RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 24 October 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                                                                                                 24 October 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, 24 October 2017 at 6:00pm

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

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

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

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

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2017

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Council by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

In respect to Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act, members of the public are advised that the proceedings of this meeting will be recorded for the purposes of clause 69 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

Audio/video recording of meetings prohibited without permission;

A person may be expelled from a meeting for using, or having used, an audio/video recorder without the express authority of the Council.

Mayoral Minutes

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

Urgent Business

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting required)

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

CP62/17    36 Arden Street, Clovelly (DA/352/2017)................................................. 1

CP63/17    315 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/884/2014/A)....................................... 9

CP64/17    2 Byron Street, Coogee (DA/24/2008/B)................................................ 23

CP65/17    4/28 Arcadia Street, Coogee (DA/469/2017)........................................... 35

CP66/17    122 Bundock Street, South Coogee (DA/70/2017).................................... 47

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP67/17    Independant Hearing and Assessment Panel............................................ 55

CP68/17    Cultural and Community Grants Program - Recommended Allocations - September 2017............................................................................................... 67

General Manager's Reports

Nil

Director City Services Reports

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF38/17    Local Government NSW Conference 2017 and Cancellation of December Committee Meetings.......................................................................................... 83

GF39/17    Monthly Financial Report as at 31 August 2017........................................ 85

GF40/17    Investment Report - September 2017.................................................... 95  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM62/17   Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Eligibility for Local Government Elections 105

NM63/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Veitch - Additional support for residents affected by domestic and family violence.............................................................. 107

NM64/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Consultation on best use for community purposes of vacant Council land at Neptune Street Coogee...................... 109

NM65/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - NSW State Government aspirational objective for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050............................................. 111

NM66/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Pending roll out of low-impact recycling equipment in NSW............................................................................ 113  

Closed Session (record of voting required)

GF41/17    Tender for Council Street Banners T2018-09

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

CS9/17      Tender for Heffron Park Tennis Centre Package A - External Works - T2018-11

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.

CS10/17    Tender for Heffron Park Netball Facility Upgrade Project - T2018-10

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.

Closed Session (record of voting NOT required)

CS11/17    Quotation for the Supply and Delivery of 2 Footpath Sweepers - No. Q2018-04

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.

CP69/17    90-92 Marine Parade, Maroubra (DA/816/2016)

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (g) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

Notice of Rescission Motions

NR8/17     Notice of Rescission Motion from Councillors Andrews, Stavrinos and Hamilton - Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey................................................. 115  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 24 October 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP62/17

 

Subject:             36 Arden Street, Clovelly (DA/352/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/352/2017

Author:                   City Plan Services, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Use part of the dwelling and existing swimming pool as home business swimming school with hours of operation being 9am to 4pm Monday to Friday, construction of new front gate and stairs to pool area

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Ms T Nagy

Owner:                        Ms T Nagy & Ms T H Calderwood

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=eed97492-3e32-4854-8df7-f4207c33a939&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been assessed by external planning consultant and referred to Council for determination as the Applicant’s consultant is acquainted with a Randwick City Council employee.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is for the use of part of the existing dwelling as a home business swim school. The part of the dwelling will be used as a change room and waiting area for parents. Additional works include the:

 

·      Construction of a storage room (5m2) within the waiting area; and

·      Removal of part of the landscaped area at the rear of the property to create a paved area.

 

A site plan showing the proposed changes in shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Site Plan (Source: Design Network Australia)

 

Site

 

The site is known as No. 36 Arden Street, Clovelly and is legally described as Lot 5 in Deposited Plan 2214. The site is rectangular in shape with a 12.19m frontage to Arden Street, depth of 36.575m and a total site area of 446 sqm. The site is currently occupied by a two storey dwelling and garage at the rear of the site.

 

The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by low density residential development in the form of single detached dwellings ranging from one to two storeys.

 

Development adjoining the site includes:

 

·      To the north, at 34A Arden Street, is a 1-2 storey semi-detached dwelling.

 

·      To the South, on the corner of Arden Street and Brandon Street is a two storey mixed use development. The ground floor is used as a commercial office space with a residential dwelling located above on the first floor.

 

·      To the west (rear) of the site is a single storey detached dwelling fronting Brandon Street.

 

Photos of the surrounding development are shown in the Figures 2 and 3 below.

Figure 2: Residential dwelling to the north of the site, fronting Arden Street (Source: CPSD)

 

Figure 3: Two storey commercial and residential development adjoining the site to the south (Source: CPSD)

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick LEP 2012

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal development is classified as a home business and is permissible in the zone. The objectives of the R2 zone are listed below.

 

·      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.

 

The proposal satisfies objectives in terms of providing a small scale service for the day to day needs of residents that will not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

The definition of ‘home business’ is provided in Column 1 of the table below. Column 2 clarifies whether or not the proposed use will be consistent with this definition.

 

Column 1

Column 2

Definition of ‘home business’

Comment

means a business that is carried on in a dwelling, or in a building ancillary to a dwelling, by one or more permanent residents of the dwelling and that does not involve:

The proposed home business will use the pool and part of the dwelling for operation.

 

A ‘building’ as per the definition of Section 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) is:

‘includes part of a building, and also includes any structure or part of a structure (including any temporary structure or part of a temporary structure), but does not include a manufactured home, moveable dwelling or associated structure or part of a manufactured home, moveable dwelling or associated structure’.

Based on the above definition, the swimming pool and associated structures constitute a ‘building’.

 

The swim school will be operated by the permanent residents of the dwelling.

(a)  the employment of more than 2 persons other than those residents, or

Not more than 2 persons will be employed other than the residents.

(b)  interference with the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of the emission of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil, traffic generation or otherwise, or

There will be no interference to the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of emission of vibration, smell, fumes, smoke vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil.

 

Interference to the amenity by reasons of noise and traffic generation will be appropriately controlled and minimised given the following recommended restrictions to the home business by way of condition of consent:

 

1.  Hours of operation are limited to 9:00am to 3:30pm Monday to Friday.

2.  Classes will not extend for more than 30 minutes

3.  The maximum number of attendees per class will be six students.

 

The Acoustic Assessment Report submitted by the applicant indicates that the acoustic impact of the use will not adversely impact the adjacent residential and commercial buildings. However, to ensure compliance is achieved, the following recommendations have been made:

·      Teachers are to supervise the children at all times to prevent excessive noise;

·      Loud voices and shouts should not be encouraged during swimming classes; and

·      Swim classes are to be run only during the agreed hours of operation of 9:00am to 3:30pm Monday to Friday.

(c)  the exposure to view, from any adjacent premises or from any public place, of any unsightly matter, or

The proposal will not provide unsightly matters or views from adjacent premises or public places.

(d)  the exhibition of any signage (other than a business identification sign), or

No signage will be included on the site.

(e)  the sale of items (whether goods or materials), or the exposure or offer for sale of items, by retail, except for goods produced at the dwelling or building,

No items will be sold, exposed or offered for sale on the site.

but does not include bed and breakfast accommodation, home occupation (sex services) or sex services premises.

The use does not relate to any of these activities.

 

5.4 Controls relating to miscellaneous permissible uses

 

(2) Home Business

If development for the purposes of a home business is permitted under this Plan, the carrying on of the business must not involve the use of more than 30 square metres of floor area.

 

The home business involves the use of 30m2 of the floor area. Including the waiting area (23m2), bathroom (5m2) and WC (2m2). This is consistent with the requirements of Clause 5.4 (2) of the LEP.

 

Development Engineer

Council’s Development Engineer Officer has advised the following:

 


 

General Comments

The application is only supportable provided 2 off-street parking spaces are maintained within the site for the existing dwelling. The application is not clear in this regard and appears to be removing one of the spaces to provide a dedicated paved area on the driveway to address potential “health issues for children affected by grass and other allergies”. Council’s Environmental Health Section have confirmed this is not a requirement of Council and Development Engineering recommends that it be deleted from the application so as to maintain the existing carparking provision for the dwelling.

 

Parking Comments

Parking on the site currently comprises of an existing single garage while a second carspace at compliant widths is available immediately in front of the garage. This is in compliance with the existing requirements pf Part B7 of Council’s DCP.

 

The proposed home business will comprise a maximum of 5 students (with parents/carers) plus a maximum of 3 staff including the property owner/s at any one time.

 

There is no specific parking rate for home swimming schools in Council’s DCP. Only the following general parking rates from Table 1 Part B7 of Council’s DCP are specified;

 

·      Home business/industry = 1 space in addition to parking for the dwelling.

 

·      Business premises in residential zone = 1 space per 100m2 GFA

 

Both of these rates would result in a parking demand of 1 additional space in addition to parking for the dwelling. Although the driveway could possibly accommodate more tandem parking, this would not be supported by Development Engineering as there would then be conflict between business and home parking operations. The single additional space would therefore be transferred on-street within the surrounding street network.

 

It should be noted that the DCP rate is a general rate and in this instance may not be representative of the expected parking demand, hence a practical approach has also been considered based on expected parking demands.

 

When considering a worse case, the peak parking demand when classes are full is likely to be in the order of 5 spaces for parents plus an additional 1 space for staff. As no additional parking is proposed or available on the site, the proposal will be relying on the availability of on-street parking to accommodate this demand. The parking survey detailed in the submitted Traffic Assessment indicates that there were 20 unoccupied spaces within 100m of the site at the time of survey being 10:30 to 11:30am on the 9th Feb 2017. This is consistent with the Development Engineer’s own site inspection conducted on Friday 28th July 2017 which indicated a similar amount of available spaces (see photos).

 

Picture 1 - Arden Street Parking                   Picture 2 – Brandon Street Parking

The parking survey demonstrates that there is some spare capacity all (be it limited) within the surrounding street network to accommodate the additional parking demand. During the proposed hours of business 9am to 3:30pm Monday – Friday surrounding residents would be typically at work and on-street parking is more readily available. When residents return home in the evening thereby increasing demand for on-street parking, the proposed pool business will be closed.

 

It should also be noted that the above determined parking demand represents a worst case scenario where staff and parents/carers all drive to the centre.  When taking into account proximity to public transport and that some staff and parents may walk, the actual parking demand would more likely be in the order of 3-4 spaces. This is based on the following;

 

·      The centre is located 60m from a bus stop serving routes 360 (Clovelly-Bondi Junction) & 362 (Bondi Beach to Coogee North).  Route 440 (Bronte-Rozelle via Bondi Junction and City) is also available approximately 350m north of the site in McPherson street.

 

·      The centre would be expected to mainly serve local residents who may walk to the centre.

 

In consideration of the above factors and subject to the conditions provided in this report, the proposed development is not expected to create any unacceptable impacts on the availability of on-street parking in the vicinity of the site that would warrant refusal of the application.

 

Pedestrian Access Comments

The application appears to be relying on the driveway and crossing to provide main pedestrian access to the home swimming school business. This is forward of the carspaces and in consideration of the low amount of pedestrian & vehicular traffic, a shared zone at this location is acceptable.

 

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 is for the use of the site as a home swim school between the hours of 9:00am and 3:30pm Monday to Friday. The proposal includes the construction of a new front gate, stairs to the pool area and internal storage room. In order to reduce any adverse impacts to neighbouring properties the use of the site as a home swim school will be appropriately managed in accordance with an approved Plan of Management and a number of conditions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 352/2017 for use of part of the dwelling and existing swimming pool as home business swimming school with hours of operation being 9am to 3:30pm Monday to Friday, construction of new front gate and stairs to pool area and construction of internal storage room at No. 36 Arden 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

2.       A minimum of 2 off-Street parking spaces for the existing dwelling must be continually provided. The proposed paved area shown on the approved documentation as “to address issues for children affected by grass (and other) allergies” shall be deleted and retained as parking.

 

3.       The provision of the proposed pedestrian gate and pathway must not prohibit vehicular movements during operation of the business.

 

Home Business Use

36.     The approved ‘home business’ for swimming lessons within the existing swimming pool must comply with the following:

 

·      Hours of Operation: 9:00am till 3:30pm Mondays to Friday.

·      Each classes shall not extend for more than a duration of 30 minutes. 

·      Each subsequent class shall be allocated at least 30 minutes after the end of the previous class. 

·      The maximum number of attendees during classes (other than the employee and existing residents) must be limited to four (6).  This includes the number of students and any family members.

·      The maximum number of employees during classes is limited to three persons.

·      No elevated diving podiums/platforms are to be installed and used.

An amended Plan of Management incorporating the above changes must be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 36 Arden Street, CLOVELLY 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 24 October 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP63/17

 

Subject:             315 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/884/2014/A)

Folder No:                   DA/884/2014/A

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by altering the colours and materials of the external surfaces of the building, extension to common staircase to roof terrace, new concrete planter to roof terrace and deletion of roof access stairs of Units 7 to 9. Original consent: Demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of three storey residential flat building containing 9 dwellings and basement parking for 12 vehicles, associated site and landscape works (variation to building height control).

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Elite Realty Development

Owner:                        Maroubra Road Development Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=a176b07b-40fe-4851-af8e-e542d55e531d&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been assessed by an external planning consultant and is referred to Council for determination as an adjoining property owner is a Council employee.

 

Background

Approval was granted on 25 November 2015 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a three storey residential flat building containing 9 dwellings, basement car parking for 12 vehicles and associated site and landscaping works.

 

Proposal

A Section 96 ‘1A’ application was submitted to Council on 16 June 2017 which proposes a number of small scale changes to the building. The proposed modifications are minor and predominantly aesthetic in their nature.

 

In summary the following works are proposed;

 

·      Change the proposed colours, finishes and materials of the building in the following manner;

-    The originally approved face brickwork (Austral Bowral Blue) is to be replaced with cement rendered and painted walls (Dulux Shale Grey).

-    Aluminimum window and door frames are to be powder coated white.

-    Aluminimum louvres are also proposed to be powder coated white.

·      The internal roof top access (retractable roof stair) from apartments No.7, 8 and 9 is deleted.

·      The central communal staircase (adjacent to the lift) is to be extended to provide access to the roof terrace.

·      Planter boxes are to be installed along the periphery of the roof space.

·      The roof area will still retain a central communal area and the three other individual spaces (Units 7, 8 and 9).

·      Other minor changes are included which specifically address conditions of consent.

 

The photo montage below (Figure 1) indicates the proposed finishes to the building and provides a visual perspective in 3D form of the building.

 

Figure 1: Photo montage highlighting the proposed colours, materials and finishes for the building.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Maroubra Road between Flower Street to the east and Clio Lane to the west (see Map 1 below). The site is legally known as Lot 1334 in DP 752015. The site has a frontage of 15.25m to Maroubra Road, approximate depth of 49.5m and a total site area of 744.70sqm.

 

Immediately adjoining development to both the east and west of the site comprises of residential flat buildings. No.317 Maroubra Road is an older style, four storey red brick building and No.313 Maroubra Road is a three storey RFB with a roof top terrace area.

 

At the rear of the premises are smaller scale residential dwelling houses that face Haig Street. To the north across the road are a series of residential flat buildings.

 

The site is well located on a popular and busy roadway that provides easy and direct access to both Maroubra Beach to the east and to the Maroubra Junction Commercial Centre further to the west. Both these locations can be accessed by foot or by public transport.

Map 1: Location of the subject site (courtesy Google maps)

 

Submissions

 

The application was lodged under Section 96 ‘1A’ of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act which relates to “modifications involving minimal environmental impact”.

 

The consent authority must ensure that;

 

(a) It is satisfied that the proposed modification is of a minimal environmental impact, and

(b) It is satisfied that the development to which the consent is modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all).

 

The proposed amendments are minor and small scale in their scope and nature and are substantially the same as those originally approved. The proposal therefore satisfies the provisions of Section 96 ‘1A’ of the Act.

 

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:

 

·      72 Haig Street, Maroubra

·      70 Haig Street, Maroubra

 

 

Issues

 

Comments

 

Increased noise

 

 

The area of the roof terraces will not substantially change from that approved. Therefore it is unlikely there will be any additional noise generated from the area.

 

Considering that direct access from each individual apartment (7, 8 and 9) has been removed the utilisation of this space would likely to be less as access must be gained from the central staircase which is not as convenient as the arrangement that was approved.

 

The changes do not increase the size of the decks to create larger or more useable areas which could intensify their use, the changes relate to modifying the access arrangement to these spaces and creating one central point of access to the space rather than 3 separate, direct points of access and the central point.

 

It is not considered that the changes will generate any additional noise or acoustic impacts.

 

Communal access and use of the roof terrace will increase its frequency of use and allow for more people to use this space. It is requested to remove the communal area.

 

 

The submissions raise concern regarding some of the roof terrace being dedicated as common area. This is not a new element to the design. The layout of the roof terraces is the same as approved. The original application included an area dedicated for “common use” which was centrally located and then two private terraces at the front for apartments 7 and 8 and a private terrace at the rear for apartment 9.

 

The only changes to this area are the removal of the internal staircases from apartment 7, 8 and 9 that provide access to the individual roof terraces and now access will be gained by the central staircase that always provided access to the central common area. This staircase has to be raised slightly to accommodate the change in levels as the roof terrace to apartment 9 is at a higher level and so some additional stairs are required to reach this level.

 

 

Key Issues

 

1.   Zoning

The subject site is zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential pursuant to the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP).

 

The objectives of the zone are;

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

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

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

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

§ To protect the amenity of residents.

§ To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposed changes are considered to be small scale and will satisfy the objectives of the zone. There is no alteration in respect to the approved residential use of the Site and no change to the overall density as approved. The building envelope and proposed footprint remain unchanged. The use of the roof space and its access arrangement is altered slightly but the designated area of the roof top to be used for terraces remains generally consistent with the consent.

 

The main change proposed relates to the access arrangement to the roof. The internal access stair from Units 7, 8 and 9 up to each allocated roof deck have been removed.  The originally approved development scheme permitted the upper level apartments to have direct access up to their individual roof decks. The changes remove the internal access to these spaces and now access is via the communal staircase.

 

The changes to the roof terrace are minor and will not adversely affect the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of overlooking, overshadowing or contribute to creating any view loss.

 

The proposed modifications therefore satisfy the objectives of the zone.

 

Height

The originally approved building (DA/884/2014) included an overall building height above the maximum allowable 12m height under the RLEP, due to the height of both the lift overrun and the access stairs which led to the rooftop private open space areas from units 7, 8 and 9. The proposed changes reduce the overall building height as a consequence of the internal access stairs for units 7, 8 and 9 being removed.

 

In general, the proposed modifications result in a reduction in the approved maximum building height. The deletion of the approved access stairs to the rooftop have been replaced with a centrally located staircase that provides for an improved visual impact of the building when viewed from surrounding properties.

 

There is a small increase in the height of a section of the building where the common staircase is being raised to cater for another flight of stairs to provide access to the rooftop area. The increase in the height of these stairs and the balustrade does not exceed the overall approved height of the building and is in line with the height of the balustrades within the roof top. The additional flight of stairs obtaining access to the rooftop is centralized and setback substantially from side boundaries. Figure 2 below shows the new work in red and circles the access stairs that intend on being deleted.

 

Figure 2: Western elevation highlighting new works (courtesy Nexus Architecture)

 

In addition, the proposed new rooftop concrete planter boxes are no higher than the approved rooftop balustrade and will therefore not be visible from the street. The proposed modifications are considered acceptable as they will not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, overlooking, overshadowing or loss of views.

 

Floor space

No change is proposed to the approved floor space.

 

Heritage Conservation

Heritage Item I225, the Maroubra Fire Station, is located approximately 70m to the east of the subject site and is identified as being of local significance. In this instance, a Heritage Impact Statement is not required as it is not anticipated that the proposed modifications will impact on the integrity of this item as the subject development is not considered to be located within the immediate visual catchment of this item.

 

Building Design

The proposed modifications involve some external building materials being changed. Some sections (bays) of the approved external walls consisting of cavity brickwork are proposed to be replaced with concrete blade walls of shale grey, hebel panel infills.

 

The proposed external finishes include a masonry upturn, metal handrail balustrades and metal framed, obscure glazed balustrades; prefabricated planting pots and floating pavers at the rooftop terraces, and off-form concrete to the lift shaft.

 

Furthermore, the proposed modifications will not result in adverse visual or acoustic privacy issues at the site or for neighbouring properties. With building separation distances being adequate (no change proposed), as per the ADG, the proposed modifications will provide a high-performance building in the form of an architecturally designed, contemporary residential flat building that meets the design requirements of SEPP 65. The changes are considered to be minor and will not alter the building’s compliance with the 10 guiding design principles and will not change the approved building envelope, internal layout of apartments and the like.

 

Materials, colours and finishes

The originally approved development incorporated a mix of materials and finishes. Most of the building was to be constructed of face brickwork (noted as FB on the approved plans) with sections of the building comprising of an off-concrete finish (OFC) and cement rendering (CR1). These original finishes and materials are considered to be more sympathetic to the immediately surrounding developments in the street. Also the variation in the use of materials will provide greater articulation to the built form by breaking up and defining the building into clear sections and bays as can be seen by Figure 3 below which shows the variety of materials along the eastern elevation.

 

Figure 3: Eastern elevation showing the approved finishes

 

The use of the materials and finishes shows a clear distinction between the levels of of the building clearly defining the base, middle level and upper level of the building. The option of integrating face brickwork also is a much better solution for the longevity of the building as it offers lower maintenance in the longer term and is more consistent with the predominant nature and character of development in the street and immediate area. It would be more in harmony and in keeping with its surrounds.

 

The proposed alteration to the materials and finishes can be seen by the 3D montage (Figure 1 above). It is proposed to fully render the building which would have an adverse visual effect to the building and would increase the visual bulk and scale of the built form and also reduce the articulation and interest that was originally expressed through the use of a variety of materials and finishes. The objectives of the RDCP (Section 4.9, Part C2) in respect to colours, materials and finishes for new medium density development seeks;

 

·      To ensure colour and material schemes contribute to the articulation of the building and enhance the streetscape character.

·      To ensure surface materials and finishes are durable and fit for their purpose.

·      To ensure the retention or recycling of existing sandstone block works. 

 

The proposed materials and colours do not reflect the objectives and controls within the RDCP and it is recommended that the originally approved finishes and materials are maintained and Condition No.15 on the consent will be amended to reflect this.

 

Roof Design and landscaping

The approved development included an integrated planter box around the perimeter of the roof terrace including lounge areas with seating and an inbuilt timber bench setback and situated some 900mm from the outer edge of the roof (adjacent to the planter boxes). The roof top included three separate, private spaces and one larger central communal area which included a pergola feature. In order to provide some greater separation between the site and adjoining development and to ensure privacy is preserved the following conditions were imposed;

 

11. The depth of the planter boxes on the private roof top terrace of Unit 9 shall be amended as follows:

 

·      The planter box along the western side of the terrace shall be increased to 2579mm (measured from the inner face of the parapet wall).

 

·      The planter box along the southern side of the terrace shall be increased to 1000mm (measured from the inner face of the parapet wall).

 

12. The depth of the planter box along the western side of the private roof top terrace of unit 7 shall be increased to 2000mm (measured from the inner face of the parapet wall)

 

The amended design removes the private access from Units 7,8 and 9 up to the terraces however the designated roof top areas remain generally the same. The originally approved integrated planter boxes and in built seating along the periphery of this space has been removed and replaced with a series of planter boxes which satisfy the intent of Conditions No.11 and 12 whilst also retaining a landscaped area. The proposed planters will increase the planter width on the southern side of the unit 9 terrace to 2335mm. As such, these conditions can be deleted.

 

Details of the types of plants and vegetation to be incorporated within the planters has not been identified. Ideally larger native trees should be included along the outer edge (i.e a mix of Lilly Pilly’s or Frangipanis) with smaller scaled hedges or succulents in the inner most planters. A condition will be included for the applicant to provide a detailed Landscape Plan highlighting the proposed planting species. Also a condition is already included in the consent requiring a self watering, irrigation system be installed to ensure the landscaped features are maintained and serviced on a regular basis.

 

Furthermore, the communal area was approved with a 900mm setback provided in the form of a fixed planter and an additional 900mm setback was provided by the proposed internal fixed seating. This created an overall setback of around 2m from the edge of this area. The new plan only proposes one layer of planter boxes around the edge of this space which will only be a setback of 900mm in parts and the planter boxes are not proposed to be located around the perimeter of the whole space. The reduced setback will increase the size of this space. A new condition No.124 will ensure that the planter boxes along the edge of the communal area and private terraces will have a minimum width of 1.2m which will retain the approved setback from the edge of this area.

 

A condition has been included which requires some additional planter boxes to be integrated within the communal area which will reflect the original setback that was proposed.

 

Figure 4 below provides an example of the type of planter boxes to be installed (taken from the information provided in DA Plan S96-02) is provided below as Figure 2.

 

Figure 4: Example of the Proposed planter boxes to be installed on the roof taken from details on Plan No. S96-02 (courtesy of Bigplanters.com)

 

External wall height

The proposed modifications show a slight increase in the external wall height at a small section of the proposed balustrade wall to the access stairs and pathway to the rooftop terraces. Despite the non-compliance, the proposed access stairs are centrally located and setback some distance from the outer extremities of the building and will therefore not impact the visual amenity of the building.

 

The proposed changes are considered to result in an acceptable scale and bulk that is compatible with the surrounding streetscape as the variance to the wall height control will not result in additional overshadowing or privacy impacts on neighbours.

 

Other Environmental Impacts – Section 79C(1)(b)

The proposed modifications will not result in any significant adverse social, economic or environmental impacts. In particular, the proposed changes do not alter the approved built form and retain the envelope and footprint. There will be no adverse amenity impacts subject to some additional conditions which will ensure privacy for adjoining residences is maintained.

 

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 addresses the objectives of R3 Medium Density Residential zone. The scale and design of the proposed development is considered to be suitable for the site in the context of the surrounding residential area.

 

The merit assessment indicates that the proposal will provide a reasonable outcome despite some variations particularly to the external wall height. Based on the assessment of the development application it is recommended for approval subject to conditions outlined in this report.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development consent No. 884/2014/A for modification of the approved development by altering the colours and materials of the external surfaces of the building; extension of the common staircase to roof terrace; new concrete planters to the roof terrace and deletion of roof access stairs from Units 7, 8 and 9, at No. 315 Maroubra Road, Maroubra. The consent is modified in the following manner: 

 

§  Amend Condition No.1 to read:

 

Approved plans and supporting information

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA-01 - Basement Floor Plan; Site & Ground Floor Plan

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

February 2014

27 March 2015

DA-02 - First Floor & Second Floor Plans

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

February 2014

27 March 2015

DA-03-01 - Roof Terraces Plan

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

February 2014 & 3/6/2015 for Revision A

4 June 2015

DA-04 - Section & Sectional Elevation

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

February 2014 & 3/6/2015 for Revision A

4 June 2015

DA-05 - Elevations 1

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

 

February 2014 & 3/6/2015 for Revision A

4 June 2015

DA-06 - Elevations 2

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

February 2014 & 3/6/2015 for Revision A

4 June 2015

DA-07 - Unit Plans

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

February 2014

27 March 2015

DA-8 - Miscellaneous Details

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

February 2014

27 March 2015

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

562981M_02

20 March 2015

21 April 2015

 

As amended by the Section 96 “A” plans and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

S96-N-01 Rev A

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

October 2016

16 June 2017

S96-01

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

October 2016

16 June 2017

S96-02

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

October 2016

16 June 2017

S96-03

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

October 2016

16 June 2017

S96-04

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

October 2016

16 June 2017

S96-05 Rev A

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

October 2016

16 June 2017

S96-06

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

October 2016

16 June 2017

S96-07

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

October 2016

16 June 2017

S96-08

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

October 2016

16 June 2017

CC-09

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

October 2016

16 June 2017

S96-10

Nexus Architecture Pty Ltd

October 2016

16 June 2017

 

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

 

§  Delete Condition No.11 and 12.

 

§  Amend Condition No.15 to read:

15.     Any sandstone blocks in the existing buildings or fences on the site must be recycled and/or re-used. They must be rendered or painted.

 

     The originally approved materials, finishes and colours which included a face brickwork (FB) finish, with sections of the building including an off-concrete finish (OFC) and cement rendered masonry (CR1) shall be retained as originally approved in accordance the plans received by Council dated 27 March 2015 and 4 June 2015, drawn by Nexus Architecture and dated February 2014 and 3 June 2015 (Rev A).

 

     Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development

 

§  Amend Condition No.36 to read:

36.     The Certifying Authority/PCA must ensure that the Landscape Plans submitted as part of the approved Construction Certificate are substantially consistent with the Landscape Plans by Lightbox Landscape Architects, DA.101-102, job no.078, issue A & B, dated 19.08.14 and as amended by the Section 96 plans as outlined in Condition No.1.

 

§  Amend Condition No.50 to read:

50.     Prior to the commencement of any works, the Certifying Authority/PCA, must ensure that the Landscape Plans by Lightbox Landscape Architects, DA.101-102, job no.078, issue A & B, dated 19.08.14 and as amended by the Section 96 plan as noted in Condition No.1 have been amended to include the following requirements:

 

a)       A minimum of 3 x 45 litre (pot size at the time of planting) evergreen trees that will assist with screening, privacy and separation between this site and adjoining properties to the south, must be provided in the area of deep soil at the rear, selecting species which will attain a minimum of 6 metres at height;

 

(These 3 trees must replace the 2 Frangipani’s that are currently shown in this area).

 

b)       The planting schedule must include plant quantities and pot sizes, along with any other additional details required in order to describe the works, such as soil, mulch, irrigation, edging, paving, fencing, surface finishes, retaining walls, lighting;

 

c)       All planter boxes and garden beds constructed on slab must have a minimum soil depth of 600mm, with details confirming compliance to be provided.

 

d)       Details of specific plant species within the planter boxes on the rooftop terraces shall be identified within the Landscape Plan. Larger native trees shall be included along the outer edge (such as Lilly Pilly’s, Frangipanis or the like) that grow to a minimum mature height of 1.5m. Details of the plants to be used shall be included in an amended Landscape Plan.

 

e)       The second tier of planter boxes shall include smaller trees and/or shrubs (like succulents and natives) that reach a mature height of 1m. Details of the species and plants will need to be included in the amended Landscape Plan.

 

§  Amend Condition No.87 to read:

Landscaping

87.     Prior to issuing any type of Occupation Certificate, certification from a qualified professional in the landscape/horticultural industry must be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, confirming the date that the completed landscaping was inspected, and that it has been installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Plans by Lightbox Landscape Architects, DA.101-102, job no.078, issue A & B, dated 19.08.14, and as amended by the Section 96 plans as well as any relevant conditions of consent.

 

§  New Condition No.124 to read:

124.    The outer layer of planter boxes along the whole periphery of the roof terrace (along the communal area and private decks to apartments 7, 8 and 9) shall have a minimum width of 1.2m, minimum depth of 1.2m and minimum height of 900mm. A second layer of planter boxes shall also be provided to the communal terrace. The second internal layer of planter boxes shall have a maximum height of 700mm. The second tier of planter boxes for all terraces shall be lower in height to create a stepped/terrace approach on the roof top and this should provide easier access for maintenance and will improve the visual appearance at this level. Details to be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to issuing a construction certificate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 24 October 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP64/17

 

Subject:             2 Byron Street, Coogee (DA/24/2008/B)

Folder No:                   DA/24/2008/B

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of approved development to increase number of children attending the childcare centre from 90 to 110

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Clear Run Project Management

Owner:                        Coogee-Randwick R S L Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=4338a859-266c-4ce4-8d4a-768246c1a932&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application is referred to Council as the original development application was determined by Council.

 

Relevant history

 

Consent for the childcare centre was granted on 22 July 2008.  Condition No. 3 of the consent, as originally approved, limited the number of child care places to 60.  A Section 96 modification was approved on 10 February 2015 which amended Condition no. 3 of the original consent to allow for a maximum of 90 places in the centre.

 

Proposal

 

The applicant is seeking to modify the development consent to increase the number of children attending the childcare centre from 90 to 110.  This will require condition No. 3 to be amended. The condition reads as follows:

 

3.   The maximum number of child places permitted for the centre is 90.

 

The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site, located within Lot 1482 in DP 752011, No. 2 Byron Street, Coogee has a frontage of approximately 42.3m to Carr Street. The site has a depth of 42.6 metres and a width of 42.3 metres and a total site area of 1790m2.

 

The site is located on a triangular block that is bounded by Carr Street to the north, Dudley Street to the south-west and Byron Street to the east.  

 

The site of the child care centre forms the western extent of the Coogee Diggers club at 2 Byron Street, with pedestrian access from Carr Street.  Council provided the child care centre with a new address and is now known as 2A Carr Street, Coogee.

 

Built form in the locality is primarily characterised by residential flat buildings of varying scales and also some detached dwelling houses, club facilities and the local primary school.  The nearest residential housing to the site is two apartment buildings occupying both corners of Melody Street and Carr Street and located approximately 30 metres away.

 

Directly east of the subject site is the Coogee Randwick RSL club and its associated facilities.  Directly to the south and west of the subject site is Baker Park.

 

Coogee Public School is located to the northeast of the subject site on Byron Street.  

 

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 two submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

·      92 Melody Street, Coogee

·      Unit 6/17 Carr Street, Coogee


 

 

Issue

Comment

Parking

Increased parking and traffic concerns.

 

Also concerned that the increase in number of children will result in their driveway to be further block or double parked during drop of and pick up.

Agreed. Refer to Key Issues below which recommends that the development application (DA) be refused on the grounds that it will increase the parking demand on the street and does not comply with the staff parking rates of the RDCP 2013.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Section 96 Assessment

Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that a consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

 

(a)   it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and

(b)   it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

(c)   it has notified the application

(d)   it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification withinny period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

 

The proposal does not involve any physical works or changes to the approved built form or floor space ratio for the site. The original application sought approval for 90 place child care centre which was reduced to 60 places via a condition. A section 96 application was approved to modify condition 3 of the original consent to allow for 90 children.  This applicant is seeking to further modify condition 3 to increase the maximum number of children that may attend the Child Care Centre at any one time to 110 which is an increase of 20 children.

 

The application is not considered to be substantially the same development as originally approved as the increase in the number of children will alter a fundamental element of the originally approved development being the capacity of the child care centre. The proposed modification seeks a significant increase in the number of child care places to that originally approved. The impacts from the intensification of the use will also have significant impacts on the parking demand for the site well beyond that anticipated by the original approval.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

Zone RE1 - Public Recreation

The site is zoned RE1- Public Recreation under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposed modifications are permissible with Council's consent.

 

The proposed Child Care Centre will continue to integrate with, and support the primary function of the zoneHowever, the increase in the number of children will result in traffic, increased parking pressure and safety impacts and therefore is not supported as it will detract from the general aims and zoning objectives stated in the Randwick LEP. 

 

Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

Part B7 – Transport, Traffic, parking and access

A detailed assessment was made by Council’s Development Engineers and has concluded that the shortfall of car parking spaces on the site is not supported as it will unreasonably impact on the environmental traffic capacity of Car Street causing delays and road safety concerns, will increase the staff parking deficiency and will impact the pickup and drop-off zone capacity during peak times.

 

The application has been referred to Council’s Development Engineers for comments and detailed assessment has been provided below: 

 

A Section 96(2) application has been received which seeks to modify the approved development by increasing the number of children attending the childcare centre from 90 to 110 with an associated increase in staff.

 

Original Consent: Construction of single storey child care facility on bowling green of Coogee Randwick RSL Club, catering for 60 children with hours of operation being 7am-7pm Monday-Friday and use as a child minding facility for 10 children between 8am-2pm Saturday & Sunday for club patrons, & associated site works.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by Turnbull Planning dated January 2017.

·      Plan stamped by Council 8th  2016

·      Traffic Impact Statement by traffix dated 23rd December 2016

 

GENERAL COMMENTS

The application is not supported by Development Engineering for following reasons;

 

a)  Increasing of an already large staff parking deficiency. No staff parking is provided on the site.

 

b)  Pickup and drop-off zone is at or approaching capacity during peak times.

 

c)  Increased likelihood of reverse parking manoeuvres in Carr Street impacting on traffic delays and road safety in Carr Street.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Original Development approval for 60 places - DA/24/2008

The original development was approved in 2008 for 60 child places. A ninety place centre was sought however this was not supported by Council’s Department of Integrated Transport. A 15 space pickup-& drop off zone was subsequently approved by Randwick traffic Committee kerbside in Carr Street. As no parking rate for pick-up and drop-off for childcare centres existed in Council’s Parking DCP at the time, the length of the zone was based on the parking rate specified in the RMS Guide to traffic Generating Developments being 1 space per 4 children. (i.e. 60/4 = 15 spaces).

 

Since the assessment of the original application, Council’s requirements in relation to the pickup and drop-off zones have been amended with the implementation of the new DCP in 2013. Parking is now required to be provided at the rate of 1 space per 2 staff plus 1 space per 8 children for pickup and drop-off. This change was based on actual surveys of childcare centres at various locations within Randwick LGA and is considered to give a more realistic estimation of parking demand. The revised DCP rate implies the approved pickup and drop-off zone was significantly oversized for the original development of 60 places, since under the new DCP only 8 spaces would be required for pick-up and drop-off, while 15 timed spaces were actually approved by Randwick Traffic Committee. This appeared to be confirmed by parking surveys submitted for the first S96 application DA/24/2008/A.

 

Section 96 approval for increase to 90 places DA/24/2008/A

A Section 96 application was lodged in 2014 to increase child numbers from 60 to 90 and was approved on 20th February 2015. This is the current approval operating on the site.

 

The expanded 90 place centre required a total of 11 spaces for pickup and drop-off using the DCP rate of 1 space per 8 children hence as the existing zone contained 15 spaces it was deemed it could accommodate the expanded centre.

 

An additional 6 staff were also proposed requiring an additional 3 staff spaces under the DCP. These were not able to be provided on site and demand was distributed into the surrounding on-street parking in the locality. Although concerns were raised the application was approved based on the sites proximity to public transport and historical absence of parking.

 

Subject S96 Application - Proposed increase to 110 places - DA/24/2008/B

The proposed development subject to this S96 application is to increase child numbers further within the child care centre from 90 to 110 places with a corresponding increase of 3 staff.  As previously indicated there is no off-street parking currently provided on the site and none proposed. The 10 minute timed pickup and drop-off zone accommodating approximately 15 spaces is still operating on Carr Street directly in front of the centre. It is not proposed to extend the length of the pick-up and drop-off zone.

 

PARKING ISSUES

 

STAFF PARKING

An additional 3 staff are proposed to cater for the additional 20 child places proposed.

 

Additional Staff parking required = 3/2 = 1.5 spaces = say 2 spaces

 

This has not been provided on the site, hence the proposal will again be relying on the availability of on-street parking to satisfy this demand. As the existing childcare centre of 90 children does not currently provide any off-street parking for staff, the current staff parking deficiency is in the order of 8-11 spaces. This deficiency will increase to 10-13 spaces if the S96 application is approved. This is a large shortfall and increasing it further is placing a significant parking burden on the surrounding street network. It was indeed noted that upon site inspections, on-street parking (outside of the pickup and Drop –off zone) in Byron, Carr, Melody and Dudley Street is at or close to capacity.

 

Development Engineering generally requires that staff parking be provided off-street and is reluctant to support further burdening the surrounding street network with additional parking demand for what is essentially a business operation. The site is located in an area that is experiencing a high demand for on-street parking due to site being adjacent to the Coogee Diggers Club, which also does not provide any off-street parking. There are also many residential dwellings in the area that do not have access to off-street parking and rely heavily on kerbside parking to store their private vehicles.

 

The very high demand is confirmed by the submitted parking survey undertaken by Traffix which indicates that 97.8% of the 227 unrestricted spaces were occupied by 9:30am. This should also be considered in the context of date of the parking survey being only 1week before commencement of official school holidays. The streets immediately surrounding the childcare centre (Dudley, Byron & Carr Streets) are at, or approaching capacity. This was also confirmed by site inspections by the Development Engineer.

 

Although the proposed increase in staff parking demand is relatively minor the childcare centre is already experiencing an 8-11 space shortfall being 100% of its staff parking obligations. A further increase on an already significant shortfall is not supported by Development Engineering as it is considered the cumulative impact of successive applications to increase child numbers is having a detrimental impact on the availability of on-street parking within the surrounding street network. It should be noted that the original proposed number of 90 places was not supported by Councils Department of integrated transport and are also not supportive of the current application.

 

It is acknowledged the site is close to public transport with Carr street being a major bus route including routes 372,X73,373 Coogee-City, 313,314 Coogee-Bondi Junction and M50 Coogee-Drummoyne with typical frequencies of 5-10 minutes during peak times and 20-30 minutes off-peak. Historically, this has assisted in mitigating some of the parking impacts created by the staff, however it is now considered the parking deficiency is  excessive and is having a significant impact on the availability of on-street parking in the vicinity. It should also be note that the DCP parking rate of 1 space per two staff already acknowledges that some staff members will use alternative means of transport to a motor vehicle.

 

PICK-UP AND DROP-OFF PARKING

The parking rate of 1 space per 8 children for pick-up and drop-off as specified under Part B7 of the DCP will require the minimum provision of 14 spaces for the expanded centre of 110 places. As 15 spaces are currently provided within the existing on-street pickup and drop-off zone, it is technically long enough to accommodate the additional demand for 110 children, however there are significant concerns on the operation of the zone and objections have been received by nearby residents.

 

The concerns relate to driver behaviour and the capacity of the timed zone being exceeded during the peak times. Concerns have also been raised on location of the zone being on the crest of a hill in Carr Street with some parents/observers observed to double-park when the zone is full forcing drivers behind to drive across double white lines near the crest to get around the stopped vehicle.  Being on a major bus route this creates some safety concerns. 

 

The submitted Traffic impact statement includes a parking survey of the pickup and drop-off zone and appears to indicate there is spare capacity within the pickup and drop-off zone, however there are issues with the timing of the study. The survey was conducted on Tuesday 13th December 2016 being 1 week before official school holidays began on Wednesday 21st December and when the two closest private schools in the area being Clarendon College and St Brigids Catholic (both on Coogee Bay Road) did not have students in attendance that day. Clarendon College had already broken up for holidays while St Brigids were attending a swimming carnival.  As patrons of childcare centres often have other children at school and often leave for holidays around this time it is considered the parking survey is not representative of typical conditions. As a result it has been necessary for the Development Engineer to undertaken a number of site inspections to observe the operation of the pickup and drop-off zone during times that would be more representative.

 

On Monday 22nd May 2017 it was observed the zone reached capacity twice between 3:30pm and 6pm. Some parents were also observed to park in the No Stopping zone located directly opposite the main entrance on the opposite side of Carr Street. Another site inspection during the AM peak time on Thursday 20th July also revealed that the pickup and drop-off zone reached capacity at 8:45am-9am. On this day the  child care centre was not running at full capacity with staff confirming that 81 children were in attendance on this day (as of 9:05am 20/7/2017) thereby possibly inferring that parking demand could have been slightly worse if the centre was operating at full capacity (90).

 

Picture 1- Zone at capacity 8:50am 20/7/17

 

VEHICLE SAFETY ISSUES

Of further concern to Development engineering is that Carr Street is a major bus route between Coogee & destinations such as the City and Bondi Junction. During a number of site inspections minor traffic delays were observed to be experienced when patrons of the childcare centre stop to reverse park into the pickup and drop-off zone. This only occurs when the zone is close to capacity, since when a number of spare spaces are available, vehicles were observed to proceed forward into the carspaces minimising delays to following vehicles. The reverse parking delays following vehicles (including buses) on Carr Street during the peak times and can encourage drivers to take risks by overtaking the reversing vehicle. Given the zone’s location on a crest in Carr Street this is not considered desirable. The present technically oversized pick-up and drop-off zone currently assists in minimising reverse parking manoeuvres however intensifying the use of the pickup and drop off zone will likely increase the frequency of reverse parking occurring which is not supported on road safety grounds.  For this reason also the proposed increase in child places cannot be supported.

 

Extending the length of the pickup and drop-off zone is also not supported as the zone is already the longest in Randwick LGA (15 spaces) and has had a significant impact on the availability of on-street parking for surrounding residents. During site inspections two residents located in the residential units opposite the centre approached person and complained that the zone took up too much on-street parking.

 

In conjunction with the large shortfall of staff parking it is now considered the child care centre has reached the limit of its capacity and no further increase of child numbers will be supported on parking & road safety grounds.

 

TRAFFIC VOLUME COMMENTS

Using the rates and time peaks provided in Part 3.11.3 of RMS document ‘Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’ the proposed increase in childcare numbers from 90 to 110 will generate the following additional traffic trips when applied to the subject site.

 

Time                                                         Number of Trips

7:00-9:00am                                   0.8 x 20 = 16

2:30-4:00pm                                   0.3 x 20 = 6

4:00-7:00 pm                                  0.7 x 20 = 14

 

This indicates that the proposed 20 place increase in child numbers will generate an additional 36 vehicle trips per day. This only represents a very small increase on existing traffic volumes in Carr Street.  It is considered that the road system can accommodate such an increase in traffic volume however there are issues associated with traffic behaviour associated with the pickup and drop-off zone (see above).

 

The assessing officer is advised that Development Engineering does not support the application and recommends refusal of the application.

 

Part D11 – Child Care Centres

The proposed modifications have been assessed against Part D11 of the DCP and are considered to satisfy the objectives of all the relevant development and design controls that are applicable to the site. Where applicable to the proposed amendments, specific comments in relation to the DCP are discussed below.

 

Sub-clause 4.1 - Acoustic Amenity and Privacy

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

 

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

 

A Noise Assessment Report (NAR) has been submitted by Acouras Consultancy with the amended application to review the noise impacts likely to emanate from the potential increase in 20 children, from the current approval 90 children to 110 children. 

 

Potential impacts of noise associated with the increase in number of children have been investigated by Council’s Environmental Health department. The Environmental officer has advised that the noise expected to arise from the proposed modifications is capable of complying with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1999 and Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 pending implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the acoustic report and appropriate operational management of the centre.

 

Council’s Environmental officer has recommended that a condition be included requiring an acoustic validation assessment be undertaken three months after occupation of the site with the increased popultion to confirm the operation of the childcare centre is operating in accordance with the requirements of the amended acoustic reports supporting the development application. 

 

In addition to the above, the centre has no adjoining/abutting residential premises and the nearest effected residential property is located opposite the subject site on the southern side Car Street which is approximately 20m from the outdoor play area. Therefore, the increasing in number of children and intensity can be reasonably accommodated within the area, subject to suitable conditions, updated plan of management and updated recommendations made by acoustic consultant without resulting in unacceptable amenity impacts to surrounding properties. The following comments below have been provided by Council’s Environmental Health officer.

 


 

Environmental health comments:

Acoustics

An acoustic report prepared by Acouras Consultancy dated 16/12/2016 provided an assessment of the proposed increase of 20 children.

 

The acoustic report detailed compliance with required noise criteria will be achieved and that existing POM (rev 1 dated 29th October 2014) can be amended to allowing 55 children in the outdoor area within the operating times is permissible.

 

Based on the details provided in the acoustic report appropriate conditions have been recommended as part of this report.

 

There are no proposed changes to operating hours.

 

Council has also received acoustic comment on acoustic compliance related to traffic in email advice dated 10th February 2017.

 

Recommendation:

Should the application be approved it is recommended that the following conditions be included in the consent:

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

The following operational conditions must be complied with at all times, throughout the use and operation of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health and environmental amenity.

 

Plan of Management Operation

1.       An amended plan of management shall be provided to Council prior to commencement of use including amended permissible children numbers in the outdoor area as detailed in table 3 of acoustic report ref: SYD2016-1109-R001A.

 

2.       The childcare centre shall be operated in accordance with the approved plan of management at all times.

 

3.       An acoustic  report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics shall be submitted to Council 3 months after commencement of the use of the centre with 110 places, which demonstrates that noise and vibration emissions from the development satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy, relevant conditions of consent (including any relevant approved acoustic report recommendations).  The assessment and report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2a:      Enrich our range of community services that meet our community’s needs.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification has been assessed against the provisions of Randwick LEP 2012 and Randwick DCP 2013 and the impacts of the proposal are considered to be unacceptable, particularly in relation to a lack of on-site parking. The child care centre currently does not provide any off-street parking for staff having a deficiency of 8-11 spaces.  The modifications will further increase the deficiency to 10-13 spaces.

 

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

 

Ultimately, the fact that the site cannot cater for the additional parking demands for the increase in numbers to the child care centre demonstrates that the site is not suitable for the proposed intensification of use and does not satisfy the matters for consideration under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

Accordingly, the proposed modification will not result in a development that is substantially the same as originally approved and is recommended for refusal.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. 24/2008/B to increase the number of children attending the childcare centre from 90 to 110 at 2 Byron Street, Coogee for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposed modification will result in a development that is not substantially the same as originally approved.

 

2.     The proposal does not satisfy the objective of the R2 Low Density Residential zone in relation to protecting the amenity of residents.

 

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

 

·      No staff parking is provided on the site. The proposal will result in a staff deficiency of 10-13 car spaces in circumstances where there is already a deficiency of 8-11 car spaces.

 

·      The pickup and drop-off zone is at or approaching capacity during peak times.

 

·      There will be an increased likelihood of reverse parking manoeuvres in Carr Street impacting on traffic delays and road safety in Carr Street.

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 24 October 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP65/17

 

Subject:             4/28 Arcadia Street, Coogee (DA/469/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/469/2017

Author:                   Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Alterations to existing residential flat building by enclosure of balcony for unit 4 and internal works (variation to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                     North

Applicant:                Ms C Martin

Owner:                        Ms C Martin & Mr T J Hogan

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 exceedance is greater than 10%.


 

Proposal

 

The applicant proposes alterations to the upper level of the existing residential flat building through the enclosure of unit 4’s eastern balcony to enlarge the master bedroom.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Arcadia Street, close to its intersection with Arden Street. The site, like those on either side, is significantly elevated above street level and slopes upwards from its front to rear boundary. The immediate surrounding area is zoned Residential 3 – Medium Density and contains a variety of residential dwellings in single dwelling and residential flat building arrangements. The subject site contains a relatively new two to three storied residential flat building with basement garaging accessed under the street verge/footpath.     

 

 

Figure 1. Photograph of the subject site (central, cream-coloured building) from the street.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

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

0.75:1

Existing

0.96:1

Proposal

0.97:1

Excess above the standard

29.3%

 

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 significantly alter the appearance or increase the overall height of the building.

·      The increased floor area is within the building’s existing footprint, over an existing balcony.

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

·      The proposal will increase the size of the unit’s master bedroom and increase room layout options; 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 flat building remains similar to existing flat buildings within the area, including on the adjoining site to the east.

·      The proposed additions have not been identified as impeding 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 increase the overall height or building footprint 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 R3 –Medium Density Residential) are:

 

Objectives of Zone:

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

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

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

 

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/469/2017 for alterations to existing residential flat building by enclosure of balcony for unit 4 and internal works (variation to floor space ratio control), at No. 4/28 Arcadia Street, Coogee, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 4/28 Arcadia Street, COOGEE  velopment - Ms Carolyn Martin

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 24 October 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP66/17

 

Subject:             122 Bundock Street, South Coogee (DA/70/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/70/2017

Author:                   Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of the existing garage and construction of a new two storey outbuilding with garage/carport at ground floor level and secondary dwelling at first floor level

Ward:                     North

Applicant:                Ms Isabelle Granville Smith

Owner:                        Mr D D Maitland

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination by the request of Councillors D'Souza, Stavrinos and Seng.


 

Proposal

 

The applicant proposes the demolition of the existing garage and construction of a new two storey outbuilding with garage/carport at ground floor level and secondary dwelling at first floor level.

 

Revisions

The assessing officer raised a number of issues with the original proposal. In particular, that the height significantly exceeds the laneway development controls of the RDCP 2013, and that the first floor is not an attic-style (as the RDCP 2013 laneway development controls require).

 

The applicant supplied amended plans that lowered the wall heights and overall heights to be closer to compliance with the RDCP 2013. The revised design also increase the length of the proposed building. This length increase required re-notification, which was subsequently undertaken.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Bundock Street, close to its intersection with Elphinstone Road. The rear of the site fronts Bundock Lane. The sites of the surrounding area predominantly contain detached single dwelling houses and some multi-unit residential is present on the sites across Bundock Street. The rear laneway, Bundock Lane, is fronted by a significant number of one and two storied outbuildings and detached dwellings. The subject site slopes slightly down from its front to its rear boundary. The dwelling of the site generally occupies the front half of the site, while its rear half features lawn and a large double garage.

 

Figure 1. The Bundock Street frontage of the site (cream coloured building).

 

Figure 2. The Bundock Lane frontage of the site (double garage).

 

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:

 

·      122 Bundock Lane

 

Issue

Comment

1.     Overdevelopment along the lane leading to parking issues.

2.     The proposal should supply off-street parking for the secondary dwelling.    

3.     Noise from the secondary dwelling will impact on the health and safety of the objector.   

4.     Privacy will be impacted due to 1st floor level windows facing the laneway.

1. and 2. The bulk of the development is comparable to existing developments along the laneway.   The proposed secondary dwelling is permitted by the SEPP ARH 2009 provisions and the SEPP requires no additional parking.

3. Residential noise is not an unexpected outcome within a residential neighbourhood. The laneway separates the objector’s site from the proposal.

4. Significant distances and the laneway separate the proposed rear windows from the windows of objector’s property. Planter boxes to the laneway deck will provide some screening. It is not uncommon for dwellings to overlook the road/laneway.

 

·      120 Bundock Street

 

Issue

Comment

1.     The proposal will overlook the rear of the objector’s site.

2.     The building will overshadow the rear of the objector’s site – reducing sunlight to plants and trees.

3.     The proposal will cause noise issues for the objector and increase traffic in the rear lane way.

4.     The proposal will reduce the property value of the objector’s site.

5.     The development standards of the SEPP must be complied with.

6.     The exceedance of the laneway height controls of the RDCP 2013 will set an undesirable precedent.

1. Privacy related conditions have been recommended, including 1.6m effective sill heights to habitable room windows that could overlook the objector’s site.

2. The sites have a north-south orientation. Some morning shadowing can be expected, but the proposal will not shadow the objector in the afternoon. The proposal will therefore comply with the RDCP 2013’s solar access requirements.

3. Residential noise is not an unexpected outcome within a residential neighbourhood. The number of parking spaces is the same as exists on site at present. Secondary dwellings are permitted by the SEPP AFH 2009.

4. The development standards referred to in the SEPP ARH 2009 relate to complying development and not a development application.

5. The height exceedance is discussed under the “Key Issues” section of this report. It is not considered to set a precedent as similarly sized buildings exist along the laneway at present. 

 

·      124 Bundock Street – five submitters on behalf of household

 

Issue

Comment

1.     The development standards of the SEPP must be complied with.

2.     The proposal will overlook the rear of the objector’s site.

3.     The proposal will overshadow the objector’s site.

4.     The bulk of the secondary dwelling is larger than the primary dwelling.

5.     The development is clearly two storeys and not an attic style development as the RDCP 2013 requires.  

1. The development standards referred to in the SEPP ARH 2009 relate to complying development and not a development application.

2. Privacy related conditions have been recommended, including 1.6m effective sill heights to habitable room windows that could overlook the objector’s site.

3. The sites have a north-south orientation. Some afternoon shadowing can be expected, but the proposal will not shadow the objector in the morning. The proposal will therefore comply with the RDCP 2013’s solar access requirements.

4. The footprint and floor space of the secondary dwelling is less than the primary dwelling. The form and scale of the development is comparable to existing secondary dwellings and buildings along the laneway.

5. The proposal is generally compliant with the relevant laneway development height controls, apart from the small exceedance discussed under the “Key Issues” section below. The form and scale of the development is comparable to existing secondary dwellings and buildings along the laneway, including on the objector’s site (see fig. 3 below).

 

Key Issues

 

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

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

 

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

 

Clause 19 Definition

 

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

 

Clause 20 Land to which this division applies

 

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

 

Clause 21 Development to which Division Applies

 

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

 

Clause 22 Development may be carried out with consent

 

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

 

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

 

Comment: The development standards under the RLEP 2012 allows for a floor space ratio of 0.65:1 for a dwelling. The proposed total gross floor area of the primary and secondary dwelling is 0.29:1, therefore complying with the standard.

 

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

 

Comment: The proposed secondary dwelling measures 60m2 and complies with the maximum 60m2 allowed for under the SEPP.

 

Clause 23   Complying Development

 

The proposed development is not a complying development as defined under the SEPP and therefore requires a Development Application to which an assessment is carried out.

 

Clause 24   No subdivision

 

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

 

Development in Laneways – Sub-Section 8.1

The laneway development is proposed to have a wall height of 4.8m. The RDCP 2013 sets a maximum wall height of 4.5m for laneway development.

 

The proposed non-compliance is not inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will not result in significant adverse impacts in terms of streetscape amenity or the residential amenity of neighbouring sites. The walls will be sufficiently setback from side boundaries and the laneway boundary in order to minimise bulk and the resulting feeling of dominance. The proposed wall height will be lower or the same as that of neighbouring laneway development, including that on the site to the east (see fig. 3 below). The wall height does not result from poor design but from the slope of the land down towards the laneway. The majority of the proposal will comply with the wall height control. The proposed wall height does not contribute to a non-compliance with the RDCP 2013’s solar access controls and appropriate conditions are recommended to preserve the privacy of adjoining sites.  

 

Figure 3. Photograph showing an existing rear laneway development (white two-storied building) of a comparable size to the current proposal on the adjoining site to the east (124 Bundock Street).

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The 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

 

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/70/2017 for the demolition of the existing garage and construction of a new two storey outbuilding with garage/carport at ground floor level and secondary dwelling at first floor level, at No. 122 Bundock Street, South Coogee, subject to the following non-standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-Standard Conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

a.     The following window/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:

·    W3 and W4 (bed 2)

·    W5, W6 and W7 (bed 1)

·    W9 (dining)

 

b.     The solid metal screens to either side of the southern first floor level windows shall be deleted.  

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 122 Bundock Street, SOUTH COOGEE 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 24 October 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP67/17

 

Subject:             Independant Hearing and Assessment Panel

Folder No:                   F2004/08303

Author:                   Emma Fitzroy, Executive Planner      

 

Introduction

 

The NSW state government announced on 8 August 2017 the introduction of compulsory Independent Hearing Assessment Panels (IHAPs) for all Metropolitan Councils, including Randwick City Council. The principal functions of the IHAPs are to determine local development applications (DAs) and provide advice on planning proposals. The panels will be mandatory from 1 March 2018.

 

Legislative framework

 

Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Act), from 1 March 2018 the functions of a council as a consent authority under Part 4 will no longer be exercisable by the Councillors.

 

DAs and all other Part 4 applications will be determined by:

 

·      the local planning panel (IHAP), or

·      an officer or employee of the council to whom the Council delegates those functions, or

·      a regional panel.

 

Applications to be determined by the local planning panel

 

The Department of Planning and Environment has advised that the Minister will provide directions to council under section 117 on the applications that are to be determined on behalf of the Council by a local planning panel. These directions have not yet been issued; however, the Department has issued a factsheet that suggests that the criteria will be as follows:

 

Value

DAs with a value more than $5 million but less than $30 million

Conflicts of Interest

DA’s for which the applicant or owner is the Council, a Councillor, a member of a Councillor’s family, a member of Council staff, or a state or federal member of Parliament

Objections

DAs that receive 10 or more objections from different households

Strategic Importance

DAs accompanied by a voluntary planning agreement

Non-compliances

DAs seeking to depart by more than 10% from a development standard

Risk

DAs with higher risk of corruption:

·      residential flat buildings assessed under SEPP 65

·      demolition of heritage items

·      licensed places of public entertainment and sex industry premises

·      designated development

Modifications

Modification applications that meet the above criteria

 

Local planning panel members

 

Each local planning panel is to comprise the following 4 members:

 

·      a chairperson with relevant expertise that includes expertise in law or in government and public administration,

·      2 other approved independent persons with relevant expertise in at least one area of planning, architecture, heritage, the environment, urban design, economics, traffic and transport, law, engineering, tourism or public administration,

·      a community representative (who is not a Councillor or Mayor).

 

A person is not eligible to be a member of a local planning panel if the person is a Councillor, a property developer, or a real estate agent. Panel members will be paid by Council; however the remuneration amount will be determined by the Department of Planning & Environment.

 

The following diagram is taken from a fact sheet titled ‘What is an IHAP?’ prepared by the NSW Department of Planning & Environment, dated September 2017. The diagram summarises how the members will be appointed:

 

Expert members (Chairperson and 2 other)

As detailed in the above figure, the chairperson and expert members will be appointed from a pool of experts approved by the Minister for Planning. The Department has already sought applications from interested parties and will create a pool of experts for Councils to select members (and alternates) from.

 

Community Representatives

Council is to appoint representatives of the local community for each ward as members of the local planning panel. All representatives are entitled to attend a meeting of the local planning panel, but only one (who the chairperson considers most closely associated with a matter) is entitled to vote on a matter. It is proposed to appoint a minimum of one (1) community representative & one (1) alternate for each ward. Councillors, property developers and real estate agents are not eligible to be a member of the panel.

 

To appoint community representatives, Council must first seek expressions of interest. NSW Planning & Environment have recommended the following selection criteria: ·

 

Local community representatives should:

 

•        Be current residents within the local government area (LGA)

•        Have knowledge & awareness of the LGA & issues of concern to the local community 

•        Be able to represent & communicate the interests of the local community 

•        Have an understanding of the planning process and assessment issues (but not expected to be an expert)

•        Commit to attending the IHAP meetings and contributing constructively to the determination of applications

•        Be willing to adhere to the IHAP code of conduct and operational procedures.

 

Desirable criteria:

 

·      relevant experience in one or more of the following areas: planning, architecture, heritage, the environment, urban design, economics, traffic and transport, law, engineering, tourism, or government and public administration.

·      the ability to communicate effectively and work in partnership with the panel.

 

*In accordance with the Act, Councillors, property developers and real estate agents are not eligible to be a member of the panel.

 

NSW Planning have also recommended to Council that the General Manager oversee the selection process by reviewing the applications and organising an interview panel to select the community representatives. The General Manager would then appoint the community representatives on behalf of Council. As such, it is recommended that Council nominate four (4) Councillors to be part of the interview panel.

 

Operational procedures

The Act specifies that:

·      The panel is to comprise 4 members (as detailed above);

·      The quorum for a meeting of the panel is 3 members;

·      The panel must conduct its meeting in public; and

·      The panel is subject to any directions issued by the Minister for Planning under section 117.

 

In addition to the legislative requirements, the key procedures proposed by Council include:

 

·      The panel meeting will be held during business hours with site visits conducted by the panel members in the morning/afternoon immediately before the panel meets.

·      The meeting agenda will include an opportunity for Councillors to address the panel on behalf of their constituents 

 

The state government has not yet provided any section 117 directions on the operation of the panel. When these directions are issued, Council will prepare detailed procedures.

 

The next steps

To prepare for the mandatory introduction of IHAPs on 1 March 2018, Council must:

 

Item

Timeframe

Appoint community representatives

 

Expressions of interest are to be sought now.

After applications have been received, at least 1 community representative will be selected for each ward.

A report will be taken to Council with recommendations for the community representatives.

Appoint chairperson, 2 other experts and alternates

When the Department advises that the pool of experts is finalised, Council must select a chairperson (if not appointed by the minister) and 2 expert members from the pool. Council may also select alternates.

A report will be taken to Council with recommendations for the chairperson and expert members.

Prepare panel procedures

When section 117 directions have been issued by the Minister, Council will prepare operational procedures for the panel.

The procedures will then be taken to Council for adoption.

Adopt code of conduct

Await directions from the NSW state government.

It is understood that a code of conduct may be issued by the Minister.

Amended delegations

After section 117 directions have been issued by the Minister detailing the applications that will be considered by the panel, the delegations will be amended as required to implement the legislative reform.

The amended delegations will be taken to Council for approval.

 

The state government has indicated that they may not issue section 117 directions until the end of the year.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4b:      Develop and implement effective processes and strategies to manage the impact of new and existing development

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of running the panel will depend on the frequency of meetings, remuneration of panel members (set by the state government) and the number of community representatives that attend each meeting. The state government estimates that the panel will cost approximately $100,000 per year.

 

Conclusion

 

In order to prepare for the mandatory introduction of IHAPs, Council must appoint panel members; prepare operating procedures; adopt a code of conduct; and amend delegations. This report details the keys steps required to ensure that we meet the legislative requirements of having an IHAP in operation by 1 March 2018.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     seek expressions of interest for IHAP community representatives;

 

b)     nominate four (4) Councillors to be part of the interview panel with the General Manager to select the community representatives & alternates and advise NSW Planning & Environment accordingly;

 

c)     after the Department of Planning has finalised their ‘pool of experts’, bring back a report with recommendations for the Chairperson (if not appointed by the Minister), expert members and alternates; and 

 

d)     after section 117 directions have been issued by the Minister, bring back a report outlining:

 

·    the confirmed list of applications to be determined by the panel;

·    the amended delegations required to implement the legislative reform; the code of conduct;

·    the detailed operating procedures of the Panel.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

NSW Planning Advice on Recruitment of IHAP Representatives

 

 

 

 


NSW Planning Advice on Recruitment of IHAP Representatives

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 24 October 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP68/17

 

Subject:             Cultural and Community Grants Program - Recommended Allocations - September 2017

Folder No:                   F2009/00182

Author:                   Warren Ambrose, Senior Social Planner      

 

Introduction

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program was endorsed by Council on 28 April 2009 and commenced in June 2009.  The Cultural and Community Grants Program provides financial support to creative arts and cultural projects that encourage community participation and vibrancy within the City of Randwick. The Grants Program, assessed twice a year in March and September, is linked to actions and strategies identified within the Council’s Cultural Plan, A Cultural Randwick City.  This Program covers both in-kind and cash contribution requests from grant applications. 

 

This report recommends the allocation of funds from the Grants Program for the September 2017 Round. The September 2017 Round is the first of two funding rounds for the 2017/18 financial year. A total of $110,000 is available for distribution.  The Council has received 18 applications seeking a grant total of $93,972.78 (in-kind and cash).

 

Details of the applications recommended for funding are listed in Attachment One. Applications not recommended for funding are also listed in Attachment One.

 

Of the 18 applications received, ten (10) applications fully met the funding criteria and therefore have been recommended by the assessment panel to receive funds totaling $56,780.89.

 

All applicants will be advised about the outcomes of their grant application.

 

Issues

 

Cultural and Community Grants Program Background

This amount covers both in-kind and cash contribution requests from grant applications. There are two funding rounds per financial year, in March and September.  The program is promoted in the local newspaper, on the Council’s website, and email through local community networks.

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program funding is awarded to locally based not-for-profit organisations or community groups. The applicants are required to demonstrate that their project benefits a cross section of our diverse community, and that no entry fees are chargeable.

 

The resulting activities or events must be held in the City of Randwick. Applicants may seek grants from Council as an in-kind contribution only (waiver of Council fees and charges), cash contribution only, or a combination of in-kind and cash contribution. 

 


 

October Round 2017/18 Assessment

The assessment process was undertaken by a panel of Council officers, with expertise in community services, governance and grants administration. The panel met to assess the 18 grant applications for compliance with the program’s funding priorities and guidelines in Attachment Two, and the organisation’s capacity to deliver on the program outcomes. Each application was assigned a numerical score reflecting a priority ranking of A, B or C. Priority levels are detailed below:

 

·          Priority A: High priority for funding. The project is consistent with program funding priorities and has special weighting and compares well with other applicants.

·          Priority B: Possibly fund if sufficient funds are available. Application meets eligibility criteria but with lower scores than the Priority A applications.  Priority B applications may lack adequate detail or be poorly targeted.

·          Priority C: Does not meet the eligibility criteria.

The Program requires and expects a high level of accountability from grant recipients. As part of the funding acquittal process, all recipients who have received grants are required to provide evidence that the activity or event was held, and to complete an End of Project report.

 

In this funding round, two applications were deemed ineligible because the applicants have yet to comply with their funding acquittal obligations.

 

Through this grant assessment process, a total of ten (10) of the eighteen (18) applications fully met the funding criteria.  As such, this report recommends the allocation of $56,780.89 and ($36,188.39 in-kind and $20,592.50 in cash) to the ten (10) eligible applications under this funding round.

 

The recommended grant applicants and a brief description of their proposed projects/events are summarised below:

 

·          $12,504.39 to Coogee Chamber of Commerce for event Coogee Family Fun Day. In-kind funds ($5,860.39) for use of Goldstein Reserve, car parking spaces and waste management. Cash funds ($6,644.00) for event staging and animal experience stand.

·          $3,560.00 to Coogee Surf Life Saving Club for event Coogee Island Challenge.  In-kind funds ($3,560.00) to use Coogee Beach, jet ski and life guard for two events to be held in November 2017 and April 2018.

·          $3,680.00 to Coogee Surf Life Saving Club for event Coogee Carnival.  In-kind funds ($3,680.00) to use Coogee Beach, jet ski and life guard at the event.

·          $9,500.00 to Holdsworth Community Centre for project Kensington Community Centre – Programs and Activation.  In-kind funds ($9,500.00) to use Kensington Park Community Centre for 50 Tuesdays in 2018 to provide activities for local residents as well as children with a disability.

·          $5,650.00 to Holdsworth Community Centre for event International Day of Disability Dinner Dance Celebration. In-kind funds ($2,200.00) to use the Prince Henry Centre to hold a dinner dance event for adults living with a disability and their family or carers in Randwick. Cash funds ($3,450.00) for catering/decor, entertainment and support staff.

·          $1,570.00 to Kooloora Community Centre for event Kooloora Christmas Celebration. Cash funds ($1,570.00) to hold a Christmas party for children, families and volunteers from Bilga, Namatjira and the Soldiers Settlement Housing Estates and help to defray the cost of purchasing food, children’s entertainment, administration and cleaning expenses.

·          $4,538.00 to Southend Boardriders for 2018 Club Events.  In-kind funds ($4,538.00) to use Maroubra Beach for eight surfing competitions in 2018.

·          $3,928.50 to St Andrew’s Catholic Church for event Pere Receveur Commemoration Mass. Cash funds ($3,928.50) for hire of a marquee, sound system and the transport of chairs and tables to hold the Pere Receveur Mass at the La Perouse Museum. The Mass commemorates the French priest La Perouse who is buried at La Perouse.

·          $7,100.00 to Wildlife Information Rescue and Education Services (WIRES) for projects WIRES Eastern Branch possum care and release. In-kind funds ($2,100.00) to hold community information sessions at Randwick Community Centre.  Cash funds ($5,000.00) to purchase materials to build possum boxes used during the rehabilitation and release process of possums.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows: lifestyle opportunities.

 

Outcome:  5:     Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities

Direction:  5b:   A range of cultural, sporting and leisure activities.

 

Financial impact statement

 

No additional financial impact. The recommended for allocation of $56,780.89 in the September 2017 funding round falls within the annual grants budget. The remaining funds of $53,219.11 are available for allocation at the Program’s March 2018 funding round.

 

Conclusion

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program plays an important role in supporting cultural and community activities that contribute to the vibrancy of the City of Randwick.  It is an important program to help the Council achieve its vision of building a “sense of community”.

     

The assessment panel has recommended the funding of ten (10) applications, totaling $56,780.89 in cash and in-kind contributions under the current funding round.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council approves the allocation of Cultural and Community Program funds totalling $56,780.89 to be allocated to the recommended grant applicants as listed in Attachment One.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Attachment One - Cultural and Community Grant Program - September 2017 - Recommended and not recommended applications

 

2.

Attachment Two - Cultural and Community Grant Program Guidelines

 

 

 

 


Attachment One - Cultural and Community Grant Program - September 2017 - Recommended and not recommended applications

Attachment 1

 

 


Attachment Two - Cultural and Community Grant Program Guidelines

Attachment 2

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 24 October 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF38/17

 

Subject:             Local Government NSW Conference 2017 and Cancellation of December Committee Meetings

Folder No:                   F2004/06645

Author:                   David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services      

 

Introduction

 

Local Government NSW’s 2017 Conference will be held at the Hyatt Regency, Sydney from Monday 4 December to Wednesday 6 December 2017. This will be the fifth conference for Local Government NSW (LGNSW) since the merger of the NSW Local Government Association and the Shires Association to form LGNSW.

 

Issues

 

This conference is the annual policy-making event for all Councils across NSW. For over a century, councils have worked together through the Association(s) to promote local government and advocate on behalf of our communities for local democracy, informed decision-making and good governance. This conference is the pre-eminent industry event, where councilors come together to share ideas and debate issues that shape the way we are governed.

 

Conference voting

The President of LGNSW (Cr Keith Rhodes) has written to all member Councils indicating:

 

“This year the Conference will involve two types of voting: delegates will vote on motions which determine the policies and priorities for LGNSW and the sector, and eligible delegates will vote in elections for the LGNSW Office Bearers and Board.”

 

Separate from Conference registration, members will need to nominate the names of their voting delegates for voting on motions and, where applicable, the names of their voting delegates for voting in the elections of Office Bearers and the Board. Under the formulae for the combined Association Randwick is able to nominate seven (7) voting delegates for voting on both motions and for voting in the elections of Office Bearers and the Board.

 

The deadline to provide LGNSW with the names of delegates to vote on policy motions and for voting in the elections of Office Bearers and the Board is Wednesday 1 November, 2017. Council is able to nominate an unlimited number of non-voting observers.

 

Conference motions

The Board has resolved that motions will be included in the Business Paper for the Conference where they:

 

1.     Are consistent with the objects of the Association;

2.     Relate to Local Government in NSW and/or across Australia;

3.     Concern or are likely to concern Local Government as a sector;

4.     Seek to advance the Local Government policy agenda of the Association and/or improve governance of the Association;

5.     Have a lawful purpose (a motion does not have a lawful purpose if its implementation would require or encourage non-compliance with prevailing laws);

6.     Are clearly worded and unambiguous in nature; and

7.     Do not express preference for one or several members over one or several other members.

 

The deadline for submission of motions is Monday 6 November 2017.

 

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

 

The costs associated with Councillors’ attendance at the 2017 Conference of LGNSW have been allowed for in the 2017-18 Budget.

 

Conclusion

 

Delegates and observers need to be nominated if Council is to be represented at the 2017 Conference of Local Government NSW. The Councillors’ Expenses and Facilities Policy permits all Councillors to attend this conference.

 

As this conference clashes with the scheduled December Committee meetings it is proposed that December Committee meetings be cancelled on a one-off basis.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Councillors interested in attending the 2017 Conference of Local Government NSW advise the General Manager as soon as possible;

 

b)     Councillors resolved the names of the seven delegates to vote on policy motions, and for voting in the elections of Office Bearers and the Board; and

 

c)     the December Committee meetings scheduled for Tuesday 5 December 2017 be cancelled as they clash with the conference dates.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 24 October 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF39/17

 

Subject:             Monthly Financial Report as at 31 August 2017

Folder No:                   F2017/00404

Author:                   Oliver Guo, Management Accountant      

 

Introduction

 

Section 202 of Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the responsible accounting officer of a council must:

a)     establish and maintain a system of budgetary control that will enable the council’s actual income and expenditure to be monitored each month and to be compared with the estimate of the council’s income and expenditure, and

b)     if any instance arises where the actual income or expenditure of the council is materially different from its estimated income or expenditure, report the instance to the next meeting of the council.

 

Issues

 

This report provides the financial results of the Council as at 31 August 2017. Attachment 1 summarises the Council’s financial performance and its source and application of funds. It also summarises the operating result for each of the Council’s principal activities. Attachment 2 details the financial position of the Council as at 31 August 2017. Attachment 3 details the cash flow of the Council as at 31 August 2017.

 

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

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The Council’s Manager Corporate and Financial Planning, as the Responsible Accounting Officer, advises that the projected financial position is satisfactory. The Current Ratio as at 31 August 2017 is 2.06 compared to 2.08 as at 30 June 2017. The Current Ratio is a financial indicator specific to local government and represents its ability to meet its debts and obligations as they fall due.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the Administration and Finance Committee acknowledges that the Responsible Accounting Officer has advised that the projected financial position of Council is satisfactory.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Monthly Financial Statements - Income Statements August 2017

 

2.

Monthly Financial Statements - Balance Sheet August 2017

 

3.

Monthly Financial Statements - Cash Flow Statement August 2017

 

 

 

 


Monthly Financial Statements - Income Statements August 2017

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


 


 


Monthly Financial Statements - Balance Sheet August 2017

Attachment 2

 

 


Monthly Financial Statements - Cash Flow Statement August 2017

Attachment 3

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 24 October 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF40/17

 

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

 

Investment Commentary

 

As at 30 September 2017, Council held investments with a market value of $70.612 million. The portfolio value decreased during September by ~$12.248 million. The decrease is representative of a negative cash flow for the month reflecting the net effect of revenue receipts (rates, grants & miscellaneous) offset by capital works expenditure and other operational payments.

 

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

 

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

 

Council’s Portfolio                               

 

The portfolio is liquid, with 7% of investments available at call and a further 20% of assets maturing within 3 months. Council has a large allocation to senior FRNs (approximately 43% of investments) which provide additional liquidity and are generally accessible within 2 business days.

 

 

 

The portfolio is directed to term deposits (50%), followed by floating rate notes (43%) with the remainder of the portfolio is held in cash accounts (7%).

 

The investment portfolio is diversified across the higher rated authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs).

 

The following graph indicates the allocation of investment types held at the end of September 2017.

 

 

 

The investment portfolio is regularly reviewed in order to maximise investment performance and minimise risk. Comparisons are made between existing investments with available products that are not part of the Council’s portfolio. Independent advice is sought on new investment opportunities.

 

Credit Quality

 

On 22 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.

 

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”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the time of the downgrade, Council held the following investments:

 

Institution

Downgraded Rating

Exposure
as at 22 May 2017

Bank of Queensland

BBB+

9,500,000.00

Bendigo Adelaide Bank

BBB+

7,500,000.00

Rural Bank

BBB+

2,000,000.00

 

This exposure has been reduced by $5.5 million since the downgrade. Term deposits that mature are recalled and reinvested in higher rated institutions. Sell opportunities for FRN’s are assessed when funds are required or when new product offerings come to market that represent an appropriate addition to the portfolio.

 

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).

 

 

Performance

 

The following graph shows the investment returns achieved against the AusBond Bank Bill Index and the official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate for the period September 2014 to September 2017.

 

 

Investment performance for the financial year to date is above the industry benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index with an average return of 2.60% compared with the benchmark index of 1.72%.

 

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

 

 

 

Term Deposits

 

At month end, term deposits accounted for 50% of the total investment portfolio.

Four deposits totaling $14.5 million matured and were withdrawn in September. There were 4 new term deposits taken up during September totaling $6 million.

As at the end of September, the weighted average deposit yield stood at 2.63%, up 11 basis points (bp) from the previous month or around 81 basis points (bp) over bank bills. This is an improvement from previous months, but continues to reflect reinvestment conditions and the unwillingness of highly rated banks to compete.

    

Floating Rate Notes (FRNs)

 

The portfolio includes $30.60 million in floating rate notes.

 

There was no trading of FRN’s during September.

 

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

 

The indicative market value of the FRN’s as at the 30 September 2017 increased by ~$6k.

 

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

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

Funds are invested with the aim of achieving budgeted income in the 2017-18 financial year and outperforming the AusBond Bank Bill Index over a 12 month period. The budget provision for investment income from this source is $1,414,455.00. Investment income to 30 September 2017 amounted to $473,361.15.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer - September 2017

 

 

 

 


Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer - September 2017

Attachment 1

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 24 October 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM62/17

 

Subject:             Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Eligibility for Local Government Elections

Folder No:                   F2017/00165

Submitted by:          Councillor D'Souza, South Ward      

 

 

That a report to be brought to Council confirming the eligibility of all the elected Councillors to Randwick Council in the 2017 Local Government Elections.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 24 October 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM63/17

 

Subject:             Notice of Motion from Cr Veitch - Additional support for residents affected by domestic and family violence

Folder No:                   F2013/00153

Submitted by:          Councillor Veitch, West Ward      

 

 

That Randwick City Council:

 

a)     Acknowledges that domestic and family violence is a serious issue and notes that:

·      In NSW during 2016-17 there were well over 28,000 recorded domestic violence incidents;

·      In Randwick City, the police recorded a total of 373 incidents;

·      Domestic violence referrals to local support service provider The Deli Women and Children’s Centre have risen by 400-500% since 2014, and that funding from government agencies has not been adjusted to properly manage the additional requests for support services;

 

b)     Notes that a whole-of-government approach is critical to addressing complex social issues such as domestic and family violence, and that Randwick City Council can, and should, play a more substantial role in helping our residents to recover from trauma and to re-establish their family lives; and

 

c)     Will bring back a report to a Council meeting as soon as practicable regarding the additional support that Council can provide for its residents affected by domestic and family violence.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 24 October 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM64/17

 

Subject:             Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Consultation on best use for community purposes of vacant Council land at Neptune Street Coogee

Folder No:                   F2010/00421

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That a report is brought back to a Council meeting on the option of inviting resident participation in the initiating of a community garden under Council’s Community Garden Policy on the unused Council land bordered by Duncan Street, Neptune Street and Wolseley Road at Coogee.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 24 October 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM65/17

 

 

Subject:             Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - NSW State Government aspirational objective for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050

Folder No:                   F2005/00230

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council submit a late motion to the Local Government NSW conference stating in principle support for the NSW State Government’s aspirational objective for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 (as stated in its Climate Change Fund Draft Strategic Plan 2017 to 2022) but urges consideration for bringing the target year forward to 2030 and seeks the opportunity to work with the Government on such an amended goal.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 24 October 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM66/17

 

Subject:             Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Pending roll out of low-impact recycling equipment in NSW

Folder No:                   F2004/08242

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward      

 

 

That Council notes that the NSW container deposit scheme will start on 1 December 2017 under amendments to the Exempt and Complying Development codes SEPP empowering either a private certifier or a local Council to grant approval for the installation of low-impact recycling equipment such as vending machines. Accordingly an urgent report will be brought back on how best Randwick City Council can seek to beneficially control the rollout of recycling equipment

 

 

 

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 24 October 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Notice of Rescission Motion No. NR8/17

 

Subject:             Notice of Rescission Motion from Councillors Andrews, Stavrinos and Hamilton - Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey

Folder No:                   F2009/00524

Submitted by:          Councillor Andrews, Central Ward; Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward; Councillor Hamilton, North Ward      

 

That the resolution passed at the Ordinary Council meeting held on Tuesday 10 October 2017 reading as follows:

 

“That the General Manager be delegated to undertake the immediate issuing of a public statement via print advertisements, the Mayoral Column, email systems, Council social media platforms and web sites indicating that Randwick City Council supports a "yes" vote in relation to the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey.”

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

If the Rescission Motion is carried, it is intended to move the following motion:

 

“That Council receive and note the Mayoral minute and confirm the flying of rainbow flags at Randwick Town Hall.”