RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 25 July 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                                                                                                                    25 July 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, 25 July 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

 

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 - 27 June 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

MM18/17  NSW Police Force & International Students' Beach Soccer Day - Proposed Waiving of Fees......................................................................................... 1

MM19/17  Rainbow Street Public School - Fundraising Cookbook................................ 3

MM20/17  Randwick Girls' High School - proposed extension of Mayor's Award 2017-2021......................................................................................................... 5

MM21/17  Peter Hoffman - Commemoration............................................................... 7   

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.

CP34/17   24 Ocean Street, Clovelly (DA/432/2016/A).............................................. 9

CP35/17   1-1A Major Street, Coogee (DA/617/2012/B).......................................... 17

CP36/17   211-215 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/233/2017)................................ 25

CP37/17   3 Seaview Street, Clovelly (DA/44/2017)................................................ 37

CP38/17   7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/15/2017)...................................... 51

CP39/17   Voluntary Planning Agreement - 150-174 Barker Street & 181 Botany Street & 1-7, 18-21 Jane Street & 8-20, 28-42 Young Street, Randwick (DA/88/2016) ........................................................................................ 73

General Manager's Reports

Nil

Director City Services Reports

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF22/17   Delegations of Authority........................................................................ 131

GF23/17   Draft 2016-17 Financial Reports............................................................ 135

GF24/17   Update to Councillors' Expenses & Facilities Policy................................. 151

GF25/17   Ongoing Engagement of Event Performers and Sustainability Educators 153

GF26/17   Kensington Park Community Centre Bookings Fees & Charges............... 155

GF27/17   Investment Report - June 2017 ............................................................ 161

GF28/17   Withdrawal of Caveat and Affixing of the Council Seal - 4/6 Ford Road, Maroubra............................................................................................... 171  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM46/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Council response to Compulsory Acquisition of homes in Randwick for hospital and UNSW expansion. .... 173

NM47/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - Elaboration of Council response to announced State Government Anzac Parade Corridor Priority Precinct.... 175

NM48/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Expansion of POW Hospital & response to any associated compulsory aquisitions............................................... 177

NM49/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Buildings for Our Community Program Extension.............................................................................................. 179

NM50/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Taste of Coogee Spring Festival ....... 181

NM51/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson - In response to the State Government’s recent announcement to compulsorily acquire properties at Eurimbla Avenue and Magill and Botany Streets, Randwick............................................... 183

NM52/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson - Greater defense of trees and vegetation in the Randwick Local Government Area................................................ 185  


 

Closed Session (record of voting required)

Director City Services Report

CS6/17     Tender for Mahon Pool Amenities Building Construction Project – T2017/13

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

GF29/17   Tender On-Board Truck Scale Systems Supply Install and Maintain Tender No. T2017-20

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                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM18/17

 

Subject:              NSW Police Force & International Students' Beach Soccer Day - Proposed Waiving of Fees

Folder No:                F2017/00096

Author:                     The  Mayor, Cr Noel D'Souza      

 

Introduction

 

The Eastern Beaches Local Area Command, NSW Police is proposing an International Beach Soccer day at the northern end of Coogee Beach on Sunday, 24 September 2017. This is an opportunity for Police to engage with international students and promote student safety messages.

 

Issues

 

This event has been running now for over three years and has established a stronger and more united relationship with the international students. Some low key entertainment and food stalls will be provided.

 

The International Beach Soccer tournament attracts hundreds of international students for the purpose of competing alongside NSW Police and each other in a beach soccer tournament. The top three priorities are to engender trust between international students and Police through the breaking down of barriers, educate Police with regard to the difficulties and vulnerabilities international students face and improve networking between Police, educational institutions, the community and government stakeholders.

 

As part of the event this year a reptile display will be provided in Goldstein Reserve for the community to enjoy.

 

The Police have requested funding support for the event.  The fees are as follows:

 

Application Fee:                                   $433.00

Beach Hire Fee:                                   $727.00

Reserving 10 car spaces for VIP’s

  In the Dolphin Street Car Park           $225.00

Supply and removal of 5 sulo bins

  @ $89.00 per bin                              $445.00

Food Stalls x 3 @ $100 per stall          $300.00

TOTAL:                                               $2,130.00

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $2,130.00, to be funded from the 2017-18 Contingency Fund.

 

Conclusion

 

This partnership is yet another best practice example of the local Police and Randwick Council working together, demonstrating mutual commitment towards a safer community.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council vote $2,130.00 to cover the fees associated with hosting the International Beach Soccer Day at Coogee Beach to be held on Sunday 24 September 2017. The funds to be allocated from the 2017-18 Contingency Fund.

 

b)     NSW Police be requested to appropriately and prominently acknowledge         and promote Council’s contribution to the International Beach Soccer Day; and

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM19/17

 

Subject:              Rainbow Street Public School - Fundraising Cookbook

Folder No:                F2017/06574

Author:                     The  Mayor, Cr Noel D'Souza     

 

Introduction

 

Rainbow Street Public School’s P&C Association has approached Council requesting financial assistance for their 2017 fundraising campaign.

 

Issues

 

Rainbow Street Public School’s P&C Association will be collating recipes from parents, teachers and members of the community in order to produce a professionally printed cookbook to raise funds for the school.  Council, along with local businesses, has been invited to sponsor production of the Cookbook in order that all funds from the sale of the book can be used by the school.

 

Financial impact statement

 

If the report recommendation is adopted, the proposed $750 sponsorship will be funded from the 2017-18 Contingency Fund.

 

Conclusion

 

This is a worthy cause and Council will be recognised as a major sponsor and Council’s logo included in the Cookbook.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council sponsors Rainbow Street Public School’s Cookbook in the amount of $750, the amount to be funded from the 2017-18 Contingency Fund; and

 

b)     Council is recognised as a major sponsor in the proposed Cookbook and its logo and contact details be included in the book

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM20/17

 

Subject:              Randwick Girls' High School - proposed extension of Mayor's Award 2017-2021

Folder No:                F2017/07396

Author:                     The  Mayor, Cr Noel D'Souza      

 

Introduction

 

The Principal of Randwick Girls High School has written to Council seeking an extension of the ‘Mayor’s Award’, which has been in place since 2011.

 

Issues

 

Randwick Girls High School is the only comprehensive government girls’ high school in the Randwick City Council area. The Mayor’s Award was originally put in place in 2011, as a result of the school undertaking a comprehensive review of its award system, in particular, the way that it celebrates academic, civic and sporting achievement.  The purpose of the review was to make the Awards Presentation Day more relevant to students and to be more inclusive of the local community.

 

The Principal has indicated that the ‘Mayor’s Award’, which the serving Mayor is invited to present each year, has been highly regarded by the school community.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The Award is set at $1,000 and it is recommend it be continued for a further five year period from 2017-2021. The total cost, if the report recommendation is adopted, will be $5,000.00 and this could be funded from the 2017-18 to 2021-22 Contingency Funds.

 

Conclusion

 

This represents an opportunity for Council to demonstrate its ongoing commitment to the local community and, in particular, to public education.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council agree to the continuation of the ‘Mayor’s Award’ for Randwick Girls High School and agrees to fund the cost of the award for a period of five years at a cost of $1,000.00 per year, to be funded from the 2017-18 to 2021-22 Contingency Funds.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM21/17

 

Subject:              Peter Hoffman - Commemoration

Folder No:                F2009/00346

Author:                     The  Mayor, Cr Noel D'Souza      

 

Introduction

 

The Maroubra community arranged a candle vigil for the late Peter Hoffman, a homeless resident, who died tragically last month and has requested a commemoration to Peter Hoffman be established in Broadarrow Reserve, near Mons Avenue.

 

At the invitation of the Maroubra community, I attended the moving vigil for Mr Hoffman, which took place on Saturday 15 July 2017.

 

Issues

 

The local community has requested a small commemoration to honor Peter Hoffman’s memory, which could be a plaque or tree planting in or around Broadarrow Reserve and I recommend that Council agree to this small tribute for a local resident in these tragic circumstances.

 

It seems Mr Hoffman was a lonely and trusting person, who may have been too proud to accept offers for help. Mr Hoffman’s tragic death brings to the fore two very important social issues; loneliness and housing affordability.

 

Addressing loneliness, particularly for the elderly and aging, needs to be tackled through community collaboration and the community coming together to honor Mr Hoffman in this way, is a great example of how a local community can assist in bringing people together.

 

While I am not privy to the circumstances leading to Mr Hoffman’s homelessness, it is no secret that Australia is experiencing serious housing affordability issues. We need a fair and equitable housing system where low income Australian’s have access to safe and affordable housing. We need solutions, both short and long term, to meet the needs of those who are the most disadvantaged in our community.

 

Financial impact statement

 

That actual cost of the commemoration is unknown at this point, but is expected to be no more than $500. It is recommended that the proposed commemoration be funded from the 2017-18 Contingency Fund.

 

Conclusion

 

I would like to work with the local community to establish the requested permanent commemoration to Peter Hoffman.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council work with the local community to establish a permanent commemoration to Peter Hoffman in Broadarrow Reserve, near Mons Avenue, and that the cost of the commemoration be funded from the 2017-18 Contingency Fund.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP34/17

 

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

Folder No:                DA/432/2016/A

Author:                     Jayden Perry, Student Planner     

 

Proposal:                  Section 96 modifications of the approved development by adding media and plant rooms at lower ground floor level, internal reconfigurations, extension of pantry at ground floor level, reduce the size of the front ground floor balcony.

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

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                A77 Designs Pty Ltd

Owner:                     Mr J E Loye & Mrs G J Loye

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application is referred to Council for determination as the original application was determined at a Planning Committee Meeting.

 

Proposal

 

The application seeks to modify the original consent which was approved on the 22nd November 2016. The existing approval consisted of the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a part 2/part 3 storey dwelling house with new in ground swimming pool and associated site and landscape works.

 

The details of the proposed modifications which are the subject of this application are as detailed below:

 

-    Addition of media room to basement level.

-    Internal reconfigurations.

-    Addition of door to lower ground floor on southern elevation.

-    Increase in northern side setback by 100mm.

-    Extension of pantry on ground floor level.

-    Reduction in front first floor balcony.

 

The applicant’s justification for the proposed amendments is as follows:

 

“During the construction phase of the original development application, poor soil conditions were encountered that required footings to stabilize the ground floor level. As a result additional space has been provided at lower ground level.

 

The application seeks to use the additional space at lower ground floor level to accommodate a new media room and plant room. A door and lightwell are proposed to provide adequate light and ventilation to the media room.

 

As the building envelope will remain the same as approved, there will be no change to the streetscape, nor any additional external amenity impacts in regards to overshadowing, privacy, loss of outlook or visual bulk.”

 

Site Description and Surrounding Area

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

S96 Assessment

 

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 proposal remains substantially the same Development. In this respect, it is considered that the proposed changes will not result in a significant change to the nature of the original consent and the changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which the consent was granted.

 

Overall, the proposed section 96 modification does not involve any substantial changes to the built form and envelope of the approved consent and it will remain consistent with the original consent.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

26 Ocean Street, Clovelly

Issue

Comment

The extent of works being sought in the s96 application has already commenced on site.

Section 96 applications allow for works to be approved retrospectively.

The extent of variations being sought has not been fully described in either the Councils letter of notification or in the accompanying Statement of Environmental Effects.

Additional plans were requested by Council. The information provided is considered to be sufficient to assess the application.

The impact of additional works upon the amenity and privacy of the adjoining property owners to the south (No. 26 Ocean Street) has not been considered.

Considering there will be no increase in the height or building envelope as originally approved there is not expected to be additional impacts resulting from the proposed modifications.

There are no south elevations.

Upon request by Council a southern elevation was received from the applicant.

An acoustic report should be submitted which assesses the expected noise levels from the ‘plant room’ at the rear of the dwelling and whether it complies with relevant Australian standards.

Condition 61 and 62 of the original consent granted on 22 November 2016 relate to the operation of plant and pool equipment and require compliance with the relevant noise criteria.

A new ‘pool plant’ is to be constructed under the internal stairs without any details being submitted with the s96 Application.

As above.

There are no details provided of how plant rooms will be ventilated.

Details associated with the ventilation of the plant room will be subject to compliance with the BCA and are provided at the construction certificate stage.

There are multiple references on the plans marked as ‘STC” which presumably stands for ‘subject to consent’ and which have not been highlighted in the plans.

All proposed changes have been assessed by Council.

There are also additional works such as the ‘dog pen’ and relocation of the external stairs in the south west corner of the development which have not been properly addressed in the submitted material.

Additional plans were requested by Council. The information provided is considered to be sufficient to properly assess the application.

The extent of the ‘existing’ ground level has never been properly identified or compared to a registered survey plan of the site prior to site works taking place.

There is no proposed increase in the height of the development.

That the additional floor area being built exceeds the FSR controls of Council’s LEP and we submit that all of the media room and plant room) is actually above natural ground level which therefore requires the submission of a clause 4.6.

The proposed application to modify the development consent does not require a clause 4.6 exception to development standards as this provision only applies to Development Applications. The impacts of the additional floor area are assessed below.

There is inadequate information accompanying the S96 Application to properly determine what the overall impact of the variations will be upon surrounding properties.

Additional plans were requested by Council. The information provided is considered to be sufficient to properly assess the application.

 

33 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

Issue

Comment

Are in support of the modifications to the original Development Application.

The proposed modification is not expected to result in any impacts on the adjoining property at 33 Shackel Avenue.

Request the removal of the Norfolk Island Hibiscus tree as specified in the original application.

This tree was granted approval to be removed under the original consent.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012

 

Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

The proposal seeks retrospective approval for excavation works undertaken to the western portion of the site for the addition of a media room and storage area to the basement level as well as approval for the extension of the pantry on ground level, adding an additional 30m2 to the gross floor area of the development. The site area is 455.27m2 and the originally approved development consisted of 294.33m2 of gross floor area producing an FSR of 0.64:1. An increase of 30m2 brings the FSR to 0.70:1 which is not compliant with the RLEP 2012 which stipulates a maximum FSR of 0.65:1 (under clause 2A).

The proposed increase in floor space ratio is considered reasonable given the building envelope will remain the same as approved, the majority of increase is below ground and externally imperceptible and the perceived bulk and scale of the development will not be affected. As such the variation to the development standard is considered to be acceptable in this instance.

 

Clause 6.7 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The proposal site exists within the foreshore scenic protection area. Under the Randwick LEP 2012, development consent must not be granted for development on land which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the following has been considered:

 

(a)  to recognise, protect and enhance the natural, visual and environmental qualities of the scenic areas of the coastline,

(b)  to protect and improve visually prominent areas adjoining the coastal foreshore,

(c)  to protect significant public views to and from the coast,

(d)  to ensure development in these areas is appropriate for the location and does not detract from the scenic qualities of the coast.

 

The proposal will not be detrimental to the visual qualities and amenity of the foreshore and will not detract from the prevailing height, bulk and scale of the surrounding residences. The originally approved materials and finishes are not proposed to change and there will be no impact upon the views to and from the coast as there is no increase in the height and scale of the development. Therefore, the proposal will satisfy the above objectives of the clause and is considered satisfactory in this regard.

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013

 

Part C1 – Low Density Residential

Section 4 - Building Design

The proposal involves the extension of the pantry to the northern alignment of the deck and is within the existing building envelope. This is not considered to create any additional impacts considering the pantry will not be used for common circulation and given it abuts the southern blank wall of the adjoining property. Indentations have been proposed on the northern elevation including adjoining the main entry and on the front north eastern corner of the structure. These are considered to be minor in nature and will result in additional articulation to the building façade and are considered to be acceptable in the context.

 

Section 5.3 - Visual Privacy

The proposed modifications include the addition of a door and alterations to door locations on the southern elevation of the approved structure. Given these are to be located on the lower ground floor level and are recessed below the existing ground level and considering a dividing fence of 1.8m in height may be installed to the property boundary the proposed modifications are not considered to cause significant impacts upon the adjoining owners to the south.

 

Figure 1. Southern boundary and adjoining neighbour.

 

Section 79C Environmental Assessment

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

The site is zoned Residential R2 Low Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will enhance and compliment the aesthetic character and social amenity of the locality.

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

Nil.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.

 

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

Not applicable.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

Section 79C(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed in this report.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the dominant residential character in the locality. The proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.

 

Section 79C(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

 

Section 79C(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation

 

The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report.

Section 79C(1)(e) – The public interest

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

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. DA/432/2016/A for the approved development by adding media and plant rooms at lower ground floor level, internal reconfigurations, extension of pantry at ground floor level, reduce the size of the front ground floor balcony at No. 24 Ocean Street, Clovelly, in the following manner:

 

(A)     mend Condition 1 to read:

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

DA-201 (Revision B)

A77 Designs Pty Ltd

11/09/2016

DA-202 (Revision B)

A77 Designs Pty Ltd

11/09/2016

DA-301 (Revision B)

A77 Designs Pty Ltd

11/09/2016

DA-302 (Revision B)

A77 Designs Pty Ltd

07/09/2016

DA-810 (Revision A)

A77 Designs Pty Ltd

08/09/2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

737532S

23 June 2016

 

Except as amended by the Section 96’A’ plans shown below, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

S96-815 (Revision A)

A77 Designs Pty Ltd

6/04/2017

S96-816 (Revision B)

A77 Designs Pty Ltd

7/06/2017

S96-817 (Revision B)

A77 Designs Pty Ltd

7/06/2017

S96-818 (Revision B)

A77 Designs Pty Ltd

7/06/2017

S96-819 (Revision A)

A77 Designs Pty Ltd

2/06/2017

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP35/17

 

Subject:              1-1A Major Street, Coogee (DA/617/2012/B)

Folder No:                DA/617/2012/B

Author:                     Jayden Perry, Student Planner     

 

Proposal:                  Section 96 modification of the approved development by altering the internal layout of the dwelling, new outdoor pizza oven, changes to the front fence including new bin enclosure and retrospective approval for excavation to the western portion of the main living and lower ground floor levels.

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                Mr R Mobbs, Ms L G Mobbs

Owner:                     Mr R Mobbs, Ms L G Mobbs

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application is referred to Council for determination as the original application was determined at a Planning Committee Meeting.

 

Proposal

 

The application seeks to modify the original consent which was approved on the 10th September 2013. The existing approval consisted of the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new four (4) level dwelling with garage, swimming pool and associated works. A subsequent section 96 application was lodged seeking retrospective approval for additional excavation works and modifications to internal layout of dwelling at main living and lower ground floor levels and was granted approval on the 14th July 2015. A separate application for the site was granted approval on the 28th February 2017 for the construction of an outdoor terrace and extension of the existing rear deck at lower ground level

 

The details of the proposed modifications which are the subject of this application are as detailed below:

 

-    Retrospective approval for additional excavation undertaken to the western portion of the main living level and lower ground level.

-    Altered internal layout including creation of music room of pool change room.

-    Amendments to footpath levels and driveway at entry level.

-    Amendments to front fence including amended pedestrian side entry to north-west corner of the site and incorporation of bin enclosure.

-    Incorporation of an outdoor pizza oven to rear courtyard on main living level.

 

The applicant’s justification for the proposed amendments is as follows:

 

“The additional excavation has not resulted in a detrimental effect to drainage patterns or soil stability and will not adversely impact the development or redevelopment of the land.

 

Amendments to the approved side entry gate is proposed to allow pedestrian access to the main living level via the northern side boundary of the site.

 

Changes are also proposed to Councils prescribed footpath levels to allow a better relationship between the path and front fa cade while providing appropriate pedestrian movement past the site to the public walkway around Gordons Bay.”

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Major Street and is known as 1-1A Major Street, Coogee. The site sits atop a cliff directly adjacent to Gordons Bay with unrestricted views of the bay and Tasman Sea. The local character is defined by large and small residential flat buildings and large single dwelling houses of varying architectural styles.

 

S96 Assessment

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 proposal remains substantially the same Development. In this respect, it is considered that the proposed changes will not result in a significant change to the nature of the original consent and the changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which the consent was granted.

 

Overall, the proposed section 96 modification does not involve any substantial changes to the built form and envelope of the approved consent and it will remain consistent with the original consent.

 

 

 

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:

 

Owner of No. 22 & 24 Moore Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

There is not enough ventilation or natural light to music room and will result in poor amenity for the residents.

The alterations to internal configuration include the creation of a void above the music room to allow for natural light and ventilation to access the room. This is considered to provide sufficient amounts of amenity to the residents.

Western wall was proposed to be demolished however it is contested that this will now remain.

The western wall is existing and is not required to be demolished. Amendments to the north-western corner include deletion of the northern portion and an increase in height of the remaining portion of approximately 200mm.

The proposed bin enclosure and pedestrian entry will affect viewing potential and decrease value of objector’s house.

The proposed entry gate and amendments to wall height on the north-western corner of the site are not expected to impact upon the view corridor of neighbouring properties given the fall of the land and their location on ground level. This is also in consideration of the views gained from the deletion of the northern portion of the fence.

 

Referrals

 

Development Engineering

An application has been received to modify development consent for a new dwelling at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·     Architectural Plans by Renato D’Ettorre Architects and dated 24/04/2017;

·     Statement of Environmental Effects by Willana Assoc.

The modifications to the Development Consent include relocating the northern side pedestrian entrance to be adjacent to the northern side boundary.

It is noted that the modified plans by Renato D’Ettorre Architects for the Section 96 Application include a Street Elevation (Drwg No:DA14, Rev E, dated 24/04/17) showing Council footpath/boundary levels along the Major Street site frontage. Development Engineering advises that the levels show on the abovementioned plan are considered acceptable.

Development Engineering advises that Drawing No: DA14, Rev E, dated 24/04/17 by Renato D’Ettorre Architects should be stamped as approved.

 

Key Issues

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection

The subject site is located within the Metropolitan Coastal Zone upon which the provisions of SEPP 71 – Coastal Protection apply.

 

The aims of this policy are to protect and manage the natural attributes of the New South Wales coast, ensure the visual amenity of the coast is protected, and protect and preserve rock platforms to ensure that development is of a type, bulk, scale and size that is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area.

Part 2 of this policy sets out the matters for consideration of development which in addition to the aims of the policy includes;

 

a)     the suitability of development given its type, location and design and its relationship with the surrounding area,

b)     any detrimental impact that development may have on the amenity of the coastal foreshore,

c)     the scenic qualities of the NSW coast, and means to protect and improve these qualities.

 

Having regard to the overall aims of the policy and the relevant matters for consideration, it is concluded that the proposal has not resulted in an increased built form that will be intrusive and bulky within the foreshore as the proposal is below street level or on ground level and therefore, it will not detract from both the amenity and scenic qualities of the coastal environment.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012

 

Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

The subject site has an area of 739.8m2 and a proposed FSR of 0.598:1. It therefore complies with the maximum permissible FSR of 0.6:1 (under clause 2A). The proposed increase in floor space ratio is considered reasonable given the building envelope will remain substantially the same as approved, the majority of increase is below ground and externally imperceptible and the perceived bulk and scale of the development will not be affected.

 

Clause 6.6 – Foreshore Building Line

The site exists partially within the foreshore building area. No building works have been proposed over or adjoining the foreshore building line.

 

Clause 6.7 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The proposal site exists within the foreshore scenic protection area. Under the Randwick LEP 2012, development consent must not be granted for development on land which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the following has been considered:

 

(a)  to recognise, protect and enhance the natural, visual and environmental qualities of the scenic areas of the coastline,

(b)  to protect and improve visually prominent areas adjoining the coastal foreshore,

(c)  to protect significant public views to and from the coast,

(d)  to ensure development in these areas is appropriate for the location and does not detract from the scenic qualities of the coast.

 

The proposal will not be detrimental to the visual qualities and amenity of the foreshore and will not detract from the prevailing height, bulk and scale of the surrounding residences. The originally approved materials and finishes are not proposed to change and there will be no impact upon the views to and from the coast as there is no increase in the height and scale of the development other than a slight increase in fence height of the north-western portion. Therefore, the proposal will satisfy the above objectives of the clause and is considered satisfactory in this regard.

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013

Part C1 – Low Density Residential

Section 7.2 – Front Fencing

The proposal consists of modifying the north-western portion of the existing wall by altering the location of the approved pedestrian entry level, deleting approximately 3.3m from the northernmost end of the wall and increasing the height of the remaining wall by approximately 200mm giving the wall a height of between 2.1m and 1.8m of solid construction. This is non-compliant with the RDCP controls limiting front fences to a maximum height of 1.8m with the topmost two-thirds to be partially open. Considering the wall is already in existence, the deletion of the northernmost point provides for additional view corridors for neighbouring properties and the proposed increase in fence height will still remain lower than the previously existing garage in the same location. As such the proposed amendments to the wall are not expected to result in additional impacts upon the neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing and view obstruction.

 

Figure 1. Location of proposed pedestrian entry.

Section 79C Environmental Assessment

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

The site is zoned Residential R2 Low Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will enhance and compliment the aesthetic character and social amenity of the locality.

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

Nil.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.

 

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

Not applicable.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

Section 79C(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed in this report.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the dominant residential character in the locality. The proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.

 

Section 79C(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

 

Section 79C(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation

 

The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report.

Section 79C(1)(e) – The public interest

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development consent No. DA/617/2012/B for the section 96 modification of the approved development by altering the internal layout of the dwelling, new outdoor pizza oven, changes to the front fence including new bin enclosure and retrospective approval for excavation to the western portion of the main living and lower ground floor levels, at No. 1-1A Major Street, Coogee, in the following manner:

 

(A)     Amend Condition 1 to read:

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

DA 05 Rev C

Renato D’Ettore Architects

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 06 Rev B

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 07 Rev C

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 08 Rev D

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 09 Rev C

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 10 Rev D

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 11 Rev D

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 12 Rev D

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 13 Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 14 Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 15 Rev E

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 15A Rev E

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 16 Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 16A Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 17 Rev D

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 18 Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 19 Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Single dwelling

441815S

25 Sept 2012

 

Except as amended by the Section 96 ‘A’ plans shown below, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

DA05 Rev F

Renato D’Ettore Architects

16 June 2015

DA10 Rev E

Renato D’Ettore Architects

7 April 2015

DA11 Rev E

Renato D’Ettore Architects

7 April 2015

DA16 Rev D

Renato D’Ettore Architects

7 April 2015

DA16A Rev D

Renato D’Ettore Architects

7 April 2015

DA17 Rev E

Renato D’Ettore Architects

7 April 2015

 

Except as amended by the Section 96 ‘B’ plans shown below, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

DA05 Rev G

Renato D’Ettore Architects

24 April 2017

DA09 Rev F

Renato D’Ettore Architects

24 April 2017

DA10 Rev F

Renato D’Ettore Architects

24 April 2017

DA11 Rev F

Renato D’Ettore Architects

24 April 2017

DA14 Rev E

Renato D’Ettore Architects

24 April 2017

DA16 Rev E

Renato D’Ettore Architects

24 April 2017

DA16A Rev E

Renato D’Ettore Architects

24 April 2017

DA17 Rev F

Renato D’Ettore Architects

24 April 2017

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP36/17

 

Subject:              211-215 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/233/2017)

Folder No:                DA/233/2017

Author:                     Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Alterations and additions to the existing building and change of use to childcare centre accommodating 110 children with 24 staff, basement parking for 19 vehicles and hours of operation being 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Friday.

Ward:                        Central Ward

Applicant:                S Dib

Owner:                     C & B Investments Co Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council as the estimated cost exceeds $2 million.

 

 

Proposal

 

Alterations and additions to the existing building and change of use to childcare centre accommodating 118 children with 25 staff, basement parking for 19 vehicles and hours of operation being 6.30am to 7.30pm Monday to Friday.

 

Proposed works:

 

·     Internal fit-out of premises for child car centre;

·     Demolish and reconfigure internal layout of the building to provide for three (3) playrooms, toilets, kitchen and staff facilities;

·     Modify and extend the existing terrace area to the rear of the dwelling;

·     Provide landscaping fit-out of outdoor spaces (mostly internal) at ground. First and second floor levels;

·     Clearly indicate acoustic barriers alongside the outdoor spaces by plans received by Council on 19 May 2017

 

Operational amendments by condition:

 

The proposed child care centre use seeks:

 

·     Capacity of 118 spaces reduced down to 110 spaces by condition due to shortfall in parking

·     Staff of 24 to be onsite (likely reduction by one or two staff depending on type of child care spaces reduced. Educator to child ratios published by the National Quality Framework (NQF).

                                                                                 

 

 

Amended acoustic report:

 

·     Amended Acoustic report received 14 June 2017 addressing hours of operation from 7:00am to 7:00pm, Monday to Friday; correction to the report providing the correct background sound level measurements (raw data) recorded on Garden Lane property boundary and confirmed acoustic compliance at the Garden Lane boundary and residential development on the corner of Garden Lane and Anzac Parade.

 

The amendments were not required to be re-notified given they do not result in any additional impact compared with the originally notified development.

 

Site

 

The site is located at the southern side of Maroubra Road approximately 50m east of the Maroubra Road and Anzac Parade intersection. The site has a frontage of 16.46m and a side depth of 42.695m with a site area of 829sqm. The site is occupied by a three storey commercial building previously used as a Bank. The adjoining property to the west is No. 209 Maroubra Road a single storey commercial premises and the adjoining property to the east is a two storey commercial premises with dwelling above. An aerial view of the subject site and area is shown below.

 

Aerial view of subject site bounded in green and surrounding area.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·     205 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

·     908-910 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed use of the premises as a child care centre will put pressure on the capacity of the laneway in terms of traffic and inadequate maneuverability and the report does not consider that 908-910 Anzac Parade a commercial premises is not operating at present.

The traffic generation associated with the proposed development is expected to have minimal impact on the performance of the surrounding road network. There are no concerns raised by Councils Development Engineer in relation to the functioning of the driveway and sightlines along Garden Lane and Anzac Parade.

 

The proposed child care centre will affect the operation of a future residential and commercial development at No. 908-910 Anzac Parade

The proposed operation of the premises is during business hours and the proposed use which is subject to relevant noise and hours of operation conditions is unlikely to have any significant impact on the operation of a future residential or commercial development opposite at No. 908-910 Anzac Parade.

Increased noise and pollution along Garden Lane

The proposed use and operation of the premises is unlikely to result in any inordinate noise or pollution along Garden Lane.

Potential blockage of Garden Lane due to parents chatting and broken down vehicles.

Garden Lane is not a point at which parents will stop to chat as it is largely associated with vehicle entry and exit. Any vehicle which breaks down is unlikely to result in traffic stopping completely as the laneway contains sufficient space to manoeuver vehicles across driveways.

The outlook from a future commercial premises at 908-910 Anzac Parade will be detracted from by the child care centre and its operation

The proposed child care centre is unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on the operation of commercial premises opposite at No. 908-910 Anzac Parade

The proposed child care centre will be directly opposite future communal open space at No. 908-910 Anzac Parade

The communal open space that would form part of a future development at No. 908-910 Anzac Parade is unlikely to be significantly impacted by the proposed child care centre. It is important to note that communal open spaces over podiums are generally not necessarily private areas. The privacy of children will largely be the subject of measures employed by the centre. It is noted that acoustic screens are required to have a height of 1.8m above floor level and these are able to be treated with obscured glazing.

There is no opportunity to pick up children from Maroubra Road.

Pick up from Maroubra Road is prohibited

The parking rates by Council and RMS have not been updated in quite a while and do not cater for larger centers.

The application including relevant material such as the Traffic Assessment has been reviewed by the Development Engineer and Councils Assessment Officer. The proposed development is considered to be suitable for the site having regard to assessment against the relevant standards in the RLEP and provisions in the RDCP such as Part B7 and Part D11. The current parking requirements are considered to adequately ensure sufficient spaces for drop off and pick up are provided

The proposed child care centre will affect the safety of pedestrians using the other side of Garden lane.

The safety of pedestrians using the other side of Garden lane is not considered to be unduly impacted by the proposed development. No part of the development restricts the ability to provide safe passage along the other side of Garden Lane.

The proposal does not meet the relevant controls for vehicle circulation and car parking design.

Council’s development engineer has assessed the subject application. Whilst the proposal does not meet the control requiring separate drop off and pick up spaces it is considered that the basement area will provide sufficient space for drop off and pick up of children

Non-compliant parking

Councils development engineer has considered the number of parking spaces provided for staff and drop off and pick up and considers that the parking provided on site is sufficient to accommodate the use of the premises a a child care centre catering for 110 child care spaces.

Inconsistency with the proposes hours of operation for the child care centre

The hours of operation are subject of condition limiting use to 7am to 7pm which are the hours considered to be appropriate for a child care centre under the RDCP 2013.

Incorrect reference to roads.

The acoustic report has been amended to include the correct raw data collected from Garden lane. Councils Environmental Health Officer has review the submitted acoustic report and considers that the amendments have suitably addressed the relevant matters.

Louvred glazing is not shown in the acoustic report.

The acoustic screens are 1.8m above floor level and considered to provide sufficient noise buffer. Notwithstanding, a future acoustic report is required to verify that the noise from the premises is complaint with the relevant restrictions and to minimise adverse environmental impact on the locality as required by the RDCP.

The outdoor areas are indoors and don’t provide sufficient cross ventilation

The proposed development relies to a certain extent on ventilation being provided in some parts. However the open layout at first and second floor level inclusive of openings facing Maroubra Road have sufficient cross ventilation.

The use of glass is unsafe

The glazing will be required to meet relevant safety requirements. The glazing for external walls ensures sufficient light to the internal areas.

It is recommended that large scale commercial child care centres be located around open parks rather than commercial centres.

The proposed child care centre is permissible in the zone and the premises is considered to meet the general requirements for safety, amenity and education of children.

 

Key Issues

 

Noise (Acoustic) Amenity

A key consideration of child care centres is that appropriate design and siting of child care centres should minimise overlooking and noise intrusion to and from adjoining properties and maintain a high level of environmental amenity for children, staff and other centre users. The relevant objectives under this part of the DCP seek:

 

·     To minimise any potential adverse impacts on the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbouring properties.

·     To protect the visual and acoustic privacy of children, staff and other users of the child care centre.

 

The applicant submitted an acoustic report with the application and an updated acoustic report following review by Councils Senior Environmental Health Officer. The addendum to the Acoustic report included the correct background noise assessment along Garden Lane correcting the data from the original report which was from a different site. The acoustic report as amended has been the subject of review and subsequent imposition of conditions by Councils Senior Environmental Health Officer. The measures employed to ensure noise intrusion onto neighbouring properties are considered acceptable. These include acoustic walls measuring 1.8m in height at the rear and front elevations of the premises.

 

It is noted that that conditioned reduction of child care spaces down to 110 children will also reduce the potential noise from the premises. To provide further certainty to Council and the community, a condition is also included requiring an acoustic validation assessment be undertaken three months after occupation to confirm the operation of the childcare centre is operating in accordance with the requirements of the acoustic report supporting the application.

 

In other words, the proposed development has the capacity to comply with the relevant noise criteria pending implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the acoustic report as well as Councils standard noise conditions for development consent.

 

Overall, acoustic amenity is considered to have been reasonably addressed by the applicant and subject to appropriate conditions of consent being imposed should approval be granted, the proposal will not adversely impact on the acoustic amenity of neighbouring residents.

 

Parking

Part B7 Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access - Parking and traffic of the RDCP requires that parking be provided for child care centres at the rate of 1 space per 2 staff members plus 1 space per 8 children for pickup and drop-off of children.

 

Based on the above requirements for the proposed 118 child care places and 25 staff, the proposal requires 27 spaces – 12.5 spaces for staff and 14.8 spaces for drop off and pick up.

 

The proposal provides in total 22 spaces with 8 for staff and 14 for drop off and pick up. Councils Development Engineer indicates that one spaces shortfall in spaces for drop off and pick up and 4 spaces short of staff parking. It should be noted that car space 11 is not supported by Development Engineering and shall be deleted from the application as this car space restricts the ability to enter and exit the basement parking in a forward direction. This increases the parking deficiency further by 1 space to 6 spaces including two pick-up and drop off spaces. To minimize the impact on the availability of on-street parking and to compensate for the loss of the space it is recommended that child numbers be reduced to 110 places with staff numbers also likely to reduce by 1 to 23 places.

 

 

In accordance with the performance approach identified under the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013, the applicant submitted a parking and traffic report by TEC consulting which acknowledges the shortfall and proposes that the development addresses it by the following means;

 

·     Five of the pickup and drop-off spaces will be made available for staff outside of the peak pickup and drop-off times. This will still leave 8- 9 spaces available for pickup and drop-off outside of peak times. These spaces will be convenient for staff who start shifts later in the day.

·     The parking survey indicates that at any given point throughout the day there at least 12 on-street spaces available within walking distance to a maximum of 81.

·     The AM parking demand in the area occurred around 10am which is outside the morning peak drop-off time

·     There is good public transport in close proximity to the site. There are 16 bus services with regular and frequents services on Anzac Parade and/or Maroubra Road.

·     TEC has conducted parking surveys of other similar sized centres and have determined a parking rate of 0.13 and 0.16 (cars per child) on average for two of the centre.

 

It is considered that the above circumstances show that the number of parking spaces on site allow for flexible demand management of spaces for staff and drop off and pick up of children particularly during the AM period as well as outside the PM peak period. In addition, the conditioned loss of car space 11 in the basement will also ensure movement into and out of the site will be in a forward direction which will assist with a more efficient traffic movement along Garden Lane and Anzac Parade and the surrounding network. It is also noted that in terms of Traffic along Garden Lane, that as the site seeks only one use on site, there will no conflict of uses and the driveway allows for two way traffic.

 

Councils Development Engineer also requires the submission of a green travel plan to be submitted and approved by Council’s Dept. of Integrated Transport prior to issuing of an occupation certificate. The green travel plan will assist in incentivizing an increase in the attractiveness of walking, cycling, public transport and car share particularly for staff. The fact that Maroubra is well serviced by numerous bus services will assist in this regard.

 

In accordance with the performance approach, with due regard to concerns raised by residents in the community, it is considered against the relevant objectives of the RDCP for parking and traffic have been satisfied removing what is considered to be one of the impediments to a favourable recommendation.

 

Overall, Traffic and parking issues has been the subject of assessment by both Councils Development Engineers and the assessment officer. The planning outcome of these considerations is that in relation to parking and potential impacts on the surrounding area the shortfall in parking can be managed on site and supported on the basis of meeting the relevant objectives of the RDCP with regard to parking, traffic, access and safety issues around the site and within the surrounding area.

 

Outdoor space

Councils RDCP requires that 7sqm of outdoor space be provided for children and similarly in accordance with the Education and Care Services National Regulation, Clause 108, subclause (2) also specifies the following:

 

The approved provider for an education and care services must ensure that, for each child being educated and cared for by the service, the education and car service premises has at least 7 square metres of unencumbered outdoor space.

 

The proposed change of use seeks to convert the former Commonwealth Bank to a child care centre to accommodate 118 children and aims to provide only limited areas of actual outdoor space. In order to comply with the Education and Care Services National Regulations, a minimum of 826sqm would be required to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Therefore, the proposed child care centre does not comply with the requirements of the Education and Care Services Regulation or this section of the RDCP.

 

However, under Section 87(1) of the Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010 (no. 69 of 2010) it stipulates the following:

 

(1)      An approved provider (child care centre) may apply to the Regulatory Authority for a waiver from a requirement that an approved education and care service comply with a prescribed element or elements of the National Quality Standard and the national regulations as provided in the national regulations.  

(2)      A person who applies for a service approval may apply for a service waiver under this section together with the application for the service approval.

(3)      The Regulatory Authority must not grant a service waiver to a person who applies under subsection (2) unless the service approval is granted to that person.

 

The above must be read in conjunction with Clause 41 and 42 of the Education and Care Services National Regulation which read as:

 

Clause 41 Service Waiver – prescribed elements

For the purposes of Section 87(1) of the Law, the prescribed elements are –

 

(a)      The standards and elements that set out in Quality Areas 3 and 4 of the National Quality Standard; and

 

(b)      The following provisions –

(i) regulations 104, 107, 108 and 110;

 

Clause 42 Prescribed information – application for a service waiver

An application under Section 87 of the Law for a service waiver must include the following information:

 

(a)    The name of the education and care service;

 

(b)    The service approval number

 

(c)      The name and contact details of the contact person for the purposes of the application

 

(d)      a statement that specifies - 

 

(i)       The elements of the national quality standard and the regulations in relation to which a service waiver is sought; and

(ii)      The way in which the education and care service does not or will not comply with the specified elements or regulations;

 

(e)      If the education and care service is unable to comply with the specified elements or Regulations –

 

           (i)  The reasons that the education and care service is unable to comply;

(ii)      Details and evidence of any attempts made to comply with the specified elements or regulations.  

 

(f)       In any other case, the reasons that the education and care service seeks the service waiver

 

In summary, non-compliance with Clause 108 (relating to unencumbered outdoor space) of the Education and Care Services National Regulation can be varied subject to the child care centre service provider submitting a service waiver to the Regulatory Authority (Department of Education and Communities) in order to include an area of unencumbered indoor space in calculating the outdoor space at the service.

 

The applicant indicates in their SEE that they have received approval for centres with predominately indoor spaces. Observations of the assessment officer also confirm that some office blocks also contain Child Care Centres. Notwithstanding, subject to the issuing development consent, a service request will be required to be submitted to the Department of Education and Communities in order to include an area of unencumbered indoor space in calculating the outdoor space at the premises.

 

The Operational Policy Manual for Regulatory Authorities which helps in applying the Education and Care Services National Law and National Regulations, details that Regulatory Authorities may consider the following in determining whether to approve service waiver including:

 

·     Number and ages of children and the time spent at the service

·     Physical elements of the space (that would allow for indoor space to be used for activities ordinarily undertaken outside)

·     Portion of indoor space to be included in calculating outdoor space

 

Council’s DCP for Child Care Centres and in general recognises the importance of the provision for outdoor play and recreational spaces where children can learn and play within an open space environment. It is considered that both structured and unstructured outdoor play is considered to be a vital aspect within childhood development and has cognitive, physical and mental health benefits. This can include development of motor skills, social interactions, emotional intelligence as well as health promotion. However, Council’ planning officer is of the opinion that should the indoor play areas provide for an environment that replicates that of an outdoor play space area to which the applicant proposes as part of their landscape plans, the question that is required to be considered is will it be able to harness the same benefits from an outdoor environment as well as being deemed to be satisfactory by the relevant Regulatory Authority. In this instance it is considered that the indoor play areas appear to be appropriately designed and therefore appropriate consideration can be given in allowing the indoor play areas to perform a similar role as outdoor play space requirements.

 

The proposed fit-out is a generally an acceptable design outcome and the configuration and use of the space effectively simulates an outdoor learning environment. The development provides an adequate floor to floor heights of between 3.710 and 4.160m which will be able to provide for play equipment facilities where children are can apply both gross and fine motor skills which include climbing, crawling, running and passive movements associated with day-to-day activities. The internal fit-out also appears to replicate outdoor space by providing a number of materials and finishes of outdoor surfaces with soft fall areas, sandpits and soft landscaped spaces as well as an adventure trail comprising bark mulch, plants, trees, rock areas and suspension bridges.

 

Play spaces also include separate spaces including quiet areas, communal benches, ball walls, slides, music walls, car circuit, ball pit, which all assist in development of motor skills and reflexes. The child care centre also aims to provide adequate solar access, natural daylight and ventilation at the second floor level with up to 10 new skylight windows sited above the outdoor play spaces. Ground and first floor level also provide ventilation through outdoor areas at either end connecting through indoor playrooms.

 

The areas designated for the outdoor open space are measured at 826sqm exceeds that of the minimum required area of 770sqm square metres for the reduced number of child care spaces. Suitable areas of access are also provided directly connected to the indoor spaces.

 

Overall, in considering the above, the indoor play spaces provide a suitable substitution as an outdoor play space and will positively contribute to the cognitive health benefits associated with outdoor play areas and early childhood development.

 

Notwithstanding the above, it is also worthwhile noting that the subject site is uniquely located within a highly dense urban setting within the Maroubra Junction Town Centre. A new child care centre would support and provide service needs to the Town centre in particular to workers within the Junction and those a short distance away at the University of New South Wales and the Prince of Wales Hospital areas satisfying key outcomes and directions under the Randwick City Plan.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2b:     Implement projects that give families access to services for children’.

Direction 2b:     To enrich a range of community services that meet our community needs.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The application for the childcare centre is considered to satisfactorily address the relevant provisions the Randwick DCP, subject to the implementation and compliance with appropriate conditions of consent.

 

In respect to the assessment, the application has amended and conditioned to address the key issues in relation to the capacity of the child care centre, provide adequate parking and spaces for drop off and pick up, all of which serve to minimise adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

 

The proposed application for a child care centre is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 233/2017 for Alterations and additions to the existing building and change of use to childcare centre accommodating 110 children with 24 staff, basement parking for 19 vehicles and hours of operation being 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Friday, at No. 211-215 Maroubra Road, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-standard conditions

 

Travel Plan

2.        The Plan of Management of the childcare centre shall include a Workplace Travel Plan which endeavours to minimise the parking and traffic generation of the proposed development; The plan may include but not be limited to aspects such as support for walking and cycling, car sharing, effective management of workplace parking spaces, & incentives for public transport use.

 

The Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Department of integrated Transport prior to any issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

Child numbers

3.        The size of the proposed childcare centre shall be restricted to a maximum of 110 places.

 

Carpark Amendments

7.        Plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with the following amendments to the carpark to improve ingress and egress;

 

a)  Carspace 11 on the approved plans is to be deleted to increase the area available for turning vehicles and improve access into carspaces 8-10, & 20

b)  The length of carspaces 8-10 must be in accordance with the requirements of Figure 2.5 in AS 2890.1

c)  Carspaces adjacent to pedestrian throroughfare shall install wheel stops or other alternative devices to prevent encroachment of vehicles into the pedestrian zones and improve pedestrian safety.

 

Hours of Operation

47.      The hours of the operation of the business are restricted to the following:-

 

Monday through to Friday inclusive, from: 7.00am to 7.00pm

No operations on Saturday, Sundays and Public Holidays

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 211-215 Maroubra Road, MAROUBRA 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP37/17

 

Subject:              3 Seaview Street, Clovelly (DA/44/2017)

Folder No:                DA/44/2017

Author:                     Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  Lower ground, ground and first floor alterations and addition to existing dual occupancy, construction of swimming pool to rear, landscaping and associated works (variation to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                Mr D N Kelly

Owner:                     Mr D N Kelly and Mrs M C Chapman

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the Clause 4.6 greater than 10%

 

 

Proposal

 

The applicant proposes lower ground, ground and first floor alterations and addition to an existing dual occupancy, construction of swimming pool to rear, and landscaping and associated works.

 

Revisions

The assessing officer raised concerns about the height of the proposed rear pool and deck. In particular, that it would over dominate and reduce the privacy of adjoining sites.

 

In response, the applicant lowered the pool and deck by 1.2m and proposed a 1.6m high privacy screen to the eastern end of the pool.

 

The revisions did not require re-notification as they were within scope of the original proposal and generally reduced its scale.  

 

The assessing officer also requested a revised clause 4.6 exception request as the originally supplied exception request did not address key criteria. The applicant supplied a new clause 4.6 exception request.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Seaview Street at its intersection with Nolan Avenue.  The surround area is characterized by two to three storey single dwellings and semi-detached dwellings.

 

The site, like those on either side, slopes down from its front boundary to the rear. The site contains an existing dual occupancy use in vertical arrangement with one unit at ground floor level and the other wholly contained within the first floor level.  The building also contains a sub-basement level, presently utilised as storage. The building has a larger front yard setback than those on either side. The rear of the site contains lawn, vegetation and timber decking.

 

Figure 1. Photograph of the subject site from the street.

 

Key Issues

 

Clause 4.6 Exception – Floor Space Ratio

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

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012, the floor space ratio of the building must not be more than 0.5:1 on the site. A floor space ratio of 0.67:1 is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:


 

Floor Space Ratio

Development standard

0.5:1

Existing

0.5:1

Proposal

0.67:1

Excess above the standard

34%

 

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

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Assessing Officer’s Comments:

·     The proposal is an appropriate response to the site and its constraints. The proposal does not alter the frontage appearance or increase the height of the building.

·     The increased floor area is comprised of 28m2 outside of the existing building footprint and 36.7m2 beneath the existing footprint. The majority (57%) of the increase in floor space will occur at sub-basement level within the building’s existing footprint and the building’s footprint will not increase significantly.  As such, the effective FSR that contributes to the building bulk is 0.56:1.

·     Additions and balconies will be setback significantly from side and rear boundaries and appropriate conditions can maintain visual privacy.    

·     The proposal will improve solar access and cross ventilation for each unit within the building. Further, the proposal will improve the internal layout, increase the size of the units and the upper floor unit’s private open space; thereby improving onsite residential amenity.

·     It is considered that the proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of the standard - the size and scale of proposal is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality. The external built form of the dual occupancy is similar to existing dwelling houses within the area.

·     The proposed building does not impede coastal views.

·     The proposal will not directly result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of perceived bulk and scale, overshadowing and privacy. The proposal is generally compliant with the relevant controls of the RDCP 2013.

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal is an appropriate response to the site and its constraints. The proposal does not alter the frontage appearance or increase the height of the building. The proposal will not directly result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of perceived bulk and scale, overshadowing and privacy.

 

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

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard of the RLEP 2012. The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 – Low Density Residential) are:

 

Objectives of Zone:

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Submissions

 

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

 

1 Seaview Street

Issue

Comment

1.        Concerned that the additions will extend the building substantially beyond the objector’s rear wall line and that this will impact upon their outlook and sense of space.

2.        Believe they will lose views to the south east.

3.        The balcony at the ground floor level will be close to the objector’s bedrooms – concerned about noise.

4.        The balcony at first floor level will be close to the objector’s living area – concerned about noise.

5.        Noise will be worse due to the proposed 2m wall-to-wall setback.

6.        Concerned about excavation noise and request that it is restricted to 9am to 3pm on weekdays.

7.        Advise that they have previously been blocked in their driveway by construction vehicles and request no stopping/parking signs be erected adjoining their driveway.

1, 3, 4, 5 The proposal will comply with the wall height, rear and side setback requirements of the RDCP 2013, and privacy screens will prevent overlooking of the objector’s site. In terms of acoustic privacy, the use of the site and balconies for residential purposes is not an unexpected outcome within a residential zone.

2.      Views to the south-east are low value district views and coastal views are not impeded.

6.      Standard conditions of consent limit excavations to 8am to 5pm on weekdays.

7.       No stopping/parking signs cannot be erected. Existing road rules prevent the blocking of driveways. Should this issues arise, the objector could liaise with the builder and/or Council’s parking rangers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 Seaview Street

Issue

Comment

1.        The proposed rear setback of balconies is inconsistent with neighbouring dwellings and will result in visual and acoustic privacy impacts. Further, it will impede a view.

2.        Request a dilapidation report be prepared prior to the commencement of works.

3.        Request excavation be restricted to weekdays to reduce impacts on the daytime sleep of young children.

1.        The proposal will comply with the rear setback requirements of the RDCP 2013 and privacy screens will prevent overlooking of the objector’s site. In terms of acoustic privacy, the use of the site and balconies for residential purposes is not an unexpected outcome within a residential zone.

Views to the north are low value district views and coastal views are not impeded.

2.        A standard condition is recommended that requires the preparation of a dilapidation report, at the certifier’s discretion.

3.        Standard conditions of consent limit excavations to weekdays.

 

18 Knox Street

Issue

Comment

1.        Concerned about privacy due to the raised pool and removal of a hedge.

2.        Concerned about the 1st floor level extension as it will bring building bulk closer to their site.

3.        Concerned about the ability of a retaining wall to hold the pool.

4.        Generally believe the hedge should remain or be replaced for screening and privacy.

1.    The application was amended to lower the pool by 1.2m and a 1.6m high privacy screen to its eastern edge was proposed. A recommended condition requires the pool to be further lowered closer to original ground level.

2.    The rear additions will comply with the rear setback requirements of the RDCP 2013. A condition requires privacy screens to the eastern (rear) side of the raised balconies – thereby preserving the objector’s privacy.

3.    Standard conditions require the support of adjoining land. It is noted that a pool generally weighs less than the soil it is replacing.

4.    Planting is proposed along the eastern boundary and privacy will be protected by privacy screens.

 

Building Design – Sub-Section 4.1 of the RDCP 2013

The proposed northern side elevation will have an unarticulated length of 13m. The RDCP 2013 sets a maximum unarticulated length of 12m.

 

The proposed non-compliance will not be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will result in no significant adverse impacts in terms of streetscape character or residential amenity. The unarticulated length is not uncommon within the immediate context, and similar wall lengths are present on neighbouring dwellings to the north and the south. The unarticulated wall length is limited to the lower two levels and the wall length differences between ground and first floor levels will provide articulation. The proposed wall will comply with the wall height and side setback requirements of the RDCP 2013. Further, sufficient windows and glazing are proposed or exist within the wall to prevent the appearance of a blank façade.       

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/44/2017 for lower ground, ground and first floor alterations and addition to existing dual occupancy, construction of swimming pool to rear, landscaping and associated works (variation to floor space ratio control), at No. 3 Seaview Street, Clovelly, subject to the following non-standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

        Non-Standard Conditions:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   The rear lawn, pool coping and deck all proposed at RL 67.50 shall match original ground levels or be lowered to not exceed RL 66.78.

 

b.   Privacy screens having a height of 1.6m above finished floor level shall be provided to the full length of the eastern (rear) side of the rear ground and first floor level balconies.

 

c.    All privacy screens must be constructed with either:

·      Translucent or obscured glazing;

·      Fixed lattice/slats with individual openings not more than 30mm wide;

·      Fixed vertical or horizontal louvres with the individual blades angled and spaced appropriately to prevent overlooking into the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings.

 

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

·         W07 to the ground floor level kitchen.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 3 Seaview Street, CLOVELLY 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP38/17

 

Subject:              7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/15/2017)

Folder No:                DA/15/2017

Author:                     Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  Increase height of lift over run, and replacement of access stairs on southern boundary with internal stairs and extension of cabana roof

Ward:                        East  Ward

Applicant:                Santos Architecture

Owner:                     Ms M Eleftheriades

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council as the subject application is an amending Development Application (DA) to previous DA’s (DA/822/2013; DA/924/2014 & DA/851/2015) that were determined at Council meetings.

 

 

 

1.  Proposal

 

This application is an amending DA seeking to amend previous consents. The Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) states they are seeking amendments to the approved development consents DA/822/2013, DA/924/2014 and DA/851/2015 as follows:

 

Roof

·     Increase in height of lift over run by 530mm (RL33.80 from previously approved RL33.27).

 

Ground floor level:

·     New awning roof over lower ground level patio area (forming an extension of the cabana roof (note: no change in the cabana area). This awning structure remains behind the foreshore building line.

 

Pool level (14.60)

·     Relocation of pool equipment and shower room (from southern side of pool to northern side of pool) retaining storage area at southern side of pool);

·     Addition of plant room at northern side of pool (under the raised rear yard level).

 

Lower ground level (leading down to pool level) (RL17.50)

·     Replacement of external access stairs on southern boundary with internal stairs down to pool level;

·     Raise lower ground level lawn (RL15.60) by 1.7m (to RL17.50) with new plant room under. Please note: Further amendments received by Council 19 June 2017 include retaining the wall/fence height (RL17.60) approved in DA/851/2015, installation of a 1050mm wide planter box 1.5m from the north side boundary and locate trafficable area 2.55m from the northern side boundary. These amendments were the subject of discussion between the applicant representatives and the owner of No. 5 Seaside Parade in an attempt to address neighbour’s concerns with privacy, visual bulk and views lost. No agreement was reached and a follow up submission was received from No. 5 Seaside Parade; note: DA/822/2013 condition 2d required deletion of a pergola within this lawn area.

 

2.  Approval history:

 

The following is a description of the three approvals issued for the site, the original approval – DA/822/2013; and two amending Development Applications – DA/924/2014 and DA/851/2015. Following a description of each approval are non-standard conditions included in each determination.

 

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

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

Plan excerpt of pergola at the northern side of pool area at top right of plan.

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

3.     DA/851/2015: Approved at Ordinary Council meeting on 24 May 2016 by enclosure of second floor southwest roof garden, increase in size of second floor roof terrace (required to be deleted by condition 2e), alteration to finish level of swimming pool and surrounds by 350mm to RL17.50, addition of privacy louvres on northern side of the dwelling, alterations to cabana, internal reconfiguration, deletion of first floor southern balcony.

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

3.  Site

 

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

 

The site is currently vacant and the subject of construction works associated with the approvals issued thus far under DA/822/2013, DA/924/2014 and DA/851/2015. It is also noted that NO. 9 Seaside Parade is also vacant and currently undergoing construction issued under DA/330/2013 (including section 96 approval). The surrounding development is residential, mostly consisting large contemporary dwellings along the foreshore within the predominately low density residential zone (R2 zone).

 

Aerial view of subject site and surrounding area.

 

4.  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The key standards and objectives in the RLEP 2012 applicable to the development are the sites zoning - R3 Medium Density Residential and Height of Building as identified in the table below.

 

Table 1: Key RLEP standards

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

R3 Medium Density

Objectives

Listed further below under Clause 4.6 exception

See below.

Height of Building (Maximum) – Clause 4.3 (2A) for dwellings

9.5m

10.14m

No*(See Clause 4.6 assessment)

Floor Space Ratio – Clause 4.4

0.6:1

0.677:1 No change as the area nominated for use under the raised level is for plant

Not applicable

*submission made under Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard seeking support for variation to the building height.

 

 

Land use – R2 Low Density Residential zone

The proposed development is for a dwelling house and permissible in the zone.

 

The relevant objectives under the RLEP 2012 for the medium density zone are as follows:

 

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

 

The proposed amendments to the dwelling house retains a low destiny form with a bulk and scale that will meet the needs of the community.

          

·     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.

 

A mix of historical and more contemporary built forms exists along Seaside Parade and the wider urban blocks surrounding the site. The distinct foreshore scenic protection area is considered a key feature of the site and the proposed amending development application generally maintains modern contemporary features and built form previously approved.

 

The proposed amendments generally respect or do not contravene the significant elements of the foreshore. However the proposed raising of the rear yard level by around 1.7m (including balustrade 1.2m higher) and planter box are considered excessive and represent a significant increase in ground levels relative to the approved ground levels and neighbouring land levels (RL15.06 to 15.11 at NO. 5 Seaside Parade and RL15.40 at No. 9 Seaside Parade). It is also considered that the proposed raising of ground levels do not satisfy the relevant considerations in the RLEP relating to the Foreshore building line and the foreshore scenic protection area. An assessment is carried out against the relevant objectives under Clauses 6.6 foreshore building line and Clause 6.7 Foreshore scenic protection area further below in this section of the report.

 

·     To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The amenity of residents associated with the proposed increase in height of the lift overrun will not result in any appreciable adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties amenity. It is noted that views from across the road were considered in the assessment of the previous amending DA (DA/851/2015) and it was considered that the overall height of the development would not result in any significant impact on views and the fact that the proposed increase in height is limited to a small portion of the development does not alter this outcome.

 

More detailed discussion of the environmental aspects of the other amendments sought under this amending DA are contained in the key issues section of this report and throughout.

 

Clause 4.3 (2A) – Height of buildings

Clause 4.3(2A) in the RLEP states the maximum building height for development in the R2 zone is 9.5m.

 

The proposed height of the development is 10.14m. The variation to building height standard is 6.7% as summarised in the table below.

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Variation to the height standard

 

Height

Development Standard

9.5m (Clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012)

Proposal

10.14m (RL33.87-23.73);

Note approval granted for a height of 9.54m for the lift overrun under DA/924/2014.

Excess above RLEP Standard

6.7%

 

Clause 4.6 Exception to the development standard for height

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the maximum height of building standard contained in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

(ii)    the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, 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 Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

 

In relation to the matters required to be demonstrated by 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 height of buildings standard are set out in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

The arguments presented in the applicant’s submission can be summarised as follows:

 

·     The development satisfies the objectives of the standard and the proposal only results in a slight encroachment at the north western corner of the development to the maximum building height standard.

 

·     The encroachment that is the increase in size and extension to the height of the lift overrun is setback 10m form the front boundary and from the front building line ensures that isn’t immediately noticeable, the bulk and scale remains consistent with the surrounding area and will not detract from the streetscape character.

 

·     The extreme medical conditions associated with the occupant of the premises highlight the need for the lift.

 

·     The proposed height does not compromise views, privacy or solar access to adjoining or adjacent properties.

 

·     The submitted Clause 4.6 also refers to the assessment carried out in the submitted SEE and this has been considered in the assessment of the proposed encroachment of the height of the building.

 

It is also noted a further amended SEE has been provided by the applicant in seeking to address the raised ground levels in the rear as amended which is not the subject of assessment of the encroachment of the height of buildings standard.

 

 

 

 

Assessment:

 

In assessing whether the Applicants’ Clause 4.6 exception to the building height standard is well founded the following matters must be addressed:

 

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

 

The objectives of the Height of Buildings standard are as follows:

 

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

 

The proposed encroachment does not significantly alter the bulk and scale of the development as viewed from the street level or the foreshore scenic protection area. The variation to the building height standard occurs away from street level and not immediately noticeable from street level. The overall massing of walls associated with the northern elevation where the lift overrun is located is located over a small area of the northern elevation and the remaining and remaining parts of the northern elevation remains well articulated using a mix of materials and setbacks contributing to a visual interesting view when viewed from neighbouring properties.

 

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

 

There are no contributory heritage items in the vicinity of the site.

 

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

 

Views

 

In relation to view loss the applicant has not provided an assessment. However it is noted view loss assessments were carried out in previous Development applications for the site and no submissions have been received in relation to view loss. In relation to previous assessments, reference is made to the assessments carried out in DA/924/2014 and DA/851/2015 which sought an increase in the height of the roof form across the whole of the site and the lift overrun. A photomontage of the approved development thus far is shown below. It shows that the main roof form of the development remains well below the height of the neighbouring building at No. 5 Seaside Parade and that the lift overrun as sought to be increased whilst 420mm above the pitch of No. 5 Seaside parade will still be limited to a small portion of the roof overall. Moreover, a view of the ocean will still be available across the top of the development and in a north easterly and south easterly direction which also takes in highly valuable interfacing ocean and headland views.

 

 

        Photomontage of approved development under DA/924/2014.

 

Overall the proposed development seeking an increase in height of the lift overrun for medical purposes does not result in any unreasonable loss of views from the neighbouring properties.

 

Acoustic privacy

Acoustic conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure the proposed plant and equipment on site does not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse acoustic impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

Overshadowing

The proposed lift overrun is located at the northern end of the site and will not result in any appreciable difference in overshadowing caused by the approved development on the neighbouring properties.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the zone:

An assessment against the relevant objectives of the R2 zone is carried out above.

 

The relevant assessment criteria as to whether the development will satisfy the relevant objectives of the R2 zone have been addressed in the earlier section of this report. The assessment above and arguments provided in the applicant’s submission demonstrate that the resultant environmental impacts of the proposal will be satisfactory or unavoidable. The variation will enable a well-considered development to be provided that addresses the site constraints, streetscape and relevant objectives of both the standards and the zone. Further, the proposal achieves a better planning outcome in terms of allowing for the orderly development of land and minimising reasonable impacts on neighbouring properties. Therefore strict compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable. 

 

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

 

The design scheme is not altered significantly and maintains a scale that will fit comfortably within the subject allotment. The additional height does not compromise the streetscape character and the development will continue to comply with the building envelope controls with regards to side setbacks, landscaping and open space. As prescribed above, the variation to the building height standard will not contribute to any significant or unreasonable adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring properties or within the streetscape and it demonstrates a development that does not result in any unreasonable impact in terms of views, visual or acoustic privacy or overshadowing subject to conditions.

 

Overall, the proposed additional height sought is appropriately located and will continue to achieve the planning objectives for the locality and to fit in with the scale and character of development in the immediate context, whilst not containing any significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties. The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. The assessment carried out above in relation to the objectives of the building height standard and the zone demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the building height variation.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the height of buildings development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. Therefore strict adherence to the numerical standard will be unnecessary in this case for maintaining the low density housing form envisaged under the RLEP for the R2 zoned site in this locality as discussed in this report.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical building height standard will not be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance. The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality and the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

 

 

 

 

5.  Submissions

 

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

 

·     5 Seaside Parade, Coogee - Town planner on behalf of owner

·     5 Seaside Parade, Coogee – Owner

 

Issue

Comment

Object to the raised fence height 4.2m in height

Noted amended plans remove this proposed amendment retaining the approved height of fencing. It is also noted that the amendments to the lower rear yard level are not supported and required to be deleted as a condition of consent.

The application does not adequately describe the modifications sought to the development approvals

The proposed amendments to the previous approvals are adequately explained and it is further noted that a meeting was held with the applicant representatives and the objector in an attempt to address their concerns with the application.

The proposal does not satisfy the objectives under Clause 6.6 Foreshore building line or the foreshore scenic protection area

See assessment of the amending DA in relation to Clauses 6.6 and 6.7 of the RLEP. In short the proposed amendments to the rear yard level are not supported having regard to the relevant matters for consideration and the objectives of the foreshore scenic protection area.

View Loss

The proposed raising of rear yard level and associated landscaping has the potential to result in view loss from both No. 5 Seaside Parade as well as No. 9 Seaside Parade. It is also considered that there is no reasonable development expectation for the raising of the rear yard levels for access considering previous approvals provided lift access down to the approved rear yard level.

Noise from relocated plant and new plant rooms along the northern side of the site.

The amended plans increase the setback of the plant rooms from the northern side boundary and the applicant has furnished a letter from an acoustic consultant that the location of plant rooms will satisfy the relevant noise criteria. Notwithstanding, it is considered that locating of plant and equipment in close proximity to the pool decking has the potential to result in greater noise and vibration disturbance than the current location at the southern side of the site where it is setback and adjacent to a landscape zone at No. 9 Seaside Parade. 

Insufficient detail as to works, structural adequacy and treatment

The replacement of the shared side fencing with a common wall is deleted as a condition of consent. Notwithstanding, certification of structural adequacy would be the subject of a construction certificate.

Drainage problems associated with raising adjoining land level and backfilling of wall

Noted.

Ongoing issues regarding construction

These are matters that are required to be addressed by the Certifier of the project.

 

6.  Key Issues

 

Foreshore scenic protection area and foreshore building line

The proposed amendments requiring an assessment of the objectives of the foreshore scenic protection area and foreshore building line include:

 

·     Proposed awning structure at the rear (no objections to the proposed awning structure as it is a lightweight structure, located behind the foreshore building line and aligns with the approved cabana to the north)

·     Raised rear yard levels proposed relocated plant and shower and new plan room below;

 

In relation to the proposed raising of the ground level in the rear yard

 

An assessment is carried out against Clause 6.6 of the RLEP relating to the foreshore building line. In particular, sub clause (3b) states that development consent must not be granted under this clause unless the consent authority is satisfied that:….

 

(b)  the appearance of any proposed structure, from both the waterway and adjacent foreshore areas, will be compatible with the surrounding area,….

 

In relation to the foreshore scenic protection area, sub clause 1 sets out four main objectives of the foreshore scenic protection areas:

 

(a)    to recognise, protect and enhance the natural, visual and environmental qualities of the scenic areas of the coastline,

 

(b)    to protect and improve visually prominent areas adjoining the coastal foreshore,

 

(c)    to protect significant public views to and from the coast,

 

(d)    to ensure development in these areas is appropriate for the location and does not detract from the scenic qualities of the coast.

 

Sub clause 3 of the foreshore scenic protection area Clause also states that Development consent must not be granted for development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

 

a.      is located and designed to minimise its visual impact on public areas of the coastline, including views to and from the coast, foreshore reserves, open space and public areas, and

 

b.      contributes to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore.

 

In relation to the proposed amendments and the matters required to be considered by the consent authority it is considered the proposed raising of the ground level and associated works relating to the relocated and new plant areas will appear incompatible with the features beyond the foreshore building line and does not satisfy the objectives for the foreshore scenic protection area for the following reasons:

 

·     The proposed rear yard levels sit well above the existing approved levels, as well as land levels on neighbouring properties at No. 5 and No. 9 Seaside Parade and natural ground levels of the rock face along the east coast. The significant increase in ground levels will relative to the approved levels, natural levels and neighbouring levels will detract from the natural, visual and environmental qualities along the coastline; Whilst raised swimming pools do exist along the coast rising above natural ground level along the rear, notably No. 7 and 9 Seaside Parade these swimming pools however take up only a small portion of the sites widths ensuring that they don’t dominate the associated properties;

 

Original approval

Proposed raising of rear yard

Figure: At left approval issued under DA/822/2013 and at right proposed changes in ground level represent an increase in the height of the development in this part of the site by 1.7m in relation to floor level not including balustrade or landscaping.

 

·     The raising of ground levels predominately across the full width of the site on top of the rock/cliff face (which is generally at between RL12.90 and RL13.67 at the rear) adds significant bulk in an abrupt fashion along the rear boundary of the site in an area of the foreshore that demonstrates a relatively gradual rise in ground level from the rock face towards the front of sites; The proposed raising of the rear yard level will rise between 4.39m and 4.6m above the rock ledge at the eastern end of the site as per Survey).

 

·     The proposed raising the ground level bears little resemblance to the existing ground levels along this part of the site and land levels along the rear of adjoining properties at No. 5 and No. 9 Seaside Parade.

 

·     Whilst it is acknowledged that there is no public thoroughfare along the rear of the subject property or that of neighbouring properties, the rear of the site is viewable from the public realm further south from the rock and cliff face that runs along Marine Parade as well as watercraft opposite the subject site.

 

·     Relocating the plant and equipment to the northern side of the pool is not a reasonable development expectation and neither is raising the yard level given that previous approvals show the plant and shower can be located at the southern side of the pool and access to this area can be maintained from within the dwelling; the original approval DA/822/2013 had a lift giving access to this lower level plant area and was only removed under a later amending DA;

 

·     Council has in its assessment of previous applications for the site considered the location of structures within the foreshore building line and consistently required by condition the removal of substantial structures that impinge over the foreshore building line such as:

Deletion of a pergola structure within the rear yard of the site (condition 2d of DA/822/2013);

Reduction in length of the cantilevered ground floor terrace (condition 2a of DA/924/2014);

Requirement that the cabana roof and walls to be setback behind the foreshore building line (condition 2c of DA/924/2014);

Condition 2d of DA/924/2014 requiring no structures located above the finished ground level within the lower ground floor level that encroaches over the foreshore building line;

 

Having regard to the above, a condition is included requiring the deletion of the raised rear garden levels; the relocated plant rooms; and for the approved plant and shower to be built in accordance with the approval issued under the previous amending DA/851/2015. This does not preclude the newly proposed access stairs from within the dwelling;

 

Visual privacy

The application has undergone several amendments in order to address privacy issues raised by Council and the neighbouring property at No. 5 Seaside Parade. The final amendments seek to address the visual privacy impacts relating to the use of the raised ground levels by setting back the trafficable area further from the northern side boundary, including a non trafficable area and installing a planter box alongside the northern side boundary fence retaining the previously approved height (RL17.60). Two excerpts of the raised area in plan and section are shown below.

 

Plan form showing the northern side boundary, planting section, non trafficable area (containing pebbles and location of balustrade.

 

Section elevation showing the ground level of N

 

Northern elevation of existing approved lawn level (blue line) and proposed yard level (Red line)

 

In short the most notable amendments relating to the above impacts are associated with the proposed raised ground level in the rear yard whereby instead of one standing on the approved level of RL15.80 one will be standing on the proposed level which is around 1.7m higher. Whilst it is acknowledged that the amended application reduces the wall height along the northern side boundary, and increase setback reduces privacy impacts into some parts of No 5 Seaside Parade it is considered that it inappropriately relies on landscaping and does not achieve a good planning outcome for the following reasons:

 

·     The privacy of no. 5 Seaside Parade is reliant on landscaping to ameliorate adverse overlooking into their pool area and the reliance on landscaping is only considered a secondary measure and not a primary physical measure to protect privacy as there is limited control over the lifespan or health of landscaping and in certain circumstances landscaping may not be subject to preservation under order. It is also noted that in Super Studio v Waverley [2004] NSWLEC 91, Roseth SC specifically considered the use of landscaping to protect privacy and as a Planning Principle stated at (6) ‘……where proposed landscaping is the main safeguard against overlooking, it should be given minor weight. The effectiveness of landscaping as a privacy screen depends on continued maintenance, good climatic conditions and good luck. While it is theoretically possible for a council to compel an applicant to maintain landscaping to achieve the height and density proposed in an application, in practice this rarely happens’.

 

·     Using landscaping in close proximity to the pool area of No. 5 Seaside Parade and as a prime measure for privacy protection may be problematic as overhanging branches and leaves will most likely fall onto the pool area of the neighbour’s property. The approved landscaping abutted the approved northern side boundary fence and plant species were selected on the basis of appropriate height.

 

·     The current approval provides a rear yard level of REL15.80 and the landscaping along the northern side of the yard was abutting an agreed fence height with the owners of No. 5 Seaside Parade and the proposed providing an effective buffer e along the northern side of the site. Further consideration of the height of trees along the northern side of the site was a relevant planning consideration. In this respect, the reliance on substantial landscaping along this side of the site has the potential to result in loss of views from No. 5 Seaside parade as well as the adjoining neighbour’s property to the south at No. 9 Seaside Parade.

 

·     Any additional physical screening alongside the balustrade will further exacerbate the bulk and scale along the rear of the site which as assessed in the earlier section will detract from the foreshore scenic protection area and be result in more incompatibility with the surrounding area as required under Clauses 6.6 and 6.7 of the RLEP 2012.

 

·     It is also considered that the proposed increase in ground levels in the rear yard are do not represent a reasonable development expectation considering that the previous approval provided a lift to this lower level which was deleted by an amending DA.

 

View loss

 

The proposed increase in ground level and associated landscaping has the potential to result in view loss from the rear of adjoining properties at No. 9 Seaside Parade and No. 5 Seaside Parade.

 

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

 

Overall, having regard to the proposed extension of the lift overrun, proposed awning structure and removal of external stairs it is considered that the proposed amendments to the approvals are supportable. However, the proposed increase in land level in the rear yard and associated works relocating plant and new plant along the northern side of the pool area are not supported as they do not satisfy the relevant objectives for the foreshore scenic protection area, and the foreshore building line in that they represent excessive bulk having regard to the natural features and existing features within the foreshore building line; they are also excessive when considered in the context of land levels on adjoining properties at No. 5 and No. 9 Seaside Parade. The raised ground levels and reliance on landscaping as a privacy measure does not provide an appropriate visual privacy buffer and is also problematic in relation to potential view loss and general nuisance in relation to falling leaves and branches into the pool area of the adjoining property at No. 5 Seaside Parade. As well, there is a low reasonable development expectation for the raised rear yard levels as the previous development consents issued for the site contained provisions for plant and equipment as well as access to the plant and equipment and rear yard via a lift which was subsequently deleted as part of a previous amending DA. Subject to a suitable condition deleting the proposed amendments raising the rear yard level and relocation of and new plant areas, the proposal is recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 15/2017 for amendments to approved development consents DA/822/2013, DA/924/2014 and DA/851/2015 by increase in height of lift over run, and replacement of access stairs on southern boundary with internal stairs and extension of cabana roof, at No. 7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-standard conditions

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   The proposed amendments including, raising of lower ground level lawn relocation of pool equipment and shower room, addition of plant room are not approved and shall be deleted from the plans referred to in condition 1 of this consent. Details showing compliance with this condition shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for this development.

 

3.     This development consent DA/15/2017 amends the development consent DA/822/2013, DA/924/2014 and DA/851/2015 only in so far as the modifications highlighted on the plans referenced in condition 1 of this consent and conditions attached to this consent.

 

 

Attachment/s:

1.

DA Compliance Report - 7 Seaside Parade, SOUTH COOGEE 

Included under separate cover

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP39/17

 

Subject:              Voluntary Planning Agreement - 150-174 Barker Street & 181 Botany Street & 1-7, 18-21 Jane Street & 8-20, 28-42 Young Street, Randwick (DA/88/2016)

Folder No:                DA/88/2016

Author:                     David Ongkili, Coordinator Strategic Planning      

 

Executive Summary

 

On 3 April 2017, Commissioner Morris of the Land and Environment Court issued orders in relation to Court proceedings for the Class 1 Appeal lodged by Cbus Property against a deemed refusal of the development application, DA/88/2016, for a concept/master plan proposal for mixed use development on the ‘Inglis’ (Newmarket Green) site. The Court Orders reflected the terms of an agreement between the Applicant (Cbus Property) and Randwick Council as the Respondent made under Section 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. The Conditions of Consent which formed part of the Court Orders provided for, among other things, the execution of a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) between Cbus and Council as reflected in Condition No 4A as follows:

 

 

Background and Issues

 

The letter from Cbus dated 21 March 2017 (referred to in Condition 4A above) was reported to Council Meeting on 28 March 2017 and contained, among other things, the dedication to Council of affordable housing units at the rate of 1.5% and the transfer to Council of the Big Stable and $500,000 towards its maintenance. The letter also included provisions for the construction of public roads and a public park that will contribute towards meeting the present and future needs of the community. Cbus also agreed in the letter to contribute $ 50,000 towards the preparation of a traffic study/traffic calming measures.

 

In accordance with the Court Order, the applicant prepared a draft VPA dated 9 June 2017 and a summary of the provisions of the VPA are as follows:

 

·    Transfer of Affordable Housing Units 

The VPA provides for the transfer of 10 affordable housing units comprising 7 x one-bedroom units and 3 x two-bedroom units distribute over three stages as follows:

 

(a)    4 units in Stage 1;

(b)  3 units in Stage 2; and

(c)  3 units in Stage 3,

 

Cbus must transfer the Affordable Housing Units upon registration of the strata plan of subdivision for the relevant building in which the Affordable Housing Units are located.

 

·    Transfer of Big Stable Land

Cbus must transfer to the Council the Big Stable Land as described in relevant Schedule of the VPA (see Attachment) in fee simple free of any trusts, estates, interests, covenants and Encumbrances. The subject land is at 29-39 Young street Randwick being proposed Lot 39 including the Big Stable Building and any other improvements erected on that land which is to be held by the Council as community land pursuant to the terms of the Local Government Act 1993. The VPA stipulates that Cbus is not to unreasonably withhold its consent to lodgement of a development application by Council for the adaptive reuse of the Big Stable Land.

 

·    Dedication of Public Park Land

Cbus must dedicate the land identified as Public Park Land in the relevant Schedule of the draft VPA. This essentially involves construction of the public park and dedication of an area of min 5000m2 to Council as shown coloured green and marked "Public Park E2" on the Newmarket Randwick Master Plan - Lots Subdivision plan DA02.001(G) dated 30 March 2017 for the purposes of a public park.

 

·    Dedication and Transfer of Public Roads

Cbus must dedicate the Public Roads as shown in the plan under Annexure A the Schedule attached to the draft VPA free of any trusts, estates, interests, covenants and Encumbrances. Cbus must also transfer to the Council the land shown as part of the public road ST1 on the plan comprised in Annexure C of the Schedule in fee simple as a freehold stratum lot free of any trusts, estates, interests, covenants and Encumbrances, but including the benefit of any easements for support, maintenance and easements for access required by Council and/or relevant service authorities to access their services under that road as required by Council. The public roads are denoted as ST1, ST2, ST3, ST4, RL1 and DV1 on the - New Market Green Master Plan - Lots Subdivision plan DA02.001(G) dated 30 March 2017.

 

·    Payment of Monetary Contributions

The Developer will pay to Council the Monetary Contributions as follows:

 

(a)      Monetary Contribution 1 ($500,000) must be paid to Council prior to or upon the transfer of the Big Stable Land to the Council for the purposes of repairs and maintenance of the Big Stable Building;

(b)      Monetary Contribution 2 ($50,000) must be paid to Council prior to the issue of the first Construction Certificate for the Development for the cost of undertaking a traffic study and or implementing traffic calming measures in the area covered by Middle Street and Meeks Street between Botany Street and Willis Street, as well as Young Street, Jane Street, Randwick and DV1.

 

The draft VPA has been prepared in accordance with Council’s planning agreements policy and meets the principles and provisions of this Policy, specifically as listed in clause 2.4, that it would provide affordable housing so that a socially diverse population can be maintained and it would secure planning benefits for the public.

 

The proposed agreement also satisfies the acceptability test set out in clause 2.5 the Planning Agreements Policy through:

 

·         Serving proper planning purposes, having regard to statutory planning controls and providing for a reasonable means of achieving that purpose.

·         Producing outcomes that meet the general values and expectations of the community and protect the public interest.

·         Promoting Council’s strategic objectives for planning agreements and conforming to the principles governing the Council’s use of planning agreements.

 

Public Exhibition

 

Section 93G of the EP&A Act provides that a planning agreement cannot be entered into unless public notice has been given of the proposed agreement and made available for inspection by the public for a period of not less than 28 days. Public exhibition of the Draft VPA was undertaken from 13 June 2017 to 14 July 2017. Five submissions have been received raising the following issues:

 

·     The conditions under which affordable housing is provided are largely in the hands of the developer & the quantum of affordable housing is insufficient.

 

Response: The VPA has been prepared in accordance with Sections 5 and 93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EP&A Act), as well as with the objects of the Local Government Act (LG Act), through which both parties have arrived at an agreed upon program for the secure and orderly delivery of the affordable housing units. The conditions for the delivery of the affordable housing units also accord with the Randwick Council Planning Agreements Policy. The Planning agreement binds Cbus to deliver the identified number of Affordable Housing.

 

In terms of the quantum of housing being provided there is no statutory obligation on the developer to provide a minimum percentage of affordable housing on the site. The VPA is the only mechanism that can bind the developer to deliver any Affordable Housing.

 

·     There should be a clear reference to the location of the Affordable Housing Units and its existence in perpetuity

 

Response: In terms of the location of the affordable housing units, they are to be provided progressively and are distributed between the various stages. The VPA contains a provision that Cbus needs to consult with Council prior to the final location of the affordable housing units and their exact location within any building. In relation to the duration of the affordable housing units, the affordable housing units are provided in perpetuity to Councils. Consistent with the Council’s Affordable Housing Policy the VPA also provides that at the conclusion of the 10 years if Council decide to renew its stocks, they could be sold but the funds derived from any such sale must be used by Council for the purposes of Affordable Housing in line with the Council’s Affordable Housing Policy.

 

·     The size of the public park may be insufficient to cater for the increased density on the site.

 

Response: The density for the site and the provision of public open space was determined at the rezoning stage. The resultant LEP set the maximum FSR at 1.3:1 subject to the provision of a 5,000sqm public park. In addition to the public park, the approved Concept Plan for the site also provides for an urban plaza and the dedication of the Big Stable and its curtilage. These areas will be publically accessible and will add to the social amenity of the area. The approved Concept Plan also provides areas of private communal open space within the residential precincts.

 

·     The developer has not funded studies that would facilitate walking & cycling in the local area rather than driving.

 

Response: The approved Concept Plan for the site includes the provision of bicycle storage facilities throughout the development and will provide for a low speed road environment which is conducive to cycling. The approved Concept Plan will encourage walking by extending existing roads and footpaths providing greater permeability and connections to the local area. The creation of a desire line & vista from the Barker St urban plaza through to the public park and beyond to Paine Reserve, the Big Stable & Rainbow St public school will also encourage walking with the area.

 

·     Impacts of increased traffic & parking demands

 

 

Response: The overall traffic generation of the development will be consistent with that envisaged by the rezoning of the site at its increased density. The Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) have required conditions of the consent to in the Concept Plan approval requiring clearway restrictions at the Avoca & Barker St intersections so as to improve the operation of that intersection. Traffic lights at the intersection of Barker & Botany St were also constructed as part of the light rail works to address the capacity issue. The approved Concept Plan requires the provision of car parking in accordance with rates that are anticipated to cater for the demand likely to be generated by the development.

 

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

 

The VPA provides that the applicant pay to the Council an amount not exceeding $15,000 plus GST and disbursements in relation to the negotiation, preparation and execution of the VPA.

 

Conclusion

 

Public exhibition of the draft VPA relating to the proposed development at Newmarket Green site has been undertaken pursuant to Section 93G of the EP&A Act. Two submissions were received in response to the notification period and the issues raised have been addressed in the body of this report above. The draft VPA has been prepared in accordance with the EP&A Act; the LG Act and meets the principles and procedures of Council’s Planning Agreement Policy. Accordingly, the VPA has been duly processed and may now be entered into between the applicant and Council.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

a)     Council agree to enter into the Voluntary Planning Agreement relating to the proposed development under DA No. 88/2016 at Nos 150-174 Barker St & 181 Botany St & 1-7, 18-21 Jane St & 8-20, 28-42 Young St, Randwick, as publicly exhibited from 13 June 2017 to 14 July 2017.

 

b)     the General Manager be authorised to make minor drafting changes to the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) as required, prior to its execution.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Draft VPA Newmarket VPA Randwick - DA/88/2016

 

2.

VPA Newmarket explanatory_Notes - DA/88/2016

 

  


Draft VPA Newmarket VPA Randwick - DA/88/2016

Attachment 1

 

 


VPA Newmarket explanatory_Notes - DA/88/2016

Attachment 2

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF22/17

 

Subject:              Delegations of Authority

Folder No:                F2004/06895

Author:                     Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

Council’s delegations are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that the General Manager has appropriate authority to provide for the day to day management of the Council’s administrative and regulatory functions and to ensure that Council staff are not acting outside the limits of their delegated authority.

 

Issues

 

A Council may, by resolution, delegate to the General Manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the council) any of the functions of the council, other than the following:

 

(a)    the appointment of a General Manager,

(b)    the making of a rate,

(c)    a determination under section 549 as to the levying of a rate,

(d)    the making of a charge,

(e)    the fixing of a fee,

(f)    the borrowing of money,

(g)    the voting of money for expenditure on its works, services or operations,

(h)    the compulsory acquisition, purchase, sale, exchange or surrender of any land or other property (but not including the sale of items of plant or equipment),

(i)     the acceptance of tenders to provide services currently provided by members of staff of the Council,

(j)     the adoption of an operational plan under section 405,

(k)    the adoption of a financial statement included in an annual financial report,

(l)     a decision to classify or reclassify public land under Division 1 of Part 2 of Chapter 6,

(m)   the fixing of an amount or rate for the carrying out by the Council of work on private land,

(n)    the decision to carry out work on private land for an amount that is less than the amount or rate fixed by the Council for the carrying out of any such work,

(o)    the review of a determination made by the Council, and not by a delegate of the Council, of an application for approval or an application that may be reviewed under section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,

(p)    the power of the Council to authorise the use of reasonable force for the purpose of gaining entry to premises under section 194,

(q)    a decision under section 356 to contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons,

(r)    a decision under section 234 to grant leave of absence to the holder of a civic office,

(s)    the making of an application, or the giving of a notice, to the Governor or Minister,

(t)    this power of delegation,

(u)    any function under this or any other Act that is expressly required to be exercised by resolution of the Council.

 

There are currently three delegation matters that require decisions:

 

1.        Acceptance of tenders

Section 377(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 was recently amended to allow for Council to delegate the acceptance of tenders which are required to be invited by the Council, subject to the exclusion of tenders ‘to provide services currently provided by members of staff of the Council.’

 

As a result of the recent amendment to section 377(i), it is suggested that the following new delegation be included in the Delegations Register;

 

RT013 – Tenders – Acceptance of

To accept tenders which are required under the Local Government Act 1993 to be invited by the Council, with the exception of tenders to provide service currently provided by members of staff of the council.

 

The General Manager does not intend to further delegate the acceptance of tenders to any staff members and will only use this delegation in cases of urgency where reporting the matter to Council would result in a project being unacceptably delayed. In those instances when the General Manager does utilise this delegation a report explaining the circumstances will be submitted to the next available Council meeting.

 

2.     Community Grants Program – granting of financial assistance

Section 377(1A) of the Local Government Act 1993 now allows for the delegation of functions relating to the granting of financial assistance if:

 

(a)    the financial assistance is part of a specified program, and

(b)    the program is included in the Council's draft operational plan for the year in which the financial assistance is proposed to be given, and

(c)    the program's proposed budget for that year does not exceed 5 per cent of the Council's proposed income from the ordinary rates levied for that year, and

(d)    the program applies uniformly to all persons within the Council's area or to a significant proportion of all the persons within the Council's area.

 

This relatively recent amendment to the Local Government Act now allows for Council to delegate its power to determine financial assistance grants under the adopted Community Grants Program. This would not change the grant submission or assessment process, but would mean that the General Manager could determine grants provided under the Community Grants Program on a bi-annual basis, rather than a report being required to be submitted to Council.

 

The General Manager does not intend to sub-delegate this function to ensure there is continued accountability for the assessment process.

 

The proposed new delegation is as follows;

 

RG010 – Community Grants Program – granting of financial assistance

To determine the allocation of Cultural and Community Program funds to be allocated to grant applicants in accordance with the recommendation(s) of the Assessment Panel and within the limits of the adopted Budget for the Program.

 

3.     Police access to CCTV

Council’s adopted ‘CCTV Policy and operating procedures in Council owned and operated facilities’ provides for the General Manager to determine and delegate the following functions:

 

·         To determine all requests from the Police for access to CCTV footage if received in writing stating the time and date of the incident in question.

 

·         To determine all requests from the Police to view footage with an authorised staff member prior to making a formal request in relation to a specific incident.

 

This process is already in place for CCTV footage in public areas such as Goldstein Reserve at Coogee Beach, however, it is suggested that a delegation for this function be included in the Delegations Register for accountability purposes.

 

Under Schedule 2 of the Randwick City Council CCTV in Randwick Protocols (for the administration of the CCTV system at Goldstein Reserve and surrounds) ‘Authorised Council Officers’ are responsible for technical and operational matters pertaining to the CCTV System.

 

The proposed new delegation to provide for the above functions, will be:

 

RF035 - Police access to CCTV – Council owned and operated facilities and Public land

 

(i)     To determine all requests from the Police (and other law enforcement agencies) for access to CCTV footage if received in writing stating the time and date of the incident in question.

 

(ii)    To determine all requests from the Police (and other law enforcement agencies) to view footage with an authorised staff member prior to making a formal request in relation to a specific incident.

 

(iii)   To be appointed as an ‘Authorised Officer’ as described by Schedule 2 of the Randwick City Council CCTV in Randwick Protocols.

 

The General Manager has indicated that he intends to delegate these functions to a number of administrative, operational and technical staff.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that the proposed amendments to the ‘Delegations of Authority’ be adopted.

 

For accountability purposes a copy of the Delegations Register (including the sub-delegations from the General Manager to staff) is available on Council’s website.

 

Recommendation

 

That pursuant to section 377 of the Local Government Act, the Delegations of Authority be amended as detailed in the report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF23/17

 

Subject:              Draft 2016-17 Financial Reports

Folder No:                F2016/00406

Author:                     Mitchel Woods, Manager Corporate and Financial Planning      

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to refer the 2016-17 Draft Financial Statements to Council’s Auditors. The audited 2016-17 Financial Statements will be brought back to Council for adoption at a later Council Meeting.

 

As per section 416 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), a Council’s financial statements for the year must be prepared and audited within four months after the end of the year concerned.

 

The statutory process that must be followed is:

 

1.      The financial statements must include statements made by resolution of the Council and signed by the Mayor and at least one other Councillor as well as the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer.

 

2.      The financial statements must then be referred to the Council’s Auditors and, once audited, they must be included in the Council’s Annual Report.

 

3.      Copies of the audited financial statements must be forwarded to the Office of Local Government by 31 October 2017.

 

4.      As soon as practicable after Council receives a copy of the Auditor’s report, the statements must be placed on public exhibition and notice given of a meeting at which Council proposes to present its audited financial statements together with the Auditor’s report. (Sec. 418 LGA).

 

 

Carry Over of Programmed Funds

 

It is proposed to carry over unspent funds from the 2016-17 financial year to the new 2017-18 financial year due to the following reasons:

 

·          Projects had already commenced and expenditure was committed;

·          Projects were incomplete as at 30 June 2017;

·          Grant funding has been received for projects spanning a timeframe beyond 30 June 2017;

·          The funds were voted towards the latter part of the 2016-17 financial year, and the project had not yet commenced or been completed;

·          Funding for the project is to be raised over more than one financial year.

 

A full list of these projects and their funding are itemised in Attachment 1.

 

Council continues to be programmed and disciplined in regards to its financial planning and management. The majority of the funds being carried over form part of a financial plan, plan of management, or some other form of strategy where Council is purposefully accumulating funds.

Issues

 

The 2016-17 Annual Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Regulations, the Australian Accounting Standards, and the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting. The unaudited Annual Financial Statements will be tabled by the Director of Governance and Financial Services at the meeting.

 

Section 413(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 requires the Council to form an opinion as to whether the Council’s Annual Financial Statements reflect a true and fair position and that they have been drawn up in accordance with the Local Government Act and associated codes and standards. Statements to this effect have been prepared (refer Attachments 2 and 3) and will be presented for signature.

 

Subsequent to these Statements being signed, the Annual Financial Statements will be referred to the NSW Audit Office for audit. On completion of the audit, further copies of the statements including the audit report will be circulated to Councillors.

 

It is proposed that the audited financial statements be presented at a Council meeting as soon as practicable after receipt of the final audit report.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

Council is in a strong and stable financial position.

 

Conclusion

 

The Manager Corporate and Financial Planning, as the Responsible Accounting Officer, advises that the financial position is satisfactory.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the 2016-17 Funding Carry Over Schedule be adopted as per Attachment 1

 

b)     in relation to the financial statements required in accordance with section 413(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993:

 

i)         Council resolves that in its opinion the General Purpose Financial Statements, Special Purpose Financial Statements and Special Schedules for the year ended 30 June 2017:

 

a.   have been properly drawn up in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Regulations there under, the Australian Accounting Standards and professional pronouncements, and the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting;

 

b.   to the best of the Council’s knowledge and belief the statements present fairly the Council’s operating result and financial position for the year and accords with the Council’s accounting and other records; and

 

c.   the Council is unaware of any matter that would render the financial statements false or misleading in anyway.

 

ii)        The Statement by Councillors and Management for both the General Purpose Financial Statements and Special Purpose Financial Statements be signed by the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer.

 

c)     the financial statements be referred to the Council’s Auditor for audit.

 

d)     arrangements be made to place copies of the audited financial statements on public exhibition and the necessary advertisements be published.

 

e)     a copy of the audited financial statements be forwarded to the NSW Office of Local Government.

 

f)      the audited financial statements be presented at a meeting of Council to be held in accordance with Section 418 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

2016-17 Funding Carry Over Schedule

 

2.

2016-17 General Purpose Financial Report - Statement by Councillors and Management

 

3.

2016-17 Special Purpose Financial Report - Statement by Councillors and Management

 

4.

2016-17 Draft Financial Reports (to be tabled at the meeting by the Director Governance and Financial Services)

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


2016-17 Funding Carry Over Schedule

Attachment 1

 

 


2016-17 Funding Carry Over Schedule

Attachment 1

 

 


2016-17 Funding Carry Over Schedule

Attachment 1

 

 


2016-17 Funding Carry Over Schedule

Attachment 1

 

 


2016-17 Funding Carry Over Schedule

Attachment 1

 

 


2016-17 Funding Carry Over Schedule

Attachment 1

 

 


2016-17 General Purpose Financial Report - Statement by Councillors and Management

Attachment 2

 

 


2016-17 Special Purpose Financial Report - Statement by Councillors and Management

Attachment 3

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF24/17

 

Subject:              Update to Councillors' Expenses & Facilities Policy

Folder No:                F2004/06576

Author:                     David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services      

 

Introduction

 

As a result of a meeting between relevant staff to gauge the effectiveness of our Councillors’ Expenses and Facilities Policy, two areas have been identified where the policy can be improved.

 

Issues

 

The first proposed amendment to this policy is offering Councillors a reimbursement option for their home phone line and internet service. This is considered to be a more effective option than installing a new phone and internet connection. Councillors will most likely have an existing service that they can simply seek reimbursement for during their term of office, removing any delays due to connection times at the start of their term. Similarly at the end of their term Council ceases the reimbursement without disrupting their connectivity arrangements.

 

The service that Councillors already have at their residence is often higher performance than the ADSL services have been installed for Councillors previously which run at up to 20Mbit. For example 95% of the LGA can access Telstra BigPond Cable internet running at up to 100Mbit and a number of apartment buildings have TPG infrastructure again allowing 100Mbit connectivity. By allowing Councillors freedom of choice they can select a provider that offers the best service into their place or residence.

In addition, during the next four year term for our Councillors, the NBN will be built throughout the LGA and existing copper ADSL services will be transitioned. With the NBN it will be difficult to have multiple broadband services connected to a residential house due to infrastructure constraints in the Telstra HFC network, therefore it would be appropriate if the Councillors pick the provider that they would like to be with both during the term and after they cease to hold office.

 

Council would of course offer the existing option of Council provided connectivity and continue existing arrangements for those Councillors re-elected. This option simply provides flexibility to recognise the different existing arrangements that Councillors may have in place already.

 

The second proposed amendment to this policy is the discontinuation of the provision of a fax machine to Councillors. A statistical analysis has revealed that faxes made up less than 1% of the total correspondence received by Council in the last twelve months.

 

Given the cost of fax machines, it is no longer considered to be value for money to purchase and provide a fax machine for fifteen councilors. Multi-function devices will still be offered under this policy, however they will not contain a facsimile function.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

Any expenses and facilities provided to the Mayor and Councillors as part of this policy have been allowed for in the 2017-18 Budget.

 

Conclusion

 

Under the recent Phase 1 amendments to the Local Government Act, our Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy must be adopted within 12 months of the commencement of the new council term, instead of annually (s252) and copies of the policy are no longer required to be provided to the Office of Local Government. Accordingly this policy will be brought before the new Council in its entirety for adoption.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy be amended by the discontinuation of the provision of a fax machine to Councillors and by offering Councillors, as standard procedure, a reimbursement option for their home phone line and internet service.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF25/17

 

Subject:              Ongoing Engagement of Event Performers and Sustainability Educators

Folder No:                F2013/00200

Author:                     David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services      

 

Introduction

 

At the ordinary Council meeting held 25 August 2015 it was resolved:

 

“That:

 

(a)    Council approve the engagement of Event Performers and Sustainability Educators for a two year period under the arrangements outlined in this report;

 

(b)    these suppliers are only to be utilised strictly for Event Performances and Sustainability Education;

 

(c)    on occasions where the expected cost of the service will exceed $5,000.00, a standard thee quotes will be need to be obtained or General Manager approval sought, before a supplier is engaged; and

 

(d)    relevant Managers are responsible for ensuring the standard requirements for the engagement of such suppliers, including relevant and current insurance coverage, are always undertaken.”

 

The two year period referred to in clause (a) is about to lapse and, as this approval system has worked very well for these types of suppliers over the last two years, it is proposed to maintain this system of engagement for a further two year period.

 

Issues

 

Randwick Council is an industry leader in both Sustainability and in the conduct of Community Events. The increased level of participation in these areas has led to a unique situation in the procurement of Event Performers and Sustainability Educators which again requires Council approval to resolve.

 

In the area of Event Performers, Council engaged 242 suppliers over the last two years at an average cost of $950.00 per engagement. Similarly, in the area of Sustainability Educators, Council engaged 149 suppliers over the last two years at an average cost of just over $1000.00.

 

This means that whilst the aggregate spends in these areas would normally require the conduct of a tender process for each, the reality is that it is not in the interest of the relevant suppliers to invest the time and effort in the preparation of a detailed tender submission for the average engagement amounts referred to above. There would also be no guarantee of work for the suppliers chosen which would lead to dissatisfaction in our local business community.

 

Council’s Manager Administrative Services, in consultation with the Purchasing Section and relevant Managers, has again suggested a purchasing arrangement whereby Council would approve the engagement of suppliers in these two specialised areas for a two year period. This would occur on the proviso that Council staff engaging these suppliers will ensure that certificates of insurance are current, where applicable, and that the suppliers are engaged strictly only for Event Performances or Sustainability Education.

 

On occasions where the expected cost of the service will exceed $5,000.00, a standard three quotes will be need to be obtained or General Manager approval sought, before a supplier is engaged. Council’s Purchasing Section will also produce spend reports on a monthly basis for analysis and Internal Audit will conduct random audits to ensure adherence to these requirements.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1b:     Demonstrate best practice leadership in local government.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact in the approval of these suppliers. How much is spent with each supplier will depend on their level of engagement.

 

Conclusion

 

Every effort has been made to come up with a solution that is not too onerous for Council staff and for our suppliers to abide by the relevant Tendering Regulations and Purchasing Policy and Procedures in these niche areas. It is considered that for now, until a better option is discovered, that Council approval with strict internal controls, is the most workable solution.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council approve the engagement of Event Performers and Sustainability Educators for a two year period under the arrangements outlined in this report;

 

b)     these suppliers are only to be utilised strictly for Event Performances and Sustainability Education;

 

c)     on occasions where the expected cost of the service will exceed $5,000.00, a standard three quotes will be need to be obtained or General Manager approval sought, before a supplier is engaged; and

 

d)     relevant Managers are responsible for ensuring the standard requirements for the engagement of such suppliers, including relevant and current insurance coverage, are always undertaken.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF26/17

 

Subject:              Kensington Park Community Centre Bookings Fees & Charges

Folder No:                F2017/00098

Author:                     Sharon Plunkett, Property Coordinator      

 

Introduction

 

A Council Report proposing draft fees and charges for the Kensington Park Community Centre was tabled at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 23 May 2017, where it was resolved;

 

“(Stavrinos/Moore) that:

 

a)        the Draft Kensington Park Community Centre Casual Hire fees be placed on public exhibition for not less than 28 days, inviting submissions from the public;

b)        at the conclusion of the period of public exhibition consideration be given to any submissions made concerning the fees; and

c)        the General Manager be authorised to make any minor changes if required.”

 

The public exhibition period has now closed and the purpose of this report is to seek adoption of the proposed fees.

 

Issues

 

The consultation was open for a period of thirty (30) days from 24 May to 22 June 2017. 85 surveys were submitted on line and 60 surveys were hand delivered to Council. There was 698 visits to the Your Say page. The consultation was promoted via the following means:

 

·     Email to all Your Say Randwick subscribers (2562 recipients);

·     Email to all who participated in the Kensington Park Plan of Management consultation;

·     Copies of the survey were available at all libraries and Customer Service;

·     Facebook post and twitter on 4 June;

·     eNews article;

·     Listed in Randwick News in the Southern Courier on 7 June; and

·     Mail box drop to 5000 residences around Kensington Park.

 

Proposed Fees & Charges

Four questions were asked relating to the proposed Fees & Charges;

 

·     How do you feel about the proposed Commercial rates for hiring Hall 1 and Hall 2? Weekday rates $70 & $60;

·     How do you feel about the proposed Commercial rates for hiring Hall 1 and Hall 2? Weekend and public holiday rates: $80 & $70;

·     How do you feel about the proposed Charities/Not for Profit rates for hiring Hall 1 and Hall 2? Weekday rates: $49 & $42; and

·     How do you feel about the proposed Charities/Not for Profit rates for hiring Hall 1 and Hall 2? Weekend and public holiday rates: $56 & $49.


 

The results of the survey are listed as follows:

 

Question 1:  How do you feel about the proposed Commercial rates for hiring Hall 1 and Hall 2? (Note: rates are per hour)
 

A total of 46% of respondents perceive the commercial weekday rates as being ‘too high’ or ‘a little high’.  32% of respondents perceive the rates as being ‘fair’, and only 7% in total feel the rates are ‘a little low’ or ‘too low’. 14% did not have a view on this.

 

 

Question 2: How do you feel about the proposed Charities/Not for Profit rates for hiring Hall 1 and Hall 2? (Note: rates are per hour)

A total of 65% of respondents perceive the charity weekday rates as being ‘too high’ and ‘a little high’.  28% feel the rates are ‘fair’. Only 2% in total feel the rates are ‘a little low’ or ‘too low’. 4% did not have a view on this.

A total of 63% of respondents perceive the charity weekend rates as being ‘too high’ and ‘a little high’.  32% feel the rates are ‘fair’.  Only 2% in total feel the rates are ‘a little low’ or ‘too low’. 4% did not have a view on this.

 

Addressing the community concerns that the charity/not for profit rate is too high, it is proposed that the hire subsidy for non-commercial entities be increased to the equivalent of 35% of the market value for venue hire, thereby increasing the subsidy by 5%. In other words, the discount rate for these groups will be increased to 35%.

 

Charities/Not for Profit

Community Facility

Lettable area (m2)

Estimated capacity

Mon-Fri 8am-9pm (Ex. GST)

Sat-Sun & Public Holiday 8am-9pm (Ex. GST)

Kensington Community Centre – Hall 1

134

130

$45.50

$52

Kensington Community Centre – Hall 2

100

100

$39

$45.50

 

Activities & Centre Comments

Questions were asked seeking feedback on ideas for the types of community activities at the Centre and any general comments about the Centre. The suggested activities included; Playgroups, fitness classes, Citizenship Ceremonies, music events, Zumba classes, Senior Citizens Club, craft and bingo, Nursery activities, mobile libraries, Birthday parties, sporting events, games clubs, Precinct meetings, men’s group, karate, judo, and general information sessions.

 

The general feedback about the Centre is very positive with the majority of submissions grateful for the new facility and thanking Council for the Centre.

 

Motions & Considerations

In consideration of the community consultation process, a number of actions are proposed. The Mayoral Minute tabled at the Ordinary Council meeting on 27 June 2017 proposed to have Council staff open the Kensington Park Community Centre to the public for Council activities and seminars during set hours per week. It was resolved;

 

“(Mayor, Cr N D'Souza) 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.”

 

Accordingly, the Council activities at the Centre will be staffed and promoted by Council’s Community Services Department.

 

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

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter. Revenue generated by the hire of the Centre will be dependent on the level of usage by our local community.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The Kensington Park Community Centre draft fees and charges consultation period has closed. The Charity/Not for Profit rate is proposed to be reduced in line with the majority view of community respondents. Council staff will 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.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Kensington Park Community Centre Commercial Private Hire Fees be adopted and the Charity/Not for Profit Hire Fee be reduced to reflect a 35% subsidy of the commercial private rate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF27/17

 

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

 

Investment Commentary

 

As at 30 June 2017, Council held investments with a market value of $69.9 million. The portfolio value decreased during June by ~$1.017 million. The decrease is representative of a negative cash flow for the month reflecting the net effect of revenue receipts (rates, grants & miscellaneous) offset by capital works expenditure and other operational payments.

 

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

 

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

 

Council’s Portfolio                          

 

The portfolio has high levels of liquidity with 4% of investments available at call and a further 27% 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 June 2017. The portfolio includes term deposits (52% of the portfolio) with the higher rated ADI’s. Credit assets (FRNs) are also 44% 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

 

In May 2017, S&P Global Ratings 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, giving consideration to any financial penalties that might apply and the maturity profile of the affected investments.

 

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 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 (based on S&P ratings).

Suncorp is slightly above capacity limits. Bank of Queensland, Bendigo-Adelaide Bank and the Rural Bank are now rated BBB+.

 

 

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 June 2014 to June 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 1.78%.

 

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 52% of the total investment portfolio.

Three deposits totaling $4 million matured and were withdrawn in June. There were four new term deposit taken up during June for $10 million.

As at the end of June, the weighted average deposit yield stood at 2.61%, down 12bp from the previous month or around +87bp over bank bills. This is an historically low level, reflecting the reinvestment conditions and the lack of competition amongst the highly rated banks.

    

Floating Rate Notes (FRNs)

 

The portfolio includes $30.5 million in floating rate notes.

 

There was no trading of floating rate notes during June.

 

Floating Rate Notes are classified as “held for trading” requiring that they are reported at the latest indicative market valuations at month end. The indicative market value of the FRN’s as at the 30 June 2017 increased by ~$13k.

 

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 budget provision for investment income from this source is $1,648,000.00. Investment income to 30 June 2017 amounted to $1,961,754.35.

 

Conclusion

 

All investments as at 30 June 2017 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer - June 2017

 

 

 

 


Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer - June 2017

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Randwick City Council

 

Investments

for  the period ending 30 June 2017

 

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer

made pursuant to Clause 212(1)(b)   of the  Local Government  (General)  Regulations  2005

 

 

 

 

I hereby verify that all investments as at 30 June 2017 have been made in accordance with Councils Investment Policy (adopted Dec 2016).

 

I hereby verify that all investments as at 30 June 2017 meet the requirements of section 625 of the

Local Government Act 1993 including the Ministerial Investment Order (2011).

 

I hereby verify that all investments as at 30 June 2017, and this investment report, meet the requirements of clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mitchel Woods

RESPONSIBLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER

 

 

 

Date


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF28/17

 

Subject:              Withdrawal of Caveat and Affixing of the Council Seal - 4/6 Ford Road, Maroubra

Folder No:                F2004/06862

Author:                     Sally Fernandez, Property Officer      

 

Introduction

 

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

 

Issues

 

It is necessary for the Council’s seal to be affixed to the ‘Withdrawal of Caveat’ form to remove caveat number ‘K598948’ from the title of property at 4/6 Ford Road, Maroubra (Lots 4 and 21 in Strata Plan 2441).

 

This caveat was put in place in 1966 and expired in 1969.  Council placed caveats on properties forming part of the Stocks and Holdings affordable housing development of South Maroubra to prevent property developers purchasing the properties and reselling at inflated prices.  The caveats placed restrictions on the re-sale of the properties for a period of three (3) years from the date of acquisition by the registered proprietor.

 

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the Council’s Seal be affixed to the Withdrawal of Caveat form for the property at 4/6 Ford Road, Maroubra also known as Lots 4 & 21 in Strata Plan 2441.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM46/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Council response to Compulsory Acquisition of homes in Randwick for hospital and UNSW expansion.

Folder No:                F2008/00375

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

 

That Randwick City Council:

 

a)     recognises the benefit to local residents and our local economy in supporting an expansion of the local hospitals and UNSW. But not via the recently announced program of forcibly acquiring private properties as this will cause community dislocation, stress and financial hardship to effected residents; and

 

b)     advocates that any expansion for the hospitals and UNSW be based on UNSW’s previous long-term expansion program of acquiring adjacent private properties only when they become available on the open market.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM47/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - Elaboration of Council response to announced State Government Anzac Parade Corridor Priority Precinct

Folder No:                F2017/00276

Submitted by:          Councillor  Shurey, North Ward     

 

 

Than Randwick Council reiterates its resolved position of opposition to the announced Anzac Parade Corridor Priority Precinct and advises the State Government of the following specific issues with the proposal;

 

a)     Council rejects any forced changing or overwriting of its planning controls by the State Government including the current height limits;

 

b)     There is a disturbing lack of detail available on the proposal and that as a prerequisite the Government should consult with Council and proceed no further without the agreement of Council;

 

c)     There needs to be a comprehensive review into whether infrastructure servicing the proposed area of the Priority Precinct is capable of supporting such a significant increase in population density; 

 

d)     There should be an agreement with Council that increased public transport will be needed but that this should be strictly linked to servicing current population needs and any increases from the Priority Precinct. Accordingly Council suggests a feasibility study assessing a new south east metro rail service in conjunction with an extension of the CSELR light rail line further south with both rail options to be integrated with off-road bike paths and restructured local bus services;

 

e)     If proceeded with the Priority Precinct should retain existing green and ecologically valuable areas while achieving a net increase in public open space, sporting facilities and passive recreation opportunities; and

 

f)      Council calls for the State Government to provide for the rehousing within the Randwick Council area of any public housing residents relocated  from their current homes as a result of the Priority Precinct proceeding.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM48/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Expansion of POW Hospital & response to any associated compulsory aquisitions

Folder No:                F2008/00375

Submitted by:          Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

a)     write to the NSW State Treasurer, the Hon. Dominic Perrottet, requesting that if     any         compulsory acquisitions are going to occur, due to the expansion of P.O.W    hospital, that all affected property owners have independent valuations     conducted on their properties, so that a fair and equitable value can be given to     owners, based on current market valuations.

 

b)     as part of this request, call upon the State Government to make representations    on behalf       of all affected property owners, to try and source like for like         housing within the City of Randwick for these owners.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM49/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Moore - Buildings for Our Community Program Extension

Folder No:                F2010/00292

Submitted by:          Councillor Moore, West Ward      

 

 

That Randwick City Council identify and re-establish project priorities to underpin the allocation for the funding derived from the Buildings for Our Community Program for an additional seven years by presenting a list of targeted projects to Council for consideration and adoption at the December 2017 Meeting of Council.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM50/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Roberts - Taste of Coogee Spring Festival

Folder No:                F2017/00289

Submitted by:          Councillor Roberts, East Ward     

 

 

That Council:

 

a)     Note the TOC event is a not-for-profit event staged by the Coogee Chamber of Commerce to promote local small businesses, provide a service to the local community, and to support local charity organisations;

 

b)     Note the charity that will be supported in 2017 is Sophie Cotton-Smith’s Running for Premature Babies;

 

c)     Note that over $60,000 has been raised for local charities since TOC started in 2013;

 

d)     Note full event financials have been provided to Council for the TOC 2016 event in advance of the 2017 event;

 

e)     Note outstanding fees remain for the 2016 event, and there’s dispute between Council and the organisers as to what the outstanding fees should be;

 

f)      Note the 2017 event has not been approved by Council due to the late submission of the TOC financials, and dispute over the amount of fees owed;

 

g)     Resolves to provide clarity on the fees that are expected to be paid and when they need to be paid for the 2016 and 2017 events;

 

h)     Request immediate payment from TOC for the service and labour fees incurred by Council for the 2016 event: $9,062;

 

i)      Waive the usage and stall registration fees associated with the 2016 event: $17,210.50;

 

j)      Approve the 2017 TOC event slated for 2 and 3 September on condition that the 2016 service and labour fees of $9,062 is immediately paid; 

 

k)     Charge only service and labour fees for the 2017 event;

 

l)      Waive usage and stall registration fees for the 2017 event; 

 

m)    Undertake to withhold any approvals for potential TOC events in 2018 and beyond until any and all outstanding fees from the previous event be paid; and

 

n)     Request the organiser invite the Mayor to address the community, and undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution and support to the event.

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM51/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson - In response to the State Government’s recent announcement to compulsorily acquire properties at Eurimbla Avenue and Magill and Botany Streets, Randwick

Folder No:                F2004/06326

Submitted by:          Councillor Neilson, North Ward     

 

 

That Council seek an urgent meeting with the NSW Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, and the Minister of Health, Brad Hazzard, to convey the community’s concern at the wholly inadequate consultation by the State Government whereby it has decided to compulsorily acquire approximately 60 privately owned households in the Eurimbla Avenue, Botany and Magill Streets, Randwick;  

a)     Residents were given no warning that their property would be compulsorily acquired, in particular as some residents only discovered their property was to be acquired through media reports;

 

b)     Call on the State Government to negotiate with affected residents to acquire properties in the area only as and when the properties become available, as previously;

 

c)     What support will these residents be given so they can purchase a home with the same or similar amenity especially as at least 60 other households will likely be competing for the same real estate;

 

d)     The mental anguish and stress caused by this process - the health impact - should not be underestimated;

 

e)     Call on the State Government to explain why other sites that were available (such as the Newmarket site) were not included in the Hospital Masterplan but instead re-zoned for residential development.

 

f)      A delegation of Councillors should urgently meet with the Premier and Minister for Health as soon as possible to seek a more appropriate and humane solution for the residents of Eurimbla Avenue, Botany and Magill Streets, Randwick.   

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                                    25 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM52/17

 

Subject:              Notice of Motion from Cr Neilson - Greater defense of trees and vegetation in the Randwick Local Government Area

Folder No:                F2013/00263

Submitted by:          Councillor Neilson, North Ward      

 

 

That, as a response to the increasing loss of trees and vegetation in the Randwick Local Government Area, particularly by the Light Rail and other developments:

 

a)     funding should urgently be allocated to set up a tree database for trees within the Randwick Local Government Area;

 

b)     a report be prepared in response to the draft NSW Government’s State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation) (SEPP) specifically identifying impacts to vegetation in the Randwick LGA, notwithstanding the exhibition date has closed;

 

c)     Council reaffirms the significance of trees and native vegetation in the Randwick LGA.