RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 27 June 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

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, 27 June 2017 at 6:00pm

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

We humbly beseech you to bestow your blessings upon this Council and to direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of your glory and the true welfare of the people of Randwick and Australia. Amen”

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

I would like to acknowledge that we are here today on the land of the Bidjigal people of the Dharwahal Nation.  The Bidjigal people are the traditional owners and custodians of this land and form part of the wider aboriginal nations of the Sydney area.  On behalf of Randwick City Council I would also like to acknowledge and pay my respects to the Elders both past and present.”

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 23 May 2017

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

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.

Address of Council by Members of the Public

Mayoral Minutes

MM15/17  Financial contribution - Souths Cares NAIDOC Festival 2017...................... 1

MM16/17  Kensington Park Community Centre Council Activities................................ 3   

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

Urgent Business


 

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting required)

In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act, the General Manager is required to keep a register of Councillor voting on planning matters. Planning matters are any decisions made in the exercise of a function of a council under the EP&A Act and include decisions relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan under that Act. In addition, Randwick City Council has resolved (22 July 2008) that its register of voting include the voting on all tender matters.

CP25/17   23 Meehan Street, Matraville (DA/51/2017).............................................. 5

CP26/17   4 Palmer Street, South Coogee (DA/831/2016)....................................... 21

CP27/17   3 Mears Avenue, Randwick (DA/494/2015/B).......................................... 31

CP28/17   275 Beauchamp Road, Matraville (DA/163/2017).................................... 39

CP29/17   6 Pearce Street, South Coogee (DA/30/2017)......................................... 57

CP30/17   Planning Proposal - 148 Barker Street, Randwick..................................... 65

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP31/17   La Perouse and Kurnell Ferry Wharves Feasibility Study 2016 Final Report 77

CP32/17   Smart Cities and Suburbs Program Grants............................................... 81

CP33/17   2017-18 Community Partnerships Funding Program Recommended Allocations............................................................................................... 87

General Manager's Reports

GM10/17  Randwick City Council Operational Plan and Budget 2017-18.................. 97

GM11/17  Augmenting existing consultation strategies ......................................... 117

Director City Services Reports

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Report

GF19/17   Investment Report - May 2017 ............................................................. 119  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM35/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Investigation of email of 5 June 2017 from Council Official Rosemary Mackenzie............................................. 129

NM36/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - War on Waste .................................... 131

NM37/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Today's Packaging is Tomorrow's Landfill                                                                                                               133

NM38/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Stevenson - Popularly elected Mayor in the future                                                                                                              135

NM39/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Support for City of Sydney alternative strategy on the WestConnex Motorway.................................................. 137

NM40/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Promoting Shop Local Program....... 139

NM41/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Urgent request for MPs to facilitate a meeting with the Planning Minister to lobby for exhibition of Draft Kensington and Kingsford Planning Strategy......................................... 141

NM42/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - Urban design options for Clovelly Road                                                                                                              143

NM43/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Consideration of a Garden Lane Program                                                                                                               145

NM44/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson - Blenheim House and Captain Cook Statue be added to State Register and any other relevant heritage lists............ 147

NM45/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Appropriate local responses to London's high rise fire at the Grenfell Tower building........................................... 149  

Closed Session

Director City Services Report (record of voting required)

CS5/17     Joint Tender for Lift Maintenance and Repair Services - Tender T2017-16

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.

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports (record of voting NOT required)

GF20/17   Operational Plan and Budget 2017-18: Confidential Fees and Charges

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.

Director Governance & Financial Services Report (record of voting required)

GF21/17   SSROC Tender for Council Owned Lighting (Public Lighting) for Category 3 - Tender No. T2016-09

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                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Mayoral Minute No. MM15/17

 

Subject:              Financial contribution - Souths Cares NAIDOC Festival 2017

Folder No:                F2004/07684

Author:                     The  Mayor, Cr Noel D'Souza      

 

Introduction

 

The General Manager of the Souths Cares Program has written to me seeking financial assistance for the Souths Cares NAIDOC Festival which is held in the first week of July each year.

 

Issues

 

The Souths Cares NAIDOC Festival will be held from 11am-3pm on Wednesday 5 July 2017 at Heffron Park. South Cares has requested financial assistance from Council to assist with facilities hire and waste management services.

 

NAIDOC week is a great opportunity to celebrate Aboriginal culture and acknowledge the contribution that Aboriginal people make to our community.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The proposed financial contribution is $6,700 which will be made up as follows:

 

Financial contribution towards the event staging and sound;                                  $5,000

In-kind contribution for the supply and removal of 20 bins for the event;               $1,700

 

It is proposed that the financial contribution (cash and in-kind) of $6,700 will be funded from the 2017-18 Contingency Fund.

 

Conclusion

 

Randwick City Council is a proud supporter of NAIDOC week. Council’s contribution towards this event will be acknowledged in all promotional material and all Councillors will be extended an invitation to attend the event.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council supports the South Cares 2017 NAIDOC Festival by making a financial contribution (cash and in-kind) of $6,700 to be funded from the 2017-18 Contingency Fund.

 

b)     Council’s contribution towards this event will be acknowledged in all promotional material and all Councillors be extended an invitation to attend the event.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Mayoral Minute No. MM16/17

 

Subject:              Kensington Park Community Centre Council Activities

Folder No:                PROJ/10686/2013

Author:                     The  Mayor, Cr Noel D'Souza      

 

Introduction

 

As per my commitment at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 23 May 2017 addressing the issue of the Kensington Park Community Centre Draft Fees and Charges, I propose to have the Kensington Park Community Centre open to the public as a free drop in Centre for a set number of hours per week.

 

Issues

 

The Kensington Park Community Centre has been refurbished as a multi-purpose community centre comprising of two large halls, to be managed in accordance with Councils Community Hall Hire Policy.  The Centre is a refurbishment of the previous Kensington Bowling Club at Kensington Park.

 

As the venue has not previously been used for a this purpose, opening the Centre by Council for two hours per week will not only provide a social facility making the Centre available for the community to come together for social interaction and educational pursuits, it will also enable the community to view the facility and its potential for hire.

 

Council staff could provide information sessions, activities and seminars, informing visitors of current Council programs, consultation and events.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

In order to promote the hire of the facility it is fitting that Council provide staffing to the Kensington Park Community Centre for two hours between the hours of 10am to 12noon on Tuesday each week for a trial period of six months.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council use existing staff to open the Kensington Park Community Centre for a period of two hours per week for information sessions, activities and seminars on Council programs, consultation and events, for a trial period of six months to commence after the opening of the Community Centre. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP25/17

 

Subject:              23 Meehan Street, Matraville (DA/51/2017)

Folder No:                DA/51/2017

Author:                     Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                  Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new part two part three storey attached dual occupancy with inground swimming pools, associated site and landscape works (variation to building height)

Ward:                        South Ward

Applicant:                Pinnacle Plus

Owner:                     Ms S G York

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=ed7e3087-f0b8-4a13-b5f3-b0ef3c2ccd03&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been assessed by an external planning consultant and is referred to Council for the determination as a Council employee previously owned a neighbouring property.

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing dwelling and swimming pool on the site and the construction of an attached, two storey dual occupancy development. Each dwelling includes:

 

-    Basement level;

-    Ground floor level with single garage, laundry, WC, open plan kitchen/dining/living room and rear facing balcony;

-    First floor level with four bedrooms (one with ensuite bathroom), study alcove, bathroom, rumpus, and rear facing balcony; and

-    Swimming pool in the rear yard adjacent to the basement level.

 

The original proposal was revised in response to initial feedback from Council’s preliminary assessment to:

-    Lower the basement level and overall building height to achieve compliance with the LEP height control and LEP FSR control;

-    Increase the front setback to match the streetscape; and

-    Implement measures to protect privacy for neighbouring dwellings along side elevations.

 

Revised plans and a new BASIX Certificate were submitted and these are the subject of this development assessment report and recommended conditions.

 

Site

 

The site is known as 23 Meehan Street, Matraville and is located on the eastern side of the street.  An aerial photo of the site and surrounds is included in Figure 1 with the site shaded yellow.

 

Figure 1: Aerial photo of site and surrounds (Source: www.maps.six.nsw.gov.au)

 

The site is almost rectangular in shape with a frontage to Meehan Street 15.24m wide.  The northern side boundary is 36.66m long.  The southern side boundary is 38.1m long.  The rear boundary is 15.44m.  The total area of the site is 562.1m2.

 

The existing development on the site includes a single storey dwelling house and in-ground swimming pool.  A photograph of the site as viewed from Meehan Street is included in Figure 2.  There is a large shrub in the front setback of the site and established shrubs along the southern side boundary and the rear boundary.  The existing vegetation does not have ecological significance.  The site slopes down from the front boundary to the rear with an overall change in level of between 4m and 4.76m.

 

Figure 2: No.23 Meehan Street as viewed from the street frontage

 

To the south of the site is a single storey dwelling house at No. 25 Meehan Street (see Figure 3). Council has approved the demolition of this dwelling and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy on the site in accordance with Development Consent DA/916/2015. The approved site plan is shown in Figure 4.

 

Figure 3: No. 25 Meehan Street (southern neighbour)

 

 

Figure 3: Approved dual occupancy at No. 25 Meehan Street.

 

The property to the north at No. 21 Meehan Street contains a single storey dwelling house (as shown in Figure 5). Development Consent DA/63/2017 was granted on 23 May 2017 for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of an attached, two storey dual occupancy.  A copy of the approved elevations and site plan are included in Figures 6 to 8 inclusive.

 

Figure 5: No. 21 Meehan Street (northern neighbour)

 

Figure 6: Site plan of approved dual occupancy at No. 21 Meehan Street

 

Figure 7: Street elevation of approved dual occupancy at No. 21 Meehan Street

 

Figure 8: Southern elevation of approved dual occupancy at No. 21 Meehan Street

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and/or likely affected nearby 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:

 

·     1157 Anzac Pde, MATRAVILLE

·     19 Meehan St, MATRAVILLE

·     25 Meehan St, MATRAVILLE

 

The issues raised in the submissions that are of relevance to the matters for consideration in accordance with Section 79C to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act, 1979) are summarised in the following table along with assessment comments.

 

Issues

Comments

 

Privacy impacts from side elevation glass windows

Conditions are recommended to ensure impacts are minimised and reasonable in the context of the site as well as existing and likely future development of adjoining land.

 

To minimise the overlooking impacts on the neighbouring properties to the north and south, a condition is recommended to require:

 

§ Translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing to all the feature windows to the bathroom, stairwell and rumpus room windows at first floor level for both new dwellings to at least a height of 1.6m from finished floor level.

 

This condition is consistent with similar conditions included in Development Consents for neighbouring dual occupancies DA/63/2017 and DA/916/2015.

Privacy and noise impacts from rear balconies

The rear facing balconies at ground floor level are considered a suitable size for a private outdoor space directly accessible from the living room.  These lower balconies are 2.5m deep and 6m long.  These balconies are elevated and extend partly over the proposed swimming pools.  They have suitable setbacks from the rear boundary to maintain privacy to the neighbours to the rear.  These same balconies are proposed to have a setback of 1.2m from the side boundaries and therefore, consistent with conditions of Development Consents for neighbouring dual occupancies DA/63/2017 and DA/916/2015, privacy screens a minimum 1.8m high fixed to the outer edge of these balconies are recommended.

 

The first floor balconies to the master bedrooms of both dwellings are proposed to be 2.5m x 4.5m and are proposed to be elevated approximately 4.5m above natural ground level.  Consistent with conditions of consent for neighbouring dual occupancies DA/63/2017 and DA/916/2015, conditions are recommended that the balconies off master bedrooms to both dwellings be reduced to a width of 1m.

Non-compliant height

Amended plans have been submitted to council reducing the height of the dwellings to a maximum 8.8m which complies with the 9.5m height limit

Visual bulk and resultant privacy impacts

The proposal complies with the maximum height limit and FSR limit and is considered an appropriate development for the site.  The bulk and scale of the proposal is consistent with that of the approved dual occupancies on neighbouring sites No.21 and No.25 Meehan Street.  Privacy matters have been examined above.

Impact of future lighting to external areas

Conditions of consent have been recommended requiring lighting details as part of the landscape plan to be submitted prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

All east facing windows and doors should have a privacy screen

East facing windows are those in the rear elevation of the proposed dual occupancy.  These windows are described for each proposed storey as follows:

- floor to ceiling windows and glass sliding doors of the basement set back between 9.55m and 11.99m from the rear boundary and will mostly be below the existing ground line.  With the provision of boundary fencing and planting along the rear boundary there will be no direct line of sight which would be expected to result in overlooking of the neighbouring property;

- floor to ceiling windows and glass sliding doors to each living room which is to be elevated above the basement and part of the pool and set back between 10.38m and 12.82m from the rear boundary.  These windows and the glass balustrades are designed to provide an outlook over the pool areas and rear yard space from the living room areas and screening would detract from the intended outlook and solar access to interior living spaces.  The separation from the rear boundary is considered adequate in the context and setting; and

- floor to ceiling windows and glass sliding doors to the master bedroom and ensuites at first floor level are to be set back between 10.49m and 12.925m from the rear boundary.  Conditions are recommended for the windows to the ensuites to be fitted with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing for both new dwellings to at least a height of 1.6m from finished floor level.  The proposed balconies to the master bedrooms are to be hooded which will reduce the potential lines of sight to neighbouring properties.  Conditions are recommended for the width of the balconies to be reduced to 1m to limit the potential utility of this outdoor space (which will also reduce the opportunity for overlooking).  Conditions are also recommended for the balustrade to be fitted with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing.

Noise from Air Conditioning units

A standard condition of consent has been recommended that requires AC not be used:

 

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

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

 

Drainage impacts downhill

Conditions of consent have been imposed by council’s Development Engineer for appropriate stormwater drainage compatible with neighbouring properties.

Pool and decking:

Is it inground?

Is there lighting?

Where does the pool overflow drain to?

 

 

Where are the filters?

Overlooking from decks

 

The proposed pools are in-ground.

No lighting has been indicated on the plans submitted with the development application and conditions of consent are recommended for an exterior lighting plan to be submitted with the Construction Certificate.

A condition of consent has been recommended requiring pool overflow to be drained to the contained stormwater system to be approved for the dwellings in accordance with the Construction Certificate.

The surrounds to the swimming pools are located at or below existing ground levels as shown in Figures 9 and 10 and are proposed to be separated from the rear boundary by screen planting (see Figures 9 and 10).  It is considered that there will be no unreasonable overlooking from the surrounds of the proposed pool areas and rear yard for these reasons.

What is the proposed boundary fencing?

The proposed boundary fencing details have not been included on the plans submitted with the development application. Due to the proposed changes to existing ground levels and the requirements for construction of steps within the side setback areas, further details of the external wall construction and retaining walls will need to be provided with the Construction Certificate and conditions are recommended accordingly.

Object to removal of pine tree

Council’s Landscape Officer supports the removal of the pine tree and a condition of consent has been impose to require the planting of 2 canopy trees in addition to the screen planting proposed along the rear boundary and for the location of plant species to be nominated on the landscape plan submitted with the Construction Certificate.

Height of basement out of ground

Amended plans were submitted to council reducing the height of the basement out of ground to a maximum 965mm above existing ground level.

Non-compliance with front setback control

The proposed dwellings are setback 6m from the front boundary which complies with the control and is consistent with the approved dual occupancy developments at 21 and 25 Meehan Street.

Object to number of steps down the side

The steps along the side setbacks are required for external access to the rear yard from the front yard and are interspersed with ramped sections.  Conditions are recommended for the finished surface level of steps and ramps within the side setback not to exceed 600mm above existing ground level in order to minimise the difference in finished height between the side setback areas and neighbouring properties.  This may require the deletion of the external doors to the laundries of both dwellings.  Details are to be included in the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate.

Fill at the rear of the site

As shown in Figures 9 and 10 the proposed works within the rear of the site require excavation below existing ground level.

Where are the rainwater tanks located?

1,000 litre rainwater storage tanks have been nominated per dwelling.  Conditions of consent are recommended for the location of tanks to be indicated on the floor plans, landscape plan and stormwater plans to be submitted with the Construction Certificate.

No canopy tree provided

A condition of consent has been impose to require the planting of 2 canopy trees to be nominated on the landscape plan submitted with the Construction Certificate.

 

 

Figure 9: Extract from Section A showing relative level of pool surrounds and existing ground level (shown dashed red)

 

Figure 10: Extract from North West elevation showing relative level of pool surrounds and existing ground level (shown dashed red)

 

Key Issues

 

The development has been revised to achieve compliance with LEP development standards for height, FSR and front setback.  The revisions to the original scheme have addressed many of the key issues previously identified with the preliminary assessment of the development application.  The key issues associated with the revised scheme are examined below.

 

The proposal is compliant with all relevant development standards and objectives of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) and is compliant with the relevant objectives and controls of Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan.

 

Whilst the proposal fits the merit criteria for external wall height for sloping sites, a detailed analysis of the proposed external wall height is provided below to demonstrate that the proposal achieves an appropriate degree of merit as well as compliance.

 

Similarly the DCP allows additional excavation depth on sloping sites subject to a merit assessment.  The proposal therefore complies with the relevant DCP requirements and a detailed analysis of the proposed excavation is provided below to demonstrate that the proposal achieves an appropriate degree of merit in addition to compliance.

 

The matter of protecting the privacy of existing and new residents has been examined throughout this report and in response to matters raised in submissions.  The protection of privacy remains the key issue in the assessment and determination of the application and can be addressed by recommended conditions of consent as described below.

 

Privacy Impacts

The privacy impacts of the proposed dwellings on the neighbouring properties to the east, south and north have been discussed in the table above. Conditions are recommended to ensure impacts are minimised and reasonable. 

 

To minimise the overlooking impacts on the neighbouring properties to the north and south, conditions are recommended to require:

 

·     Translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing to all the feature windows to the bathroom and stairwell for each dwelling to at least a height of 1.6m from finished floor level.

·     A privacy screen having a height of 1.8m above floor level must be provided to the southern edge of the ground floor rear terrace of 23a Meehan Street, and the northern edge of the ground floor rear terrace of 23 Meehan Street, for a length of 2.5m from the eastern edge of the terrace towards the external wall of the dwelling. The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame;

·     The depth of the balconies to both master bedrooms to be reduced to 1m;

·     The balustrades to the balconies to both master bedrooms to be translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing; and

·     The finished level of steps and pathways within side setbacks to be limited to within 600mm of existing ground level to prevent overlooking.

 

External Wall Height Merit

Control 3.2 to the DCP allows an external wall height is excess of 8m for development on sloping sits and subject to the following merit assessment considerations:

 

“An alternative design that variates from the above external wall height controls may be acceptable having regard to the following consideration:

- Site topography

- Site orientation

- Allotment configuration

- Allotment dimensions

- Potential impacts on the visual amenity, solar access, privacy and views of the adjoining properties”

 

The site slopes from the street to the rear with a fall of around 4m. The proposed development has a maximum height of 8.8m as shown in the figure below.

 

Figure 7: Proposed elevation showing wall height non-compliance

 

The objectives of the control are:

 

·     To ensure development height establishes a suitable scale to the street and contributes to its character.

·     To ensure development height does not cause unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy and visual amenity.

·     To ensure the form and massing of development respect the topography of the site.

 

The overall height of the building complies with the maximum 9.5m height limit. The proposal meets the merit criteria of the DCP control by:

 

-    Providing an interesting roof form at the front and side elevations, which is contemporary but compatible with the recently approved, and currently under assessment, dual occupancy developments in the street. The design also incorporates a variety of building materials and articulated façades to all elevations.

-    The minimum ceiling meets the 2.7m DCP control and meets the DCP solar access controls for the subject and adjoining sites.

-    The external wall height does not contribute to any adverse privacy impacts as the location of windows and doors are within the required setback distances to site boundaries and are not located above the 8m height limit.

 

With respect to the bulk and scale of the development:

 

-    The development is appropriate for the site as it complies with the maximum height and floor space controls, and meets the required side and rear (with one minor point encroachment) setback controls and therefore is consistent with what could be reasonably expected under the LEP.

-    The extent of overshadowing, which complies with the DCP controls, is dependent on the overall height of the building as opposed to the non-compliance with the external wall height.

-    The proposed encroachment into the maximum wall height is considered to be minor and will not substantially change the appearance of the proposal in a way that will affect the desired future character of the locality.

-    The proposed non-compliant portion is related to a small volume of the upper level.

-    It is considered that the proposal responds appropriately to the site (given the slope towards the rear) and creates impacts that could be expected of the applicable planning controls.

-    The minor variation to the wall height maximum does not provide for any significant difference to shadow impacts. The shadow cast on the adjoining property to the south would be cast similarly by a compliant building.

 

The proposed development is therefore consistent with the objectives for the wall height control, despite the non-compliance, and is supported given the compliance with the height limit and the absence of amenity related impacts.

 

Excavation

 

Chapter 4.6 of the DCP relates to earthworks and states:

 

“i) Any excavation and backfilling within the building footprint must be limited to 1m at any point on the allotment, unless it is demonstrated that the site gradient is too steep to reasonably construct a dwelling within this extent of site modification. These requirements do not apply to swimming or spa pool structures.”

 

As described earlier in this report, the subject site slopes from the street to the rear boundary with a fall of around 4m. The maximum depth of excavation is 2.7m as shown in the figure below.

 

Figure 8: Section showing depth of excavation

 

The objectives of the control are:

 

· To maintain or minimise change to the natural ground levels.

· To ensure excavation and backfilling of a site do not result in unreasonable structural, visual, overshadowing and privacy impacts on the adjoining dwellings.

· To enable the provision of usable private open space for dwellings with adequate gradient.

· To ensure earthworks do not result in adverse stormwater impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

Despite the extent of excavation, the proposal meets the objectives of the control in that:

 

·     it will have no adverse impact on neighbours with respect to height as it meets the overall height limit and privacy and overlooking will be controlled by a variety of methods and recommended conditions as detailed throughout this report;

·     the finished floor levels step down the slope of the site to reduce the bulk of the building when viewed from adjoining properties;

·     stepping the building down the site allows for a useable private open space area to be terraced to match closely with existing ground levels;

·     stormwater drainage will be provided so as not to adversely impact downhill neighbours.

 

The proposal therefore meets the merit requirements of the DCP for achieving excavation compatible with the site and its setting.

 

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 applicable LEP and DCP controls including the merit provisions for external wall height and excavation depth for sloping sites.  The proposal is considered to be appropriate to the site, context and setting subject to recommended design requirements to protect privacy and for the submission of additional information with a Construction Certificate for retaining walls, external lighting, canopy tree planting, stormwater management and provision of rainwater storage tanks.

 

The overall design and layout of the proposal including landscaping will be appropriate for the context and setting of the site.  The proposal will not have any unreasonable adverse impact on the surrounding natural or built environment nor will it have detrimental impacts to the amenity of neighbours, the streetscape or the capacity of essential services subject to recommended conditions of consent and is worthy of support.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 51/2017 for Demolition of existing dwelling and swimming pool and construction of attached dual occupancy dwellings and in-ground swimming pools, at No. 23 Meehan Street, Matraville, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

 Non standard conditions

 

To maintain privacy for neighbouring properties the following design changes are to be incorporated into the development and indicated on plans submitted with the Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of the PCA:

 

a.      A privacy screen having a height of 1.8m above floor level must be provided to the northern edge of the ground floor rear terrace adjacent to the living room of 23 Meehan Street, for a length of 2.5m from the eastern edge of the terrace towards the external wall of the dwelling. The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

b.      A privacy screen having a height of 1.8m above floor level must be provided to the southern edge of the ground floor rear terrace adjacent to the living room of 23a Meehan Street, for a length of 2.5m from the eastern edge of the terrace towards the external wall of the dwelling. The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

c.      Translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing to all the feature windows to the bathroom and stairwell and rumpus rooms in the northern and southern facades to at least a height of 1.6m from finished floor level;

 

d.     The depth of the balcony to both master bedrooms is to be reduced to 1m and the balustrades to both these balconies is to be provided as translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing; and

 

e.      The steps and paths within the side setbacks are to be constructed with a finished surface level that does not exceed 600mm above the ground level along the boundary line in order to reduce overlooking to the neighbouring properties.

 

The following additional information is required to be submitted with the Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of the PCA as detailed below:

 

a.   details of the internal walls and openings surrounding the void space within each dwelling to demonstrate the space can be used for natural ventilation and light and the space can be regularly maintained.  The access to the space shall not compromise weather proofing of the dwelling interior;

b.   details of side and rear boundary fencing to demonstrate fencing will not exceed 1.8m and will provide adequate privacy and amenity for neighbouring properties;

c.   details of all retaining walls throughout the site including retaining walls to be incorporated in the layout and design of steps and pathways; and

d.  the location of rainwater storage tanks to be indicated in the landscape plan and stormwater management plans.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 23 Meehan Street, MATRAVILLE

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP26/17

 

Subject:              4 Palmer Street, South Coogee (DA/831/2016)

Folder No:                DA/831/2016

Author:                     Barker Ryan Stewart, Pty Ltd      

 

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

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Alec Pappas Architects Pty Ltd

Owner:                     Ms E Tjanterik & Mr S Wu

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=2bf2a137-545c-4e6d-93c0-0fc057b0717c&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application was assessed by an external planning consultant and is referred to Council for determination as a Randwick City Councillor resides nearby.

Proposal

 

Demolition of the existing dwelling house, retention of the existing swimming pool and construction of a new dwelling house with associated landscaping

 

Site

 

The subject site is located at 4 Palmer Street, South Coogee, legally described as Lot A DP 377588. The site currently contains a part one, part two and part 3 storey brick dwelling house with inground swimming pool. There is no significant trees or vegetation on the site.

 

The site has a fall of approximately 2.2m from the south west (fronting Palmer Street) to the north east (rear of site).

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·     15 Pearce Street, South Coogee

·     11 Close Street, South Coogee

·     2 Palmer Street, South Coogee

·     6 Palmer Street, South Coogee

 

A summary of the issues and comments in response is detailed in the table below.

Issues

Comments

Privacy and Rear Setback– The proposal will result in reduced visual privacy for some neighboring properties, specifically the rear balcony.

Part C1 Section 3.3.3 of the Randwick DCP 2013 identifies a minimum rear setback requirement of 6.9m. Proposed habitable rooms achieve a minimum setback of 6.95m, complying with Councils requirements.

 

Plans have been amended since the original Development Application and the rear balcony has been reduced, achieving a greater setback. The rear balcony now achieves a setback of 5.8m.

 

Although the rear balcony protrudes into the setback area, the variation and design is compatible with the residential area and nearby developments. The proposal improves the existing rear setback of the site. In relation to privacy impacts from windows on the western elevation they are mostly highlight windows. The stair and kitchen splashback windows will be conditioned to be fixed and translucent.

Views and Bulk and Scale – The proposal will result in view loss for some neighbouring properties

See Key Issues sections.

 

The re-design of the rear balcony has removed the west-side wall, allowing for an ‘open form’ design. The proposed dwelling has also been moved closer to the front of the property. The amendments significantly reduce the impact on neighbouring properties and allow for view sharing. 

Pool Pump (Acoustic Impacts)

The proposal demonstrates that the pool pump and filtration equipment will be contained within an acoustically treated enclosure.

Stormwater Management

Council’s Development Engineer does not require the subject development to be drained to an infiltration area within the site due to the presence of rock in the area. All site stormwater is to be discharged to the front of the site to the kerb and gutter in Palmer Street.

 

Key Issues

 

View Sharing

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

 

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

 

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

 

A number of submissions have been received from neighbouring properties in relation to view loss. The following properties have been investigated to determine if the proposal would result in any view loss impacts:

 

·     2 Palmer Street, South Coogee

·     11 Close Street, South Coogee

·     15 Pearce Street, South Coogee

 

Note: A further inspection of No. 15 Pearce Street was carried out, however given its location to the north of the site, views from this property are not affected by the proposed development.

 

The Assessing Consultant has undertaken an independent assessment of the view sharing impacts and the above affected properties have been visited.

 

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

 

2 Palmer Street, South Coogee

2 Palmer Street obtains the following views:

·     partial ocean views looking east (across the boundary) along Palmer Street from the front porch;

·     (across the boundary) from the ground floor stair at the rear of the dwelling house;

·     partial ocean views, looking north east (across the boundary) from the first floor rear balcony at the rear of the dwelling house; and

·     partial ocean views, looking north east (across a the boundary) from the ground floor level enclosed balcony at the rear of the dwelling house.

11 Close Street, South Coogee

No. 11 Close Street obtains views from the ground floor living room and first floor balcony on the northern side of the property. The views are partial ocean views.

 

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.”

 

2 Palmer Street, South Coogee

Extent of impact

Ground floor porch at front of dwelling

Negligible impact.

 

The setback of the proposed dwelling is consistent with front setback of 2 Palmer Street and is considered acceptable.

Ground floor stairs at rear of dwelling

Minimal impact.

 

The proposal achieves an increase rear setback in comparison to the setback of the existing dwelling.

 

The proposed rear balcony has been redesigned to incorporate an ‘open form’ design, the column/downpipe in the north-west corner has been relocated to reduce bulk and scale.

 

The proposal will not compromise any significant views from the rear stairs.

Ground floor level enclosed balcony

Minimal impact.

 

The wall blade may contribute to minor view loss; however, the wall blade achieves a setback of 8.8m.

First floor rear balcony

Minimal – moderate impact.

 

The re-design of the rear balcony has removed the west-side wall, allowing for an ‘open form’ design. The amendments significantly reduce the impact on neighboring properties and allow for view sharing.

11 Close Street, South Coogee

 

Ground floor living room

Negligible – Minimal impact.

 

Partial ocean views may be compromised, however the proposal compiles with building height and FSR. The bulk and scale of the proposed development is compatible with the streetscape and surrounding developments.

First floor balcony on northern side of property

Negligible – Minimal impact.

 

Partial ocean views may be compromised, however the proposal compiles with building height and FSR. The bulk and scale of the proposed development is compatible with the streetscape and surrounding developments.

 

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

 

The view loss analysis indicated that:

2 Palmer Street, South Coogee – The views currently enjoyed at this property will be affected. The impact is considered to be moderate. 

 

11 Close Street, South Coogee – The views currently enjoyed at this property will be affected. The impact is considered to be minor.

 

The proposal complies with the maximum allowable height and FSR under the RLEP 2012. The amended proposal has been designed with consideration of the view loss principles. The architectural character, size and scale of the proposed building is consistent with the locality and surrounding developments. The bulk and scale of the proposed building is consistent with the desired future character of the locality in terms of built form.

 

Due to the sloping nature of the site and design of the proposed development, including varying setbacks and the ‘open form’ design of the rear balcony, the proposal is considered reasonable having regard to the view sharing objectives outlined in the Randwick DCP. Accordingly, the resultant view loss impact is justified in this regard.

 

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 application has been assessed against Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and is considered satisfactory.

 

The proposed works are considered appropriate within the context of the site. The application is 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. 831/2016 for demolition of the existing dwelling house, retention of the existing swimming pool and construction of a new dwelling house with associated landscaping, at No. 4 Palmer Street, subject to the following non standard condition 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 staircase and kitchen splash back windows proposed on the western elevation must be constructed of either fixed obscure or translucent glazing to minimise potential overlooking onto No. 2 Palmer Street.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 4 Palmer Street, SOUTH COOGEE 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP27/17

 

Subject:              3 Mears Avenue, Randwick (DA/494/2015/B)

Folder No:                DA/494/2015/B

Author:                     Julia Hunt, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Section 96 Modification of the approved development by altering the internal layout, increase height of parapet walls, replace rear garage with 2 hardstand car spaces , relocation of garbage storage to the rear and changes to the design of eastern elevation (Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                        East

Applicant:                Lombardo Design Studio

Owner:                     The Owners Strata Plan 68206

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=38c26627-99bc-4bb8-9000-911700e09e32&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

The Section 96(2) application is referred to Council as the original application was determined by Council.

Proposal

 

·      Modify northern street front façade by: increasing the height of the parapet wall using recycled bricks removed from entry wall, removing existing first floor window and creating balcony for first floor unit reducing the habitable floor area, enclosing ground floor unit approved balcony to create habitable floor space to be used as living room.

·      Modify southern façade by: increasing height of parapet wall, bricking up existing door opening at first floor level and deleting external staircase, applying frosted film coating to existing window at first floor.

·      Modify eastern façade by increasing height of parapet wall, removing existing window at the northern end of the eastern façade to create balcony opening, install fence and access gate at eastern end of ground floor courtyard.

·      Modify western façade by: increasing height of parapet wall, installing two (2) timber screens on western side of external clothes drying area in rear setback.

·      Deleting previously approved double garage in rear setback and replacing with two (2) ground level hardstand car spaces ;

·      Modify internal staircase balustrade on first floor level;

·      Modify ground floor layout by removing internal walls and balcony walls to create open plan living/dining.

·      Modify level 1 layout by removing internal wall to create pen plan living and converting previously approved floor area into an external balcony at the northern end of level 1.

 

Site history

 

Approval was originally granted to the application at the Planning Committee meeting held on 10 May 2015 to carry out Alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy to create residential flat building with 3 units including new second floor, demolition of the existing garage, construction of a new double garage with trafficable roof, new bin store, landscaping and associated works.

 

The development consent has been the subject of one previous Section 96 application which was subsequently withdrawn as the owners decided to change their design and superseded by the lodgment of this Section 96 DA/494/2015/B.

 

Section 96 Amendment

 

Under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the application meets the following criteria:

 

Substantially the Same Development

The proposal is for some minor modifications to the existing building façade, including increasing the height of the parapet wall, however notably not increasing the overall height of the previously approved building, and internal reconfigurations. These modifications will not result in a significant change to the nature of the original approval and do not increase floor area or building height and result in substantially the same development on the site, namely still a three (3) storey residential flat building comprising three (3) units as was previously approved under DA/494/2015.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

 

Key Issues

 

Deep soil area

Part 2.2.2 of RDCP 2013 requires a minimum of 25% of the site area (85.6sqm) should incorporate deep soil areas. The original DA was approved with 15% (50.585sqm) landscaped area, while the proposed amendments result in 10.81% (37.75sqm). A condition of consent has been included requiring the proposed paved area in the southwestern area of the site where the clothes drying area is located shall be permeable pavers in order to reduce storm water runoff and allow storm water infiltration while still achieving a maintainable communal area for clothes drying which is considered acceptable.

 

Balconies

Part 4.8 of RCDCP 2013 requires providing a primary balcony or courtyard for all apartments. Under the amendments in this proposal the approved ground floor balcony is converted to floor area at the northern end of ground floor unit with access to private open space in courtyard at ground level. While the approved floor space at the northern end of level 1 unit is converted to a balcony. This swap in design does not result in an increase in floor area and achieves a better design outcome with courtyard access for the ground floor unit, and a balcony to create private outdoor space for the level 1 unit.

 

Car parking configuration

The originally approved double garage in the rear setback is replaced with 2 hardstand car spaces in the same location on the site on the southern side of the RFB. This maintains the originally approved number of parking spaces with less visual bulk impact due to removal of the originally proposed double garage.

 

Colours, materials and finishes

The materials and finishes appropriately articulate the upper floor level with lightweight materials including timber cladding and dark recessive colours.

 

Council’s heritage planning officer has included conditions that the colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area and consistent with the architectural style of the building.  

 

Heritage:

The subject site is located within the High Cross heritage Conservation Area under Randwick LEP 2012. The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Officer who provided the following assessment:

 

Controls

Clause 5.10(4) of Randwick LEP 2012 requires Council to consider the effect of a proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area.  Clause 5.10(1) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 includes an Objective of conserving the heritage significance of heritage items including associated fabric, settings and views. 

 

The Heritage section of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 provides Objectives and Controls applying to development in a heritage conservation area, including Design and character; Scale and form; and Siting and setbacks.  In relation to Design and character, clause 2.2 of the DCP includes an Objective of ensuring that additions or changes to the external appearance of contributory buildings respect the original built form, architectural style and character.  In relation to Scale and Form, clause 2.3 of the DCP includes Objectives that street elevations and visible side elevations must not be significantly changed, with additions located to the rear or one side to minimise streetscape impact. 

 

Comments

Internal changes

Ground floor and first floor changes comprise layout changes to locate bedrooms and ensuite bathrooms to the rear, and kitchen and dining areas to the front.  At ground floor level, a dining area is to be provided in the area of the approved open front balcony.  At first floor level, an open front balcony is to be provided, as the rear garage with terrace above is to be deleted.  The proposed layout changes will not further impact on original spaces and detailing. 

 

In relation to changes to the internal staircase, the original application proposed removal of the original stairway and reconfiguration of the lobby area.  A consent condition required that the original terrazzo step treads and risers are to be retained if possible, in order to retain a greater proportion of original building fabric which is part of the contributory value of the building.  The current application proposes the retention of the original staircase between ground floor level and level 1 including original terrazzo step treads and risers.  The proposed changes to the internal stair are consistent with the previous consent condition.  An advisory condition should be included suggestion retention of herringbone tiled landings and decorative metal handrails, if possible. 

 

External changes

Proposed changes to the rear south elevation relate to the deletion of the rear garage with terrace above.  The existing rear stair and level 1 door are to be deleted and existing window and glass block openings are to be retained.  The proposed amendment will reduce the extent of change to existing building fabric.  Proposed changes to the front north elevation relate to the changes to the front balconies at ground and first floor levels.  The existing building has enclosed front balconies at ground and first floor level.  The original application proposed to retain the balcony enclosure at first floor level and to reopen the balcony at ground floor level.  The current application proposes to retain the balcony enclosure at ground floor level and to reopen the balcony at first floor level.  There are no heritage objections to the proposed changes, given the existing enclosures. 

 

The existing hipped roof is to be removed and the new second level addition is set back from the front wall of the existing building, enclosed by a fibre cement sheet balustrade and small perimeter planters.  A new face brick parapet is to be constructed, integrating the upper level with the interwar character of the building.  Consent conditions were included in relation to detailing of brickwork and mortar joints.  In relation to the changes to the level 2 balustrade, the current application proposes to reduce the setback of the balustrade from the eastern side wall of the building.  The proposed changes to the balustrade will have minimal impact on the prominence of the second level addition and will reduce its streetscape impact. 

 

In relation to changes to the east elevation, the original application proposed replacement of the original entry door, stair window and a large area of brickwork by a new entry with open landing above and louvered panels.  The new upper level was to include a 2m wide louvred panel and a 1m wide railing.  A consent condition required that the original reeded glass double doors to the side entry be retained if possible, in order to retain a greater proportion of original building fabric which is part of the contributory value of the building.  The current application proposes the retention of the reeded entry doors and concrete hood and surround, together with a 3m wide louvered panel at level 2.  The proposed changes to the east side elevation are consistent with the previous consent condition. 

 

Front fence

The original application proposed to retain the existing low masonry front fence, with additional screen planting behind the front fence to improve privacy to the paved courtyard and reinstated balcony behind.  The current application proposes to also provide a 1.7m high brick blade wall between the front courtyard area and the driveway.  While the height of the proposed blade wall will be considerably higher than the front fence, it is considered that there will be no significant streetscape impact.  A consent condition should be included requiring the submission of details of the materials of for the proposed fence. 

 

Carpark layout

The original application proposed to demolish an existing garage in the south east corner of the site and to provide a new double garage win the south west corner of the site accessed by an extended driveway.  A roof deck was to be provided above the proposed garage, accessed from the first floor unit.  The current application proposes to delete the proposed garage with roof top deck and to provide two car spaces in the south west corner of the site.  There are no heritage objections to the proposed changes to carparking arrangements. 

 

Recommendation

The following conditions should be included in any consent: 

 

·     The colours, materials and finishes of the proposed fence within the front building line are to be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area and consistent with the architectural style of the building.  Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Advisory condition

·     Consideration should be given to retention of herringbone tiled landings and decorative metal handrails, at ground and first floor level of the entry stair, if possible. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification to the approved development is satisfactory and generally complies with the relevant controls and objectives of the RDCP 2013. The modifications are minor in nature, are generally in keeping with the original approval and will not result in any significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining residents.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, modifies Development Consent No. 494/2015/B under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, by altering the internal layout, increase height of parapet walls, replace rear garage with 2 hardstand car spaces , relocation of garbage storage to the rear and changes to the design of eastern elevation (Heritage Conservation Area) at No. 3 Mears Avenue, Randwick in the following manner:

 

A)       Amend Condition 1 as follows:

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

101 (Revision B)

Lombardo Design Studio

15 October 2015

18 October 2015

102 (Revision B)

Lombardo Design Studio

15 October 2015

18 October 2015

103 (Revision B)

Lombardo Design Studio

15 October 2015

18 October 2015

104 (Revision B)

Lombardo Design Studio

15 October 2015

18 October 2015

201 (Revision B)

Lombardo Design Studio

15 October 2015

18 October 2015

202 (Revision B)

Lombardo Design Studio

15 October 2015

18 October 2015

203 (Revision B)

Lombardo Design Studio

15 October 2015

18 October 2015

301 (Revision B)

Lombardo Design Studio

15 October 2015

18 October 2015

 

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received

 

627216M

27 April 2015

23 July 2015

 

As amended by the Section 96 plans listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

101 issue f

Lombardo Design

30/3/2017

4/4/2017

102 issue f

30/3/2017

4/4/2017

103 issue f

30/3/2017

4/4/2017

200 issue f

30/3/2017

4/4/2017

201 issue f

30/3/2017

4/4/2017

401 issue f

30/3/2017

21/3/2017

202 issue f

30/3/2017

4/4/2017

203 issue f

30/3/2017

4/4/2017

 

B)       ADD Condition 2 (w) as follows

2.        w).    The paved area in the southwestern portion of the site beneath the clothes drying area shall be constructed of permeable pavers.

 

C)       ADD A18 to Advisory Conditions

A18. Consideration should be given to retention of herringbone tiled landings and decorative metal handrails, at ground and first floor level of the entry stair, if possible. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP28/17

 

Subject:              275 Beauchamp Road, Matraville (DA/163/2017)

Folder No:                DA/163/2017

Author:                     Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  Torrens title subdivision into 2 lots (variation to lot size).

Ward:                        South Ward

Applicant:                Mr R J Kehlet

Owner:                     Mr R J Kehlet

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The application is referred to Council at the request of Crs Stavrinos, Andrews and D'Souza (Mayor).

 

Proposal

 

It is proposed to subdivide the approved attached dual occupancy.

 

The proposed lot areas would be:

 

·     Lot 1: 384.5sqm

·     Lot 2: 400sqm

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Beauchamp Road in Matraville.  The site has dimensions of 16.08m/15.15m x 50.31m/50.38m with an overall site area of 784sqm.  Neighbouring the property to the east is a detached dual occupancy development in a battle-axe arrangement (not separately tenured). Further east, are smaller lots housing single dwellings sited along the western side of Eastern Road. To the west is a single dwelling. The surrounding area is residential in character consists a mixture of one and two storey dwelling houses and attached dual occupancy developments. See aerial photo on page 1.

 

Relevant DA History

 

DA/396/2013 – Approved under delegation - Demolish all existing structures on site and construction of a new two storey attached dual occupancy with garages, rear in-ground swimming pool, associated site and landscaped works.

 

DA/321/2014 – Refused under delegation - Strata subdivision of the approved dual occupancy into two lots (variation to minimum lot size standard).

 

DA/14/2015 – Refused at Planning Committee Meeting – Strata subdivision of the approved attached dual occupancy (variation to lot size).

 

DA/396/2013/A – Approved under delegation – Section 96 modification of the approved development by altering the design of the parapet and changes to window and door openings on elevations

 

Figure 1. Photograph of the front of the subject site

 

Submissions

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were required to be notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. As a result of the notification process, no submissions were received.

Key Issues

 

1.     Minimum Allotment Size - Subdivision

Clause 4.1 (3) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 states:

 

(3)  The size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

 

Pursuant to Clauses 4.1(3) of the RLEP, the minimum allotment size for subdivision of land zoned R2 zone is 400sqm per allotment and the proposal contravenes the standard as contained in clause 4.1 (3) of RLEP 2012. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Lot 1

Lot 2

Proposal

384.5m2

400 m2

Variation

15.5m2 below the development standard this equates to a 3.8% shortfall.

Complies

 

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

 

2.     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 objectives of the minimum subdivision lot size for strata plan schemes in Zone R2 is set out in clause 4.1A of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

(1)      The objective of this clause is to ensure that land to which this clause applies is not fragmented by subdivisions that would create additional dwelling entitlements

 

In addition, the objectives of Zone R2 are relevant to the proposed development and read as follows:

 

Objectives of Zone R2:

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

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

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

·            To protect the amenity of residents.

·            To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The aims of the RLEP 2013 are also relevant and read as follows:

(2)    The particular aims of this Plan (RLEP 2013) are as follows:

 

(a)      to foster a liveable city that is accessible, safe and healthy with quality public spaces and attractive neighbourhoods and centres,

(b)      to support a diverse local economy and business and employment opportunities for the community,

(c)      to support efficient use of land, vibrant centres, integration of land use and transport, and an appropriate mix of uses,

(d)      to achieve a high standard of design in the private and public domain that enhances the quality of life of the community,

(e)      to promote sustainable transport, public transport use, walking and cycling,

(f)      to facilitate sustainable population and housing growth,

(g)     to encourage the provision of housing mix and tenure choice, including affordable and adaptable housing, that meets the needs of people of different ages and abilities in Randwick,

(h)      to promote the importance of ecological sustainability in the planning and development process,

(i)       to protect, enhance and promote the environmental qualities of Randwick,

(j)       to ensure the conservation of the environmental heritage, aesthetic and coastal character of Randwick,

(k)      to acknowledge and recognise the connection of Aboriginal people to the area and to protect, promote and facilitate the Aboriginal culture and heritage of Randwick,

(l)       to promote an equitable and inclusive social environment,

(m)     to promote opportunities for social, cultural and community activities.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

In assessing the proposed variation against the objectives of Minimum Subdivision Lot size standard, the objectives of the zone R2 and aims of the RLEP, it is not considered that the submitted justification substantiates that compliance with the development standard (lot 1) is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

The objective of the clause for minimum subdivision lot size for torrens title schemes in Zone R2 is to ensure that land in the R2 zone is not fragmented by subdivisions that would create additional dwelling entitlements.

 

The proposed allotment size for one of the two proposed allotments, at 384.5 sqm, is a departure from the development standard of 400sqm. When considering this shortfall in the context of sites in the vicinity the proposed shortfall would not be consistent with the prevailing pattern of subdivision.

 

In this respect, a review of properties in the vicinity of the subject site, as shown in the cadastral image below shows a relatively consistent subdivsion pattern between the subject site (red) and those sites in the vicinity (blue). The salient statistical aspect of these surrounding properties is that over 90% of the surrounding allotments are below 800sqm and at least 44.7% of the properties have a site area that is within a 5% variance of the subject site. This would suggest that allowing the shortfall would encourage the subdivision of these other similarly sized allotments in the vicinity as well as the surrounding area. This would have the effect of fragmenting R2 zoned land through subdivision that creates separate entitlements. It is also important to consider that several of these sites also contain dual occupancies under one title only having been developed on the basis that minimum allotment size standards for subdivision were applicable.

 

In other words, should this application be supported with the substandard site area, even with the minor shortfall in the development standard it could set a precedent to create separate dwelling entitlements for other allotments that would fragment the land zoned R2 in the vicinity. 

 

 

Figure Cadastral: Subject site (shaded red), surrounding sites (shaded blue) including two sites that contain a strata title (shaded green).

 

The above cadastral also shows two strata subdivided dual occupancy developments (shaded green) at No. 66-66A Daunt Avenue and 2-2A Combles Parade. However, these were approved in 1995 and 1996 under a previous planning scheme.

 

From 1997, Council undertook the first of two reviews of the minimum allotment size standard for dwellings in low density zones setting the minimum allotment size standard at 450sqm for each allotment under the RLEP 1998.

 

Councils review in 2005 of the LEP and minimum allotment sizes for dwellings, further reduced the standard down to 400sqm, leading to a considered decision regarding the appropriateness of land sizes to accommodate low density dwellings that provide a minimum level of amenity to future residents, which includes such matters as access to reasonable private open space, solar access to living rooms and private open space, and setbacks and curtilage consistent with the low density zone.

 

In other words, the provisions for minimum allotment size since RLEP 1998 and up to the current LEP is the outcome of reviews of the previous planning instruments, reducing the minimum allotment size for the Low density zone from 450sqm to 400 sqm. A Report by the Director City Planning (No 42 of 2005) stated:

 

Investigation was carried out on the capability of the ensuing 450, 400 and 350sqm allotments (from 900, 800 and 700 respectively) for accommodating a single dwelling of appropriate modern standard. This shows that as the land size decreases it becomes harder to achieve two dwellings on 350sqm allotments with good design outcomes (for example, providing for the parking in the design, & the percentage of hard paved surfaces increase). The 400sqm allotment achieves two dwellings that are more acceptable. This scale of subdivision would be on average 10% smaller than the average subdivision patterns, thus generally not likely to adversely affect these patterns. Assessment indicates that the 400sqm allotments can accommodate a single dwelling closer to modern proportions whilst meeting the general requirements of good design, including streetscape impact and sufficient parking provision, whilst providing a slightly higher opportunity for subdivision in the low density residential areas. A reduction to 800sqm is also consistent with the original recommendations in the draft LEP 1998 report. Altering the minimum subdivision allotment size requires amendment to the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

The outcome of the review supporting reduction from 450sqm to a 400sqm minimum allotment for accommodating a single dwelling which can meet general requirements of good design while still providing some opportunity for subdivision in the lower density residential areas is reflected in previous RLEP development standards for minimum allotment sizes and the current standard imposed under cl4.1A of the RLEP 2013. These development standards for minimum allotment sizes point to the broader context of the R2 zoned land and associated objectives that seek to protect the amenity of residents, housing affordability and to provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

 

It is considered that subdivision of the site into two allotments raises different issues to consideration of the built form of the two proposed dwellings. The allotment size, and consequent potential differences in tenure for an attached dual occupancy, is relevant to assessment of whether the proposal protects the amenity of residents and provides for the housing needs of the community within a low density environment. While the replacement of the pre-existing building with the approved attached dwellings would be more compatible with the lower density character of the locality, it is not considered that approval of the built form alone is sufficient to address the objective of protecting amenity such that this objective of the development standard is achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the minimum allotment size.

 

The 2005 review report noted (at p11) that under the then current provisions that  approximately 7,000 properties were able to develop attached dual occupancies (min 450sqm), however the restriction on torrens title subdivision had limited demand for this form of housing.

 

The Report continued:

The subdivision (including torrens title subdivision) of attached dual occupancies is not permitted under the LEP. Any variation that permits torrens title subdivision of attached dual occupancy is likely to increase the number of attached dual occupancy development applications substantially, that is subdivision would encourage a greater proportion of these 4,500 properties to be developed (almost 30% of 2A (R2 zone equivalent) properties), as each dwelling can be sold separately in addition to renting or use by an extended family. The focus of this review is to provide reasonable opportunities for this housing type, where a high standard of design can be met and to continue the current focus on increasing density in areas that are most accessible to services and transport.

 

Having regard to the above, these decisions to restrict the allotment size in low density areas to promote better design outcome for dwellings at the same time, recognise that the there is a demand for housing in the form of attached or ancillary dwellings. This reasoning of Council is supported by the approach taken in State Environmental Planning Policy - Affordable Rental Housing 2009 (SEPP), which provides for the provision of additional dwellings on one parcel of land.  In so doing, the SEPP does not allow the separate titling of the second dwelling in low density areas. The decision to allow an ancillary dwelling, in the Council’s case attached dual occupancies, has been a well-considered decision to allow another form of housing without fundamentally changing the character of an area by reducing the minimum allotment size for subdivision.  In this respect, an attached dual occupancy development under one-ownership would be more likely to be rented or occupied by an extended family, which would be consistent with the objectives of the R2 zone and aims of the LEP which include encouraging the provision of housing mix, tenure choice and affordability. It demonstrates the Council’s adherence to the development standard over an extended period of time.

 

There has been considerable investigation and strategic planning to amend the controls to reduce the subdivision lot sizes in order to achieve a desired level of local amenity as well as housing mix and choice. These reviews reflect a detailed understanding of the nature of development throughout the area and the integrity of the decisions being made about the form of development that the Council and the community expect.  The Council deliberated the questions of site area and form of subdivision at both the 1998 and 2005 reviews of the RLEP and made well considered decisions on the potential outcomes resulting from the proposed development standards. 

 

This application has the potential to result in adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties by providing for speculative development incentives for the subdivision of smaller sized lots potentially transforming the low density nature of the zone.

 

The approval of an allotment of land that does not meet the minimum allotment size in these circumstances would facilitate other similar subdivisions in the locality, and the precedent would undermine the objectives of protecting the amenity of residents, decrease housing choice and affordability which would be enhanced by adherence to the development standard.

 

It is considered that accepting the applicant’s argument would provide little justification for not upholding other exceptions to this development standard for other similarly sized land in the R2 zone (both in the vicinity and in the broader context of R2 zoned land), which would be contrary to the planning policy developed during the course of the reviews of the LEP, and consequently create an adverse planning precedent in terms of Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 at [79].

 

Overall, having regard to the abovementioned objectives, the exception to the development standard does not address the consistency of the proposed development with the objectives of the standard, the relevant aims and objectives of the RLEP and R2 zone low density zone and the objectives of the Act, and it is considered that applying the minimum allotment size standard to the proposed subdivision is reasonable and necessary.

 

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 not successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. As discussed above, the proposal does not achieve the planning objectives for the locality; it does not fit in with the subdivision layout and character of similar developments and is not considered to be representative of the most orderly use of the site.

 

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 inconsistent with the objectives of the minimum lot size standard and the R2 zone objectives. The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 - Low Density Residential) are:

 

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

•     To 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.

 

In respect of these objectives, the proposal is inconsistent with the relevant zone objectives in that:

 

·     The amenity of residents both in the vicinity and in the broader context of the R2 zone will be adversley affected by the development associated with the subdivision

 

·     The proposed separate tenure will cumulatively transform the character and density within the R2 zone in so far as the above-mentioned circumstances apply to other R2 zoned lots.

 

The proposed development is not considered to meet the objectives of the zone because it creates additional dwelling entitlements that would serve to both fragment the land to which it applies and creates the potential to transform the low density character of the area. It therefore does not satisfy the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 – Low Density Residential zone and will not be in 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.

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the refusal of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for minimum allotment size  in clause 4.1A of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the minimum lot size standard on this occasion is not considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is a public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

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

 

3.     Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

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.

 

Section 2.1 Minimum Lot Size and Frontage

The RDCP 2013 requires a lot to be created from a subdivision within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone to not have a frontage width below 12m. The proposal will result in frontage widths of 7.65m (Lot 1) and 7.515m (Lot 2).

 

The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will result in significant adverse impacts in terms of the amenity and character of the area.

 

The applicant is seeking to rely on a recent subdivision approval for 271 Beauchamp Road (DA/438/2016) which resulted in frontage widths of 7.61m for the two approved allotments. It is noted that this precedent cannot be relied upon for the subject proposal as the lots approved at 271 Beauchamp Road met the 400m2 minimum size set by the RDCP 2013.  

 

The approved development was subject to a 15m minimum lot frontage control for the attached dual occupancy and the approved development was considered suitable for the site in so far as it enabled dwellings of adequate dimensions, configuration and amenity performance. In addition, the overall frontage is also generally consistent with the frontage widths of other allotment frontages in the vicinity that contain attached dual occupancy developments (under single tenure). Notwithstanding, the proposed Torrens title subdivision would fragment the land ownership and will not respect the predominant subdivision pattern of the locality.

 

The proposal would also encourage the speculative development of the proposed lots and creates the potential to transform the character of locality.

 

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 torrens title subdivision is permissible with development consent under Randwick LEP 2013. The proposed subdivision of lot 1 does not comply with the minimum allotment size required under Clause 4.1(a) of the RLEP and lower than the average allotment sizes within the locality.

 

The exception to the development standard lodged with respect to the non-compliance with the minimum allotment size of 400sqm is not considered to be well founded in the circumstances and a well-founded case has not been made by the applicant to indicate why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary as required by Clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2013.

 

The proposal has been assessed having regard to the provisions of section 79C of the EP&A Act, the Regulations and relevant environmental planning instruments and policies as discussed in the body of this report. The torrens title subdivision is considered to be contrary to the objectives of the standard, the low density character of the R2 zone and the aims of the RLEP as it discourages the mix of housing, it will fragment land by subdivision creating additional dwelling entitlements, it not protect the amenity of residents in the R2 zoned land and it will be inconsistent with the existing pattern of subdivision in the locality.

           

It is recommended that Council refuse the application.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council does not support the exception to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.1(4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Minimum subdivision lot size for strata plan schemes in Zone R2, on the grounds that the proposed development does not comply with the objectives of the above clause, and will adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Environment be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Sections 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 14/2015 for torrens title subdivision, at No. 275 Beauchamp Road, Matraville, for the following reasons:

 

1.        The proposed development is inconsistent with aims of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that it discourages the provision of affordable housing options.

 

2.        The proposed subdivision does not comply with Clause 4.1(A) minimum allotment size standard under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the proposed Lot 1 will fragment the subdivision pattern and the Clause 4.6 variation to the development standard is not well founded.

 

3.        The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 zone under RLEP 2012 in that it will not protect the amenity of residents.

 

4.        The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the objective under Section 2.1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the proposed torrens title subdivision does not respect the predominant subdivision pattern of the locality.

 

5.        The proposal is not in the public interest and does not satisfy Section 79C(i)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP29/17

 

Subject:              6 Pearce Street, South Coogee (DA/30/2017)

Folder No:                DA/30/2017

Author:                     Josh Owen, Planning Consultant - APP Corporation Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                  Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of a new 3 level dwelling with garage, swimming pool to rear and associated works

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Ms C L Bellenger

Owner:                     Ms C L Bellenger

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=bc1d8258-c87a-4e55-993e-0c569b56534c&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

The application has been assessed by an external planning consultant and is referred to Council for determination as the resident of the adjoining property is a close relative of a Randwick City Council employee.

Proposal

 

The proposal seeks to demolish the existing dwelling house and erect a new 3 level dwelling house. Specific elements of the proposed development include:

·     Garaging for vehicles, on the lower ground floor level;

·     The provision of a lower ground floor entertainment room, laundry and storage;

·     A ground floor primary living area, with exterior terrace;

·     First floor bedrooms and ensuite bathrooms;

·     A swimming pool; and

·     Associated landscaping and excavation works.

 

Site

The subject site is located on the northern side of Pearce Street, between Denning Street and Crana Avenue. It has a 12.8m primary frontage to Pearce Street, depth of 24.95m and total area of 319sqm. The site is rectangular and known generally as 6 Pearce St, with the legal description being Lot 1 in DP (Deposited Plan) 24285.  

 

The site slopes downhill from front to rear and has a cross fall from west to east of 4m. There is significant vegetation on the site, with only lawn in the front and rear gardens. The site is 110m west of coast. 

 

Figure 2: Front of existing dwelling house, as viewed from Pearce Street.

Figure 3: Rear of existing dwelling house, as viewed from the rear garden.

 

To the north of the site is a 2 storey dwelling house, at 8 Crana Avenue. Its rear garden is of a lower elevation to the subject site.

 

To the east, at 8 Pearce Street, is another two storey dwelling house. It is an older construction and occupies a lot that is approximately of the same dimensions to the subject site.

 

South of the site are 6, 7 and 9 Pearce Street. These are 2-3 level dwellings, which are also built on sloping lots. They have front viewing areas, which look north towards the subject site and the coast.  

 

To the west is a single storey dwelling house, elevated at the rear. Windows and the side of a rear deck overlook the private open space at the rear of the subject site. The neighbouring site is deeper than the subject site and the rear garden faces north. A side-facing living room window looks across the subject site.

 

Figure 4: 4 Pearce Street, as viewed from the subject site’s rear garden. 

 

Figure 5: 4 Pearce Street, as viewed from the street frontage.

 

Figure 5: Location Plan.

 

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 address as a result of the notification process:

 

·     2 Pearce St, Sth Coogee

·     8 Pearce St, Sth Coogee

·     8 Crana Ave, Sth Coogee

 

Address

Issues

Comments

2 Pearce Street

The height of the proposal dwelling, suggesting that it was in breach of the LEP.

The height has been checked and is compliant.

8 Pearce Street

Concerns stated the large east-facing living room window and upstairs balcony would provide views into the objector’s property.

Privacy screening has been provided to minimise overlooking from the living room window. Following an inspection of the objector’s premises, it was concluded no significant privacy issues would result from the proposed first floor balcony. (See Key Issues).

8 Crana Avenue

Concerns regarding potential overlooking impacts resulting from earthworks at the rear of the proposed dwelling.

At an onsite meeting with the objector, it was determined that the proposed earthworks to the rear garden would not result in significant privacy issues due to the difference in ground levels. A 2.2m boundary fence and rear terrace privacy screen will be provided for privacy.

 

Key Issues

 

Garage Configuration:

The original drawings provided a garage with a single entry, accessed via a sloping driveway that was unsuitable for vehicular parking. Due to the inability to accommodate two off-street car spaces, the application was not able to be supported.

 

A revised scheme was provided to Council on the 24th of April 2017, which included gradually sloping driveway, double garage entrance and enlarged garage. This enabled two cars to be accommodated inside the garage, meeting the requirements of Part B7 of the DCP (cl 3.2).

 

Visual Privacy:

The original proposal was considered to generate potential overlooking of the private open space of adjacent dwellings.  It is noted there is currently a balcony at first floor level adjoining a Family/Retreat Room and the proposal reduces the extent of balcony to the north-eastern corner only (see Figure 6 on the following page).

 

Figure 6: Floor Plan of existing dwelling showing current first floor rear balcony adjoining family room (source: McGrath Real Estate)

 

After three separate meetings with the applicant and two objectors, operable timber privacy screens will be provided in the following locations:

 

·     East-facing living room window (1.9m); and

·     Northern side of rear, ground floor terrace (1.9m).

 

These screens, in conjunction with those originally proposed on the first floor, will provide a level of visual privacy to between dwellings.  A recommended approval condition has been included, referencing the requirements of the DCP clause relating visual privacy. 

 

The proposed north-facing, first floor balcony adjoining a bedroom is unlikely to result in unreasonable visual privacy issues.  As the balcony adjoins a bedroom rather than a primary living space, it is expected to be used only occasionally by the bedroom occupants.  It is noted there are no side facing windows on No. 8 Pearce Street in the vicinity of the proposed first floor balcony.

 

Further, due to the location of adjacent lots and site topography, any alternate positioning of the balcony is unlikely to achieve minimal overlooking. The provision of screening on the northern side of the balcony, in addition to the eastern, would detract from the residential amenity of the proposal and would therefore be unreasonable.

 

The existing tree on the boundary will assist in the minimisation of views into the rear property.

 

We further note the rear neighbour, at 8 Crana Avenue, was agreeable to the abovementioned solutions to visual privacy during an onsite meeting.

 

 

Wall Height

The proposed wall height of the dwelling house is compliant at the southern edge of the eastern elevation and is up to 8.8m at the northern edge.  Although this is 10% greater than the 8m control for sloping sites, this is considered acceptable for the following reasons, inter alia:

 

1.     The north-eastern corner is a balcony and therefore does not substantially add to the bulk of the building

2.     The dwelling is compliant with the LEP development standard for height of buildings, and the non-compliance is with the DCP control only;

3.     The wall height non-compliance is the result of the site constraints.  That is, the site falls from front to rear (south to north) and has a significant cross fall from west to east.  As a result is the non-compliant wall height is near the lowest point of the site.

4.     The proposal has a compliant Floor Space Ratio 5% less than the maximum allowed, on a lot which is only 80% of the current minimum lot size.

5.     The site’s cross fall has permitted the garage to be included as a partial  basement level, reducing the garage’s appearance and contributing positively to the streetscape.

6.     The shadow diagrams indicate the additional wall height on the eastern side will not have significant impacts on the adjacent dwelling or private open space.

7.     The increased wall height does not result in significant losses of privacy to nearby dwellings as privacy screens are proposed to all eastern windows of the proposed dwelling.

8.     The proposal is generally compliant with other DCP controls

 

Therefore a variation to the control is warranted in this circumstance, as the planning outcome accords with the objectives of the DCP.  The proposed dwelling responds appropriately to the sloping topography of the locality. In this scenario, an 8.8m external wall height would not cause significant additional overshadowing, view loss or a decline in visual amenity. This is largely due to the wall’s easterly orientation and the siting of surrounding buildings.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The revised proposal achieves the following outcomes of the City Plan:

 

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 dwelling is generally compliant with the relevant assessment criteria, as outlined in s 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Minor deviations relating to building setbacks and earthworks are acceptable given the site’s characteristics, and are unlikely to result in any significant environmental impacts. In light of the proposal’s merit and the absence of unresolved planning issues, this application is considered worthy of Council support.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/30/2-17 for the demolition of existing dwelling, construction of a new 3 level dwelling with garage, swimming pool to rear and associated works, at No. 6 Pearce Street, South Coogee, subject to the standard conditions contained in the Development Application Compliance Report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - DA/30/2017 - 6 Pearce Street, SOUTH COOGEE

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP30/17

 

Subject:                    Planning Proposal - 148 Barker Street, Randwick

Folder No:                RZ/1/2016

Author:                     Asanthika Kappagoda, Senior Strategic Planner      

 

Introduction

 

This report assesses the merits of a Planning Proposal prepared by SJB Planning (NSW) Pty Ltd in relation to land at 148 Barker Street, Randwick (Lot A in DP 344447). The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). It is the only parcel of land in the block not zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre under the RLEP 2012.

 

The site contains a Federation era former corner shop building that is presently occupied by a veterinary clinic. It is located within the Struggletown Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), however not listed as a Heritage Item under the RLEP 2012.

 

The subject proposal seeks to amend the RLEP 2012 by:

 

·         Rezoning the site from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre

·         Amending the maximum height limit from 9.5m to 18m; and

·         Removing the applicable Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.5:1

 

The proposal’s stated objective is to ensure that future redevelopment of the site is of a manner that is consistent with the scale and anticipated form of development on the Newmarket site which is located immediately to the south and east.

             

The Planning Proposal has been assessed in accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment’s A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals (the Guide). The Guide forms the basis for determining whether the Planning Proposal should proceed to the next stage of the rezoning process, which is its referral to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for a ‘Gateway determination’ under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (the Act).

 

A rezoning of the site from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre has merit as it would result in a consistent zoning application across the block, while recognising the existing non-residential use on the site.

 

The proposed maximum height limit of 18m is considered appropriate as it would provide a suitable built form transition between the 25m height limit to the east on Barker Street, and lower scaled development along Jane Street to the south of the site within the Struggletown HCA (which has a 12m and 9.5m height limit).

 

An independent heritage assessment undertaken by City Plan Services identifies the site as having contributory value on the basis that the Federation era corner shop building adds to the understanding of local shopping activity in the Federation and Inter-War periods in which the key development of the HCA occurred. The assessment accordingly recommends that the façade of the building be retained and incorporated into any future redevelopment of the site and key façade elements be reinstated.  This report recommends that Council determine its position on whether the building’s façade should be retained on heritage grounds. A building envelope solution (e.g. such as through height and setbacks) may be appropriate to guide the bulk and scale and to address amenity impacts of future development. This would be contingent on Council making a determination on façade retention outlined above and the applicant submitting more detailed building envelopes to demonstrate an appropriate built form outcome. An appropriate FSR could be determined following the resolution of building envelopes and is likely to be no greater than 2:1 for the site. The building envelopes would comprise part of the package to be sent to the Minister for Planning seeking Gateway Determination.

 

Background

 

Planning Proposal Process

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (The Act) and Regulations set out the process for amending the zoning or planning provisions relating to a parcel(s) of land in NSW (rezoning). Changes to the zoning or planning provisions can only be made via a formal amendment to the Local Environmental Plan.

 

A Planning Proposal is the first step to commence changes to the LEP provisions relating to a parcel of land. It is a formal application that sets out the objectives, intended outcomes, and justification for the proposed changes, and also details the community consultation to be undertaken.

 

Council as the relevant consent authority is required to formally consider any Planning Proposals that are submitted. If Council resolves to proceed with the proposal, it is forwarded to the Minister for Planning for a ‘Gateway Determination’. The ‘Gateway Determination’ is essentially a checkpoint for Planning Proposals, and enables those proposals that are not well founded, or not in the public interest to be stopped early in the process, before significant resources are committed in carrying out technical studies or investigations.

 

The Minister’s ‘Gateway Determination’ will stipulate whether the Planning Proposal should proceed, whether it needs to be resubmitted, the timeframe for its completion (usually nine months from the date of the Determination), the community consultation and State/Commonwealth agency requirements and whether a public hearing is needed. 

 

Following the Gateway Determination, a Planning Proposal is formally placed on public exhibition for comment. The final LEP and accompanying maps which amend the Council’s principal planning instrument (i.e. the RLEP 2012) are made by the Minister for Planning (and notified on the NSW legislation web site) in accordance with the Act.  Certain LEPs which are of local significance can be finalised by Council via delegation from the Minister (this is determined at the gateway stage). 

 

Planning Proposals vs. Development Applications

A Planning Proposal is a separate process to a DA. A Planning Proposal seeks Council’s support to commence a process to amend the LEP provisions relating to a parcel/s of land. A DA, on the other hand, seeks Council’s consent to enable a development to proceed. 

 

It is important to note that in the circumstance that a Planning Proposal is supported and results in amendments to an LEP, it does not automatically give the green light for a development to take place. Should the applicant wish to proceed with a development proposal (once the LEP is amended), a DA would still be required for Council to assess in accordance with the planning framework. It is through the DA process that matters such as privacy, bulk and scale of development, solar access, traffic and parking considerations can be suitably addressed.

 

 


 

Historical Context

A Planning Proposal for the site was first considered by Council in November 2011 as part of the Comprehensive LEP Review. The proposal requested that future planning for the site be undertaken in conjunction with the Newmarket site (which was subject to a separate rezoning process at the time), or, that it be rezoned from low density residential to a Business Centre zoning as part of the Comprehensive LEP.

 

Council subsequently resolved to not support the proposal in line with the Council Officer’s recommendation that it be reconsidered following the resolution of appropriate zoning and controls for the Newmarket site, outside the preparation process for the Comprehensive LEP. The subject site was accordingly zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the RLEP 2012, with an applicable 9.5m maximum height limit and FSR of 0.5:1.

 

In April 2015 the Newmarket site was rezoned from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Business Centre along Barker Street, (excluding 148 Barker Street which retained its R2 Low Density Residential zoning), and R1 General Residential zone for the remainder of the site. Other provisions that apply to the Inglis site include:

 

·     A maximum FSR of 1.3:1 across the whole site subject to the provision of public open space of at least 5,000.00m² on the site

·     A range of heights across the site from a minimum of 9.5m south-west from the subject site to a maximum of 25m along Barker Street east of the subject site; and

·     Heritage protection of heritage items and a redefined Struggletown HCA boundary, which also applies to the subject site.

 

Subject Site

The subject site has a site area of approximately 400m2 and occupies a corner allotment at the intersection of Barker and Jane Streets in Randwick (figure 1). It is presently occupied by a two storey building operating as a veterinary clinic (figure 2).

 

The site has a 13.3m frontage to Barker Street, a 30m frontage to Jane Street, with zero setbacks to both streets. It has a relatively flat topography with sparse vegetation. Access is provided via Jane Street.

 

The site is not listed as a Heritage Item under the RLEP 2012 however is situated within the Struggletown HCA which has social and historic significance for its streetscape qualities, rare Victorian period workers housing, and long-term associations with the horse racing industry.

 

Figure 1 – Location of the Subject Site

 

Surrounding Context

The site is part of a block featuring a mix of neighbourhood shops/activities and residential uses, including a dual occupancy building to the east at 150 Barker Street (figure 3). A predominantly low density residential neighbourhood lies to the west featuring a number of single and double storey dwelling houses as well as a two storey commercial building at 144-146 Barker Street (figure 4).

 

The site is effectively surrounded by the Newmarket site to the south and east, and located within walking distance to the University of NSW and the Randwick Health Campus.

 

Other development in the locality includes a mix of single and two storey dwelling houses and two storey commercial buildings extending east along Botany Street (part of the Newmarket Site). Smaller scale residential development is located along Jane Street (figure 5). There is a petrol station on the corner of Barker and Botany Streets, stables and ancillary uses on the Newmarket Site.

 

              

Figure 2: 148 Barker Street, Randwick                     Figure 3: 150 Barker Street, Randwick

(subject site)     

 

   

Figure 4: 144-146 Barker Street, Randwick               Figure 5: Jane Street, Randwick

 

 

Local Planning Framework

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the RLEP 2012 which permits (with development consent) dwelling houses, dual occupancies and other land uses that provide facilities and services to meet the day to day needs of residents in a low density residential environment.

 

The following development standards are applicable to the site under the RLEP 2012:

 

·     Minimum allotment size: 400m2 (applicable to dwelling houses)

·     Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings): 9.5m

·     Clause 4.4 (FSR): 0.5:1 (except for semis and dwelling houses which have an alternative FSR based on a sliding scale); and

·     Clause 5.10: Heritage Conservation (Located in the Struggletown Heritage Conservation Area).

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

The Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP) contains specific controls pertaining to the R2 Low Density Residential zone to maintain a high standard of amenity for future occupants and the surrounding locality, as well as in conjunction with other relevant controls (e.g. traffic, parking etc). 

 

Chapter E5 – Newmarket Green applies to the adjoining Newmarket site (but not the subject site).

 

The Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal has been prepared by SJB Planning (NSW) Pty Ltd on behalf of the owners Mr Treve Williams and Mrs Constance Williams (the Proponent). The Planning Proposal relates to land at 148 Barker Street (Lot A in DP 344447) and seeks to amend the RLEP 2012 by:

 

·     Rezoning the land from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre (figure 6)

·     Increasing the maximum building height from 9.5m to 18m; and

·     Removing the applicable FSR of 0.5:1

 

The objective of the Planning Proposal is to achieve a scale of development on the site that is reasonably anticipated by the planning framework currently applying to surrounding development, and to ensure a more consistent urban form along Barker Street.

 

The Planning Proposal states that the requested 18m height limit could deliver a 5 storey mixed use development on the site which is commensurate with the 25m height limit (6-7 storeys) applicable to the remainder of the block under the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.

 

Heritage Impact Statement

The Planning Proposal is supplemented by a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) prepared by Perumal Murphy Alessi heritage consultants as the site is located within the Struggletown HCA. 

                                         

The HIS acknowledges that notwithstanding some alterations to the rear, the building is a representative example of a Federation period corner shop that retains a sense of its early scale and character. It however does not identify the building as contributory to the significance of the HCA.

 

In terms of the wider HCA, the HIS considers that the proposed rezoning will not have an impact on existing primary features including the street layout, small residential lots and associated late 19th and early 20th century residential development.

 

The HIS contends that the proposed 18m height limit would provide an appropriate transition and step down between the 25m height limit to the east along Barker Street frontage and the existing context in the HCA, including one, two and three storey development along Jane Street. It further notes that the traditional retail/commercial use on the site will be retained (as part of any future mixed use development).

 

     

Figure 6. Existing zoning under the RLEP 2012           Proposed zoning under the RLEP 2012.

 

Urban Design Study

The Planning Proposal is supplemented by an urban design study which includes 2 indicative site concepts integrating 148 Barker Street with the Newmarket site.

 

Concept 1 includes a 6 storey building envelope at the corner of Barker and Jane Streets, stepping down to 4 and then 3 storeys along Jane Street. The concept has a 5m setback to Barker Street and 8m landscaped setback to Jane Street. The concept indicates that the site could accommodate a gross floor area of 1,100m2 equating to an FSR of 2.75:1.

 

Concept 2 includes a 5 storey building envelope at the corner of Barker and Jane Streets, stepping down to 3 storeys along Jane Street. The concept illustrates a 5m setback to Barker Street and a zero setback to Jane Street. The concept indicates that the site could accommodate a gross floor area of 1,320m2 equating to an FSR of 3.3:1.

 

As noted above, the concepts above are contingent on amalgamating the subject site with the Newmarket site. However the proponent has not indicated whether there have been any discussions with CBUS (owner of the Newmarket site) regarding site consolidation.

 

The suggested FSRs contained in the concepts are considered excessive in the context of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone and given the small site area. This issue is discussed further in this report.

 

Assessment of the Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal has been assessed to ascertain whether it has merit to go to the next stage of the planning process to amend the RLEP 2012, which is its referral to the Department of Planning and Environment for a ‘Gateway Determination’.

 

Proponent’s Justification

The Proponent states that proposed RLEP 2012 amendments are targeted towards correcting an anomaly that has been created through the rezoning of the Newmarket site that has left the subject corner site remaining zoned as R2 Low Density Residential. The Planning Proposal thus seeks to align the planning controls to provide a consistent urban form to Barker Street and a better relationship with the future built form of the adjoining Newmarket site.

 

The Proponent states that the redevelopment of the corner site would maintain employment floor space while also providing housing in the locality that is well located in terms of education, employment and public transport.

 

Other stated benefits are the revitalisation and activation of Barker Street, the delivery of active street frontages on Barker Street and the opportunity to better integrate development between Barker Street and Jane and Young Streets with consistent building bulk and scale.

 

Consideration of the Proponent’s Case

 

Zoning

The Newmarket rezoning (April 2015) applied a B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone across the entire block, while excluding the subject parcel of land. As such, future redevelopment of the site under R2 Low Density zone (and associated development standards) is likely to result in an inconsistent urban design outcome when compared to the expected type and scale of development in the remainder of the block (on the Newmarket site).

 

In assessing the Planning Proposal, two zoning options were explored for the site: the requested B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone and an alternative R3 Medium Density Residential zoning. 

 

Of these two options, the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone is considered to have merit as it would result in a consistent zoning application across the entire block while providing a logical boundary to the Newmarket precinct. The B1 Neighbourhood zone would permit a mixed use development containing retail/commercial on the ground floor with residential apartment levels above. A mixed use building typology is also consistent with the expected future land uses in the remainder of the block under the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone, and would further contribute to the activation of Barker Street.

 

Alternatively, a R3 Medium Density Residential zone is less desirable as it would only allow for medium density residential development with no active ground active uses. Furthermore, the built form associated with a medium density residential buildings (i.e. 3 to 4 storeys) would create an inconsistent urban design outcome for the block, given the planned scale of the Newmarket site (i.e. 6-7 storeys along Barker Street).   

 

Building Height

On the matter of building height, it is agreed that the current maximum height limit of 9.5m for 148 Barker Street is a significant disparity compared to the remainder of the block, which, at 25m is more than double the height limit afforded to the subject site under the RLEP 2012.

 

It is further noted that development immediately to the south of the site on Jane Street has a height limit of 12m, whereas sites to the west (across Jane Street on the Barker Street frontage) have a height limit of 9.5m. The subject site is therefore a key location to achieve a transition from future development on the Newmarket site to the lower scaled Struggletown HCA.

 

Specifically it is considered that a maximum building height limit of 18m would be appropriate to ensure a more coherent built form outcome along the Barker Street frontage given the surrounding context. Moreover, an 18m maximum height limit would facilitate a suitable height transition between the expected higher scale development within the subject block on Barker Street, and lower scaled residential development along Jane Street in the Struggletown HCA to the south and south east.

 

Heritage

City Plan Services were engaged by Council to conduct a peer review of the heritage advice supplementing the Planning Proposal and to provide an overall assessment of the heritage value of 148 Barker Street and its contribution to the Struggletown HCA.

 

The City Plan assessment has identified that the subject site retains its external Federation period corner shop characteristics, despite changes to its exterior including the removal of the original balcony that wrapped around the splay corner to the extent of the decorative parapet and infill of the arched opening on the Jane Street elevation.

 

The assessment identifies that the site may have contributory value to the HCA on the basis that it adds to the understanding of local shopping activity and form in the Federation and Inter-War periods during which the key development of the HCA occurred. The assessment further acknowledges the historical and visual relationship with the small strip of shops on Barker Street, west of Jane Street.

 

In terms of the requested changes to zoning and development standards, the heritage assessment considers that a future mixed use development on the site would ensure continued commercial activity and that the proposed 18m height limit is reasonable and would facilitate an appropriate transition to the more intact parts of the HCA.

 

The heritage assessment in view of the site’s contributory values recommends that:

 

·     The façade and portion of the existing former corner shop building be retained and incorporated into the future development of the 148 Barker Street. This would allow for the retention of a contributory building to some extent, maintain the street-wall along Jane Street and the traditional corner site setting, and mitigate further loss of historical connection, social values and sense of community associated with an early suburban commercial strip.

 

·     The future design of new development may allow for the reinstatement of original missing elements of the façade including the cantilevered balcony (based on historical and physical evidence) and the arched opening on Jane Street façade.

·     Any infrastructure elements such as sandstone gutters and kerbing that are existing along the public land surrounding the subject site be retained and preserved.

 

Comment

The City Plan heritage assessment has raised a number of issues for consideration.

 

Firstly, retaining the façade of a historic building while demolishing its internal structure to make room for new development amounts to ‘facadism’ which is not a desired outcome in terms of heritage best practice.

 

The City Plan heritage assessment acknowledges that facadism is not a desired outcome from a heritage conservation perspective, however given the changing nature of the immediate urban context resulting from the Newmarket rezoning, and given the contributory heritage values of the building and its relationship to the HCA, façade retention in this circumstance may be considered appropriate. 

 

Secondly, retaining the historic façade of 148 Barker Street will preclude the continuation of the planned 5m setback for the block under the DCP. This could create a disjointed public domain where the entire block has a setback of 5m along Barker Street with the exception of the 13.5m frontage of the subject building.

 

On the basis of these issues, it is suggested that Council officers either liaise with the applicant to prepare site specific DCP controls to conserve the façade of 148 Barker Street and reinstate missing façade elements as recommended in the City Plan Heritage assessment; or not require a 5m building setback along Barker Street under the DCP consistent with the remainder of the block.

 

Removal of FSR

The applicant has proposed to remove the applicable 0.5:1 FSR and allow building envelope controls to guide the bulk and scale of future development (i.e. through a combination of maximum building height and setbacks).

 

Retaining the existing 0.5:1 FSR over the relatively small site area of 400m2 and in conjunction with the proposed 18m height limit would result in an extremely narrow building envelope. Not only would this have implications in terms of urban design, but may impact upon the functionality of future development on the site as it would be difficult to meet the minimum requirements of the NSW SEPP 65 NSW Apartment Design Guide (e.g. minimum apartment sizes and circulation areas).

 

Comment

As noted earlier in this report, 2 concepts have been included as appendices to the Planning Proposal integrating the subject site with the adjoining Newmarket site and indicating FSRs of 2.75:1 and 3.3:1 respectively. These FSRs are considered excessive for a site of this size. By comparison many B1 Neighbourhood Centre zones in Randwick City generally have a maximum FSR of 1.5:1 (e.g. the Spot).

 

It is important to note that the Planning Proposal is not seeking consent for development in line with the indicative concepts. The concepts have been submitted to illustrate how the site could be integrated into the adjoining Newmarket site. The applicant has not submitted any information confirming that the subject site will be amalgamated with the Newmarket site in the future.

 

To achieve a suitable integration with surrounding development, including the Newmarket site and lower scaled developed in Struggletown, and to minimise potential residential amenity impacts to adjoining properties, it is appropriate that detailed building envelope controls be developed for 148 Barker Street as a stand-alone site prior to the Planning Proposal being submitted for a Gateway Determination. The detailed building envelopes should demonstrate a lower gross floor area given the size of the site and the character and nature of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.

 

Detailed building envelopes for the site would allow Council to work with the proponent to achieve the best urban design outcome within the recommended 18m height limit, transitioning from the Newmarket site. The building envelopes would be prepared following Council’s decision on whether to retain the façade of the subject building. An appropriate FSR could be developed after envelope studies have been completed and is likely to be no more than 2:1 for the site. As noted above, larger neighbourhood centres that are zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre, such as The Spot, have a maximum FSR of 1.5:1.

 

Affordable Housing

Randwick City has undertaken an Affordable Housing Needs Analysis (2016) demonstrating the need for affordable housing in the LGA to support Council’s inclusion in SEPP 70 (Affordable Housing). The former Minister for Planning gave support to commencing a planning process to enable Council to levy affordable housing contributions. Notably, a key direction of the draft Central District Plan is to implement an affordable housing target of 5% to 10% based on the uplift of redevelopment sites.

 

Given the site’s strategic location in proximity to the Randwick Education and Health Strategic Centre, and the identified need to pursue affordable housing opportunities in and around the centre, it is considered appropriate that the provision of affordable housing (either monetary or in kind) be considered as part of this Planning Proposal.

 

The mechanism to achieve the provision of affordable housing for the site is through a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA). In keeping with the draft District Plan key direction for affordable housing, it is considered that a 5% contribution on the residential floor space be negotiated for the site. To this end it is recommended that Council enter into negotiations with the applicant for a contribution towards affordable housing and the draft VPA be placed on public exhibition alongside the draft Planning Proposal.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome

4

Excellence in urban design and development.

Directions

4a

Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

4b

New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The applicable fee for the preliminary assessment of the proposal was paid by the applicant as per Council’s Fees and Charges Policy ($7,960) and further fees will be required should the rezoning progress to the next stage (to cover public consultation and further assessment).

 

Conclusion

 

The subject Planning Proposal seeks to amend the RLEP 2012 by rezoning the site from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone, amending the maximum height limit from 9.5m to 18m and removing the FSR.

 

The proposed rezoning of the site from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone is supported as it would result in a consistent zoning application across the entire block while recognising the business use on the site.

 

The proposed change to the height from 9.5m to 18m would create a better relationship with adjoining development by transitioning between the higher scale permitted on the Newmarket site along Barker Street, stepping down towards  lower scaled residential development within the Struggletown HCA to the south. It is considered that the proposed changes to height would result in a more consistent urban form along Barker Street and an overall better urban design outcome in the immediate locality.

 

City Plan services have recommended that the façade of the subject building be retained to protect its heritage values and contribution to the significance of the Struggletown HCA.  It is recommended that Council determine a position on whether façade retention would be the appropriate way forward, noting that this would preclude a 5m building setback in front of the site, consistent with the remainder of the block.

 

In terms of built form it is proposed that Council work with the applicant to develop building envelopes to help determine an appropriate gross floor area for the site within the recommended 18m maximum height limit and transitioning down from the Newmarket site. An appropriate FSR for the site could be determined as part of this process and is unlikely to be greater than 2:1. It is recommended that the building envelopes comprise part of the Planning Proposal package to be referred to the Minister for Planning for a Gateway Determination.

 

It is further proposed that Council enter into negotiations with the applicant via a VPA process for a contribution towards affordable housing, and that a draft VPA be placed on public exhibition alongside the Planning Proposal.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council endorse the Planning Proposal (attachment 1) which proposes to amend the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in relation to 148 Barker Street, Randwick (Lot A in DP 344447) by rezoning the site from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone

 

b)     Council endorse the preparation of site specific building envelopes and DCP for 148 Barker Street prior to the submission of the Planning Proposal to the Minster for Planning for Gateway Determination, with a maximum height of 18m and a FSR of no greater than 2:1 and following the resolution of the public domain and façade retention issues.

 

c)     Council enter into negotiations with the applicant for a contribution towards affordable housing via a Voluntary Planning Agreement process.

 

d)     The Planning Proposal (attachment 1) together with the site specific building envelopes be forwarded to the Minister for Planning requesting Gateway Determination and endorsement for exhibition in accordance with s.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

e)     Council seek to exercise the delegation of the Minister for Planning’s functions under s59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to make the Local Environmental Plan.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Link to the Planning Proposal- 148 Barker Street, Randwick

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP31/17

 

Subject:              La Perouse and Kurnell Ferry Wharves Feasibility Study 2016 Final Report

Folder No:                F2015/00288

Author:                     Bronwyn Englaro, Senior Sustainability Officer     

 

Introduction

 

On 1 May 2017 Council was notified by Transport for NSW (TfNSW) that the ‘Draft La Perouse and Kurnell Ferry Wharves Feasibility Study 2016’ report was to be publicly released as a Final Report. This final report is available from the TfNSW website -http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects/laperouse-and-kurnell-ferry-wharves.

 

The report includes a submission section outlining the feedback received during the consultation period which ran from 5 July to 12 August 2016.

 

Background

 

Arup was commissioned by TfNSW to undertake a feasibility study into the re-establishment of wharves between La Perouse and the Kurnell Peninsula for commercial and recreational use. The study has been identified as a Priority Regional Project within the Botany Bay, Georges River and Port Hacking Regional Boating Plan released by TfNSW in March 2015. It has also been initiated in the context of the impending 250th anniversary of Captain Cook’s landing at the Kurnell Meeting Place in 2020.

 

The preparation of the Study was directed by a Project Control Group (PCG) established by TfNSW of which Council was a member. This PCG also included NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), and Sutherland Shire Council. Through its membership in the PCG, Council has provided relevant inputs pertaining to the Randwick LGA including heritage, environmental sustainability, acquatic ecology, coastal management, transport and traffic, and tourism considerations.

 

The study was publicly exhibited from 5 July to 12 August 2016 and a total of 111 submissions were received during the public comment period.

 

Of the 111 submissions received:

·     82 (74%) expressed support for potential new ferry wharves

·     12 (11%) were unsupportive of potential new ferry wharves

·     17 (15%) were neutral.

 

The main reasons given for supporting the potential new ferry wharves were:

·     Economic development and tourism opportunities

·     Improved access to Kamay Botany Bay National Park

·     Providing an alternative to driving to travel from La Perouse to Kurnell.

 

The main reasons given for not supporting the potential new ferry wharves were:

·     Traffic and parking impacts on roads adjoining the proposed wharves

·     Unsupportive of government subsidising a ferry service

·     Social impacts on local residents

 

Council prepared its own submission on the draft report to TfNSW in August 2016. In Council’s submission, Council indicated support for the project given a number of social, economic and tourism benefits for La Perouse. Council also noted in these submissions that re-establishing the ferry would be a significant service for the community and visitors alike and that Council looks forward to assisting TfNSW in the next steps for the project.

 

Issues

 

Key findings of the Draft La Perouse and Kurnell Ferry Wharves Feasibility Study 2016 include the following:

 

·         The preferred wharf locations are: at the southern end of Frenchman’s Bay within the site of the old ferry wharf (La Perouse); and at the site of the old wharf and existing viewing platform near Captain Cook’s Obelisk (Kurnell).

·         A total infrastructure capital cost for the two wharf locations is estimated to be in the order of $17 million. Whole of life asset maintenance costs will also apply.

·         A preliminary assessment suggests that there is likely to be no significant environmental and other impacts from the construction and operation of the La Perouse and Kurnell wharf and associated infrastructure that cannot be appropriately managed and mitigated. Potential heritage and aquatic ecology impacts will be particularly important to assess in further detail and manage.

·         If the wharf infrastructure was to be delivered by TfNSW or Roads and Maritime Services as the proponent, it can likely be assessed and determined under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), usually by a Review of Environmental Factors (REF). Referral to the Commonwealth might also be required.

·         A ferry service between La Perouse and Kurnell will probably primarily need to be a tourist shuttle as it is not likely to be commercially viable for commuters only. Some form of Government assistance would likely be required to facilitate establishment of a ferry service.

·         Establishing a ferry service is expected to provide numerous indirect social, economic and tourism benefits for La Perouse, Kurnell and wider Sydney that could provide a compelling case for justifying any direct economic revenue shortfall associated with its implementation and operation.

·         Complementary measures to maximise the patronage potential of a ferry service could be considered, including improving intermodal links to the wharves (e.g. synchronising timetabling, increase frequency of buses), revitalising La Perouse and Kurnell tourist attractions, and effective marketing engagement.

·         A core La Perouse to Kurnell ferry service could benefit from the establishment of supplementary water linkages to other locations in Botany Bay (e.g. at Brighton-Le-Sand’s and near Sydney Airport) to create a wider network. Such supplementary services would also require new wharf infrastructure, the feasibility of which is outside the detailed consideration of this study.

 

TfNSW has advised that should the project be progressed beyond this current study, the next step would involve Project Development Framework which would generally consist of the following:

 

1.     Preparation of a Business Case. This should consider direct economic revenue, indirect socio-economic benefits, whole of infrastructure life costs, and operating costs.

2.     Undertake further investigations, preliminary wharf infrastructure design and Environmental Assessment pursuant to obtaining planning approvals.

3.     Securing of funding/investment sources for the wharf infrastructure capital costs.

4.     Detailed design and documentation of wharf infrastructure.

5.     Construction of wharf infrastructure.

6.     Operator procurement (where required).

7.     Marketing and service implementation

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 9:       Integrated and accessible transport

Direction 9c:      Advocate and /or plan for integrated local and regional transport improvement

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has been involved in the preparation of the Draft La Perouse and Kurnell Ferry Wharves Feasibility Study 2016, particularly through its membership in the PCG for the project. The project is recognised as a significant transport infrastructure and service between La Perouse and Kurnell in the future. 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP32/17

 

Subject:              Smart Cities and Suburbs Program Grants

Folder No:                F2017/01230

Author:                     Rebecca Jacobs, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Introduction

 

The Federal Government Smart Cities and Suburbs Program provides an opportunity for Council to pursue innovative projects that will increase Council’s systems capability and improve liveability for residents. Council staff have identified three preferred projects for the Smart Cities and Suburbs Program grants and this report is seeking Council’s endorsement to submit grant applications for these projects.

 

Issues

 

The Federal Government has established the Smart Cities and Suburbs Program with $50 million in matched funding to support projects that apply innovative technology-based solutions to urban challenges. Projects must be collaborative, including both a local government and a private sector partner during the life of the project.

 

Smart city projects are to align with at least one of the following priority areas:

 

1.     Smart infrastructure (efficiency, reliability, delivery and maintenance)

2.     Smart precincts (liveability, productivity, sustainability and safety)

3.     Smart services and communities (community-focused services)

4.     Smart planning and design (land use planning and strategic planning and governance)

 

Grant submissions can apply for between $100,000 and $5 million funding, up to 50% of project costs. The applications close on 30 June 2017 and successful applicants will be notified before the end of 2017.

 

Council staff have reviewed a range of ideas and three preferred projects have been recommended which fall within the scope of the grant guidelines and align with Council’s City Plan. The projects outlined below improve the lives of our residents, assist with strategic planning and traffic management, and expand Council’s access to data for improved decision-making.

 

1.  Randwick Integrated Data Platform

The Integrated Data Platform will introduce new operational efficiencies and improvements to Council’s monitoring capability, establish new ways of automating Council’s services resulting in productivity gains and cost benefits, improved communication with the community, and provide an open dataset for use within and external to Council.

 

 

Council’s monitoring capability will be improved, allowing real-time data from Council existing assets and operations to be spatially visualised. This may include:

·     The location of current maintenance works

·     The location of customer service requests

·     The quantity of waste and recycling collected from each dwelling.

·     The status of lights at Council sports fields and amenity buildings.

·     The status of sprinklers at Council sports fields and parks.

·     The status of Council sports fields, being open or closed.

·     The number, location and type of development applications and approvals.

·     The water quality of the pools at the Des Renford Leisure Centre.

·     The quantity of energy generated by Council’s solar panels

·     The quantity of energy and water used at each of Council’s sites

·     The quantity of water saved through water recycling systems

·     The availability of computers at Council libraries

·     The number of people at Council libraries

 

Council services will also be improved through new monitoring capabilities and automation of communication. For example, gross pollutant trap monitoring will enable servicing to transfer to a need-basis, reducing cost and ensuring they remain fully functional in the case of a severe rain event. Foot traffic in our town centres can be counted to assist with town centre planning and upgrade decisions. Communication with users of Council sports fields via email, SMS, voicemail and website will be automated when the status changes. This will ensure status is communicated in a consistent and reliable manner to thousands of users.

 

This data platform will help guide Council decision-making by understanding utilisation, performance and status of Council assets. The consolidation and integration of various data sets will allow information to be analysed in a way that is not currently possible by introducing real-time mapping display systems and dashboards in operational areas and Council’s website. It will encourage information-sharing by moving datasets from individual teams and placing them in a cross-Council platform. The platform will standardise the data sets, enabling them to be released as Open Data, to meet best practice and increase transparency.

 

The platform will also be flexible, allowing Council to expand its Internet of Things (network of sensors) to additional functions in the future. This may include:

·     Servicing frequency of Council public barbeques and public toilets.

·     Flooding detection in water pits to alert staff of a blockage.

·     Moisture sensors in the soil of sports fields and parks linked to irrigation levels.

·     The availability of Council facilities such as halls and library meeting rooms.

 

2.  Mobility and Traffic Congestion Mapping

The Traffic Congestion and Mobility Tool will use innovative open-source Google data to develop a best practice traffic management tool to better understand travel patterns and make better decisions about local improvements. In partnership with Bayside Council, Inner West Council and AlphaBeta, a strategy and economics company, a best practice tool will be developed to better understand travel time and traffic congestion. Negotiation with the partners is ongoing and won’t be finalised until lodgement of the grant application.

 

This tool will use aggregated and anonymous information from real journeys to enable Council to better understand existing travel patterns and better target anti-congestion initiatives such as intersection widening, improved cycling infrastructure and advocacy for additional public transport services. Its basis of real and recent journeys harvested by Google will provide a robust and reliable traffic model superior to existing methods based on car counting and numberplate analysis. Thus the tool will assist in assessing development applications and planning proposals, the preparation of town centre strategies and in traffic management.

 

In addition, a public engagement tool will provide residents with access to information on traffic flow, the cost and nature of council responses and the impact this has on reducing travel time.

 

This tool will provide a basis for a potential second phase which will build on the Traffic Congestion and Mobility Tool to test changing circumstances and forecast changes in local traffic at a more localised level. For example, the impact of development applications, planning proposals or traffic management strategies could be tested, allowing councils to more effectively discuss these issues with the community and make evidenced-based planning decisions.

 

3.  Randwick Wayfinding App

Randwick will partner with Nous Technology Pty Ltd to develop a precinct wayfinding app which communicates data relevant to residents and visitors spatially. The app integrates spatial mapping, publicly available datasets and Council’s unique data to provide a comprehensive source of information targeted to pedestrians and cyclists.

 

The app will be used for the Randwick Health and Education Precinct, to better define the precinct and support growth. Letters of support from the Prince of Wales Hospital and University of New South Wales will be provided to ensure collaboration with major stakeholders in the precinct.

 

For the app user, their preferences will offer a richer way finding experiences beyond simply the shortest route between two points. The app can display different themes of information, according to user preferences. This may include:

·     All precinct features and services.

·     Council services and events.

·     Public amenities.

·     Land profile data to ascertain accessible routes.

·     Retail offerings.

·     Lighting maps.

·     Transport options.

 

Analytics can be performed on anonymous user data to inform mobility planning and become better aware of user behaviour, preferences and choices. This will assist in understanding the impacts of the new Light Rail service on accessibility and transport and how best to manage these impacts and improve the visitor experience.

 

Nous Technology will provide a proven visualisation platform and the technology to access and visualise multiple spatial data sets. They will drive the delivery of product development and co-ordinate the interactions between stakeholders on the project. Council will contribute access to relevant data sets and staff time to assist in the development of the app.

 

If this grant application is successful, depending on the timing of the Smart Cities and Suburbs Program grant agreement, the first version of the app could be operational mid-2018. Council will have access to a Randwick City Council-branded wayfinding app with three years of access to the product (from mid-2018) with no licencing fees. At that time, should Council wish to continue the operation of the app, a licensing agreement can be explored.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability

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

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

Outcome 3:       An informed and engaged community

Direction 3a.      Effective communication methods and technology are used to share information and provide service

Outcome 8:       A strong local economy

Direction 8b.              Support and strengthen the Hospital and University precinct's provision of specialised education and health services and employment growth

Outcome 9:       Integrated and accessible transport

Direction 9d:     Residential amenity is protected by appropriate traffic management

Outcome 10:     A healthy environment

Direction 10a:   Council's programs and partnerships foster sustainable behavioural changes and outcomes

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

Direction: 10f:   Energy conservation and efficiency programs are implemented.

 

Financial impact statement

 

If a grant application is successful, the Smart City and Suburbs Program will contribute up to 50% of the cost of the project, and Council’s potential costs are detailed below.

 

1.  Integrated Data Platform: The total cost to Council of new software, staff costs, hardware and subject matter experts is $550,000 ($1.1 million total project cost).

 

2.  Mobility and Traffic Congestion Mapping: Costs will be shared equally between all three participating Councils, resulting in a total cost to Randwick of $135,000 ($810,000 total project cost).

 

3.  Randwick Wayfinding App: No cash contribution; in-kind contribution only (total project cost $800,000).

 

The total financial impact, in the case of all three grant applications being successful is $685,000.

 

Conclusion

 

The Federal Government Smart Cities and Suburbs Program provides an opportunity for Council to pursue innovative projects that will increase Council’s systems capability and improve liveability for residents. Each project will utilise technology in innovative ways to improve the lives of our residents and place Randwick City Council at the forefront of smart city development within Sydney.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council endorse the:

 

a)      submission of a grant application for an integrated data platform;

 

b)      submission of a grant application for a congestion and mobility tool;

 

c)      submission of a joint grant application with Nous Technology for a pedestrian and cycling wayfinding app; and

 

d)      allocation of matched funding for the above projects, should they be successful in receiving a grant from the Smart Cities and Suburbs Program.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP33/17

 

Subject:              2017-18 Community Partnerships Funding Program Recommended Allocations

Folder No:                F2008/00139

Author:                     Warren Ambrose, Senior Social Planner      

 

Introduction

 

The Community Partnerships Funding Program is now in its ninth year. It offers not-for-profit social service providers the opportunity to apply for financial assistance to fund programs and projects that address the needs of disadvantaged Randwick local residents within an allocated annual budget of $160,000.00. This Program allows social services organisations to apply for a maximum of $20,000.00 per year over three years.

 

However, only one year projects were advertised in this funding round.  This was because limited residual funds were available for allocation for new projects by Council, due to financial commitments to year 2 and year 3 projects previously approved by Council.

 

The Council has received 12 applications seeking a total of $178,708.47. Programs and projects prioritised for funding have been assessed in accordance with the program’s funding guidelines. The applications recommended for funding are summarised in the body of this report. Attachment one (1) contains details of applications recommended and not recommended for funding.

 

This report recommends four (4) organisations to receive funding totalling $45,000.00 under the 2017-18 Community Partnerships Funding Program.

 

Issues

 

Randwick City Council provides an extensive range of community services to its residents, in keeping with the Department of Local Government’s social planning requirements. In addition to its advocacy, community development, and information provision functions, the Council provides financial assistance to community organisations through the following programs:

 

1.     Community Partnerships Funding Program, the subject of this report, which has an annual budget of $ 160,000.00.

2.     Rental Subsidy Program, currently valued at $1.264 million per year, whereby service providers renting the Council’s premises pay substantially discounted market rents.  The value of the rent discounts enable savings to be directed towards provision of core service.

3.     Cultural Community Grants Program which allocates about $110,000.00 annually (2 funding rounds per year) to assist resident groups and not for profit organisations implement a range of cultural activities.

 

The total value of the Council’s annual social/community development program expenditure described above is $1.534 million.


 

Community Partnerships Funding Program 2017-18

The 2017-18 funding round opened on 28 March 2017 and closed on 22 May 2017. The Program was promoted in the local media, on the Council’s website and through local community networks. The maximum grant available for allocation round per application is $20,000.00 for one year.

 

The allocated budget for the new financial year 2017-18 ($160,000.00) will fund four (4) organisations that are due to receive their third and final year recurrent funds totalling $68,000.00 approved in the 2015-16 Round, and three (3) organisations to receive their second year recurrent funds approved in the 2016-17 Round totalling $46,738.00.  The total amount available for allocation is $45,262.00, as shown below:

 

Recurrent funding commitments                  $68,000.00 (2015-16 funding round)                                                                   $46,738.00 (2016-17 funding round)

 

Subtotal            $114,738.00

 

Allocated budget 2016-17                         160,000.00

 

Less recurrent funding commitments           114,738.00

 

Total budget available for 2017-18 allocation   $45,262.00

 

The Program requires and expects a high level of accountability from funding recipients. This is achieved by undertaking a robust annual reporting process for organisations receiving more than $5,000.00. If an organisation receiving recurrent funding is unable to meet its annual progress reporting requirements, funding for subsequent years will not be allocated, and returned to the budget.

 

Organisations in receipt of recurrent funding are not eligible to apply for new funding. One grant application was deemed ineligible because their currently funded project is not scheduled to be completed until June 2018.

 

Assessment of Applications

The assessment process was undertaken by a panel consisting of: Council officers with expertise in community services, and the Council’s Internal Auditor. All applications were placed on a grants program assessment broadsheet. They were assessed and given scores reflecting their compliance with the program’s funding priorities and guidelines and the organisation’s capacity to deliver the funded services. These scores were totalled and given a priority ranking of either A, B or C based on those scores, with an A being the highest score priority. The Council’s current priorities were identified through the Council’s social inclusion plan, An Inclusive Randwick City.

 

Given the limited available funds of $45,262.00 the assessment panel recommended that only the four (4) projects that had achieved an A ranking to receive funding.  It should be noted that four projects have been are recommended to receive less funds than requested to maximise the number of funded projects.to share the limited funds across more projects.  The recommended projects are:

 

·         Seniors Wellbeing Project (Holdsworth Community Ltd) Part funding towards the establishment of a wellbeing program to be run from the Kensington Community Centre. The program aims to deliver a community based wellness and enablement program to a vulnerable segment of the Randwick community - frail people aged over 85. Amount recommended $12,000.00 for one year.

·         Part-time Community Worker (Kooloora Community Centre) Funds to provide project/community worker one day per week to coordinate various Centre programs and services. Amount recommended: $15,000 for one year.

·         A WAY Safe Summer Project (WAYS Youth & Family Waverley Action for Youth Services) is an outreach youth run peer education program promoting healthy living and education around topics such as safe sex practices for young people across Eastern Sydney during the summer period.  Funds will go towards funding an outreach program in Randwick (primarily at Clovelly, Coogee and Gordon’s Bay) and aims to engage with 3,000 young people.  This program is partly funding by the NSW Dept. of Health and local councils in the Eastern Suburbs. Amount recommended: $3,000.00 for one year.

·         Weave Kool Kids Community ‘Cool To Be Kind’ Program (Weave Youth and Community Services) Funds toward a project to focus on issues that impact on young people including: suicide, bullying and drug use. To help address these issue the project is to provide structured harm prevention activities for young people living in the southern suburbs of the City. Amount recommended: $15,000 for one year.

Altogether, four (4) new applications have been assessed as being eligible to receive funding under the 2017-18 funding round totalling $45,000.00. 

 

All applicants will be advised of the outcomes of their application whether they are successful or not. Upon request, feedback will be provided to unsuccessful organisations and they will be encouraged to apply next year, if appropriate.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  2:     Vibrant and diverse community.

Direction:  2b:   Support the provision of services and facilities to meet the needs of our target groups and encourage and seek opportunities to expand appropriate community services.

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no additional financial impact for this matter. The recommended expenditure is within the allocated budget for this purpose.

 

Conclusion

 

The Community Partnerships Funding Program plays an important role in providing support services to vulnerable and at risk target groups living in our City. It does so by allocating funds to social service providers to help increase their capacity to deliver much needed services to disadvantaged residents in the Randwick area.

 

This report recommends four (4) organisations to receive funding totalling $45,000.00 under the 2017-18 funding round.

 

Programs and projects prioritised for funding have been assessed in accordance with the program’s funding guidelines and the Council’s social inclusion plan, An Inclusive Randwick City.

 


 

Recommendation

 

That Council approve funds totaling $45,000.00 to be allocated to the organisations listed in Attachment One of this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

2017-18 Community Parnerships Funding Program Attachment One - Applications Recommended and Not Recommended

 

 

 

 


2017-18 Community Parnerships Funding Program Attachment One - Applications Recommended and Not Recommended

Attachment 1

 

 

2017/2018 COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FUNDING PROGRAM

 

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING

No.

Organisation

Name of Project & Description

Target

Group

Amount Requested

Amount Recommended

Years of

Funding

4

Holdsworth Community Ltd

(Woollahra)

Seniors Wellbeing Project

Part funding towards the establishment of a wellbeing program to be run from the Kensington Community Centre. The program aims to deliver a community based wellness and enablement program to a vulnerable segment of the Randwick community – frail people aged over 85.

Frail Seniors who are housebound with mobility issues

$20,000.00

$12,000.00

One year

6

Kooloora Community Centre

(Malabar)

Part-time Community Worker

Funds to provide project/community worker one day per week to coordinate various Centre programs and services.

Families and individuals living in and around the public housing estates in the South Ward of Randwick

$20,000.00

(requested funding for three years)

$15,000.000

One year

11

WAYS Youth & Family Waverley Action for Youth Services

(Bondi)

A WAYS Safe Summer Project A WAYS Safe Summer is an outreach youth run peer education program promoting healthy living and education around topics such as safe sex practices for young people across Eastern Sydney during the summer period. Funds towards an outreach program in Randwick (primarily at Clovelly, Coogee and Gordon’s Bay) and aims to engage with 3,000 young people.  This program is partly funding by the NSW Dept. of Health and local councils in the Eastern Suburbs.

Young people 15 -25 years

$4,490.00

$3,000.00

One year

12

Weave Youth and Community Services

(Strawberry Hills)

Weave Kool Kids Community ‘Cool To Be Kind’ Program

Funds toward a project to focus on issues that impact on young people including: suicide, bullying and drug use. To help address these issue the project is to provide structured harm prevention activities for young people living in the southern suburbs of the City.

Aboriginal children and other ‘at risk’ aged 7-14 years and their families. Aboriginal leaders and other students.

$20,000.00

(requested funding for three years)

$15,000.00

 

One year

 

 

 

 

Total

$45,000.00

 


2017/2018 COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FUNDING PROGRAM

 

APPLICATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING THAT EITHER WERE INELIGIBLE OR DID NOT RECEIVE AN ‘A’ RANKING 

No.

Organisation

Name of Project

Amount Requested

Reason for not recommending funding

1

ACON/UNSW

(Surry Hills)

Peer Mentor Program for Gay International Students

The UNSW has 80-120 International Students from CALD backgrounds that identify as gay and other homosexually active males (GHAM).

Funding is requested for a Volunteer Peer Mentor (VPM) Coordinator to provide training to other Volunteer Peer Mentors who will educate and support GHAM to build their understanding of sexual health on a one to one basis. 5-10 volunteers will be recruited and trained each semester.

 

$19,762.00

 

Application did not demonstrate a high enough need compared to other recommended applications.

2

Autism Spectrum Australia (ASPECT) (Frenchs Forest)

6 iPads and 6 laptops for kids with Autism

The Aspect Satellite Class at St Mary St Joseph Catholic School supports and educates children with autism who have severe language difficulties and complex communication needs.  Funding to purchase iPads and laptops to integrate technology into each key learning area of the curriculum as many children experience difficulty in communicating verbally and will benefit from technology that produces speech output.

 

$12,303.00

Grant is for purchase of equipment which is outside the Grant Guidelines

3

Creativity Centre Incorporated

(Maroubra)

 

Hydrotherapy Program

Funds to provide an additional hydrotherapy program session each week for people living with a disability to improve their strength, fitness, mobility, and cognitive skills. Transport to and from the POWH hospital’s heated pool is to be provided. 

$10,000.00

Outside the grant guidelines Organisation is funded for another 12 months until June 2018. 

5

Hope and Heal Incorporated

(Waverley)

Hope and Heal Retreats

Funds to provide three weekend retreats for help relieve the long term physical and psychological trauma caused by Domestic Violence.

$9,869.47

Application did not provide sufficient information to demonstrate capacity to deliver project outcomes and client referral pathways.

 

7

Learning Links

(Peakhurst)

Helping socio-economically disadvantaged children with learning difficulties

Funds to provide up to 10 (per term) children who have learning disabilities per term, with critical intervention services they need to develop and learn, despite their families’ inability to afford the services.

$10,000.00

Organisation did not demonstrate a high enough need for financial assistance. It receives government funding to deliver its services, and other providers offer similar services to local residents.  Organisation receives subsidised rental for its office accommodation at Bowen Library under the Rental Subsidy Program.

 

8

Social Interiors

(Edgecliff)

 

Ride the Wave – Randwick City

Funds to assist 10 young carers in Randwick by; creating a space in the home to take a break from caring to do school work; changing the home to allow the young carer to care more easily by making the house more accessible for the person with a disability; working with the carer and their family to clean/organise the home; provide equipment to the person with the disability to live as independently as possible.

$20,000.00

 

Application did not demonstrate clearly defined project outcomes and how clients are to be identified.  People with disability & Carers are eligible to access assistance under the government funded Home and Community Care Program. 

 

9

St Francis Social Services

(Paddington)

Strive Program

Funds towards an Adolescent & Family Councillor to provide an in-school early intervention mental health and wellbeing program for students experiencing or at risk of experiencing mental health issues. The program is offered to students experiencing depression, anxiety, stress, complex family situation and peer pressure.

 

$19,784.00

Application did not demonstrate a high enough need because currently there are a number of similar services working in the schools such as Headspace and YOTS.

10

The Shepherd Centre

(Newtown) 

Chime Time – a music therapy program for children from Randwick who are deaf or hearing impaired

Funds towards the program costs of providing the music therapy program to 14 children from Randwick and their families. The sessions would be led by a music therapist and a child and family counsellor who will focus on strengthening family relationships and building capacity in parents to support their child’s development.

 

$10,500.00

Applicant did not demonstrate clearly defined project outcomes and a high enough priority need when compared to other applications.

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

General Manager's Report No. GM10/17

 

Subject:              Randwick City Council Operational Plan and Budget 2017-18

Folder No:                F2017/03000

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

 

Introduction

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 18 April 2017, it was resolved that the Draft Randwick City Council 2017-18 Operational Plan, which includes the 2017-18 Budget and associated Fees and Charges, be placed on public exhibition for not less than 28 days, from 24 April to 22 May 2017 inviting submissions from the public.

 

During the public exhibition period the following activities were undertaken:

 

·         A one-quarter page advertisement inviting comment was placed in the Southern Courier on 2 and 9 May. It was also advertised as an item in the Mayor's column on 25 April, 2, and 9 May) and featured in Council’s enews on 26 April, 3 May and 17 May.

·         Exhibition material, including a video, was displayed at the Customer Service Centre. The video was also posted on Council’s Facebook page and generated 25 comments, mostly about projects planned for Heffron Park.

·         Exhibition material was available at our Libraries, the Des Renford Leisure Centre, Prince Henry and Randwick Community Centres, the Nursery and the Moverly Children’s Centre.

·         The exhibition material was placed on Council’s website.

·         Precincts were provided with a copy of the Draft 2017-18 Operational Plan, Budget and Fees and Charges.

·         Submissions were invited via the consultation website “Your Say Randwick”.

-     the site had 1,545 unique visitors during the exhibition period, of which 1,315 engaged further by clicking through to other sections.

-     from the site 1,684 documents were downloaded. Of these downloaded documents, 85 were of the Draft Operational Plan, 86 were of the Draft Budget and 37 were of the Draft Fees and Charges. The site provided information by suburb which attracted 1,476 downloads.

·         Leaflets detailing projects by suburb were hand delivered via letterbox drop to every residence.

·         Council’s Facebook page reached 10,646 people with the most comments made about the proposed Heffron Community and High Performance Centre at Heffron Park.

·         Council’s twitter account reached 1,004 people.

·         80 formal submissions were received.

·         All formal submissions received were acknowledged and reviewed, and are tabled within the Issues Section of this report.

 

Building on an approach that was successfully utilised for the preparation of Council’s previous Operational Plans, Council again sought input from the Precincts during the Operational Plan preparation (rather than exhibition) phase.

 

Overall there were 75 issues/suggestions raised by the Precincts through the initial process.

 

In addition, this year Council undertook a separate consultation during the Operational Plan preparation period, inviting ideas from the community, via a web based Ideas Board. Around 150 ideas were posted on this web site. The main ideas centred around revitalising our town centres and creating plazas; open space upgrades including outdoor gyms, bubblers and tree planting; upgrades to playgrounds, and traffic calming and pedestrian access improvements such as new pedestrian crossings and roundabouts at various locations.

 

Issues

 

Council received 80 formal submissions regarding the Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2017-18 and associated documents. Each submission was acknowledged and then reviewed by the relevant members of Council’s management team. The following table identifies issues arising from the formal submissions and provides Council’s response.

 

Submitted By

Issue

Response

 

Residents

Clovelly

Maroubra

 

 

 

Request for additional tree planting and canopy cover mapping

 

Council has a strategy of significantly increasing our tree canopy which is undertaken through our Street Tree Planting Program. Through this program, hundreds of trees are planted every year.  In addition to this program, Council will plant approximately 1,500 trees throughout the local government area as part of the Vegetation Offset Program for the Light Rail Project. The tree species will be determined in accordance with our Street Tree Masterplan.

 

 

Resident

Coogee

 

 

Traffic Management -

Clovelly Road and Mount Street, Randwick

 

This intersection is considered as relatively safe, with only three crashes recorded within the most recently available five years of crash data. (The crashes recorded are those in which a vehicle is towed or persons are injured). Given the low incidence of recorded crashes, even with the significant volume of traffic passing through this intersection, treatments such as traffic signals are not considered necessary at this time.

 

 

Submitted By

Issue

Response

 

Resident

Coogee

 

 

Request for drain cleaning

 

 

Council cleans drains on an annual schedule and as requested. Drains in flood prone areas are cleaned every five weeks or as required.

 

 

Resident

Coogee

 

 

Coogee Beach - water quality

 

Randwick City Council has established a working group to assess and develop options to improve water quality at Coogee Beach. The working group will recommend options for short, medium and longer terms. Beachwatch has been conducting water quality testing at our coastal beaches for many years. The reports leading up to the last annual report, dating back to 2009-10 indicate that Coogee has had a regular beach suitability rating of Good. The working group is exploring possible reasons for the change in the most recent Beachwatch Annual Report.

 

 

Resident

Coogee

 

 

Drainage Mount Street Coogee

 

The property at Mount Street is near the top of the drainage catchment. From the top of the catchment, water is directed via the kerb and gutter to downstream drainage pits. There are drainage pits located at the intersection of Mount Street and Alison Road. The pits transfer the stormwater to the underground drainage stormwater system. It is considered that the existing drainage network is adequate at this location.

 

 

Submitted By

Issue

Response

 

Residents

Coogee

Maroubra

 

 

Business Improvement initiatives

 

 

 

 

Performance reporting

 

 

 

 

 

 

Financial and business planning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asset sales

 

Council has implemented a Business Excellence Framework which assists Council in creating an organisational environment that drives continuous improvement in our processes, service delivery and programs.

 

The ongoing achievements against Council’s Key Performance Indicators can be found in the quarterly reviews of the Operational Plan which can be found on Council’s website. At the completion of the financial year the full year results are published in Council’s Annual Report.

 

Council’s annual Budget is only one part of Council’s Integrated Planning Framework which is ultimately built around achieving the objectives of the 20-year Randwick City Plan. Council’s income and expenditure levels are guided by the principles and goals contained within its Resourcing Strategy which contains our Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Strategy and Workforce Plan. These planning documents can also be found on Council’s website.

 

At this current stage Council has no plans to sell assets to fund new infrastructure or to fund infrastructure renewals.

 

 

Residents

Coogee

Phillip Bay

 

 

Request for basketball facilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council has a plan for the construction of basketball facilities throughout the City. As part of the 2016-17 Capital Works Program, Council completed the construction of a convertible basketball/netball court at Heffron Park and basketball courts at Coral Sea Park and Kensington Community Centre. A basketball court is planned for Paine Reserve.

 

At this stage, there is no plan to install a basketball/netball court at Fred Williams Reserve.

 

 

Submitted By

Issue

Response

 

Residents

Coogee (2)

Maroubra Randwick (4)

 

 

Provision of cycling paths and cycle facilities

 

Council adopted a Bike Route Implementation Plan in 2015. An amount of $300,000 has been allocated in the 2017-18 Budget to continue funding this Plan's implementation. The implementation plan prioritises proposed routes between Randwick and Bondi Junction as well as between Randwick and Coogee Beach.

 

Council is working closely with NSW Roads and Maritime (RMS) to deliver a number of separated cycle way routes. Initial priority will be given to cycleways linking to the light rail stations and termini. 

 

Council is establishing a web based tool for the public to propose locations for the installation of bicycle racks. The Council will prioritise a program of works arising from the community's suggestions.

 

 

Residents

Coogee

Kingsford

Malabar (2)

Maroubra (3)

South Coogee

 

Non Residents

Bondi

Pagewood

Vaucluse

 

Bunnerong Gymnastics Association members

Unknown address and residency (19)

 

Bunnerong Gymnastics Association staff (8)

 

 

Support for proposed new indoor multisport (gymnastics and tennis) centre

 

Comments noted.

 

Council has plans to upgrade the gymnastics centre at Heffron Park as part of the Plan of Management. The centre will form part of an overall development for the Bunnerong Road side of the park and facilities will include toilets, change rooms and a viewing area. The proposal will be designed to current building standards including appropriate ventilation. The facility will also be supported by adequate parking and pick up/drop off zones.

 

 

Submitted By

Issue

Response

 

Resident

Kensington

 

 

 

 

Objection to 25 storey building height on Anzac Parade.

 

 

 

The maximum height limit for development along the Anzac Parade corridor in the Kensington and Kingsford town centres is contained in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP).

 

The Randwick LEP currently applies maximum height limits of 24 metres and 25 metres to the Kingsford and Kensington town centres respectively. 

Council has prepared a draft Planning Strategy addressing how projected growth in residential and employment floor space can be accommodated while ensuring a good urban design outcome and amenity for the town centres.

 

The draft Strategy proposes a mid-rise height limit of 31 metres (equating to 9 storeys) across both town centres, with taller building forms allowed at prominent corner sites adjacent to light rail stops and the light rail terminus. The maximum height limits for these key corner sites range from 51 metres to 54 metres (equivalent to a maximum of 17 to 18 storeys), and are contingent on a high level of design excellence being achieved.

 

The draft Strategy and accompanying Planning Proposal proposing changes to the Randwick LEP maximum height controls is currently with the Department of Planning and Environment.

 

The community will have the opportunity to make comments on the proposed new height controls as part of a future public exhibition/consultation phase.

 

 

 

Submitted By

Issue

Response

 

Kensington - West Kingsford precinct

 

 

 

Kensington Community Centre – request for coordinator

 

Throughout the year Council runs a range of community programs and information sessions from its various facilities, such as the Town Hall, Randwick Community Centre, libraries, Randwick Literary Institute, and Prince Henry Centre. When construction of Kensington Community Centre is completed the Council will also include this facility as one of its stable of venues from which to deliver community activities and events. 

 

Like our other facilities, the Kensington Community Centre will also be made available for hire through Council's booking facility and in accordance with Council's Hall Hire Policy. Following its opening, bookings for the venue may be made by completing the online community hall application form.

 

 

Resident

Kingsford

 

 

Community Grants - Waverley-Randwick Philharmonic Society

 

Council has a Cultural and Community Grants Program to assist community groups with funding for a wide range of cultural and community activities performed within Randwick City Local Government Area.

 

The Waverley-Randwick Philharmonic Society is welcome to apply for council funding under this program. Our records indicate that the Society last applied, and was successful for grant funding in 2009.  Since then no further applications have been received from the Society. The opportunity is available for the Society to apply for an assistance grant by submitting an application via the Council's Grants Program. 

 

 

Resident

Kingsford

 

 

Response to Ideas Board consultation

 

Council will consider all feedback received from the Ideas Board consultation. Not all ideas can be actioned, and some need to form part of longer term plans, however Council is appreciative of the feedback received as this helps us better plan for our future.

 

 

 

Submitted By

Issue

Response

 

Resident

Kingsford

 

 

Building cost management

 

When developing plans for a new or upgraded building, Council takes into consideration compliance with standards, community expectations and good design outcomes. For all building capital works projects, Council engages a qualified quantity surveyor to ensure that projects are appropriately cost managed and potential savings identified.

 

 

Resident

Kingsford

 

 

 

 

Request for new waste bins in Rainbow Street

 

Litter bin installations are generally located in commercial areas, parks or at bus stops where the amount of litter justifies the high costs to install and service the litter bins.

 

Where a site does not justify placement of a bin, but is identified as a hot spot for littering, Council undertakes spot cleaning. Should anyone wish to report concerns of littering they are requested to contact Council's call centre on 1300 722 542.

 

 

Residents

La Perouse

Randwick

 

 

Heffron Park Criterium upgrade

 

Council remains committed to the upgrade of the Criterium at Heffron Park. The work proposed for the Criterium, as outlined in the Heffron Park Masterplan, has been revised following consultation with the cycling clubs. As the realignment of sports fields at Heffron Park may potentially impact on the Criterium, this project is prioritised to commence after all sports fields have been realigned.

 

 

Residents

Little Bay (2)

 

 

Access to Little Bay Beach

 

Access to the beach is provided within the land owned and managed by Council. This parcel of land does not have sufficient area to construct an accessible ramp.

The land adjacent to the public walkway is crown land which is leased to and controlled by The Coast Golf Club.

 

 

Resident

Malabar

 

 

Request for amenities at Malabar Beach

 

This request is noted and will be included on our list for consideration in future Capital Works Programs.

 

 

 

Submitted By

Issue

Response

 

Resident

Malabar

 

 

Request for bus shelters in Nix Ave, Malabar

 

 

Council has a bus shelter program. In deciding on the location of bus shelters, Council takes into consideration factors such as available space, topography, alternative shelter options, usage, sight lines and impact on residents.

 

The suggested sites will be assessed and if they meet the criteria for a shelter, will be added to the list for consideration in future Capital Works Programs.

 

 

Resident

Maroubra

 

 

Street lighting upgrade

 

 

Ausgrid manages the street lighting network on behalf of Randwick City Council. There are some older style streetlights installed the area north of Heffron Park.  Council has been working with Ausgrid to upgrade these streetlights on a bulk replacement program. The new standard streetlights will increase the lighting levels and have better distribution beyond trees.  We will seek to accelerate this upgrade program.

 

 

Resident

Maroubra

 

 

Road resurfacing - Moverley Road

 

 

Moverley Road has a concrete pavement.  It is not cost effective to place an asphalt overlay over the road. A characteristic of concrete roads is that they have a very long life and require significantly less maintenance than an asphalt pavement over the life of the road. It is acknowledged that the community has a preference for asphalt pavements and therefore when the concrete road requires replacement, we reinstate an asphalt pavement. Due to the significant funding required to replace a concrete pavement with an asphalt pavement, only segments that have reached the end of the asset life are programed. In the meantime, we continue to assess the condition of our roads and undertake maintenance to keep the concrete roads serviceable.

 

 

 

Submitted By

Issue

Response

 

Residents

Maroubra

Matraville

 

 

Request for fenced dog off-leash area

 

Council is committed to providing a significant number of dog parks (14) spread throughout the City which permit off-leash exercising of dogs at any time. Our current position is that dog owners have a responsibility to ensure that they have control over their dog at all times when exercising them off-leash.

 

 

Resident

Matraville

 

 

Opposition to Light Rail

 

Comments noted.

 

The NSW Government is currently constructing the CBD and South East Light Rail which will run from Circular Quay to Randwick and Kingsford.

Randwick City Council is supportive of this State initiative. In April 2014 Randwick City Council endorsed the establishment of a five-year support plan with the aim to help local residents and businesses affected by the proposed introduction of light rail

 

Council has been actively delivering the five year support plan which includes:

• reconfiguring parallel to angle parking in local streets near Anzac Parade to create and reclaim spaces lost by the introduction of light rail;

•purchase land and construct a multi-storey car park at Kingsford 9-ways roundabout; 

•build new public plazas at Waratah Avenue/Belmore Road, Randwick; and Meeks Street/Anzac Parade, Kingsford; 

•upgrade stormwater drainage; 

•build east-west cycleways that connect with light rail stops; 

•build bicycle lockers and racks near light rail stops; and

•undertake traffic calming works in residential streets.

 

 

 

Submitted By

Issue

Response

 

Residents

Matraville

Maroubra

Randwick

 

 

Email address supplied only

 

 

Opposition to Rabittohs High Performance Centre, Heffron Park

 

In 2013, Council resolved to progress the proposal for a Community and High Performance Centre at Heffron Park and allocated funding of $3 million (capped) towards the proposal.

 

Since this time, additional funding outside of Council has been secured and the proposal relocated to the Bunnerong Road side of the Park. The Centre will accommodate community facilities and the overall development will include a new gymnastics facility and indoor multi-purpose centre.

 

The majority of the funding contribution will be externally sourced from the South Sydney Football Club, and Federal and State Governments. Once the proposal is completed, the asset will be owned and managed by Council.

 

 

Resident

Phillip Bay

 

 

Request for showers at Yarra Beach

 

The request for a shower at Yarra Bay will be placed on a list of upgrades and scheduled according to other priorities.

 

 

Resident

Phillip Bay

 

 

Request for play equipment Fred Williams Reserve

 

 

 

Installation of suitable play equipment for older children will be considered when the Fred Williams Reserve Playground is next upgraded.

 

 

Resident

Randwick

 

 

Bundock Park Playground upgrade

 

This request for an upgrade to the Clovelly Beach Playground is noted and has been included on our list of future works. The playground upgrade will be considered when the playground becomes due for replacement.

 

 

Resident

Randwick

 

 

 

 

Opposition to street signage mid footpath in Avoca and Rainbow Streets

 

Council does not install direction and traffic signage in the middle of footpaths. Avoca Street and Rainbow Street in Randwick are state roads managed by RMS. Council will bring community concerns regarding signage in specific locations to the attention of the RMS.

 

 

 

Submitted By

Issue

Response

 

Resident

Randwick

 

 

 

Road resurfacing - Prince Lane

 

 

Prince Lane provides rear access to properties along Burton Street and King Street. The construction of kerb and gutter along the laneway has been undertaken as properties develop their driveways. The missing segments of kerb and gutter will be placed on a list for consideration in future capital works programs. The asphalt pavement has been assessed and deemed to be in fair to good condition. Our resurfacing program is determined based on asset management principles. The laneways proposed for resurfacing in the draft 2017-18 Budget were assessed as having a higher priority.

 

 

Resident

Randwick

 

 

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP)  implementation

 

Council is obliged to implement State Environmental Planning Policies in accordance with the stated and underlying objectives of the particular policy. It would be inappropriate for Council to predetermine the assessment of an application in anticipation of defending an appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

 

 

Resident

Randwick

 

 

Affordable housing

 

Council has an active affordable housing program and is pursuing new means to increase affordable housing supply in the City.

 

 

Resident

Randwick

 

 

 

Wylies Baths - access

 

Wylies Baths is administered by members of the Wylies Baths Trust. Randwick City Council is not responsible for the day to day management or upgrade to this facility under the existing licence.

 

 

Resident

Randwick

 

 

 

Pedestrian routes

 

When planning pedestrian improvement, the preferred line is one of the many considerations which are taken into account. Sometimes a safer option may not be on the direct preferred pedestrian line.

 

 

 

Submitted By

Issue

Response

 

Resident

Randwick

 

 

 

 

Footpath accessibility

 

 

Council is currently preparing a public domain strategy for the Randwick Town Centre which will comply with Disability Discrimination Act requirements.

 

Council's rangers and parking officers undertake routine patrols of footpaths and will take regulatory action in response to any breaches. Should anyone wish to report concerns of footpath access, they are requested to contact Council's call centre on 1300 722 542.

 

 

Resident

Randwick

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fred Hollows Reserve - waste audit and anti-litter campaign

 

Comments noted.

 

Council has an illegal dumping and litter management strategy which has a current focus on high visitation sites such as the beaches.

 

Fred Hollows Reserve Bushcare group frequently undertake working bees and bushcare activities which include removal of litter from this site. Please contact Council for more information on how to participate in this group.

 

 

Resident

Randwick

 

 

 

 

 

Reduction in plastic bags

 

 

 

Council advocates for the reduction in plastic bags and supports the Federal Government's intention to co-ordinate a national approach to ban single use plastic bags.

 

Council encourages re-use and reduction in use through its waste collection services, and actively distributes re-usable jute and calico bags at major events.

 

 

Resident

Randwick

 

 

 

 

 

 

Management of abandoned shopping trolleys

 

 

Council has an agreement with local supermarkets and Trolley Tracker to notify them of the location of abandoned trolleys, for collection within 48 hours.

 

Should anyone wish to report an abandoned trolley, they are requested to contact Trolley Tracker or Council's call centre on 1300 722 542.

 

 

 

 

Submitted By

Issue

Response

 

Resident

South Coogee

 

 

Support for continuation of Buildings for Our Community Levy

 

Comment noted.

 

The additional revenue that resulted from the special rate variation that funded the Buildings for our Community Program remains in the Randwick City Council rate base going forward into the future. It is these additional funds that has allowed Council, in the 2017-18 financial year, to put $5.75million towards the building construction program.

 

 

Email address supplied only

 

 

 

Managing Library capacity

 

 

 

Provision of software for businesses

 

 

 

Suggestions on how Council might future proof the library are noted. There may be opportunities to expand the library in the future.

 

Due to privacy issues, Council is not able to purchase business software for public use.

 

 

Email address supplied only

 

 

 

Plan of Management for open spaces

 

Randwick City Council manages its open spaces to cater for the various recreational needs of our community. In parks and reserves where we have sports fields, we also provide other facilities to cater for non-sports type activities. These other activities can be undertaken simultaneously while games are being played on sports fields. The planning for these areas allows both activities to co-exist without conflict or safety risks.

 

 

Email address supplied only

 

 

 

Planning for safe and clean parks

 

In planning our parks and open space facilities, Council considers safety measures and crime prevention strategies, for example lighting and the type and placement of trees, and anti-graffiti surfacing.

 

Council has a schedule for the cleaning of parks and graffiti removal. Should anyone wish to report concerns of littering, graffiti or a maintenance matter, at a council facility, they are requested to contact Council's call centre on 1300 722 542.

 

 

 

Submitted By

Issue

Response

 

Email address supplied only

 

 

 

 

Sports field booking policy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opportunity to provide notification of field use

 

Council undertakes an evaluation of all applications received to maximise the use of all sports fields. The majority of sports fields are booked via sport associations as block bookings. These associations are responsible for scheduling home and away games which impact the usage of individual fields. Council's fees and charges are charged to the applicants whether they use the field (for a home game) or not (for an away game).

 

As the draw is subject to change at any time by the applicants, it is difficult to advise the community when fields are in use.

 

 

 

Miscellaneous amendments to the Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2017-18

 

Amendment

Reason

Page reference

 

Amendment

 

Rewording to reflect rescheduling of proposed playground upgrade at Frenchmans Reserve to a future time and provide details of higher priority project – tennis centre.

 

 

Page 5

Para 1

 

Amendment

 

To reflect rescheduling of proposed playground upgrade at Frenchmans Reserve to a future time and provide detail on another project within the open space Plan of Management– tennis centre.

 

 

Page 43

Action 5b.2

 

Update

 

The reference to the Fire and Emergency Services Levy has been removed as the State Government has deferred the introduction of the FESL.

 

 

Page 66

 

 

Minor editorial change

 

To update and make minor changes such as updated economic statistics.

 

 

For example page 14

 

The results to the 2016 census are anticipated for release on 27 June 2017, and if possible, the demographic data on page 13 will be updated with this new information prior to publication.

 

Recommended Capital Works Program 2017-18

There are no changes to the Draft 2017-18 Capital Works Program.

 

Recommended Budget 2017-18

There are no changes to the Draft 2017-18 Budget.

 

Recommended Fees and Charges 2017-18

Since the drafting of the Fees and Charges for 2017-18, the NSW Office of Local Government has released the prescribed fee applicable for a Section 603 Certificate (Outstanding Rates) for the 2017-18 financial year. That fee has been determined to be $80, which is a $5 increase on the fee exhibited in the Draft 2017-18 Fees and Charges.

 

There are no other changes to any Draft 2017-18 User Fee or Charge.

 

Rates

 

All councils are subject to the annual rate peg unless otherwise covered by a ‘Special Variation’. Rates will increase by 1.5 per cent in 2017-18 in line with IPART’s determination of the rate peg for 2017-18. 

 

Under s.494 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council must make and levy an ordinary rate each year on all rateable land in its area. The 2017-18 rates are shown below. 

 

Rate Description

Rate

No. of Properties

Rate Revenue

Residential - Ad Valorem

0.12525

22,877

$37,149,147

Residential - Minimum

$763.53

26,928

$20,560,336

Business - Ad Valorem

0.47079

1,425

$14,006,316

Business - Minimum

$1,230.40

665

$818,216

Environmental Special Rate

0.010314

51,895

$4,153,989

 

 

 

$76,688,004

 


 

Environmental Special Rate

 

The Environmental Levy funds the Sustaining our City program and has been in place for the past 13 years. The Levy was originally introduced in July 2004 for five years, calculated at 6 per cent of the Council’s overall rates income. Since then the Levy has been extended at the same rate, for two further consecutive five year periods, effective from July 2009 and July 2014.

 

Domestic Waste Management Charge

 

Under s.496 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council must make and levy an annual charge for providing domestic waste management services. Under s.504 of the Act, income from the charge must not exceed the reasonable cost to Council of providing those services. For 2017-18, the Domestic Waste Management Charge will increase from $543.00 to $554.00 for each residential parcel.

 

For residential premises with shared facilities, ie; shared bathroom and kitchen, the charge will apply one charge per 10 beds. For all other residential premises with self-contained units, ie; non-shared bathroom and/or kitchen, one charge will apply per unit/occupancy.

 

The Domestic Waste Management Charge for an ‘additional’ 140 litre service will be $266.60 in 2017-18.

 

The Domestic Waste Management Charge provides for existing services; charges for tipping to landfill; the ongoing operation of the Perry Street Recycling Centre; continuation of Council's Contaminated Site Remediation Program and Council's commitment to alternate waste technologies in an effort to increase the amount of rubbish diverted from landfill.

 

For 2017-18 the estimated gross yield for the Domestic Waste Management Charge is $32,519,102.

 

The draft Fees and Charges document has been updated to reflect the Domestic Waste Management Charge.

 

Stormwater Management Service Charge

 

The Stormwater Management Service Charge was introduced in the 2008-09 financial year to establish a sustainable funding source for providing improved stormwater management across Randwick City. Under s.496A of the Local Government Act 1993, Council may make and levy an annual charge for stormwater management services for each parcel of rateable land for which a stormwater management service is provided.

 

The Stormwater Management Service Charges are set in accordance with the Local Government Act Regulations 2005, and remain unchanged from last year.

 

The Stormwater Management Service Charge will appear as a separate charge on the 2017-18 rate notices and is determined by the type of property:

·     Residential property: $25 per annum

·     Residential strata property: $12.50 per annum

·     Business property: $25 per annum plus an additional $25 for each 350m2 or part thereof by which the parcel of land exceeds 350m2

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

·     Company title properties: calculated in accordance with the rating category of the land and then apportioned according to the number of shares held by each shareholder.

 

For 2017-18 the estimated gross yield of the Stormwater Service Management Charge is $1,129,534.

 

Interest Charge 2017-18

 

In accordance with s.566(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, the Minister for Local Government has determined that the maximum rate of interest payable on overdue rates and charges for the 2017-18 rating year will be 7.5 per cent per annum. Randwick City Council will apply the maximum rate in 2017-18.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

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

 

Conclusion

 

The 2017-18 Randwick City Council Operational Plan and Budget reflect the broader directions of the 20-year Randwick City Plan, and were prepared in a manner indicative of sound and pro-active community engagement principles including innovative methods of consultation.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the Recommended Operational Plan 2017-18 be adopted as per the attached, and that the General Manager be authorised to make any minor changes as requested by the Council or the NSW Office of Local Government;

 

b)     the Recommended Annual Budget 2017-18 be adopted as per the attached;

 

c)     the Recommended General Fees and Charges be adopted for 2017-18 as per the attached;

 

d)     Council make and levy the ordinary Residential Rate for 2017-18, under s.494 and s.498(1)(a) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, as a rate of 0.12525 cents in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land within the City of Randwick being categorised as Residential;

 

e)     Council make and levy the ordinary Business Rate for 2017-18, under s.494 and s.498(1)(a) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, as a rate of 0.47079 cents in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land within the City of Randwick being categorised as Business;

 

f)      Council make and levy the Environmental Levy Rate for 2017-18 under s.495 and s.498(1)(b) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, as a rate of 0.010314 cents in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land within the City of Randwick;

 

g)     Council make and levy the ordinary Residential minimum rate for 2017-18 under s.548(1)(a), (2), (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, as $763.53;

 

h)     Council make and levy the ordinary Business minimum rate for 2017-18 under s.548(1)(a), (2), (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, as $1,230.40;

 

i)      Council make and levy the Domestic Waste Management Charge for 2017-18 under s.496 of the Local Government Act 1993, as $554.00;

 

j)      Council make and levy a Domestic Waste Management Charge for an additional 140 litre bin for 2017-18 under s.496 of the Local Government Act 1993, as $266.60;

 

k)     Council make and levy the Stormwater Management Service Charge for residential properties for 2017-18 under s.496A of the Local Government Act 1993, as $25.00;

 

l)      Council make and levy the Stormwater Management Service Charge for residential strata properties for 2017-18 under s.496A of the Local Government Act 1993, as $12.50;

 

m)    Council make and levy the Stormwater Management Service Charge for business properties for 2017-18 under s.496A of the Local Government Act 1993, as $25.00 plus an additional $25.00 for each 350m² or part thereof by which the parcel of land exceeds 350m²;

 

n)     Council make and levy the Stormwater Management Service Charge for business strata properties for 2017-18 under s.496A of the Local Government Act 1993, calculated in accordance with the land area as per business properties in ‘m’ above and then apportioned by unit entitlement subject to a minimum charge of $5.00 per business strata lot.

 

o)     Council make and levy the Stormwater Management Service Charge for company title properties for 2017-18 under s.496A of the Local Government Act 1993, calculated in accordance with the rating category of the land and then apportioned according to the number of shares held by each shareholder for each respective lot.

 

p)     the interest rate on overdue rates for 2017-18 be set at 7.5 per cent which is the maximum rate as determined by the Minister for Local Government; under s.566(3) of the Local Government Act 1993; and

 

q)     the Responsible Accounting Officer be delegated to make changes as adopted by Council.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Link to 2017-18 Operational Plan

2.

Link to 2017-18 Budget 2017-18

3.

Link to 2017-18 Fees and Charges

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

General Manager's Report No. GM11/17

 

Subject:              Augmenting existing consultation strategies

Folder No:                F2012/00372

Author:                     Amanda Mather, Precincts Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

At the 17 December 2016 Ordinary Council Meeting, it was resolved that;

 

1.     Council investigate and prepare a report into augmenting existing consultation strategies by use of online technologies;

2.     such investigation include a meeting with and input from every precinct in Randwick LGA; and

3.     a report be brought back to Council.

 

Issues

 

Council has a Community Consultation Principles and Consultation Planning Guide that determines how Council engages with the community and promotes a two way relationship where Council and the community exchange information and feedback on issues.

 

The Planning Guide helps Council determine how it will consult with the community on specific projects, using a number of tools such as meetings with key community members, focus groups, meetings and/or online consultations.

 

Council currently uses an online platform for consulting with the community called “Your Say Randwick”.  Council uses YourSay to:

·     Encourage community discussion, debate and dialogue in a safe, responsive and managed environment

·     Gather questions, ideas, concerns, thoughts and feelings from our community to drive better decision-making

Tools available on YourSay include surveys, discussion forums, ideas boards, quick polls, Q&A and mapping. For the first quarter of 2017, Your Say Randwick had over 13,000 visitors to the site.

 

At the quarterly Precinct Coordination Committee meeting on 22 March 2017, Council’s Communications team gave an overview of how Council currently communicates with the community online via Your Say Randwick and social media, and led a discussion with the Precinct Executives about how they can engage with residents and encourage more community participation. 

 

A number of ways Council can promote the precincts were brainstormed, and will continue to be discussed with Precincts. Some of the ideas generated by the Precincts included:

 

1.     Precinct executive profiles in Randwick eNews

2.     Banners on display at the meeting venue on the day of a precinct meeting

3.     Community noticeboards

 

From the discussion the Precincts indicated their role is primarily being facilitators of face to face meetings for residents; a place residents can meet and discuss issues in person. Two of the 10 active precincts manage a Facebook page, but the majority rely on email and flyer drops to advertise their meetings and communicate with residents.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 3: An informed and engaged community.

Direction 3c: A community involved in shaping and enhancing our City

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Community Consultation Principles and Consultation Planning Guide provides an adequate framework for developing appropriate strategies to undertake consultation with the community.  In particular, YourSay Randwick is proving to be a strong and comprehensive platform for consulting online.  The precinct system complements Council’s community consultation principles by providing residents with the opportunity to meet face to face.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council will continue to work with the Precincts to promote the system to residents and support the Precinct Executives as per the Precinct Policy. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

   


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF19/17

 

Subject:              Investment Report - May 2017

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 – May 2017” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of May 2017. All investments have been made in accordance with the Act, Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Investment Commentary

 

As at 31 May 2017, Council held investments with a market value of $70.91 million. The portfolio value increased during May by ~$3.25 million. The increase is representative of a positive cash flow for the month reflecting the net effect of revenue receipts (rates, grants & miscellaneous) offset by capital works expenditure and other operational payments.

 

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

 

The following graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from May 2016 to May 2017. Peaks are representative of the rates instalment periods.

 

Council’s Portfolio                          

 

The portfolio has high levels of liquidity with 14% of investments available at call and a further 18% of assets maturing within 3 months. Council has a large allocation to senior FRNs as additional cover for liquidity requirements (accessible within 2 business days)

 

 

 

The investment portfolio is split with fixed term deposits and liquid FRNs, as well as at call money 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 May 2017. The portfolio includes term deposits (43% of the portfolio) with the higher rated ADI’s. Credit assets (FRNs) are also 43% of the portfolio.

 

 

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

 

On the 22 May 2017, S&P Global Ratings have downgraded the long term credit ratings of 23 financial institutions operating in Australia due to the "buildup of economic imbalances". 

 

These rating downgrades have resulted in Council’s portfolio having exposure to BBB investments which it would not have otherwise invested in. In accordance with the current Investment Policy provisions, investments that have been downgraded will be divested as soon as is practicable.

 

It should be noted that the downgrades did not include the big four domestic banks (ANZ, CBA, NAB and Westpac) as well as Macquarie Bank as they were deemed “too big to fail” and would receive government support in the event of a crisis.  Their longer term credit rating do however remain on “Negative Outlook”.

 

Council’s current allocation based on S&P ratings is as follows:

 

 

^ 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Counterparty

 

The table below shows the individual counterparty exposures against Council’s current investment policy.

 

Suncorp is slightly above capacity limits, Bank of Queensland, Bendigo-Adelaide Bank and the Rural Bank are now rated BBB+ and will be divested as soon practicable.

 

 

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 May 2014 to May 2017.

 

 

 

Investment performance for the financial year to date is above the industry benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index with an average return of 2.70% compared with the benchmark index of 1.79%.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate remained at the historical low of 1.50%.

 

Term Deposits

 

At month end, deposits accounted for 43% of the total investment portfolio.

Four deposits totaling $7 million matured and were withdrawn in May. There were five new term deposit taken up during May for $5 million.

As at the end of May, the weighted average deposit yield stood at 2.73%, up 5bp from the previous month or around +94bp over bank bills. This historically low level remains above 12 month rates with the exception of broker promotions.

    

Floating Rate Notes (FRNs)

 

The portfolio includes $30.5 million in floating rate notes.

 

On 1 May 2017, the disposal of NAB FRN 3/6/2020 was settled. The disposal realised a capital gain of $2,620.00. A switch into the newly released BOQ FRN 5/5/2020 was taken up on the 5 May 2017.

 

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 May 2017 increased by ~$8k.

 

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 May 2017 amounted to $1,806,149.57.

 

Conclusion

 

All investments as at 31 May 2017 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Recommendation

 

That the investment report for May 2017 be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer - May 2017

 

 

 

 


Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer - May 2017

Attachment 1

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM35/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Investigation of email of 5 June 2017 from Council Official Rosemary Mackenzie

Folder No:                F2012/00372

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That the General Manager bring forward a report to a Council meeting assessing the damage to Randwick Council’s credibility and reputation by Council Official Rosemary Mackenzie’s incorrect assertions in her email of 5 June 2017 to multiple residents that six of their Councillors received payments to sit on the local transition working group.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM36/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - War on Waste

Folder No:                F2004/07280

Submitted by:          Councillor Moore, West Ward     

 

That Council request a report to consider a program that seeks to reduce overall waste and increase recycling for the residents and businesses of Randwick City through education, encouragement, support and advocacy with the report to include:

 

a)     Review of key waste metrics such as land fill targets, waste per household, recycling ratios etc;

 

b)     Recycling education and motivation campaigns for households and businesses;

 

c)     Obstacles to recycling;

 

d)     Waste contract specifications aligned to support reduced waste and increased recycling initiatives;

 

e)     Role other Randwick City targeted waste programs play such as graffiti removal, mattresses, e-waste, chemicals and pre-booked household services;

 

f)      Local awareness campaign to encourage, at point of sale, an overall reduction in packaging and a shift to recyclable packaging materials; and

 

g)     Financial incentives for reducing household and business waste.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM37/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Today's Packaging is Tomorrow's Landfill

Folder No:                F2004/07279

Submitted by:          Councillor Moore, West Ward     

 

 

That Council,

 

a)     being responsible to meet land fill reduction targets set by the State Government, is concerned the additional challenge posed through increased packaging coming into the City:

 

i)  a trend towards increased packaging;

ii) greater single use packaging; and

iii) increase in non-recyclable materials

 

b)     calls on the State Government to support households and businesses through establishing packaging guidelines that support reduced waste to land fill, increased opportunities to recycle.

 

c)     forward the substantive resolution to the Local Government Association NSW for consideration at LGNSW 2017 Annual Conference.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM38/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Stevenson - Popularly elected Mayor in the future

Folder No:                F2017/00165

Submitted by:          Councillor Stevenson, Central Ward     

 

 

That Randwick Council takes the appropriate steps to enable a referendum at the September 2017 local Government elections regarding election of a popularly elected Mayor for the city in the future.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM39/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Support for City of Sydney alternative strategy on the WestConnex Motorway

Folder No:                F2017/00106

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That the General Manager:

 

1.          Convenes as a priority a briefing for Councillors on the City of Sydney’s alternate proposal for the NSW Government’s WestConnex motorway in order to assess its potential to reduce vehicles ‘rat running’ through Kensington and Kingsford from a completed St Peters interchange; and

 

2.          Brings forward an update to a Council meeting on issues preventing the implementation of the Local Area Traffic Management Plan for West Ward as a response to current rat running pressures in residential streets.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM40/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Promoting Shop Local Program

Folder No:                F2004/06377

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward     

 

 

That Council bring back a report investigating the feasibility of undertaking a program of regularly promoting local town centres within Randwick City to encourage residents to shop locally.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM41/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Urgent request for MPs to facilitate a meeting with the Planning Minister to lobby for exhibition of Draft Kensington and Kingsford Planning Strategy

Folder No:                F2016/00596

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council urgently requests MPs Michael Daley, Ron Hoenig and Bruce Notley-Smith to help Council facilitate a meeting between the NSW Planning Minister and concerned Councillors to remove issues preventing the exhibition of the Draft Kensington and Kingsford Planning Strategy and for the suspension of spot rezoning proposals going to the independent Sydney Central Planning Panel until after the strategy is adopted as an amendment to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP).

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM42/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - Urban design options for Clovelly Road

Folder No:                F2010/00241

Submitted by:          Councillor  Shurey, North Ward      

 

 

That Council invites local community activists, residents and precinct committees to participate in a dialogue via the Greening Randwick Committee on strategies to achieve the possible urban redesign, beautification and greening of sections of Clovelly Road.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM43/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Consideration of a Garden Lane Program

Folder No:                F2013/00164

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council notes the interest of local resident Ms Heidi Dokulil in promoting more garden beds on Council land and invites her to submit her proposal for a ‘Garden Lane program’ to the Greening Randwick Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM44/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson - Blenheim House and Captain Cook Statue be added to State Register and any other relevant heritage lists

Folder No:                F2004/06755

Submitted by:          Councillor Neilson, North Ward      

 

 

Two significant heritage items in the city of Randwick need greater heritage status: 

 

1.   BLENHEIM HOUSE, 17 Blenheim St, Randwick is listed as a heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Consolidation), is classified by the National Trust of Australia (NSW) and is on the Register of the National Estate. However, it is not on the State Register and legislative changes have meant the Register of the National Estate is no longer relevant but unfortunately the necessary changes were not made to address this.

 

      *Blenheim House was built by Simeon Henry Pearce, later the first Mayor of Randwick, in early 1848. It is the oldest residence in Randwick, built and occupied by “the Father of Randwick,” Simeon Henry Pearce and his family up to the First World War.

 

2.   Statue of Captain James Cook R.N., Avoca Street & Belmore Road, Randwick, This was the first statue erected in New South Wales to Cook. It represents the Colonial wish to commemorate Cook in the 1870s and was erected by Captain Thomas Watson in the grounds of his residence Cooks Lodge on the 27th October 1874 on the anniversary of Cook's birthday. Unveiled in 1874, the statue was presented to the Municipal Council of Randwick by H.S. Gibson in 1910. The figure and pedestal are both composed of Pyrmont freestone, and are the work of a colonial artist, Walter McGill, of Sydney.

 

3.   Council staff commence relevant actions to ensure Blenheim House and Captain Cook Statue are listed on all relevant heritage lists to ensure the appropriate recognition of their importance to the city of Randwick and NSW.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                  27 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM45/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Appropriate local responses to London's high rise fire at the Grenfell Tower building

Folder No:                F2006/00220

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

 

That, as a response to the recent high rise fire in London’s Grenfell Tower building,:

 

a)     A report be brought back to Councillors assessing the risk of fire to local properties from past building practices in the LGA;

 

b)     That an assurance is sought from the State and Federal Governments that present regulatory controls are sufficient to prevent the use of dangerous or substandard construction materials in the LGA; 

 

c)     An appraisal of issues involving the role and performance of NSW Accredited Certifiers in the prevention of building fires be undertaken and reported back to Councillors;

 

d)     An assessment be conducted into the appropriateness of Council’s standard conditions of consent and the building controls contained in Council’s Development Control Plan; and

 

e)     Options are brought forward for the drafting of an appropriate motion on these issues to be submitted to the next Local Government NSW Annual Conference later this year.