them as a potential trial approach to public domain across the city, to visually improve and activate empty public spaces.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM48/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Introduction of Wi-Fi in Town Centres

Folder No:                F2005/00015

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward     

 

 

That Council bring back a report re-investigating the possibility of introducing Wi-Fi to town centres within the Randwick LGA.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM49/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Alternative storage solutions and facilities for boat trailers

Folder No:                F2004/06847

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

a)     consider applying for a grant under the NSW State Government's Boat Trailer Storage Grants Program, to establish alternative storage solutions and facilities for boat trailers; and

 

b)     bring back a report investigating the possibility of "opting into" the new Boat Trailer laws devised under the Impounding Amendment (Unattended Boat Trailers) Act 2015, which allow Council to take impounding action against boat trailers parked for more than 28 days.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM50/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Bicycle Safety

Folder No:                F2006/00536

Submitted by:          Councillor Bowen, East Ward      

 

 

That:

 

a)     Randwick Council acknowledges the popularity of cycling for health, sport and         recreation in Randwick, particularly given Centennial Park, Heffron Park and the     Pedal Park are within Randwick LGA.

 

b)     Council further acknowledges a significant safety issue for cyclists and drivers in         Randwick City LGA is the risk of cyclists colliding with opening car doors, in   particular the driver’s door.

 

c)     As such Council liaise with RMS about the feasibility of increasing cyclist and          driver safety through use of the “Dutch reach” technique which is reportedly part of driver training in the Netherlands designed to minimise the incidence of         cyclist and driver’s door collisions.

       

d)     Furthermore Council also offer to organise a trial study within Randwick LGA with interested stakeholders.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                         22 November 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM51/16

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Completion of all-weather perimeter walking path for Randwick Environment Park

Folder No:                F2010/00407

Submitted by:          Councillor Bowen, East Ward      

 

 

That Council notes the popularity of Randwick Environment Park and recreational walking within Randwick LGA generally. As such Council urgently prioritise funds to complete the missing section of the all-weather walking path at the western end of the Randwick Environment Park.