RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 28 November 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                                                                                             28 November 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, 28 November 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 - 24 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.

CP70/17    213 Bunnerong Road, Maroubra (DA/237/2017) - Deferred......................... 1

CP71/17    4/199-203A Malabar Road, South Coogee (DA/153/2015/A) - Deferred........ 19

CP72/17    22 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly (DA/885/2016)......................................... 29

CP73/17    908-910 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (DA/792/2016).................................... 65

CP74/17    36 Arden Street, Clovelly (DA/352/2017/A) ............................................ 83

CP75/17    20 Dundas Street, Coogee (DA/150/2017).............................................. 89

CP76/17    4 Neptune Street, Coogee (DA/107/2016/A)........................................... 97

CP77/17    44 Daunt Avenue, Matraville (DA/477/2017).......................................... 107

CP78/17    9 Denning Street, South Coogee (DA/487/2017).................................... 135

CP79/17    8 Norton Street, Kingsford (DA/703/2016)............................................ 149

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP80/17    Report for Variation to Development Standard under SEPP No. 1 and Clause 4.6 - 26 to 9 November 2017.................................................................... 163

CP81/17    Queens Baton Relay and Community Celebration.................................... 167

CP82/17    Draft Randwick Disability Inclusion Action Plan....................................... 171

General Manager's Reports

GM19/17   Police Request for Temporary Alcohol Restrictions.................................. 215

GM20/17   Continution of Community Partnership with South Sydney Rugby League Football Club in 2018.................................................................................... 221

GM21/17   Rock Fishing Safety Act - Implementation & Communication update........... 225

GM22/17   Review of the Randwick City Council 2017-18 Operational Plan – September Quarter.......................................................................................... 231

GM23/17   State of the City Report 2017............................................................. 233

GM24/17   2018-21 Financial Strategy................................................................. 239

GM25/17   The Randwick City Plan 2017.............................................................. 247

Director City Services Reports

CS12/17    Streetscape and Cycleway Improvement Project - Kingsford to Centennial Park, and South Coogee to Kingsford Light Rail Terminus................................. 253

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF42/17    Operating hours - Christmas and New Year 2017-18............................... 261

GF43/17    2018 Meeting Schedule and arrangements for decision making over the Christmas/New Year period................................................................ 265

GF44/17    Code of Conduct Complaint Statistics................................................... 269

GF45/17    Quarterly Budget Review - September 2017.......................................... 273

GF46/17    Investment Report - October 2017...................................................... 295  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM67/17   Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Safety Audit of Traffic Signage ......... 305

NM68/17   Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Council's Sense of Community ........... 307

NM69/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Call for NSW emulation of SA, ACT, NT, Victoria and Tasmania's state wide plastic bag bans........................................... 309

NM70/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Veitch -  Transport for NSW Review and Respite Package for Randwick LGA residents affected by South East Light Rail out of Hours Construction Noise........................................................................... 311

NM71/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Response to Dept of Defence Force application for CDC at Joongah St, Randwick........................................................ 313

NM72/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Review of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 ....................................................... 315

NM73/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Adopt a Verge Program .................. 317

NM74/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Grass Cutting Program for the elderly 319

NM75/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos -  Australian Turf Club parking for UNSW students......................................................................................... 321

NM76/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Andrews - Dockless Bike Share Scheme............. 323

NM77/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Veitch - Call for report on the impact of cost-shifting measures on Randwick Council’s Long Term Financial Plan....................... 325

NM78/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Parker - Proposed drink re-fill stations along the coastal walkway......................................................................................... 327

NM79/17   Notice of Motion from Cr Parker - Bike Sharing .................................... 329

NM83/17   Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Minimum Lot Sizes .......................... 331  

Closed Session

GM26/17   Ongoing Administration of Kensington West Kingsford Precinct Committee

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (i) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with the report contains alleged contraventions of any code of conduct requirements applicable under section 440.

 

GM27/17   Multifunction Devices Tender - Rejection and Retender - T2018-19

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

 

CS13/17    Tender for Kensington Oval Moving Cricket Sight Screen Replacement - T2018-17

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

 

GF47/17    SSROC Tender for Supply and Delivery of Hardware and Associated Products T2017-06

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

  

 

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil.  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP70/17

 

Subject:             213 Bunnerong Road, Maroubra (DA/237/2017) - Deferred

Folder No:                   DA/237/2017

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Retention of portion of structure of existing dwelling and incorporation into construction of part two part three (attic) storey boarding house containing 11 boarding rooms, communal facilities, parking for 3 cars, motorcycle and bicycle parking, landscaping and associated works

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                MKD Architects Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Ms E Exindaris

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=f9d2ddef-2e01-4f0a-897c-200fbb3fe445&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Deferral

 

At the Planning Committee meeting of 14 November 2017 it was resolved:

 

“(Matson/Veitch) that the application be deferred to allow for a site inspection by the Councillors and the matter be reported back to the Council meeting of 28 November 2017”.

The staff report, as presented to the 14 November 2017 Planning Committee meeting is duplicated below:

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is reported to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillors D'Souza, Stavrinos and Andrews.

 

Proposal

 

Retention of portion of structure of existing dwelling and incorporation into construction of part two part three (attic) storey boarding house containing 11 boarding rooms (14 lodgers), communal facilities, parking for 3 cars, motorcycle and bicycle parking, landscaping and associated works.

 

Amended plans and additional details

Amended and additional details received 26 July 2017 comprising the following:

 

·      Acoustic report as requested by Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer

·      Relocate entry to the northern side off Bunnerong Road and co-locate with communal area to improve casual surveillance of the street

·      Limit underground garaging to two vehicles and one space in rear yard inclusive of bicycle and motor cycle parking;

·      Remove retaining walls along southern side retaining existing ground levels

 

Site

 

The site is a corner allotment having a rectangular skewed boundary (12.365m) fronting Bunnerong Road and secondary frontage (42.67m) to Eastmore Place, a southern side boundary depth of 45.11m and a total site area of 532.1sqm.

 

The site currently contains a brick duplex residence and brick garages under most of which will be demolished except for the lower ground level garaging by way of the proposal. The subject site slopes down from west to east From Bunnerong Road down along Eastmore Place, characteristic of the natural land fall on land on neighbouring properties.

 

Adjoining the site to the south is a part three/part four level residential flat building at No. 215 Bunnerong Road with garaging located at the lower ground level at the rear where the land is at its lowest level. Opposite the site to the north is a part two/part three storey dwelling at No. 211 Bunnerong Road fronting with a double garage accessible off the laneway.

 

The locality comprises predominantly low to medium density residential development within the R2 low density residential zone. The buildings in the locality include single 2 and part three storey dwelling houses as well as some older multi (part 2/3 & 4) storey residential flat developments.

 

The site is in close proximity to public transport bus services along Bunnerong Road and Snape Park within 400m of the site.

 

An aerial is shown on the cover page of this report and photos below show the subject site, and surrounding developments.

 

 

Aerial view of the subject site and neighbouring properties.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      5 Marjorie Crescent, Kingsford

·      6 Marjorie Crescent, Kingsford

·      8 Majorie Crescent, Kingsford

·      12 Marjorie Crescent, Kingsford

·      16 Marjorie Crescent, Kingsford (x2)

·      1 Storey Street, Kingsford

·      17 Storey Street, Kingsford (x3)

·      19 Storey Street, Kingsford (x 3)

·      3 Eastmore Place, Kingsford (x2)

·      9 Eastmore Place, Kingsford

·      11 Eastmore Place, Kingsford

·      15 Eastmore Place, Kingsford

·      19 Eastmore Place, Kingsford (See D02939251)

·      19 Eastmore Place, Kingsford

·      23 Eastmore Place, Kingsford

·      209 Bunnerong Road, Kingsford

·      211 Bunnerong Road, Kingsford

·      2/215 Bunnerong Road, Kingsford

·      Units 1, 3, 5 & 6 - 215 Bunnerong Road, Kingsford

·      4/215 Bunnerong Road, Kingsford

·      PETITION - 71 signatures

·      Unknown address

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed development is out of character with development in the surrounding area

See assessment against the character test required under ARHSEPP. In brief the proposed development has a bulk and scale that is not inconsistent with the bulk and scale envisaged under the RLEP for the site and the surrounding area. IN terms of compatibility of use, the proposed boarding house is for residential purposes and permissible under the local planning provisions in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan and the state provisions in the SEPP - Affordable Rental Housing ARHSEPP.

The proposed development will have an adverse social impact associated with residents on a temporary basis and raises the potential for crime and anti-social behaviour.

Affordable housing is vital element for sustaining a functioning city. It provides much needed housing for Key workers that need to service our City. It allows for social inclusion within established communities with good access to essential services and employment opportunities. There is no evidence to support the claim that residents of low to moderate incomes would pose a threat to the local community.

The proposed boarding house will have an adverse impact in relation to noise and use of common open space.

The premises are subject to management practices that will serve to ensure that the quiet enjoyment of the neighbouring properties will be reasonably protected. Additional conditions are also included to restrict use of the communal spaces so that they don’t occur between the hours of 9pm and 7am when sleep disturbance is more likely to occur (between 10pm and 7am).

 

An acoustic report was submitted indicating that the premises and equipment will operate within acceptable noise levels. Additional conditions have also been recommended for inclusion by Councils Senior Environmental Health Officer to minimise noise disturbance.

The proposed boarding house will result in increased waste and what provisions are being made for waste, recycling and composting

The proposed boarding house provides adequate space for the waste and recycling that is likely to be generated on site and suitable conditions are included in relation to waste collection. There are no regulations requiring composting to be provided for any form of development.

The proposal will result in adverse impacts on parking and traffic in the surrounding area

Council’s Development Engineer has considered the proposed parking on site and raises no objections on the grounds of accessibility, or safety. There are already two spaces servicing the dwelling accessible off Eastmore Place and the proposal merely maintains this access albeit with improved widths for access.

 

In terms of supply, the proposed parking for the boarding house complies with the ARHSEPP standards for parking. The ARHSEPP explicitly prohibits Council from refusing an application on parking grounds if it meets those standards. It is also important to consider that the premises meets the criteria as an accessible site as it is within 400m of both an accessible transport route and a town centre thus lessening the need for vehicle ownership by lodgers.

 

It is also important to explain that the parking requirements under the SEPPARH provide a strong emphasis on encouraging environmental sustainable transport opportunities particularly in localities where public transport infrastructure is frequented and facilities and services are available to meet the day-to-day needs of the residents. The proposal complies with the sustainable transport principles and defined as an accessible site under the ARHSEPP.

The entry passage on the southern side will require lighting and has the potential to impact on the residents at No. 215 Bunnerong Road.

The entry has been relocated to the northern western corner of the site assisting with casual surveillance. Also a condition is included stating that external lighting to the premises must be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

The proposed development will cause loss of natural light and solar access to the north facing apartments, clothes line and garden beds in 215 Bunnerong Road,

See key issues below – in short the north facing windows of No. 215 Bunnerong Road will receive the minimum 3 hours required under the RDCP for low density development and 2hrs required for apartments under the Apartment Design Guide under SEPP 65 for apartments. The clothes line area will also receive adequate levels of solar access.

The proposed breezeway is an eyesore

The proposed first floor level of the breezeway will be in the line of sight from the elevated north facing ground level apartment at the rear of No. 215 Bunnerong Road.

 

The breezeway has a two storey scale which is consistent with the scale of developments envisaged in the R2 low density zone under the RLEP 2012 and the RDCP 2013. The breezeway also has a compliant side setback and shielded from view by the landscaping within the subject site which are the subject of protection measures included as conditions of consent.

 

Also included as a condition is the requirement for the materials and colours of the breezeway be submitted to Council for approval prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

The boarding house will application set a precedent for other similar uses in the area therefore transforming the character of the area.

 

Every application is assessed on its merits. It is considered that the subject site is suitable for the proposed use as amended and as conditioned. It will achieve good planning outcome having regard to satisfying the requirements under the SEPPARH and the relevant controls under the RDCP and RLEP.

The proposed breezeway will affect the trees on 215 Bunnerong Road

Council’s Landscape Development Officer has assessed the surrounding trees and included relevant protection conditions in relation to the root zones and clearance pruning where needed.

Access along the southern side will cause adverse privacy impacts

The access is relocated along a portion of northern side of the site and natural land levels are retained along the south ensuring no direct line of sight across to the habitable room windows of No. 215 Bunnerong Road. Access off Bunnerong Road is more acceptable having regard to improving casual surveillance, minimising impacts on the neighbouring properties and providing a legible entry to the premises.

Removal of asbestos is done within strict guidelines

Conditions included in the recommendation

Site is managed appropriately during demolition/excavation and construction.

Suitable conditions are included in the recommendation

Structural integrity of neighbouring properties may be compromised

Suitable conditions are included in the recommendation

Existing inadequate drainage and sewerage pipes will not cope with the proposed boarding house

Conditions are included to ensure storm water and sewerage is suitably managed.

The plans do not demonstrate compliance with the fire code

Suitable conditions are included to ensure compliance with the relevant essential services requirements.

A boarding house would decrease the value of properties around the area and there are too many boarding houses.

 

 

The broad economic and social aspects of a development, such as whether or not the community as a whole ‘needs’ a facility offered by an applicant or its impact on property values are not relevant planning matters under Section 79C of the EP&A Act, 1979.

The premises appears to be currently operating as three separate premises

This matter is referred to the Building Regulatory Services section within Council for investigation.

 

Key Issues

 

The following section of this report contains an assessment of the key issues of relevance to the subject application.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy - Affordable Rental Housing (ARHSEPP) 2009

The subject application is made pursuant to Division 3: Boarding houses of the State Environmental Planning Policy - Affordable Rental Housing (ARHSEPP) 2009. Clause 30A - Character of the local area is the key clause under the ARHSEPP. Clause 30A requires the consent authority is required to take into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

 

An assessment is carried out in relation to the context, compatibility of the built form, compatibility of the use and compatibility of the development with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone as follows:

 

The consent authority is required to take into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

 

Context:

The corner site has a slightly skewed frontage of 12.365m to Bunnerong Road and a secondary frontage along Eastmore Place measuring 42.67m. The site has a total site area of area of 532.1sqm.

 

Consideration of the context of the site needs to consider the proposed development in the context of the surrounding area.

 

The surrounding residential developments are contained within the R2 low density residential zone. The site is within close proximity, that is within 400m and walking distance” of a regular bus service, and a Neighbourhood Centre zoned (B1) row of shops along Bunnerong Road to the south which qualifies the site as an “accessible site” under the ARHSEPP. Snape Park is located east of the site also within walking distance. An aerial view of the surrounding zones is shown below,

 

Aerial showing the zones and uses in the surrounding area. Red shading identifies the surrounding area is predominately zoned R2 Low Density Residential, Burgundy line identifies the regular bus route, green shading identifies Snape Park and light blue shading identifies the land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

 

The proposed development is configured in one built form fronting Bunnerong Road which is consistent with the siting and layout of other developments in the locality. Bunnerong Road and the surrounding street network contains a mixture of predominately single detached dwelling houses in single and two-storey scales and part three and part four-storey walk up flat buildings of mostly older housing stock (operating as existing use rights under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979). Along Eastmore Place, the secondary street frontage, single and semi-detached dwellings front the laneway including garages.

 

To the north, on the opposite corner, identified as No. 211 Bunnerong Road is a part two part three storey dwelling house whose southern elevation faces the subject site. The southern elevation contains mostly service and non-habitable room uses as they rely less on solar access. To the south, the site adjoins a part three part four storey red brick walk up flat building with parking and clothes lines within the rear yard. Street and aerial views are shown below.

 

Street view of subject site in centre – 213 Bunnerong Road, at left two storey dwelling at 211 Bunnerong Road) and adjoining to the south is the multi storey flat building at 215 Bunnerong Road).

 

Aerial view of subject site and adjoining development.

 

Compatibility of built form:

It is considered that the character of the proposal is satisfactory with the existing surrounds and expected future character which is dictated by the RLEP standards for FSR and height standards for the site and surrounding properties co located within the R2 zone. As well, the proposal is also generally considered satisfactory with the existing surrounds and expected future character dictated by the RDCP 2013 controls and objectives in Part C1 relating to low density residential development. In particular, the proposed development has a traditional envelope form for low residential developments that are permitted in the zone and the wider LGA. The upper most level (level 1 is designed as an attic style contained as a habitable roof form within the main roof and the rear contains a two-storey element.

 

·      Floor space ratio

The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 0.47:1 reduced from 0.49:1 as originally sought and readily meets the maximum 0.65:1 standard applicable to the site under the ARHSEPP. The indicated FSR does not include the breezeway which some submissions have indicated should be included as it is predominately enclosed. In this respect, even if the breezeway was included in the FSR the proposed development would have a FSR of around 0.6:1 which as noted earlier is still below the maximum FSR permitted under the ARHSEPP. In terms of compatibility of built form, an assessment of the particular siting and building design elements of the development carried out as follows:

 

·      Overall height and external wall heights

The proposal has an overall height less than the 9.5m maximum height of buildings standard applying to development in the R2 zone under the RLEP. Physically, the proposal is well below the height of the flat building adjoining to the south at No. 215 Bunnerong Road. The proposal also has a wall height that is well below the 8m maximum external wall height control applying to sloping sites under Part C1 of the RDCP. In relation to the predominantly low density built form in the surrounding area the proposed heights of the development are considered to display a high level of compatibility having particular regard to streetscape character and neighbouring developments. The proposed walls are well articulated at the front and along the side elevations compliant with the maximum external wall heights and minimum setback controls for low density residential forms of development and in some instance particularly along the secondary street frontage the proposal provides greater setback than the minimum required under the RDCP.

 

Streetscape view of proposed development and neighbouring development’s at No. 211 Bunnerong Road (shown at left) being a two storey dwelling as viewed from Bunnerong Road and No. 215 Bunnerong Road (shown at right) a three storey flat building as viewed from Bunnerong Road.

 

·      Setbacks

 

Front setback

The front setback is the average of the two nearest buildings at No. 211 and 215 Bunnerong Road and therefore complies with the provisions under Part C1 of the RDCP.

 

Side setbacks

The proposal has southern side setbacks of 1200mm and 3700mm for a small stepped in section towards the front and will comply with the minimum 1200mm minimum side setbacks apply to low density residential development under Part C1 of the RDCP. The proposal has a secondary setback of between 1500mm and 2500mm which is readily compliant with the 1500mm minimum required under Part C1 of the RDCP.

 

Rear setbacks

The site is on a corner which means that under Part C1 of the RDCP no minimum rear setback control applies. Notwithstanding, the applicant was asked to provide clear indication of the shadowing caused to the rear common open space area of the flat building to the south at No. 215 Bunnerong Road with particular regard to the clothes drying area.

 

The applicant provided shadow diagrams that demonstrated that the north facing ground level apartments will receive solar access between 10am and 3pm during the winter solstice which readily meets the minimum 2hrs required under the Apartment Design Guide and the three hours required for low density residential forms of development under Part C1 of the RDCP. The shadow plans also demonstrate that the clothes drying area at the north eastern corner of the No. 215 Bunnerong Road will also receive solar access between 8am and 12noon. The other parts of the rear yard of the flat building comprise vehicle maneuvering areas which don’t rely on solar access.

 

Site coverage and landscaped areas

The proposed development has a site coverage of 50% complying with the 50% maximum permitted for low density development on surrounding properties. The proposed development also provides 43% deep soil area on site which is significantly greater than the 30% minimum required for low density forms of development on the surrounding properties.

 

Overall, the proposed development will sit comfortably within the streetscape along Bunnerong Road and Eastmore Place without any significant or unavoidable amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties. For the purposes of compatibility of built form the proposed development will meet the character test required under Clause 30A of ARSEPP – Affordable Rental Housing and allows an appropriate scale relative to the neighbouring properties and the wider development in the R2 low density residential zone.

 

Solar access and overshadowing

Whilst the DCP for boarding houses does not contain specific controls in relation to solar access and overshadowing impacts for boarding houses, the objectives and controls from Part C1 Low density residential development provide a suitable guide in this regard:

 

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

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

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

 

The controls with respect to neighbouring dwellings require that a portion of the north-facing living area windows of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

The proposed development readily complies with this control as demonstrated in the elevation shadow diagrams below which show a comparison between the existing and proposed shadows from 9am to 2pm showing that the ground level north facing windows will receive solar access for at least five hours during the winter solstice.

 

 

 

 

 

Communal open space and clothes line area

The controls with respect to neighbouring properties private open space require that the private open space of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. The area covered by sunlight must be capable of supporting passive recreation activities.

 

The proposed development results in additional shadowing to the rear of the property at No. 215 Bunnerong Road containing a clothes line at the top right corner of the site and garden open space along the northern side fence as shown in the aerial below.

 

The clothes line area at the rear of No. 215 Bunnerong Road will receive at least three hours of solar access between 8am and 12 noon as shown in the two diagrams below.

 

 

Aerial of subject site and neighbouring property showing the location of open communal space (Orange outline) and clothes line (Red outline) as approved under BA/973/1968.

 

The submitted shadow diagrams at 9am and 12noon, as shown below, show that the clothes line area will receive three hours of solar access during the winter solstice. In relation to the communal open space of No. 215 Bunnerong Road, the diagrams show that there is a marginal difference between shadowing caused by the existing development, that is the fencing, and the proposed development to this area of communal open space. It is noted that the area south of the communal area is driveway space. The shadowing from the fencing is inevitable as it is a result of the east west orientation of the site.

 

9am shadow

12 noon shadow

Shadow diagrams: The diagrams above show at the proposed developments overshadwoing impacts on the southern site at No. 215 Bunnerong Road. In particlar, the area bounded by blue box is the location of the neighobur’s clothes line. The shadow diagrams show that this area will receive solar access during the wintter solstice.

 

The solar access to the neighbouring property as a result of the proposed development are assessed as acceptable in the circumstances.

 

Overall, the predominant built form in the surrounding area and locality pattern is characterized by single and two storey dwelling houses and residential flat buildings (operating as existing use rights).  The proposed development has a built form and height that is comparable to and compatible with the surrounding development.

 

 

Compatibility of use:

 

·      Number of lodgers

 

The proposed use of the site, which comprises boarding house with 11 rooms and a maximum of 14 lodgers (3 double rooms at lower ground level, 6 single rooms at ground level and 1 double room at level 1), constitutes a permissible form of development, and one that is envisaged by the ARHSEPP 2009.

 

·      Visual and acoustic privacy

 

Having regard to the privacy impacts both visual and acoustic, the proposed development will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse visual and acoustic impacts on the neighbouring dwellings.

 

In terms of acoustic privacy, the applicant has submitted an acoustic report to accompany the development application which has been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer who indicates that the development is acceptable in minimizing noise transmission to the neighbouring dwellings and will comply with the relevant noise criteria. The proposed use is for a residential purpose with self-contained facilities, tenanted for a minimum period of three months which generally means that it isn’t inherently noisy compared to short term accommodation. In addition, the development application is accompanied by a plan of management setting out house rules which in particular restricts common outdoor area use between 9pm and 7am which will minimise the likelihood of sleep disturbance.

 

In terms of visual privacy, the boarding house is sited and designed such that a reasonable level of visual privacy will be maintained to the neighbouring dwellings. In particular, the corner allotment affords a sizable separation of between 8.7m and 11.4m away from the southern side of the single dwelling at No. 211 Bunnerong Road. The boarding rooms facing north also contain planter boxes which will provide an additional visual privacy buffer. Moreover, a review of the approved dwelling at No. 211 Bunnerong Road shows their windows opposite Eastmore Place, facing the boarding house, are predominately non-habitable rooms including linen, storage, and bathroom uses. There are habitable rooms such as a ground level living room and first floor level living room at the far eastern end of this dwelling, whose privacy is considered to be suitable protected by the physical privacy measures of separation and planters.

 

Having regard to the visual and acoustic privacy of the development to the south that is the flat building at No. 215 Bunnerong Road, the proposal predominately contains a breezeway which is a transient area, designed with full height screening and not likely to result in any significant adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts.

 

Overall, in relation to privacy, the proposed development contains suitable design and operational measures which will ensure acceptable mutual levels of visual and acoustic privacy and will not result in any significant adverse visual or acoustic privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

Plan of Management

The RDCP under Part C4 Boarding houses and Part B9 Management Plans sets out the requirement and contents of a Management Plan to be submitted with all DAs for new and existing boarding houses. Management plans are required to address the general requirements outlined in the Management Plan section in Part B, which includes the following matters:

 

·      Selection of residents with preference for people on low and moderate incomes;

·      Furnishings;

·      House rules, covering issues such as lodger behaviour, visitor and party policies, activities and noise control, use and operation hours of common areas (e.g. communal open space and living rooms) and policies for regulating smoking and consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs;

·      Cleaning and vermin control arrangements for shared facilities and

·      Public notice and signs

       

A plan of management and House Rules accompany the application and it is generally considered to suitably address the requirements under Part C4 and Part B9 of the RDCP 2013. Adherence to the management plan and additional matters will be a conditional requirement and serve to ensure the operation of the boarding house will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

 

Overall, the proposal provides affordable housing to the community in a location within close proximity to services, public transport, infrastructure and recreational facilities integrating effectively into the existing and evolving character of the locality. The effective management of the premises is considered to be achievable.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the Low Density Residential R2 zone;

The proposal is clearly consistent with the objectives of the zone, detailed as follows:

 

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

 

The proposed development for a boarding house is permissible in the zone and will provide additional housing needs of the community.

 

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

 

As demonstrated throughout the character assessment, the proposed development has a built form that will generally be consistent with the bulk and scale envisaged by the Standards applicable to the R2 zone with particular reference to the specific provisions in Part C1 of the RDCP applying to low density residential forms of development permissible on the site and the surrounding area.

 

•    To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The amenity of residents having regard to solar access, views, privacy and visual amenity will be suitably protected.

 

•    To encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposal for a boarding house is a form of affordable housing as defined under the ARHSEPP 2009.

 

Overall, having regard to the above it is considered that the character test is satisfied on this occasion.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and where non-compliance occurs with particular provisions there are adequate planning explanations for satisfying the relevant objectives associated with the controls.

 

The proposed will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality subject to conditions being imposed or compliance with the recommended conditions contained in the attached DA compliance report.

 

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/237/2017 for retention of portion of structure of existing dwelling and incorporation into construction of 3part two part three storey boarding house containing 11 boarding rooms, communal facilities, parking for 3 cars, motorcycle and bicycle parking, landscaping and associated works. at No. 213 Bunnerong Road, Kingsford, 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.  All privacy screens shall be designed so that the total area of any openings within the privacy screens must not exceed 25% of the area of the screens.

 

b.  The rear boundary fence located on the eastern boundary shall be installed at a height of 2100mm, measured above the finished ground level within the subject site.

 

The applicant and owner is advised that the relevant provisions of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 are to be satisfied accordingly and any necessary approvals or agreements should be obtained from the owner/s of the adjoining land beforehand.

 

c.  A Plan of Management Plan governing the use and operation boarding house shall be submitted to Council for approval having regard to (but not limited by) the following aspects of the development:

 

§   Management of the boarding rooms

§   Operational details

§   Amenity

§   Safety and security

§   Waste management

§   Fire safety

§   Deliveries and loading/unloading

§   Complaint management

§   Booking, Reception and access provisions

 

The plan of management shall be provided to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to an occupation certificate being issued. The plan of management shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustic consultant and include relevant recommended acoustic measures by an acoustic expert. Once approved the plan of management shall be complied with at all times subject to conditions of consent.

 

d.  The Landscape plan LA01 Rev A dated 13/04/2017 shall be amended to reflect the amended layout of the development. Additional landscaping shall be provided to the secondary street frontage opposite LG BR.1, LC BR.2 & LG BR.3. The additional landscape shall include trees and plants to provide an additional privacy buffer opposite the dwelling opposite located at No. 211 Bunnerong Road and No. 215 Bunnerong Road. Details shall be submitted to Council’s Landscape Development Officer for approval prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 213 Bunnerong Rd, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP71/17

 

Subject:             4/199-203A Malabar Road, South Coogee (DA/153/2015/A) - Deferred

Folder No:                   DA/153/2015/A

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Review of condition relating to operating hours

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Mr & Mrs Allison

Owner:                        Owners SP10179

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Deferral

 

At the Planning Committee meeting of 14 November 2017 it was resolved:

 

“(Andrews/Luxford) that, in accordance with the applicants’ request, the application be deferred to the Council meeting of 28 November 2017”.

 

The staff report, as presented to the 14 November 2017 Planning Committee meeting is duplicated below:

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Planning Committee as the reviewable condition relates to hours of operation which were the subject of section 96 application determined by Council.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal seeks to make permanent the temporary trading hours of the café and footpath trading imposed under condition 35 of DA/153/2015/A as follows:

 

Operational Hours

35.     The operating hours of the café including the footpath dining area must be restricted to the following and are subject to a review period in accordance with Section 80A (10B) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Division 14 of the Environmental & Assessment Regulation 2000:

 

·       Sunday to Thursday:        7:00am – 8.30pm

·       Friday & Saturday:           7:00am – 9.30pm

 

Footpath trading:

 

•   Sunday to Thursday: 7.00am - 6.00pm

•   Friday & Saturday:           7:00am – 9.30pm

 

All food services to customers in footway dining area shall only be provided within the abovementioned hours of operation and all patrons must vacate the area and all outdoor furniture is to be removed within 30 minutes of the specified hours.

 

The operating hours will be reviewed by Council in six months and at the end of twelve months from the date of this amended consent. Appropriate supporting evidence (including but not limited to, relevant acoustics measurements) must be provided at the end of these review periods to demonstrate compliance with all conditions of this consent as part to the review. 

 

Background

·      DA/153/2015: Consent was granted (18 May 2015) for the fit out and use of the premises as a café with outdoor dining (maximum of 14 seats), parking at the rear and waste services area. The hours of operation were the subject of a reviewable condition (condition 35)

 

Operational Hours

35.   The operating hours of the café including the footpath dining area must be restricted to the following and are subject to a review period in accordance with Section 80A (10B) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Division 14 of the Environmental & Assessment Regulation 2000:

 

·           Sunday to Thursday:        7:00am – 6:00pm

·           Friday & Saturday :          7:00am – 9:30pm

 

All food services to customers in footway dining area shall only be provided within the abovementioned hours of operation and all patrons must vacate the area and all outdoor furniture is to be removed within 30 minutes of the specified hours.

 

The operating hours will be reviewed by Council within 12 months of the date of commencement of the café including footpath dining area. The operator of the premises must advise Council in writing of the date of commencement. Appropriate supporting evidence (including but not limited to, relevant acoustics measurements) must be provided at the end of the review period to demonstrate compliance with all conditions of this consent as part to the review.

 

·      Section 96 “A” DA/153/2015/A: Consent was granted 25 October 2016. A reviewable condition (subject to 6 months and 12 months review) approved the following change to condition 35:

 

Operational Hours

35.    The operating hours of the café including the footpath dining area must be restricted to the following and are subject to a review period in accordance with Section 80A (10B) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Division 14 of the Environmental & Assessment Regulation 2000:

 

·      Sunday to Thursday:          7:00am – 8.30pm

·      Friday & Saturday :            7:00am – 9.30pm

 

Footpath trading:

 

·      Sunday to Thursday:   7.00am - 6.00pm

·      Friday & Saturday:             7:00am – 9.30pm

 

All food services to customers in footway dining area shall only be provided within the abovementioned hours of operation and all patrons must vacate the area and all outdoor furniture is to be removed within 30 minutes of the specified hours.

 

The operating hours will be reviewed by Council in six months and at the end of twelve months from the date of this amended consent. Appropriate supporting evidence (including but not limited to, relevant acoustics measurements) must be provided at the end of these review periods to demonstrate compliance with all conditions of this consent as part to the review. 

 

The S96 “A” also approved an increase in seating from 14 to 20 seats (less than the 40 and then 28 originally sought by applicant). The footpath trading hours were not changed. Conditions were added retaining a car space in the rear courtyard, delivery vehicles to park on Malabar Road and waste management.

 

Site

 

The subject site occupies a ground level commercial premises at the southern end of the site wrapping around Malabar Road and Denning Street. The site is operating as a café with footpath dining. The properties to the north are other commercial premises with frontages to Malabar Road and located within the B1 Neighbourhood Zone which permits commercial premises. Located above the premises at first floor level is a residential unit. The surrounding properties to the east along Denning Street and west along Malabar Road are residential development containing a mixture of single dwellings, multi-unit flats and semi-detached dwellings located in the R2 low density residential zone. Opposite the site to the south is a Reserve owned by the Crown and under the control of Council.

 

The most notable neighbouring properties include an apartment directly above the shop premises and the residential dwellings to the east on the eastern side of Denning Street, several of which have made submissions.

 

Aerial image of the site and surrounding area. Note Red outline over the subject site (bounded in green) identifies the unit above the café premises. Green shading identifies the whole of the site known as 199-203A Malabar Road which contains strata shops and 1st floor residences/ancillary above. The rear of these properties face Denning 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 submissions were received as a result of the notification period:

 

·      5/199-203A Malabar Road, South Coogee

·      79 Denning Street, South Coogee

·      202 Malabar Road South Coogee

·      1/92 Denning St, South Coogee

·      81 Denning Street, South Coogee

·      77 Denning Street, South Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

Café has operated only on several occasions during the later opening time and therefore it does not provide an accurate measure of compliance. It is also noted that during times where they have operated near to closing times they have operated outside these hours.

 

The acoustic report in the previous S96 application had flaws and should never have been relied upon to allow for hours between 6pm and 7am

The applicant submitted an acoustic report with this application to review the operating hours. An independent assessment of the application has been undertaken by Council Officers. Council has not relied solely upon the information provided by the applicant in the assessment of the current application to review the operating hours. Due regard has been given to investigations by Council Rangers.

 

See discussion under Key issues section of this report.

Illegal parking over the driveway impeding and redirecting pedestrian traffic along the roadway compromising safety

This matter has been referred to Council Rangers for investigation.

Rubbish such as coffee cups surrounding the premises

A condition is included requiring a staff member to be responsible for a walk through around the shop premises along Malabar Road, Denning Street and the Reserve to pick up litter associated with the shop premises.

The premises has operated before 7am and after the nominated closing times on occasion. Live music (microphone) has also been conducted on site.

See key issue section.

Sewerage smell when they empty their waste trap

This matter has been referred to Council’s Environmental Health Section for investigation.

 

Key issues

 

·      Request for review

As part of the review a request for information was made to the Applicant as follows:

 

As Council has received noise complaints during the trial period could you please provide the following information within 21 days from the date of this letter to enable the review to be undertaken:

 

1.  An acoustic report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, which demonstrates and confirms that the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the noise criteria and requirements contained in this consent continues to be satisfied (including reference to the relevant approved acoustic report and recommendations).  The assessment must include (but not be limited to):

 

·      Monitoring from the nearest affected residential units located above 5/199 Malabar Road

·      Monitoring and assessment during the use and operation of the premises when live entertainment is being provided and greater occupancy is present,

·      Compliance monitoring shall be carried out during the times when the nearby residential and public domain areas are likely to be most affected, this shall include (but not be limited to) the hours of operation on a Friday and/or Saturday night,

·      Ensure the break out of any internal noise complies with the set criteria. If not, nominate the necessary and required measures to ensure compliance (this may include controlling live entertainment; controlling internal noise; provision of sound locks; other management practices as deemed appropriate and necessary),

·      The report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources.

·      The report must detail compliance with Condition 33, 35, 82 and 83 of the DA/153/2015/A

2.  Details of all complaints received and the manner in which they were dealt with and resolved.

 

In response the Applicant provided the following documentation:

 

1.  An acoustic report (R150494R1) dated 3 July 2017 that conducted noise levels conducted during the breakfast period of Sunday 25 June 2017 and not during the later hours of operation that is after 7pm when disturbance of neighbouring properties was of most concern.

2.  A statement responding to the complaints received by Council from the time of beginning operations (early November).

 

·      Customer Service Requests (CRM’s)

There have been a number of reports made to Council and investigations about the operation of the premises during that period. These are detailed below:

 

1 November 2016: CRM report opening earlier than permitted;

14 November 2016: Ranger reports service of customers before 7am;

15 November 2016: Ranger reports service of customer before 7am;

16 November 2016: Ranger reports closed at 5pm;

19 November 2016: Ranger reports people leaving with coffee before 7am;

21 November 2016: Ranger reports seating placed on footpath prior to 7am;

23 November 2016: Ranger reports several people being served before 7am;

24 November 2016: Ranger reports several customers served and inside café before 7am;

4 December: CRM report of noise from within the premises and table and chairs on footpath outside hours of operation;

5 December 2016: Ranger reports tables and chairs outside after hours and bay windows open

16 December 2016: CRM reports staff delivering coffee to person in bus zone;

19 December: CRM reports footpath is blocked;

12 February: CRM reporting loud music and too many customers; Ranger reports music not offensive; Ranger investigates later and reports seating outside premises at 7:40pm after 6pm limit for footpath seating on Sunday;

25 April 2017: CRM reports excessive noise; Ranger investigated no noise concerns;

13 May 2017: CRM report of loud music; Ranger reports loud music heard from street;

14 May 2017: CRM reports (from two neighbour’s) of loud music (stopping and starting); Ranger reports no loud music (observes microphone setup in premises);

 

·      Operation and management

In summary, the Customer Service Requests (CRM’s) received by Council and investigated by Council Rangers relate to:

 

·      Placing furniture on the footpath and serving customers earlier than the 7am, permitted

·      Excessive noise from amplified music emanating from within the premises during permitted times;

·      Excessive noise from the rear of the premises through open windows and doors directly connected to the café’s kitchen

·      Footpath seating and or trading on two Sundays longer than permitted;

 

Council officers have investigated and verified the following:

 

·      Furniture placed and/or serving customers earlier than the 7am on seven occasions

·      Footpath trading occurred later than (6pm) permitted on two Sundays (4 December and 12 February) and

·      Loud breakout noise associated with amplified music from within the premises during the permitted operating time

 

Applicant’s response:

As part of the review process, the Applicant responses to the above reports acknowledging they have operated earlier than the permitted 7am opening time and that they have undertaken a change in opening procedures to rectify this by only placing furniture outside during the permitted hours. The Applicant also confirms on two Sundays they had furniture on the footpath later than permitted and that this was three months apart and related to team bonding session and no commercial activity.

 

·      Noise and hours of operation

 

An acoustic report has been submitted in support of the review. Councils Senior Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the acoustic report and notes the following:

 

For an acoustic validation to address issues of acoustic compliance the following elements would need to be included:

 

·      Assessment of the operation of the premises during the extended operational hours, particularly night time;

·      Consideration of sensitive receiver and measurement if permissible directly above the premises in terms of acoustic compliance.

 

At this stage it is considered the acoustic report has not demonstrated compliance with required acoustic criteria as the report covers a day time period during Sunday only.

 

The fact that the acoustic report has not conducted a noise assessment during the later opening times is of particular concern as the closing times are the subject of review.

 

Opening times

 

The proponent placed furniture on the footpath earlier than permitted on at least seven occasions verified by Councils Rangers. It is noted however, that an assessment of the CRM’s received by Council following mid-December 2016 reveals no significant complaints regarding the placement of footpath furniture or serving customers earlier than permitted. Therefore it is recommended that the opening time of 7am remain for the premises for a further trial period.

 

Closing times

 

In relation to the closing times, several submissions received as part of this review report the café hasn’t generally operated during the extended hours and generally closed its doors between 4pm and 6pm every day. The concern raised is that if the premises hasn’t operated during the extended hours how can it be demonstrated that there is compliance with the relevant conditions. Whilst it cannot be confirmed that the premises has not consistently operated during the extended hours, it can however be said that the Applicant has demonstrated an ability to comply with the opening times permitted for a considerable period (for around 11 months out of the 12 months since the S96”A” determination) and the Applicant has generally addressed the waste management concerns in relation to collection. In addition, there has only been two occasions during the 6 month period that the applicant has placed furniture on the footpath after the permitted hours.

 

Based on the above, it is recommended that the closing times be retained as approved in condition 35 in the S96 “A” application for a further reviewable period. However, in order to accurately determine compliance with the noise criteria with the premises operating at capacity or close to its maximum capacity, it is recommended that condition 33 be amended to require noise measurements during the extended hours to be undertaken for a consecutive period of four weeks of operation and to include break out noise.

 

Overall, maintaining condition 35 and amending condition 33 will ensure a comprehensive review of the hours of operation.

 

Footpath seating

Only two CRM’s were received by Council in relation to the footpath area being blocked since the increase in outdoor seating from 14 to 20 seats. Council Rangers investigated and found that the number of tables and seats were compliant with the DA consent condition. There are no significant concerns with the number of tables and chairs on site and the applicant has reasonably demonstrated that the number of tables and chairs can fit within the area approved by Council.

 

Deliveries and pedestrian safety

Several CRM’s and submissions were received from a Denning Street resident showing that vehicles (including delivery vehicles) park over the driveway entrance and pedestrian footpath off Denning Street impeding pedestrians travelling along the footpath requiring the use of the road way to pass which is unsafe. The Applicant has indicated that they have “warned suppliers to deliver only during delivery times” which does not address the delivery vehicles using Denning Street to make deliveries. Notwithstanding, parking over the driveway is illegal and administered by Council Rangers and Police. In relation to the delivery vehicles, a condition was included requiring the use of the Loading bay along Malabar Road. It is noted that this does not preclude the movement of deliveries through the rear of the shop off Denning Street which is acceptable.

 

Waste Management

Several CRM’s and submissions have been received regarding the disturbance from garbage trucks operating during the early morning period, the increase in rubbish such as coffee cups around the premises in the public domain and smells from removing the grease trap waste.

 

In relation to garbage removal, the Applicant indicates that they have changed from a private waste management contractor to Randwick Council commercial waste management which has significantly reduced the noise complaints from neighbouring properties. In relation to the waste in the public domain around the cafe, it is noted that the public have a degree of responsibility to get rid of rubbish appropriately and that there is a street bin located in close proximity to the site. Condition 44 of the original determination does require the business proprietor and staff to ensure that the footpath dining area (and the immediate vicinity adjacent to the footpath dining area) is maintained in a clean and tidy condition at all times, free of grease, food and litter. No further waste conditions are considered necessary.

 


 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A livable City.

Direction 6b:      Our town centres, beaches, public places and streets are safe, inviting, clean and support a recognisable image of our city.

Direction 6c:      The safety of our community is paramount and is acknowledged and supported through proactive policies, programmes and strategies.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

In circumstances where the Applicant has mostly demonstrated compliance with the conditions consent, it is considered reasonable to recommend that the closing times be retained as approved in condition 35 in the S96 “A” application for a further reviewable period and the requirement for an acoustic report be submitted to Council identifying noise measurements during the extended hours of review to be undertaken for a consecutive period of four weeks of operation.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, amends development consent under Section 80 (10B & 10D) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended to the operation for the food premises, at No. 4/199-201 Malabar Road, South Coogee, by amending DA/153/2015 in the following manner:

 

·              Amend Condition No. 33 to read:

Environmental Amenity

33.     An acoustic report from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics for the subject development shall be provided to Council within 2 months of the date of this determination (covering a four week period) and from time to time as reasonably requested by Council, which demonstrates and certifies that noise from the use and operation from the development during the extended hours contained in Condition No. 35and when the premises is at or near capacity complies with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW EPA/DECC Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s consent.

 

The acoustic report is to include (but not be limited) to:

 

·      Noise emission from the proposed development (e.g. operational noise, mechanical noise, monitoring from nearest affected residential premises during the use and operation of the premises when at or near capacity occupancy to satisfy intrusiveness and amenity criteria),

 

·      Monitoring and assessment during the use and operation of the premises when live entertainment is being provided and greater occupancy is present,

 

·      Break out of any internal noise complies with the set criteria. If not, nominate the necessary and required measures to ensure compliance (this may include controlling live entertainment; controlling internal noise; provision of sound locks; other management practices as deemed appropriate and necessary),

 

·      Patron noise from the development having regard to the footway dining (at or near maximum capacity) and the hours of operation (across the hours of operation),

 

·      Background noise levels shall be in the absence of any other businesses operating in the area,

 

·      The validation acoustic report shall be conducted at the nearest sensitive receivers including but not limited to residential occupancies above 199-203A Malabar Road, South Coogee and in the vicinity of the site. A copy of the report is to be forwarded and approved by Council.

 

·              Amend Condition No. 35 to read:

Operational Hours

35.     The operating hours of the café including the footpath dining area must be restricted to the following and are subject to a review period in accordance with Section 80A (10B) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Division 14 of the Environmental & Assessment Regulation 2000:

 

·      Sunday to Thursday:              7:00am – 8.30pm

·      Friday & Saturday :        7:00am – 9:30pm

 

All food services to customers in footway dining area shall only be provided within the abovementioned hours of operation and all patrons must vacate the area and all outdoor furniture is to be removed within 30 minutes of the specified hours.

 

The operating hours will be reviewed by Council within 6 months of the date of determination of this application. The operator of the premises must advise Council in writing of the date of commencement. Appropriate supporting evidence (including but not limited to, relevant acoustics measurements) must be provided at the end of the review period to demonstrate compliance with all conditions of this consent as part to the review.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP72/17

 

Subject:             22 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly (DA/885/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/885/2016

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to existing residential flat building including new upper level containing 2 bedroom dwelling, demolition of existing garage, construction of new triple garage with terrace above, internal configuration, new lift shaft, changes to openings, landscaping and associated work (variation to floor space ratio and height of buildings standards). 

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                A Cho

Owner:                        The Owners - Strata Plan No. 14611

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council at the request of Councillors Shurey, Neilson and Matson.

 

Proposal

The proposal seeks consent for the following works:

 

Demolition

•   Demolish two car garage and construct new three vehicle garage with roof terrace and plant room over.

•   Demolish various parts of building to facilitate new outdoor areas and access ways.

 

Lower Ground Floor (A01 & A05)

•   Reconfigure layout of existing 2 bedroom unit to ensure solar access to living spaces and enlarge outdoor deck and winter garden area facing the foreshore

•   New access on eastern bedroom wall to landscaped area

 

Ground Floor (A02 & A06)

•   Demolish two car garage and construct new three vehicle garage

•   Convert existing south facing sunroom to deck/winter garden outdoor space with open designed balcony

•   Deleted previously proposed access door and raised ground level along the eastern side boundary to limit capacity for overlooking into No. 24 Cliffbrook Parade;

•   New stairway and lift/service shaft structure to upper level

•   Upgrade rear concrete hardstand area to paved area incorporating landscaping, bin store area and security access from the driveway

 

First Floor Plan (A03 & A07)

•   Existing garage roof replaced with common terrace/loggia and plant room above new three vehicle garage below

•   Convert existing sunroom to deck/winter garden

•   Use part of roof over new garage for communal space with planters

•   New stairway and lift/service shaft

 

Second Floor Plan (A08)

•   Construct new two (2) bedroom unit across the existing roofline of the existing building and above new rear common terrace/loggia and plant room (Note a reduction of floor area by increasing the rear setback

·      Large terrace at front of unit

•   Lift/service shaft and stairway to lower levels

 

Amended plans and documentation received by Council include:

•   Clause 4.6 seeking an exception to the Height of Buildings standard in Clause 4.3 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 was received by Council on 19 June 2017;

 

•   Increased rear setback at second floor level as such reducing Floor Space ratio (from 0.968:1 (7.5% variation) to 0.934:1 (3.8% variation).

 

•   Reconfigure layout of existing 2 bedroom units to provide an open plan layout in line with Design Excellence Panel comments;

 

•   Amend balconies and winter gardens facing the foreshore into lightweight structures by removing side walls;

 

•   Increased eastern side boundary & reduction in size of trafficable terrace for the top floor unit;

 

•   Lower the proposed fill along the eastern side passageway

 

•   Building Code of Australia (BCA) report addressing issues raised by Design Excellence Panel (DEP).

 

•   Lower the height of development in line with the minimum floor to ceiling height required under the ADG and to minimise the scale so that it is consistent with the likely future streetscape character.

 

Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standards

Clause 4.6 exceptions have been submitted for exceeding the maximum RLEP standards under Clause 4.3 height of buildings and Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio.

 

A)        Height of Buildings (Cl4.3 of RLEP 2012)

The proposal contravenes the maximum Height of Buildings development standard contained in clause 4.3(2) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012. The variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Proposed maximum height of buildings

12.245m

Maximum height of buildings

12 metres

Maximum Height exceeding LEP control

0.245m (2.04%)

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the height of buildings standard are set out in clause 4.3(1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

c)  To ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

The applicant’s written justifications in the following key arguments for the departure from the standard are as below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Objectives of the Height of Buildings Standard

 

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

 

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

 

Assessment:

·      The proposed development will result in a breach of the height of buildings development standard by approximately 245mm to the southern portion of the building.

·      The exceedance is minor and limited to a short length along the eastern and western side elevations.

·      The proposed number of storeys (three storey building with reduced footprint of the second floor level) is generally consistent with the bulk and scale of medium density forms development permissible in the R3 zone under the RLEP

·      The second floor level is setback further from the southern edge of the building to minimise the dominance of the second floor level when viewed from the foreshore area.

·      The front balconies have been redesigned as lightweight open structures which further minimises the bulk along the foreshore;

·      Increased eastern and western side setbacks for the top floor level unit has makes the top level more recessive and subservient to the levels below;

·      As shown in the figure below the proposal fits in with the scale of the more recent development at No. 18 Cliffbrook Parade which will contribute to the desired streetscape along this part of the foreshore.

 

Figure 1: The amended plans reduce the height of the development showing that the height of the pergola and roof behind will be lower than the height of the building at No 18 Cliffbrook Parade. The variance in height between these two developments is generally commensurate with the variance in the pedestrian footpath in front of each of the properties.

 

Overall, the proposal as conditioned to be amended will respect the transition in scale permissible between the medium density zone to the north and the Local Centre zone to the south and not detract from the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

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

 

Assessment:

·      The development is not located in close proximity to a conservation area or near a heritage item.

 

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

 

Assessment:

·      The proposed scheme as amended and conditioned will not result in any adverse visual bulk impacts to the immediate neighbouring land. As indicated earlier, the proposed southern elevation is considered acceptable subject to conditions, the proposed side elevations are also considered acceptable subject to conditions and the proposed side setbacks are consistent with the general rhythm of existing side setbacks along this side of Cliffbrook Parade; In relation to the rear, the development is three storeys and as the figure below shows the adjoining neighbour’s at the rear along Melrose Parade are further elevated above the subject site ensuring the scale is relatively small when viewed from their site;

Figure 2: Proposed development as viewed from the rear of properties fronting Melrose Parade from left to right No. 23 Melrose Parade, No. 21A Melrose Parade and No. 19 Melrose Parade.

 

·      The height of the building above the standard is located more towards the  front and not the rear which ensures that there is no appreciable difference in overshadowing between the proposed and a compliant development.

·      The proposed development does not result in any significant or unreasonable privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties subject to conditions.

·      In terms of view loss, the applicant has provided view loss photos from No. 19 & 23 Melrose Parade and providing a rear surveyed elevation of the property at the rear at No. 21A Melrose Parade. As shown in the photos below it is acknowledged that there will be some view loss however there will be substantial high value views retained from these properties. IN addition in terms of compliance with the applicable standards and provisions in the RLEP and the RDCP, the non-compliances are as amended very minor and not materially responsible for the view loss. Detailed assessment is carried out in the key issues section of this report. Overall, the additional building height above the maximum does not contribute to any adverse view loss impacts to any neighbouring buildings.

 

 

 

Consistency with the objectives of the 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 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.

 

The proposed development satisfies the above R3 zone objectives for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed development provides for a two bedroom apartment which results in a marginal encroachment above the maximum height of buildings standard and it is considered that requiring compliance would result in drastic reduction of amenity at no appreciable benefit having regard to the streetscape character, the foreshore area or reducing any appreciable adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

·      The proposal as amended and conditioned provides for an appropriately sized and scaled building in its location. The non-compliant heights have been brought closer to compliance as a result of the conditioned development requiring greater modulation at the levels below and greater front setback for the second floor level will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the foreshore area subject to.

 

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

 

Comment:

The proposal has been designed to achieve the purpose of the standard and planning objectives for the locality. It will be an appropriate fit within the scale and character of development in the immediate and broader context whilst minimising potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties. 

 

The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds particular to the site to justify contravening the development standard.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comment:

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

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical building height standard will not be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

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

 

B)        Floor space ratio (Cl4.4 of RLEP 2012)

 

The proposal originally sought a floor space ratio of 0.968:1 exceeding the 0.9:1 standard for the site by 7.5%; the amended application redistributed the floor area from the rear to the side and increasing setbacks at the top level unit reducing  the floor space ratio of 0.934:1 continuing to exceed the maximum standard by 3.8% summarised in the table below:

 

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Development Standard

0.9:1

Proposal

0.934:1 (as amended)

Excess above RLEP Standard

3.8% (13sqm)

 

Request to vary development standard

 

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the original contravention of the maximum floor area standard contained in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In the Wehbe case, Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the floor space ratio standard are set out in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Objectives of the Floor space ratio standard

The objectives of this Floor Space Ratio standard are as follows:

 

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

 

·      The scale of the building facing the foreshore as originally proposed and subsequently amended is considered to detract from the foreshore area in that the second floor level is well forward than that of the development at No. 18 Cliffbrook Parade. However, as conditioned requiring increased front and side setbacks for the second floor level living/dining room including reduction in the depth of the ground and first floor level balconies, the proposal will achieve a bulk and scale that will satisfy the objectives of the standard, the zone and especially the matters for consideration contained in Clauses 6.6 or 6.7 relating to the foreshore building line and the foreshore scenic protection area respectively. In particular, the bulk and scale of the development will be more consistent with the existing character of the area as shown above in the figure 1 and 2 which show the height of the development relative to the neighbouring buildings to the east and west and the proposed development as viewed from the rear of properties fronting Melrose Parade;

·      Strict compliance with the standard would be of limited practical effect, given the perceived floor space that is bulk and scale particularly at the front has been suitably addressed by conditions and as a result there will be negligible benefits to the streetscape given the scale of the front of the building now presents as a three storey building with reduced floor plate and less prominent bulk at the second floor level. The development at the rear is effectively only three storeys which is well below that envisaged by the RLEP standard for floor space ratio.

 

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

 

The proposed development is limited in terms of its capacity to maximise solar access to existing apartments largely due to its orientation and focus towards the coastal foreshore. The proposed second floor level has also been designed to maximise coastal views from high use living spaces. Notwithstanding, the second floor level will still achieve ADG compliant levels of solar access to the living room through the kitchen side windows and a skylight protrusion over. The internal layout achieves good cross ventilation for the majority of classrooms.

 

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

 

The proposed development as conditioned will minimise the perceived external bulk and scale along the southern side of the site which displays the most pronounced area of bulk. The conditioned distribution of floor area within the southern living/dining room as such has no implications for other land in terms of overshadowing, overlooking, views or significant visual impact.

 

It is considered that the proposed development as conditioned is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard.

 

Objectives of the R3 zone

(1)  The objectives of the R3 zone are as follows:

 

(2)  The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out are:

 

•    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 proposed development is permissible within the R3 medium Density Residential zone. The proposal as amended provides for an appropriate medium density development envisaged by the RLEP, and in the context of the site located within the foreshore scenic protection area it is considered that the built form will maintain the desirable attributes of the existing and desired future character of the residential area along the coast. The scheme as conditioned will provide a highly articulated development of appropriate scale that remains sympathetic to the foreshore area and allows for an appropriate economic use of the subject site.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R3 - Medium Density Residential.

 

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 is considered to have successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The proposal has been designed to achieve the planning objectives for the locality and to fit in with the scale and character of development in the immediate context, whilst minimising potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties.  The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comment:

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

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical floor space standard will not be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary, in this case, for maintaining the medium density housing residential flat buildings, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing and likely future development surrounding the site.

 

Site

The subject site is located on the northern foreshore overlooking Gordons Bay. The site has a moderate slope from north to south.  The site has a total site area of 349sqm and is currently occupied by a part two part three storey brick flat building containing 1 x 2 bedroom unit and 2 x 3 bedroom units and detached garage to the rear.

 

The surrounding streetscape is comprised of a mixture of densities and architectural styles. The site is located within the Scenic Foreshore Protection Area being positioned on Cliffbrook Parade which wraps around the foreshore of Gordons Bay. Typically dwellings within this section of Clovelly around the Bay are three to four storeys due to the steepness of sites as they descend towards the water.

 

Aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

Submissions

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

 

•   21 Melrose Place Clovelly NSW 2031

 

Issue

Comment

The height of the development must exceed the maximum and certainly impacts both the view from the coastal walkways and also the existing dwellings behind.

No. 22 Cliffbrook is located sloping down from No. 18 yet the proposed height is almost the same. Action: Council should engage a second surveyor to check the heights as we are certain there is an error.

Acknowledged. The amended plans reduce the height of the development at the front by around 600mm and provide minimum 2.7m floor to ceiling heights as required under the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) ensuring the main building is no higher than necessary.

The amended scale and massing of the development having regard to the survey plans submitted with the application and the reviewed survey of No. 18 Cliffbrook Parade shows that the proposed development as amended has a generally consistent scale relative to the gradual fall of land from west to east.

The precedent set by the development of No. 18 has already impacted the coastal walkway visually creating “a visual wall” (from both the northern and southern sides of Gordon’s Bay). Gordon’s Bay is a sensitive area visually, e.g. note the letter to “The Beast” by Stephen Sheldon re the concrete supports erected on the southern cliffs.

The proposed development is generally similar to the development at No. 18 Cliffbrook Parade which was considered to be suitable for the site. Notwithstanding, each application is assessed on its merits. In this respect, certain amendments including increased setbacks, lightweight design of balconies and recessive materials and stepped in elements will suitably minimise the bulk and scale such that it does not dominate or detract from the scenic qualities of the foreshore scenic protection area.

As the DA states the floor space ratio is greatly exceeded and not consistent with the majority of dwellings. Again this sets a precedent for other nearby buildings to follow the example and create a larger visual wall from the walkway.

The reduced floor area is now more centrally distributed that is further away from the rear and front of the building. The overall bulk and scale of the development is considered to satisfy the objectives of the FSR standard and the R3 medium density zone.

The proposed DA has the building extend further north than the current northerly edge of the garage and as high as possible! This is literally going to be “in our face/view”.

The rear elevation of the development as amended is considered to be appropriately sited and scaled and will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties in relation to visual amenity. The height at the rear and large rear setbacks means it will present as a three storey development front the rear.

The built forms will not be consistent with the immediate dwellings adjacent to the coastal walkway thus disrupting the existing streetscape. Rather than “providing visual interest” it deters from the existing streetscape.

The neighbouring developments (NO. 20 & 24 Cliffbrook Parade) are smaller than the proposed however these are considered to be underdeveloped, having regard to the RLEP standards and RDCP provisions. Whilst the proposed development exceeds the RLEP standards, these are as amended small variations whereby it is considered that the applicants submitted Clause 4.6 exceptions have suitably demonstrated compliance with the objectives of those standards and the R3 medium density zone.

In other words, there are sufficient planning reasons to suggest that it is unreasonable and unnecessary for the standards to apply in this instance.

See Clause 4.6 exceptions to the development standard further below. 

We are concerned that the proposed rear structure as extended to the maximum provides greater potential for noise due to both the proximity and “echoing” that is already evident on the southern side of the property.

Noise from use of residential dwellings are not considered sources of significant noise disturbance. It is also noted that the rear of the building is sited around 5.8m from the rear and given that it is communal open space it is likely to be more manageable than if the area was an area of private open space.

The lack of adequate parking provided in the DA will again place stress on local parking in the area. Noise from increased traffic and congestion into the no through road private lane will increase. This also increases the safety hazard with only a narrow private lane for egress.

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the subject application and raises on objections on the subject of parking.

 

Key Issues

 

SEPP 65 - Apartment Design Guide (ADG):

 

·      3B-2 Orientation – solar access

The ADG control for solar access to neighbouring properties is that a minimum of two hours of direct solar access be provided to the neighbour’s living areas and where there is less than two hours then it not be reduced by more than 20%.

 

The proposed development does not comply with this control as it will result in western neighbour’s east facing living room windows located at the rear most side elevation of No. 20 Cliffbrook Parade losing solar access between the hours of 8am and 9am, at mid-winter.

 

The ADG acknowledges difficulties in providing compliant solar access due to orientation, existing site conditions such as the location of living room windows, topography and level of compliance with the relevant standards and policy controls. Having regard to the above, it is considered the overshadowing caused by the proposed development is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·           The overall building height remains predominately below the 12 metres maximum in the RLEP and where the building exceeds the height standard at the southern side it is not directly responsible for the loss of solar access to the living rooms of No. 20 Cliffbrook Parade. The overshadowing is a result of the rear of the proposed development which complies with the relevant controls and standards in relation to external wall heights under the RDCP and well below the maximum height standard in the RLEP.

·           An analysis of shadowing impacts reveals that there is less overshadowing caused by the proposed development than that caused by a RDCP compliant development in terms of wall height, side and rear setbacks which would result in greater shadowing to this neighbour’s eastern side elevation. In this respect it is also generally observed that overshadowing to neighbouring properties is not dissimilar to the overshadowing that occurs on respective eastern and western side elevations of flat buildings within the neighbouring properties.

 

Therefore, although the proposal does not meet the minimum solar access controls it is considered that the in the particular circumstances of the site the proposed development will readily meet the design guidance in Part 3B-2 Orientation of the ADG.

 

•       3F-1 Visual Privacy

In order to achieve appropriate levels of visual privacy, the ADG requires a minimum building separation of 6 metres (combined 12m) from habitable rooms to the boundaries and 3 metres from non-habitable rooms for buildings up to 4 storeys in height. The current proposal includes a side setback of 1.512 metres and does not meet the minimum setbacks under the ADG.

 

The ADG design guidance indicates that in the context of existing site conditions and pattern of development in established urban areas it may be impractical to provide the 6m setbacks. In this respect, the ADG provides that minimising privacy impacts and direct sightlines can be achieved by adopting practical privacy measures.

 

In this instance, it is considered impractical to provide a compliant building separation in accordance with Part 3F-1: Visual Privacy as a 6 metres side setback would physically constrain the development within the site and it would result in a development whose bulk and scale would be inconsistent with the likely future scale of development along Cliffbrook Parade. In this respect, the proposal provides highlight windows, and physical screens that restrict direct sightlines into the habitable room windows of the neighbouring buildings and open space areas opposite. However, the proposal as amended includes open side balconies facing the foreshore to the south which may have an outlook into the neighbouring properties to the east and west at No. 20 and 24 Cliffbrook Parade. This level of privacy intrusion is considered acceptable having regard to the context of the site within the foreshore area in that coastal properties are largely aligned to take advantage of ocean views rather than be perturbed by indirect privacy intrusion. It is also considered that in the context of streetscape character along the foreshore that the provision of screens along the side of the balconies will add unnecessary bulk that would detract from the qualities of the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

View loss:

Loss of ocean views were not raised in submissions from neighbouring properties however an assessment of views is required particularly given the site is located on the foreshore and site visit reveals that some views will be lost from properties at the rear of the subject site at No. 19, 21A and 23 Melrose Parade.

 

An assessment is required against the following view sharing objectives under the RDCP:

 

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

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

·      To ensure developments are sensitively and skillfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

To assess whether the extent of view loss which would result from the proposal is reasonable, an analysis has been undertaken with reference to the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle established in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140:

 


 

1.   Quality of Views:

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

 

2.   Reasonable Expectation of View Retention:

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

 

3.   Extent of Impact:

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

 

4.   Reasonableness of Proposed Development:

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

 

Planner’s assessment of view loss from 19 to 23 Melrose Parade:

 

 

19 Melrose Parade:

19 Melrose Parade contains two south facing units that will be affected by view loss. The applicant has submitted photos showing the existing view and the view as a result of the proposed development as amended. These photos are shown as follows:

 

1st floor apartment

Planner’s assessment: The quality of views from the 1st floor unit in 19 Melrose Parade are obstructed by existing roofs and vegetation within the neighbouring properties and judged as moderate to low quality views. The reasonable expectation of views being retained from the 1st floor level apartment is relatively moderate given the views from No. 19 Melrose Parade are diagonally across the subject site and moreover the particular standards that apply to the subject site and the surrounding area envisage a medium density scale of residential development.  The extent of the impact will be significant in that the ocean view over the subject site will be lost. Whilst there will be a view over the top of No. 20 Cliffbrook Parade to the right of the subject site, this view will be lost should an additional storey be sought at No. 20 Cliffbrook Parade. Therefore the only views that will be retained in terms of long term will those sea views in between the buildings at No. 18 & 20 Cliffbrook Parade. It is also noted that the more recent development shown at right in the photo is that of No. 18 Cliffbrook Parade the scale of which is generally similar to that being proposed as part of this application. In relation to the reasonableness of the development, whilst the proposal exceeds the maximum standards for height of buildings and floor space ratio, these are relatively minor variations whereby the view loss is resulting more from the rear of the development rather than from the non-compliant elements at the front and lower ground floor area of the development. The view loss from 1t floor apartment at 19 Melrose Parade is considered acceptable having regard to the planning principle and view objectives in the RDCP.

 

 

2nd floor apartment in 19 Melrose Parade:

Planner’s assessment: The quality of views from the 2nd floor unit in 19 Melrose Parade are unobstructed and judged as high quality views taking in Wedding Cake Island and the interfacing ocean and headland views of Clovelly and Coogee. The reasonable expectation of views being retained from the 2nd level apartment over the subject site are relatively moderate to high given the views from No. 19 Melrose Parade are somewhat diagonally across the subject site and as previously mentioned the height and floor space ratio standards that apply to the surrounding area envisage a medium density scale of residential development.  The extent of the impact will be moderate as the proposed development partially impedes the view left of Wedding Cake Island. The views retained will still be quite expansive taking in the majority of existing views. No further consideration of view loss is warranted.

 

 

No. 23 Melrose Parade

No 23 Melrose Parade contains a 2nd floor level apartment that will be affected by views.

 

Planner’s assessment: As shown in the view loss photos above the difference between the existing and resultant views will be minor whereby the proposed development will obstruct only the top of the headland to the right and retaining the majority of expansive views of Wedding Cake Island and the Interfacing Ocean and headlands in the foreground and background. No further consideration of view loss is considered necessary.

 

 

 


 

No. 21A Melrose Parade:

Applicant access was not provided to the site at No. 21A Melrose Parade. As a result a view loss assessment relies on the particular circumstances of the proposed development, the survey details, site visit to surrounding developments, and a plan except – below - which shows the southern elevation of No. 21A Melrose Parade superimposed over the southern elevation of the proposed development.

 

Plan excerpt: shows the elevation of No. 21A Melrose Parade (including blue shaded windows with an outlook across to the ocean and headlands further afield). The elevation also superimposes the yellow and orange windows associated with the view loss from No. 19 & 23 Melrose Parade respectively.

 

Planner’s assessment:

For the purposes of assessing view loss from No. 21/21A Melrose Parade, reference is made to the photos below taken from the rear of No. 21/21A Melrose Parade.

 

Sitting view from elevated ground level at the rear of No. 21/21A Melrose Parade

 

The quality of view from the rear of No. 21/21A Melrose Parade is rated as low to moderate as it is currently obscured by the roofs of buildings along Cliffbrook parade.

The extent of the impact can be garnered by the upper level addition at No. 18 Cliffbrook Parade as well as the photos showing the view loss from the 1st floor apartment in No. 19 Melrose Parade.  The extent of impact will be the loss of views on either side of the existing roof plan resulting in the loss of views of Wedding Cake Island due to the rear elevation and the loss of partial views of the interfacing sea and landmass behind. The retention of these views is somewhat compromised due to the fact that the development has a bulk and scale that is generally assessed as reasonable in the context of the existing standards and provisions and the existing streetscape which as indicated contains a more recent development at No. 18 Cliffbrook Parade.

 

Overall, it is considered that the development is skillfully designed and the non-compliant floor area (which is further reduced by requiring side setbacks for the second floor level living/dining room) and heights are very minor and localised to parts of the site that are not responsible for view loss. The proposed bulk and scale is largely consistent with the existing and desired streetscape character of developments along Cliffbrook Parade which is envisaged by the RLEP which allows for medium scale density at the higher end of the scale. Therefore the proposed development does not result in any unreasonable loss of views from the neighbouring properties.

 

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 as amended and conditioned and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

The development is reasonably sized and sited and the overshadowing impacts can be directly attributed to the topography, orientation to the coast, existing setbacks and a development that generally complies with key building design aspects such as wall heights and rear boundary setbacks rather than as a result of poor or unsympathetic urban design.  The applicant has amended their application in order to address key issues raised by Council and the Design Review Panel to ensure a suitably designed development having regard to the foreshore scenic protection area, the internal amenity of future occupants and the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Height of buildings and floor space ratio respectively, 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/885/2016 for alterations and additions to existing residential flat building including new upper level containing 2 bedroom dwelling, demolition of existing garage, construction of new triple garage with terrace above, internal configuration, new lift shaft, changes to openings, landscaping and associated work (variation to floor space ratio control) at 22 Cliffbrook Parade, CLOVELLY, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP73/17

 

Subject:             908-910 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (DA/792/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/792/2016

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Amended plans: Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a shop top housing development providing 2 x commercial units to ground floor & 16 residential apartments comprising of 8 x studio apartments, 4 x 1, bedroom apartments and 4 x 2 bedroom apartments.

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Mrs M Mikas

Owner:                        Mrs M Mikas

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council as it has a cost of works valued greater than $2m.

 

Proposal

 

Original proposal: Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a part 5 and part 4 storey mixed use development comprising of 19 dwellings and ground floor commercial space, home office, basement carpark for 9 vehicles and communal open space at roof level.

 

Amended plans were received by Council on two occasions the latest of which was on 26 October 2017 and the subject of assessment. The excerpts plans below show the iterations of the proposed developments southern elevation: original, 1st set of amendments and 2nd set of amendments.

 

The main amendments include:

 

·      Increases separation between the front and rear building forms;

·      Additional level to the rear building form to align with the similarly scaled development at the corner of Garden and Byng Lanes;

·      Reduction in number of units from 19 down to 16.

 

Original scheme: The southern elevations are shown below. The original scheme had a separation of 5m along the southern elevation and a two storey scale along the shop-top housing development at No. 912 Anzac Parade;

 

1st Amended scheme: Increased separation at the upper levels however a two storey scale is still retained between the two building forms;

2nd Amended scheme: Removes floor area at mezzanine level increasing separation at levels above podium and retaining a ground level scale;

Site

 

The subject site is located on the north western corner of Anzac Parade and Garden Lane in Maroubra Junction. Previously occupied and operated as a retail shop premises, the land is described as CNR LOT A in DP 390142 and is a long narrow corner lot having a skewed frontage to Anzac Parade and a 64.87m long secondary street frontage along Garden Lane and a total site area of 600.7sqm. The site is presently occupied by two storey building currently vacant due to a past fire which required the demolition of the rear part of the development.

 

The site is adjoined to the immediate south by a three storey shop top housing development fronting Anzac parade identified as No. 912 Anzac Parade. Adjoining to the east is a multi-storey residential flat building at the corner of Garden Byng Lanes located at the rear of 912 Anzac Parade. The opposite side of Garden Lane contains the rear of premises that front Maroubra Road. The opposite corner to the immediate north across Anzac Parade and Garden Lane at No. 205 Maroubra Road, is a relatively recently developed multi storey shop top housing development over part 6 and part 7 storeys.

 

The surrounding area forms part of the wider Maroubra Junction Town Centre and the subject site sits one block off the main retail core of the Maroubra Junction.

 

Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. The existing building seen from the north western side of Anzac Parade. At left is the predominate building line along Garden Lane for properties that front Maroubra Road – Note the building line of the development on the opposite corner of Garden Lane at No. 205 Maroubra Road.


 

2. Photo taken from the middle of the site looking south showing the demolished rear part of the development due to fire and the adjoining three storey shop top housing development at No. 912 Anzac Parade. Note the development at 912 Anzac Parade contains commercial premises at ground level and a part of their development located along the side boundary shared with the subject site.

3.The five storey residential flat building located east of the subject site. The proposed development will site flush with the blank western elevation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Looking east along Garden Lane showing at left the more recently developed property at the opposite corner at No. 205 Maroubra Road – a part 7 part 8 storey development that is subject to a maximum of part five part six storey development under the DCP. Note the relatively shallow setback to Garden Lane frontage.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      2/ 912 Anzac Parade Maroubra (within three storey building fronting Anzac Parade)

·      3/ 912 Anzac Parade Maroubra within three storey building fronting Anzac Parade)

·      5/ 912 Anzac Parade Maroubra

·      10/912 Anzac Parade Maroubra

·      142 Garden Street Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

The building depth well exceeds the maximum 25m DCP limit

The proposed development at ground level runs along the full depth of the site. The DCP allows for a maximum depth of 25m for the front building and 25m for the rear building (subject to addressing the amalgamation section in the DCP) and objectives in relation to maximum building envelopes. See key issues section further below in relation to these matters.

Nil setback along the Garden Lane frontage does not comply with the required 3m setback controls

See key issues section below in relation to setbacks

 

Non-compliant setback from the southern side boundary which is understood to be 12m.

See discussion under Orientation in the key issues section below.

No landscaped area

See discussion under Communal open space in key issues section below.

Parking shortfall

See discussion under parking in Key issues section below.

Lack of sunlight to common garden area at the rear of 912 Anzac Parade

See key issues section below in relation to orientation

Acoustic concern with the roof terraces

The roof terraces are setback from the side boundaries by planter boxes which will restrict sightlines. The distance from the roof terraces to the neighbouring properties is also significant to ensure acoustic amenity of neighbouring properties is not significant. A condition is also included requiring a plan of management to be submitted to council for approval detailing the use of the common roof terrace areas.

Safety of pedestrians particularly the child care centre opposite at 215 Maroubra Road will be compromised

 

The proposal provides a 1.3m wide pedestrian pathway along the Garden Lane boundary which provides suitable access ways to Anzac Parade;

 

In relation to the child care centre at No. 215 Maroubra Road, the proposed vehicle access point is suitably offset from the vehicle entry to the child care centre off Garden lane and pedestrian access to this child care centre is available from the Maroubra Road frontage. In relation to the established child care centre further east of the site, the closet access point is off Garden Street.

 

Moreover, Council’s Development Engineer raises no objection in relation to safety of pedestrians as a result of the vehicle access and exit and suitable conditions are included in the recommendation section of the compliance report relating to sightlines.

Waste management concerns with collection and impeding the footpath along Garden Lane

The pathway along Garden lane is widened to 1.3m which may be able to accommodate the location of waste bins; However a condition is included requiring the submission to Council for approval of a waste management plan relating to the ongoing management of waste from the premises.

 

In relation to residential waste, this area is located closest to the Anzac Parade frontage and a condition is included requiring waste bins to be located along this frontage for collection.

Excessive bulk and scale for the streetscape

See key issues section below in relation to building height

The proposed development leaves no room for a footpath

The proposal dedicates 700mm of land which provides a 1.3m wide footpath

The proposal may impact on access to units in 912 Anzac Parade

Access to units and use of the adjoining land is a matter between the developer and the adjoining land owners.

Apartments in the front building and residential units in 912 Anzac Parade will result in significant overshadowing, obtrusiveness and privacy impact from the proposed development.

See key issues section below in relation to orientation, and privacy. In brief, the amended scheme increases separation between the two buildings at podium level upwards which has meant an increase in solar access to the 1st and 2nd floor bedroom windows and a reduction of the wall height along the increased podium opposite the southern side boundary adjacent to the neighbour’s bedroom windows. In relation to privacy, the balconies opposite contain privacy screens and a privacy screen is conditioned to be provided along the inside of the podium level landscape planter to provide sufficient privacy.

 

Key Issues

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality Residential Flat Buildings (Apartment Design Guide)

SEPP No. 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposal is subject to the policy as it involves the development of a shop top housing development building being 3 storeys and more in height. Council’s Design Excellence Panel has considered the proposal and the Panel’s comments are included in a Section of the DA Compliance report. An assessment has been carried out in accordance with Part 3: Siting the Development and Part 4: Designing the Building of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) against the design criteria requirements. The key non-compliance to the design criteria includes a merits based assessment as per the design guidance of the Apartment Design Guide (included in this Council meeting report below). These include controls relating to orientation – solar access, communal open space, and visual privacy.

 

Orientation – solar access (Part 3B-2 of ADG and Part C2 of RDCP 2013)

This part of the ADG and the RDCP 2013 is included as a key issue in this Council meeting report as the required 6m side setback for the purposes of solar access to neighbouring properties has been raised in submissions received by Council. The proposed development is located along the southern side boundary which does not meet the minimum 6m control in the ADG; however it is consistent with the building depth and building separation controls for the front building along the southern side boundary stipulated in the RDCP 2013 under Part D4 – Maroubra Junction Town Centre for the site.

 

The relevant ADG requirement for a setback relates to requiring a minimum of two hours of direct solar access be provided to the affected neighbour’s (Living areas, private open space and communal open space) between the hours of 9am – 3pm, mid-winter. The proposed development does not reduce solar access to these areas of the neighbouring property at No. 912 Anzac parade as their living spaces for the 1st and 2nd floor units are at the front of the three storey building fronting Anzac Parade. The areas affected by the proposed development include:

 

a.  North facing bedroom windows of 1st and 2nd floor units within the shop-top housing development that fronts Anzac Parade at No. 912 Anzac Parade;

b.  Communal garden area and west facing bedroom windows associated with the studio units within the residential flat building at the corner of Garden and Byng Lane;

 

a.  North facing bedroom windows of 1st and 2nd floor units within the shop-top housing development that fronts Anzac Parade at No. 912 Anzac Parade.

 

The proposed scheme has been amended on two occasions to increase the separation between the front and rear building forms. Shadow diagrams excerpts provided below show that during the winter solstice the proposed development will still retain at least four hours of solar access to these windows whereby the ADG controls indicate a minimum of two hours.

 

Shadow impact on northern facing bedroom windows of 1st and 2nd floor residential units of the neighbouring development to the south at No. 912 Anzac Parade.

 

8am (note impact shown on eastern rear elevation of neighbouring property at left of north facing windows – red outline)

9am

 

 

10am

 

11am

 

 

12 noon

1pm

 

 

b.  Communal garden area and west facing bedroom windows associated with the studio units within the residential flat building at the corner of Garden and Byng Lane (rear of 912 Anzac Parade);

 

i.  Communal open space

 

The proposed development will also result in complete overshadowing to the southern neighbour’s ground level communal open space. Despite the significant additional shadowing the key issue is whether the development has been suitably designed in relation to both the urban pattern of development as well as the amendments to increase solar access would be reasonable in the context of the site and the urban pattern of development in the area. It is considered that the DCP contemplates the type of development along street side allotments and that the communal open space is particularly vulnerable to shadowing from such development.

 

In particular, the proposed development at the rear of the subject site is considered appropriate for the following reasons:

 

·      The southern neighbour’s communal open space is poorly located at the southern side of a street facing allotment. The DCP envisages and encourages street side development in the Maroubra Junction area and the proposal will be consistent with this objective under the DCP. The historical DCP for the subject allotment and neighbouring allotment has contemplated development of these narrow lots on an east-west orientation making the neighbour’s communal open space particularly vulnerable to overshadowing;

·      There is no appreciable difference between the overshadowing caused by the proposed development and the three storey built form permitted under the DCP;

·      The neighbouring building to the east is responsible for a significant amount of shadowing to the communal open space within the neighbouring property;

·      The communal open space area will still provide a sufficient level of functional amenity in the form of:

landscape character and design

opportunities for group and individual recreation and activities

opportunities for social interaction

environmental and water cycle management

·      Each of the units within both buildings on the neighbouring property contain their own balconies connected to living areas with acceptable levels of solar access;

 

ii.  West facing bedroom windows

 

The proposal will result in additional overshadowing to these windows however there are no major objections to the additional shadowing as these are bedroom windows and associated with studio apartments whose living spaces are orientated northward thus ensuring sufficient solar access to these high use areas;

 

Having regard to the above, in terms of solar access for neighbouring properties, the proposed development is considered acceptable having regard to the ADG and RDCP objectives for the siting of the development and setback controls. It is considered that requiring a setback from the southern side boundary or excluding the development of the rear building form would severely compromise the development potential of the subject site as well as detract from the spatial setting of the development and presentation along Garden Lane. 

 

Overall, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the design guidance for 3B-2 Orientation having regard to the context of the site and the urban pattern of development within the Maroubra Junction Town Centre.

 

Communal Open Space (Part 3D-1 of ADG and Part C2 of the RDCP 2013)

The SEPP 65: Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development policy requires consideration of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) which also requires that communal open space be provided with a minimum of 25% of the site. The Council controls also require that communal open space for residential flat buildings is of a sufficient contiguous area (with minimum depth of 2m) and not divided up for allocation of individual units. The proposal does not comply with the ADG or Council controls providing only 15% communal space at the roofs of both the front and rear building forms.

 

In the ADG, the design guidance for communal open space indicates that it may be difficult for developments on smaller allotments to provide a compliant area for communal open space. Given the generous allotment size and width it is considered that the proposed communal open space area located on the roof are adequate in servicing the occupants within both building forms.

 

Overall, it is considered that the provided communal open space will comply with the design guidance provided for in the ADG as well as Council controls for providing a reasonably sized communal area within the site that also receives reasonable levels of solar access.

 

Visual Privacy (3F-1 of ADG)

In order to achieve appropriate levels of visual privacy, the ADG requires a minimum building separation of 9 metres between habitable rooms (inclusive of balconies) and 4.5m between non-habitable rooms for buildings between 5 and 8 storeys in height. The aspects of the proposed development that are within the 9metres and not adequately screened include the podium level private open space for the 1st floor unit and mezzanine level above the home office space at ground level below which have a direct outlook across to the 1st floor bedroom window and balcony of the unit located at No. 912 Anzac Parade – photo shown below.

 

Photo showing the existing 3 storey development at No 912 Anzac Parade. The ground level is occupied by storage area used ancillary to the commercial premises and residential units at 1st and 2nd floor of the site.

 

The proposed private open space on the podium contains landscape planters along the southern side and will provide a secondary privacy protection for the neighbour’s bedroom window and balcony. In order to ensure more robust privacy protection without adding any unreasonable massing along the podiums southern side boundary it is considered reasonable to require a 1.8m high privacy screen along the outer edge of the podium planter box. However, in order to minimise the massing of the podium and screen opposite the neighbour’s 1st floor north facing bedroom window the privacy screen is conditioned to be designed to return within the site above a certain height. In particular, the vertical section above the podium level is limited to a maximum height of 1.4m above the podium level to RL34.16 (the same sill height the 1st floor level window opposite) and the screen shall be angled at 45 degrees back into the subject site to achieve an effective height of 1.8m above the podium floor level. This condition appropriately minimises direct sightlines and is consistent with the ADG design guide for development in the urban context.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

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

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed in the table below. (Note: a number of control provisions that are not related to the proposal have been deliberately omitted.)

 

Amalgamation

Amalgamation is the combination of two or more lots for the purpose of redevelopment. The RDCP allows for development at the rear of the subject site subject to amalgamation with the neighbouring properties to the south. The proposed development does not seek to amalgamate with the adjoining allotments to the south and therefore an assessment is carried out against the following amalgamation objectives:

 

·      To ensure coherent redevelopment of the centre and avoid isolation of smaller land parcels.

 

The proposed development despite no amalgamating with the adjoining properties to the south will provide for a coherent development as discussed in the section immediately below under building height. The properties immediately to the south have already been developed comprising a five storey scale at the corner of Byng and Garden lane that also exceeds the maximum depth and site coverage controls in the RDCP. The adjoining site to the south contains a communal open space area.

 

·      To facilitate high quality residential amenity.

 

The proposed development meets the relevant standards for high quality residential units under SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide and where necessary conditions are included to ensure compliance with the minimum requirements are met.

 

·      To minimise the number of driveway crossings and car park entries along a street.

 

One car space entry will service the whole of the development and located in a part of the site that would potentially also allow for access to the southern neighbour’s lot.

 

·      To maintain street rhythm and expression.

 

As discussed below under building height, the proposed built form of the development will maintain a coherent street rhythm and expression along Garden Lane.

 

Building Height, layout and non-compliance with numerical provisions in Part D4 of the RDCP - number of storeys

The proposed development complies with the number of storeys for the five storey front building form closest to Anzac Parade. The proposed rear building originally complied with the maximum three storey limit under the RDCP; however, the amended scheme proposes additional height for the rear building so that its envelope aligns with the envelope of the adjoining building to the east – see photo 4 above - a five storey development at the corner of Garden and Byng Lane.

 

An assessment is required against the relevant objectives in the RDCP having regard to building envelopes:

 

·      To ensure future development within the centre responds to the desired scale and character of the street and the centre.

·      To ensure development at the edges of the centre responds to the scale and character of development and the streets surrounding the centre.

·      To allow reasonable daylight and solar access to all developments and the public domain.

 

The non-compliance with the building envelope layout and numerical provisions of the DCP with particular regard to the number of story’s for the rear build is considered to satisfy the above objectives for the following reasons:

 

·      In terms of scale, the amended scheme relocates floor area from the middle of the site to the top of the rear building which both better aligns with the scale of the adjoining development to the east (a five storey scaled flat building with work spaces at ground level) and also increases separation between the front and rear build. These amendments both ensures a more consistent scale of buildings along Garden Lane removing the rather abrupt drop in scale that would occur if the development were required to comply with the maximum three storey scale control in the DCP.

 

·      The increased separation achieves greater levels of solar access to the residential 1st and 2nd floor units located in the three storey shop-top housing development neighbouring the property to the south at No. 912 Anzac Parade – shown in Photo 2.

 

Overall, the additional storey to the rear build achieve a better planning outcome in that it will present a uniform scale along Garden lane and more desirable streetscape character than that which occur if the development were made to comply with the maximum three storey scale. It achieves this without resulting in any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties having regard to solar access, view loss or visual privacy.

 

Setbacks - Garden Lane

The proposal has a varying Garden Lane setback between 700mm and 3.15m and does not meet the minimum control for Street setbacks in Section 3.2.12 in Part D4 of the RDCP for Maroubra Junction. An assessment is therefore carried out against the associated objectives of the control relating to Street Setbacks in Section 3.1.8 of the RDCP which read as follows:

 

·      To establish the desired spatial proportions of the street and define the street edge.

 

·      To create a clear threshold by providing a transition between public and private space.

·      To assist in achieving visual privacy to apartments from the street.

·      To create good quality entry spaces to lobbies, foyers or individual dwelling entrances.

·      To allow an outlook to and surveillance of the street.

·      To allow for street landscape character.

 

Planning comment: Despite the non-compliant Garden Lane setback, the proposed development is considered appropriately located and will satisfy the above objectives for the following reasons:

 

·      The site is relatively narrow and requiring a 3m Garden Lane setback would not be materially beneficial in terms of satisfying the objectives of the control;

 

·      The proposal dedicates 700mm deep section of land along the full Garden Lane frontage which provides for a 1.3m wide pedestrian footpath along Garden lane. The pedestrian access will vitalise Garden Lane and be consistent with the home office activates along the laneway that are encouraged by the DCP.

 

·      The proposed front five storey building within the narrow allotment proportionally sits comfortably within the site when compared with the higher six storey building located on the opposite corner of Garden Lane whose balconies encroach with the 3m setback from Garden Lane. In other words, the proposed development in terms of its setbacks and envelope provides a proportionate transition from the larger envelopes applying to properties to the north to those smaller building envelopes on a narrower lots to the south is a transitions downward in scale and built form along Anzac parade to the south.

 

·      In terms of the upper levels (levels two and above) the proposal provides greater setbacks, of between 1700mm and 3.2m, running from the rear of the front building to the whole of the rear building from Garden Lane. These stepped in elements of built form and greater setbacks align more closely with the setbacks of around 2.3m for the existing neighbouring development to the east at the corner of Garden Lane and Byng Lane;

 

·      The proposed development is well below the permissible 22m maximum height standard permitted under the RLEP.

 

·      The proposal was the subject of a pre-lodgement meeting (PL/70/2015) held between the applicants and Council Officers on 7 October 2015. At the time, Council Officers raised several issues which following extensive negotiations in relation to separation, built form has been the subject of two amendments to ensure that the development along Garden Lane both in terms of scale and spatial proportions of the street will be consistent with the dominant scale and character of the surrounding Local Centre zone and Maroubra Junction Town Centre. The current proposal as amended is generally successful in addressing the matters raised by Council in relation to building mass, footprints, and general amenity for neighbouring residential developments.

                                     

Overall, having regard to the above, the proposed developments Garden lane frontage is consistent with the associated objectives for Street setbacks.

 

Parking

Clause 4.2.1 Parking for Maroubra Junction (Part D4 of the DCP) and Part B7 of the DCP Traffic, Parking and Access include provisions for parking which aim to limit the impact of parking and consideration of the local context. This includes location of public transport facilities, services and recreational facilities within walking or cycling distance which may reduce the need for parking spaces.

 

The proposed development provides 9 parking spaces resulting in a shortfall of 16 spaces when measured against Part B7 of the RDCP. Councils Development Engineer discusses the shortfall and considers that the proposed development is not likely to generate significant additional demand for on-street parking which cannot be accommodated within the surrounding street network having regard to the following:

 

·      Applicant’s justifications raised in their parking and traffic report,

·      The historic use of the site,

·      Proximity of the site to regular public transport,

·      Proximity to existing car share spaces and proximity to amenities,

·      Site constraints, and

·      Conditions that restrict the ability to obtain parking permits;

 

Having regard to the above an assessment is required against the objectives for parking in Part D4 of the RDCP for the Maroubra Junction Town Centre which include:

 

·      To minimise car dependency for commuting and recreational transport use and to promote alternative means of transport public transport, bicycling, and walking.

·      To provide adequate car parking for the building’s users and visitors.

·      To integrate the location and design of car parking with the design of the site and the building.

 

Despite the shortfall in parking it is considered that the proposed development will satisfy the objectives for the following reasons:

 

·      Council’s objectives provide a strong emphasis on encouraging environmental sustainable transport opportunities particularly in localities where public transport infrastructure is frequented and facilities and services are available to meet the day-to-day needs of the residents. Clause 1.2(2)(c) and (e) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 specifies the aims of the plan are; ‘to support efficient use of land, vibrant centres, integration of land use and transport, and an appropriate mix of uses’, and ‘to promote sustainable transport, public transport use, walking and cycling’.

·      The proposed development satisfies the aims of the RLEP in that the subject site is located on Anzac Parade which has regular public transport bus services. The bus services include a number of bus routes which commutes within the Sydney Metropolitan Area and several bus services throughout the day and night time periods. By its definition the subject site is considered to be within an ‘accessible area’ as per the State Environment Planning Policy for Affordable Rental Housing 2009. In addition to this, its location immediately adjacent to a range of retail business, entertainment and community uses make it a preferable option to endorse more environmentally sustainable forms of transport.

·      The proposed apartment mix contains a higher number of studio and one bedroom apartments which reduces the reliance of off-street car spaces to less than that required for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. Notwithstanding the apartment mix does not suffer as there are also two bedroom apartments being provided.

·      Whilst a car share space is not proposed, there are at least two car share spaces in the vicinity of the site which provides an economic alternative to car ownership for both residents and businesses in the surrounding area. It is noted that in areas where high public transport access is available within the vicinity of the site, Council encourages car share schemes under Clause 2.2: Car Share of Part B7 of the RDCP 2012.

 

In addition to the above, and as indicated earlier Councils Development Engineer has recommended the inclusion of conditions that may further alleviate or justify the shortfall in parking supply on site:

 

·      A condition is included restricting the issuing of parking stickers

·      A condition is included requiring that the two and single bedroom apartments be allocated parking spaces

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development has been assessed against relevant statutory controls relating to SEPP 65, the ADG, the RLEP 2012 standards and relevant sections of the RDCP 2013. The development is considered acceptable as it will be in line with the objectives of the abovementioned documents and will not result in any significant and unreasonable environmental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, views, site planning and privacy.

 

The variations from the maximum number of storeys, setbacks and building depth of the development contained within the ADG and the RDCP have been adequately justified in the Key Issues section of this report and where necessary the accompanying DA compliance report. The application has been amended on two occasions seeking to address Councils and the Design Review Panels matters considered imperative in order to achieve a sustainable planning outcome in terms of both design, streetscape scale, and minimising the impacts on the neighbouring properties. The amendments primarily relate to increasing the separation between the two building forms at the front and rear and reducing the scale of the podium level along the neighbouring property at No. 912 Anzac Parade. These amendments are key elements which improved the articulation of the development when viewed from the main street frontage along Garden Lane as well as when viewed from neighbouring properties.

 

The variations from the numerical car parking controls have been adequately assessed in the Key Issues section above where the shortfall in car parking is considered acceptable.

 

The neighbour’s amenity in terms of solar access, overshadowing, visual amenity and privacy have been suitably addressed in the key issues section and submissions section of this report and where necessary amendments and or conditions have been included to further minimise adverse impacts associated with the proposed development.

 

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/792/2016 for demolition of all structures on site and construction of a shop top housing development providing 2 x commercial units to ground floor & 16 residential apartments comprising of 8 x studio apartments, 4 x 1, bedroom apartments and 4 x 2 bedroom apartments at No. 908-910 Anzac Parade, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     A privacy screen having an effective height of 1.8m above podium floor level must be provided to the southern side of the 1st floor podium level whereby the privacy screen shall be designed such that it rises vertically 1.4m above the podium level to RL34.16 and return diagonally at 45 degrees within the site to achieve an effective screen height of 1.8m above the podium level. The privacy screen must be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

b.     The privacy screen along the southern sides of the upper level balconies must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screens must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screens may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

c.      The floor to ceiling heights of the proposed development shall be amended as follows:

 

·      Increase the floor to ceiling height of the ground level by 133mm.

·      Increase the floor to ceiling height of the first floor level of the rear building by 150mm incorporating the mezzanine, and studio units 1 & 2 to achieve a floor to ceiling height of 2.7m.  A commensurate decrease is required for floor to ceiling heights for the third floor level which is greater than 2.7m. This condition allows for consistency of fenestration between the rear building and the building at the corner of Garden lane and Byng Lane.

 

d.     Window sills and headers along the Garden Lane frontage for the rear building shall be generally consistent with the fenestration of the neighbouring development to the east at the corner of Garden and Byng Lanes. Details shall be submitted to Councils Manager of Development Assessment for approval prior a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP74/17

 

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

Folder No:                   DA/352/2017/A

Author:                   City Plan Services, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by  deleting the requirement for a 30 minute break between classes and alter the maximum number of attendees to a maximum of six (6) students and three (3) teachers in the pool at any time

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Ms T Nagy

Owner:                        Ms T Nagy and Ms T H Calderwood

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been assessed by an external planning consultant and is referred to Council for determination as the original application determined by Council.


 

Proposal

The proposal seeks consent to modify Condition 36 of the consent by:

 

·      deleting the requirement for a 30 minute break between classes; and

·      changing the maximum number of attendees to a maximum of six (6) students and three (3) teachers in the pool at any time.

 

Condition 36 currently states:

 

“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 six (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.”

 

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 storey.

 

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.

 

Section 96 Assessment:

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


 

Substantially the Same Development:

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 within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

 

The proposal relates to the changes in the operation of the home business and does not alter the nature or essence of the approved development and therefore, is considered to be substantially the same development as that for which the consent was originally granted.

 

Submissions

This Section 96 Modification Application was not required to be notified as per Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

 

Key Issues

Number of attendees

The proposal seeks consent for a maximum of six (6) students and three (3) teachers to be permitted in the pool at any time. The Acoustic Report accompanied with the original Development Application supported a maximum of six (6) students and three (3) teachers within the pool at any one time subject to the recommended noise attenuation measures. Council’s Environmental Health Officer does not raise any issues with the proposed modification and recommended a trial period of 12 months to allow Council to monitor the operation of the home business to minimise the potential impact on the amenity of the adjoining residents.

 

The traffic report concludes that based on a maximum of six (6) children in each class, the expected traffic generation will be 13 vehicles per hour in the morning and evening peak periods. However, it is also anticipated that many students would live locally and access the swim school by walking or public transport. It is not considered that traffic and parking conditions in the local area will be adversely affected by the modification.

 

Noise

The proposal also seeks consent to delete the requirement for a 30 minute break between classes. Council’s Environmental Health officer recommended additional conditions that requires all parents and students must remain within the allocated waiting room when not participating in a class; students must also be accompanied by an adult at all times; and no running around the pool area or waiting room is permitted.

 

Condition 40 required that an Acoustic Report be prepared by a suitably qualified and submitted to Council prior to the issue of an occupation certificate. This condition has been recommended for deletion by Council’s Environmental Health Officer on the basis that an acoustic validation assessment will be required as part of the review process prior to the expiry of the 12 months trial period.

 

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

Based on the recommendations provided in the Acoustic Report and Traffic Report prepared by TTM, the maximum of six (6) students and three (3) teachers in the pool at any time and the deletion of 30 minute breaks between classes can be supported on a 12 month trial basis subject to the recommendations of the reports and the amended conditions of consent are implemented.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to modify Development Consent No. DA/352/2017 for permission to delete the requirement for a 30 minute break between classes and alter the maximum number of attendees to maximum number of six students and three teachers in the pool at any time at No. 36 Arden Street, Clovelly, in the following manner:

 

A)     Amend Condition 36 to read as follows:

 

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.

·      All students and parents/guardians attending the premises when not participating in a class shall be within the approved waiting room.

·      Students must be accompanied by an adult at all times

·      The maximum number of students in the pool during classes (other than the employee) must be limited to six (6). 

·      Running around the pool area and waiting room is not permitted.

·      The maximum number of teachers in each class must be limited to three (3).

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

 

B)     Add Condition 36(a) to read as follows:

 

36.   a)     The operation of the home business specified under Condition 36 of the            Development Consent No. 352/2017/A is subject to a 12 month trial period       from         the date of this consent. Prior to the expiry of the trial period, an application must be lodged with Council for approval. The operator of the         premises must provide Council with appropriate supporting evidence (this may     include Council    requesting an acoustic validation assessment undertaken by a         suitably qualified person) to demonstrate compliance with all conditions of        this consent. Should an application not be received by Council prior to the    expiry of the trial period, the operation of the home business must revert to        the previous approval subject to the following conditions:

 

·      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 six (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.

 

C)     Delete Condition 40 of the consent

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP75/17

 

Subject:             20 Dundas Street, Coogee (DA/150/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/150/2017

Author:                   Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Legitimise the use of the existing garage as a one bedroom dwelling.

Ward:                     Eastern Ward

Applicant:                Mr D Taylor

Owner:                        Mr N Murray

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

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 to legitimise the use of the existing garage as a one bedroom dwelling with a single car park and private open space area occupying the former driveway. 

 

Revisions

The assessing officer requested the applicant to remedy the following deficiencies with their application:  

-    No section with floor-to-ceiling heights

-    Discrepancies between the site plan and survey plan

-    No private open space detailed

-    No single dwelling BASIX certificate

 

The application subsequently responded to and generally addressed these issues.

 

The assessing officer requested the applicant make the following changes to the proposal:

-    Additional side facing windows for cross ventilation and solar access

-    The provision of a parking space on the driveway with associated vehicle entry gates

-    Privacy screening to the northern side of the private open space area.

 

In response, the applicant:

·      Proposed one additional window to the southern side of the dwelling

·      Provided a parking space on the driveway

·      Proposed a 1.6m high privacy screen to part of the northern boundary adjoining the private open space of the unit.

 

Further, the assessing officer requested the applicant to address the following matters:

-    A laundry addition to the northern side of the garage building which appears to be unauthorised works

-    The external form of garage appears larger than that approved under the previous DA

-    Surveyed building setbacks were required.

 

In response, the applicant:

·      Clarified that the laundry was unauthorised works

·      Detailed the as-built size of the garage in relation to that approved

·      Supplied surveyed building setbacks.  

 

The changes did not require re-notification as the general built form and uses remain the same as notified. 

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the corner of Dundas Street and Rainbow Street. The site slopes steeply down towards the coast from its western boundary to its eastern boundary. The centre of the site contains a three storey residential flat building containing three residential units. A building containing three car spaces and laundry facilities is located within the west of the site.

 

A single story building, which is the subject of this application, is located close to the eastern boundary of the site and sits partly below ground level. The building was approved as a double garage in 2003 (ref: DA/983/2003 and associated amendments), however, minor dimensional differences exist (as detailed on the subject application plans) and an unauthorised laundry addition has been constructed to its northern side. It is unclear if the building has been used as a garage at any point since its construction. Unauthorised works have now converted it into a one bedroom dwelling, with the approved driveway utilised as an outdoor living space. 

 

Figure 1. Photograph of the subject site from the corner of Rainbow Street and Dundas Street. The unauthorised dwelling can be seen in the foreground, behind screen fencing.

 

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:

 

16 Dundas Street

Issue

Comment

1.   The use of the garage as a dwelling is beyond the scope of existing use rights.

2.   The development should be defined as a secondary dwelling, which is a prohibited use.

3.   Even if lawful, insufficient information has been provided, the dwelling will be inconsistent with the low density residential character of the area, and it will set an undesirable precedent.

1. The application has now been amended with a revised Statement of Environmental Effects which seeks consent for a permitted activity, being the establishment of a single dwelling house.

2. The development is a permitted use as a single dwelling house.

3. The assessing officer requested additional information from the applicant. It is considered that the proposal will be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the Low Density Residential Zone (see assessment below).  

 

17 Dundas Street

Issue

Comment

1.   Feel that this type of development does set a dangerous precedent in the area.

2.   Bamboo fences erected around the boundary railings looks quite tatty but would have been done for privacy purposes.

1.  The proposal is recommended for refusal (see assessment below).

2.  The bamboo screens do not form part of the proposal.

 

Key Issues

 

Section 79C Environmental Assessment

 

Clause 4.6 – Floor Space Ratio

The proposal would require a variance to a development standard contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012).

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012, the floor space ratio of the building must not be more than 0.65:1 on the site. A floor space ratio of 0.891:1 is proposed.

 

The variation is summarised in the table below:


 

Floor Space Ratio

Development standard

0.65:1

Existing

0.796:1

Proposal

0.891:1

Excess above the standard

37%

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.6(3) of the 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 what seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard.

 

The applicant has not 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. Therefore, the Council must refuse the application. It is considered that even if the applicant had submitted a written request, the large non-compliance and poor residential amenity outcomes would make the floor space ratio non-compliance inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RLEP 2012 and unsupportable.  

 

Residential Amenity in Relation to the Proposed Dwelling

The proposal provides a poor standard of residential amenity for future occupants of the proposed dwelling. In particular, the proposal provides inadequate cross ventilation and solar access to the interior of the dwelling (a non-compliance with Sub-Section 5.2 of the RDCP 2013), provides an area of private open space 5m X 4.7m wide (where 7m X 7m is required by the RDCP 2013). The area of private open space will be overlooked by the residential flat building on the site and its common area. 

 

In combination, the above deficiencies will result in a very poor standard of residential amenity for future occupants of the unit and will result in a development which is inconsistent with the objectives of the RDCP 2013. The unit will be partly below ground and will have to rely significantly on its eastern elevation for natural light and ventilation. Two small windows to the size elevations will be insignificant for ventilation and solar access purposes. The poor solar access will contribute to a sense of enclosure for occupants, especially given the building’s position partly below ground level. The lack of internal amenity is not supplemented by a quality outdoor living area. The proposed “private” open space is, in-fact, overlooked by the existing residential flat building and its communal area on the site and it lacks sufficient dimensions and landscaping to enable a range of outdoor activities. Further, the private open space is proposed to have a dual function as a driveway.

 


 

Side Setback – Sub-Section 3.3.2 

The laundry has a minimum side setback of 65mm where a side setback of 900mm is required by the RDCP 2013.

 

The proposed non-compliance is considered to be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013 and results in significant adverse impacts in terms of the amenity values of the street. The setback is not respectful of the pattern of development along Dundas Street and non-compliance is highly visible due to its location close to the frontage of a corner site. The built bulk of the laundry will also be unreasonable when viewed from the adjoining site to the north, in part due to the significant ground level changes between the two sites.       

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

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

 

The proposal is not consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will not provide quality housing to meet the housing needs of the community and will provide poor amenity for future residents who might occupy the dwelling.

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

Nil.

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

The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Non-compliances are discussed within the report below.

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

The proposed external built form is consistent with the dominant residential character in the locality. However, the proposal will provide inadequate onsite residential amenity and will therefore result in detrimental social impacts on the locality.

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

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

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

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

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

The proposal does not promote the objectives of the zone and will result in any significant adverse environmental and social impacts. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to not be in the public interest.

 

Randwick LEP 2012

 

The following Clauses of RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.65:1

0.891:1

No

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

No change.

N/A

 

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 does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and will result in substandard residential amenity and set an undesirable precedent.

 

The application is, therefore, recommended for refusal for the reasons listed under the recommendation below.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/150/2017 for an application to legitimise the use of the existing garage as a one bedroom dwelling, at No. 20 Dundas Street, Coogee, for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal exceeds the maximum Floor Space Ratio standard under Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) and no Clause 4.6 exception has been provided.

 

2.       The proposed development is inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone under RLEP 2012 in that it will provide poor amenity for residents of the dwelling.

 

3.       The proposed development fails to satisfy the relevant objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013, in relation to the following:

 

Part B7 – Transport, traffic, parking and access

-      3.2 Vehicle parking rates

 

Part C1 – Low Density Housing

-      2.5 Private Open Space

-      3.1 Floor Space Ratio

-      3.3 Setbacks

-      5.2 Energy Efficiency and Natural Ventilation.     

 

4.       The proposal is unacceptable pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(e) to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in that the proposal’s non-compliances and inconsistencies with the provisions of adopted environmental planning instrument and a development control plan together with the public submissions received are not in the public interest.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP76/17

 

Subject:             4 Neptune Street, Coogee (DA/107/2016/A)

Folder No:                   DA/107/2016/A

Author:                   Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by alteration to some windows, addition of door on south side, changes to front door, building line altered to comply with condition 2(a), changes to balconies, addition of window awnings, changes to bedrooms 2 and 3.

                                      Original consent: Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of new 3 storey dwelling with garage to front and associated works (variation to height control).

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Mr C McNamara

Owner:                        C McNamara and J Williams

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 original approval was determined at a Council meeting.

 

Proposal

 

The applicant proposes a Section 96 modification of the approved development by alteration to some windows, the addition of a door on the south side, changes to the front door, the building line altered to comply with condition 2(a) of the original approval. Layout changes are proposed to bedrooms 2 and 3. Eastern window screening changes are proposed as it is sought to delete conditions 2b and 2c. A planter is proposed to the east of the ground floor level balcony as it is sought to delete condition 2d. Further, an 850mm deep balcony is proposed to the rear of the first floor level which would require the deletion of condition 2f.      

 

Site

 

The site is located on the northern side of Neptune Street. The site has a frontage of 12.19m a depth of 22.555m and a total site area of 274.9m2, which is below the point at which an FSR maximum would apply to residential zoned land for the purposes of a dwelling house or semi-detached dwelling. The distinct characteristic of the site and the surrounding area is a steeply sloping topography from street down to the rear and from the western side down to the eastern side of the site and surrounding sites (ocean side).

 

Figure 1. Subject site at left and garage on neighbouring property of No. 190 Beach Street at right of photo.

 

Submissions

 

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


 

188 Beach Street

Issue

Comment

1.   Concerned about a lack of detail relating to proposed lower ground floor level window and screen changes.

2.   Concerned about a lack of detail relating to the proposed east facing day room windows at ground level (louvres and window hood).

3.   General privacy concerns relating to east facing windows and balconies.   

1.   The applicant propose a 1m high “balustrade/privacy screen” to the east facing living/dining room window. Limited details are provided, so to ensure the privacy of Nos 188 and 190 Beach Street are retained, it is recommended that condition 2b be amended to ensure the screen provides effective privacy protection (see assessment below). 

2.   The proposed amended privacy measures to the east facing day room have been assessed as being ineffective (see assessment below) and no changes are recommended to condition 2c (i.e. 1.6m privacy screening is still required to these windows).

3.   No other window changes would reduce the privacy of the objector. 

 

2 Neptune Street

Issue

Comment

1.   Proposed rear balconies would present privacy issues and could present view loss issues.

2.   The proposed rear balconies and deletion of condition 2f would defeat the purpose of Condition 2a (i.e. an increased setback of 850mm to reduce view loss).

3.   The proposed window treatment changes would present privacy issues.

1.    A condition is recommended requiring a privacy screen to the western side (facing the objector) of the rear first floor level balcony. As discussed within assessment below, no additional view loss will occur. 

2.    Condition 2f was imposed originally as the balcony was added in amended plans without consultation with neighbouring residents. As discussed within the assessment below, no additional view loss will occur as the balcony is situated above the view line to the coast of people sitting or standing within the objector’s living room. The increased ground floor level setback of 850mm is maintained and views are preserved from the objector’s window.

3.    No window treatment changes would result privacy for this objector. In relation to the first floor level rear balcony and privacy to the east, the privacy outcome for the objector will be not significantly different than approved. In particular, sites are generally orientated with eastern coastal views. The approved development features first floor level bedroom windows which will already overlook the sites to the east, and the narrow first floor level balcony attached to the bedrooms will not worsen this situation.   

 


 

Section 96 assessment:

 

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

 

Substantially the Same Development:

The modification to the approved development does not alter the nature of the approved development as it relates to changes to the approved dwelling and conditions approved under the original DA. For the purposes of legislative requirements under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered that the application remains substantially within the scope of the original development approval both qualitatively and quantitatively.

 

Section 79C Assessment

 

State Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

Clause 55A of the EP & A Regulation requires that a new BASIX certificate be lodged for amended plans or where a Section 96 modification makes a material change to the BASIX commitments as originally approved.

 

The proposed modification do not make a material change to the BASIX commitments. Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP:BASIX were included in the original determination.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The following clauses of LEP 2012 are relevant to the proposed development:

 

Zone R3 – Medium Density Residential

The site is zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential under the RLEP 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent. The size and scale of the proposed development is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality and will not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the character of the area.

 

Building Height and Floor Space Ratio

The proposed does not increase the approved building height (Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012) or the approved floor space ratio (Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012).

 

Development Control Plans

 

Visual Privacy – Sub-Section 5.3

Condition 2b

The applicant seeks the deletion of condition 2b as they believe that the revised design satisfies the visual privacy requirements of condition 2b. The condition reads:

 

2b  The east facing living/dining room window at lower ground floor level shall be treated with obscured glazing to a minimum height of 1m above the internal floor level. Alternatively, a horizontal external privacy screen to a height of 1m above the internal floor level may be installed across the window. The external screen shall be fixed to an angle that avoids a sitting view into the rear yards of Nos. 188 & 190 Beach Street. The external privacy screen must be installed prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

 

The applicant now propose a 1m high “balustrade/privacy screen” to the east facing living/dining room window. Limited details are provided on the screen and to ensure the privacy of Nos 188 and 190 Beach Street are retained, it is recommended that condition 2b be amended to read:

 

2b  An external privacy screen to a height of 1m above the internal floor level shall be installed across the east facing living/dining room window at lower ground floor level. The external screen shall be fixed to an angle and spaced appropriately to prevent a sitting view into the rear yards of Nos. 188 & 190 Beach Street. The external privacy screen must be installed prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

 

Condition 2c

The applicant seeks the deletion of condition 2c as they believe that the revised design satisfies the visual privacy requirements of condition 2c. The condition reads:

 

2c  The east facing day room window at ground floor level shall be treated with obscured glazing to a minimum height of 1.6m above the internal floor level. Alternatively, a horizontal external privacy screen to a height of 1.6m above the internal floor level may be installed across the window. The external screen shall be fixed to an angle that avoids overlooking into the rear yards of No. 188 & 190 Beach Street. The external privacy screen must be installed prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

 

The applicant now propose a hood to the windows in an attempt to direct sightlines away from the rear yards and windows of No. 188 and 190 Beach Street. However, based on the applicant’s supplied sightline diagrams, the hood will prove ineffective. In particular, the applicant have supplied a sightline level of 1.5m (not the standard eye height of 1.6m) and have placed the viewing position a significant distance from the window.  The window hoods will prove ineffective at 1.6m and at a viewing position closer to the window. Therefore, it is recommended that condition 2c is retained.

 

Other Window Changes

Other minor window changes will not impact privacy outcomes.

 

View Loss – Sub-Section 5.6

Condition 2a

The applicant seeks the deletion of condition 2a as they believe that the revised design satisfies the view loss requirements of the condition. Condition 2a reads:

 

2a  The rear setback of the ground floor level and first floor level (including blade walls) shall be increased by 850mm. This condition will require removal of blade walls and reduction of internal depth of rooms and void area. This condition has been included in order to ensure a greater retention of views from the ground level living room window of No. 2-2A Neptune Street.

 

The revised design now has an increased rear setback of 850mm and condition 2a is recommended for deletion.

 

Condition 2d

The applicant proposes a 650mm wide planter to the eastern side of the ground floor level day room balcony. The applicant therefore seeks the deletion of Condition 2d. The condition reads:

 

2d  A 650mm wide planter shall be installed along the eastern side of the ground floor level day room balcony. Only low lying shrub planting (at maturity) to balustrade height shall be installed within this planter to ensure no appreciable impact on views from the living room window of No. 2-2A Neptune Street.

 

The proposed planter meets the visual privacy aims of condition 2d, but the amended plans do not specify or restrict vegetation type and height (required to prevent view loss for No. 2 Neptune Street). Therefore, condition 2d is recommended to read:

 

2d  Only low lying shrub planting (at maturity) maintained to balustrade height shall be installed within the planter to the ground floor level balcony to ensure no appreciable impact on views from the living room window of No. 2-2A Neptune Street.

 

Condition 2f

The applicant proposes an 850mm deep rear first floor level balcony. The applicant therefore seeks the deletion of Condition 2f. The condition reads:

 

2f  The rear first floor level balcony shall be deleted from the development.

 

Condition 2f was imposed as the balcony was proposed within amended application plans submitted to Council after notification of the original application.

 

Figure 2. Snapshot of the proposed amendment to the eastern elevation. The proposed rear first floor level deck and the outline of the living room window to the neighbouring No. 2 Neptune Street, can be seen within the yellow box. 

 

The revised balcony design and additional rear setback of 850mm to the remainder of the rear wall at ground and first floor levels will preserve the coastal views from the living room window. As can be observed within fig. 2 above, standing and sitting views from the window will be preserved. Therefore condition 2f is recommended for deletion.

 

In regards to privacy from the rear balcony, an additional condition is recommended that requires a 1.6m high privacy screen to the western side of the balcony in order to preserve the privacy of sites to the west (in particular the privacy of the aforementioned living room window). This privacy screen would result in no additional view loss due to its location above the living room window. 

 

In relation to the rear first floor level balcony and privacy to the east, the privacy outcome for sites across the eastern boundary will be not significantly different than approved. In particular, sites are generally orientated with eastern coastal views. The approved development features first floor level bedroom windows which will already overlook the sites to the east, and the narrow first floor level balcony attached to the bedrooms will not worsen this situation.   

 

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

The proposed modification will result in no significant adverse social, economic or environmental impacts. In particular, the proposed modification does not significantly extend the built form of the building, and the changes are generally contained within the existing footprint.

 

Site Suitability

The modification to the approved development does not alter the nature or scale of the approved development in relation to site suitability.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification to the approved development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines and Council policies and plans as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. The proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that is substantially the same in nature as previously approved works. Subject to additional conditions, the modified development will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity and character of the locality.

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for approval.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. DA/107/2008/A for a Section 96 modification of the approved development by alteration to some windows, the addition of a door on the south side, changes to the front door, layout changes to bedrooms 2 and 3, the building line altered to allow for the deletion of condition 2(a), screening changes requiring amendments to conditions 2(b) and 2(d) and a rear first floor level balcony requiring the deletion of condition 2f. The consent is modified in the following manner:

 

·              Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

1. The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans and supporting documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s approved stamp:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA00 Rev B

MCK Architects

16/6/16

20 June 2016

DA10 Rev B

16/6/16

20 June 2016

DA11 Rev B

16/6/16

20 June 2016

DA12 Rev B

16/6/16

20 June 2016

DA13 Rev B

16/6/16

20 June 2016

DA20 Rev B

16/6/16

20 June 2016

DA21 Rev B

16/6/16

20 June 2016

DA22 Rev B

16/6/16

20 June 2016

DA23 Rev B

16/6/16

20 June 2016

DA30 Rev B

16/6/16

20 June 2016

DA31 Rev B

16/6/16

20 June 2016

DA32 Rev B

16/6/16

20 June 2016

L01 Issue E

Amber Road

03.02.2016

25 February 2016

L02 Issue C

03.02.2016

25 February 2016

L03 Issue C

03.02.2016

25 February 2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

697226S

01 February 2016

25 February 2016

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

DA00 Rev D

MCK Architects

30 May 2017

DA10 Rev D

30 May 2017

DA11 Rev D

30 May 2017

DA12 Rev D

30 May 2017

DA13 Rev D

30 May 2017

DA20 Rev D

30 May 2017

DA21 Rev D

30 May 2017

DA22 Rev D

30 May 2017

DA23 Rev D

30 May 2017

DA30 Rev D

30 May 2017

DA31 Rev D

30 May 2017

DA32 Rev D

30 May 2017

 

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

 

·      Delete Condition 2a  

 

·      Amend Condition 2b to read:

An external privacy screen to a height of 1m above the internal floor level shall be installed across the east facing living/dining room window at lower ground floor level. The external screen shall be fixed to an angle and spaced appropriately to prevent a sitting view into the rear yards of Nos. 188 & 190 Beach Street. The external privacy screen must be installed prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

 

·      Amend Condition 2d to read:

Only low lying shrub planting (at maturity) maintained to balustrade height shall be installed within the planter to the ground floor level balcony to ensure no appreciable impact on views from the living room window of No. 2-2A Neptune Street.

 

·      Delete Condition 2f

 

·      Add Condition 60 to read:

      A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m (measured above the finished level of the balcony) shall be provided to the full length of the western side of the first floor level balcony.

 

The privacy screen must be constructed with either:

 

·    Translucent or obscured glazing (The use of film applied to the clear glass pane is unacceptable) ;

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

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP77/17

 

Subject:             44 Daunt Avenue, Matraville (DA/477/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/477/2017

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing structures, construction of 3 level attached dual occupancy with garages to front, spa pool to rear of unit A and associated works (variation to lot size control).

Ward:                     South Ward

Applicant:                Eco Factor

Owner:                        Warwick and Debbie Krigstein, David and Sarah Robuck

Summary recommendation:      Approval (subject to deletion of the proposed subdivision)

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=f453c246-45ed-4065-990f-b3473eba02cb&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application is referred to Council for determination as Clause 4.6 variation to the minimum lot size standard is greater than 10%.  In addition, a request from Councillors D’Souza, Andrews and Stavrinos has been received to refer the application to Council.

 


 

Proposal

The application seeks approval for demolition of the existing structures, construction of 3 level attached dual occupancy with garages to the front, a spa pool to rear of Unit A, associated site works and Torrens Title subdivision into 2 lots, comprising of:

 

·      Lot A being 358.71m² and a 7.677m frontage facing Daunt Avenue; and

·      Lot B being 362.09m² and a 7.677m frontage facing Daunt Avenue;

 

An amended subdivision plan is submitted to Council on 14 November to clarify the dimensions and lot sizes for Units A & B. 

 

Concerns have been raised by Council in relation to the development being over the allowable FSR in the LEP for a dual occupancy development.  Consequently, amended plans have been received by Council on 15 November 2017 deleting the laundry and modifying the storage area in the basement level to Unit A and deleting the gym, bathroom, laundry & MUD room and providing a storage area in the basement level to Unit B.  Laundry facilities have been provided on the ground floor level to both units.

 

The assessment for the dual occupancy development is based on the amended plans received by Council on 15 November 2017.

 

Subject site and surrounding area

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Daunt Avenue between Poulet Street and Combles Parade and is known as Lot 1668 of DP 752015 at 44 Daunt Avenue, Matraville.  The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage width to Daunt Avenue of 15.355m, a depth of 47.15m along the western side boundary and 48.07m along the eastern side boundary. The site has total area of 720.80m² and is located within the R2 Low Density Residential zone.  The site has a maximum fall from the rear to the front of the site of approximately 5.91m along the eastern side boundary and approximately 4.96m from the western side boundary.

 

The subject site is occupied by a single storey cement rendered brick house with tiled roof.  Immediately to the west and east of the subject site at no.’s 42 Daunt Avenue and 46 Daunt Avenue are single storey dwelling houses. The locality is predominantly occupied by a mix of low density residential development comprising of detached one and two storey dwelling houses and semi-detached dwelling houses. 

 

 

Figure 1: Subject site & adjoining properties

 

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:

 

42 Daunt Avenue, Matraville

Issue

Comment

Approved plans

The submission has not considered their approved plans for alterations and additions to their existing house. (DA/61/2015 & amended Section 96 DA/61/2015/A).

Council has considered the existing dwelling and new development on the site. It is not considered that the proposed dual occupancy will have any unreasonable amenity impacts on the existing and new development.

Double garage

Concerns of double garage to both sides facing the street creating bulk and scale to the development.  The neighbouring property to the west also includes a two storey attached dual occupancy development with double garage on the front.  The front elevation will be dominated by garaging which also increases traffic. 

Refer to Sub-section 4.3 - Additional Provisions for Attached Dual Occupancies below which addresses this concern.

 

External wall height limit

Unsure if the development complies with the external wall height limit.  Concerned this would cause additional overshadowing impacts their eastern elevation.

Refer to Key Issues below under Sub-section 3.2 - External Wall Height which addresses this concern.

 

Privacy concerns

Privacy should be considered to both entry stairs from their property including entry stairs closest to their boundary fence with regards to Da/61/2015/A.

Agreed. Refer to Key Issues below which addresses privacy impacts via conditions.

 

 

46 Daunt Avenue, Matraville

Issue

Comment

External wall height

The proposed development exceeds the external wall height control of 7m and does not believe it is a steep sloping site to warrant the external wall height of 8m. The total fall across the building envelope is only 2m.

Refer to Key Issues below under Sub-section 3.2 - External Wall Height which explains why the development is considered to be a sloping site and meets the objectives of the control.

 

 

Fill on the site

The land will be raised by 2m above the existing ground level. 

 

Refer to Sub-section - 4.6 Earthworks below which addresses this concern.

 

 

Rear setback and scale of development

The development is in contrast to the existing neighbouring character and streetscape.  The rear setback exceeds any of the adjoining residences in the street.  Questions whether the proposed development complies with the FSR control.

The proposed development complies with the rear setback control and despite extending further than the current immediate adjoining rear built form will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts.

 

In addition to the above, a recent development has been approved at no. 40 Daunt Avenue (DA/353/2015) with a similar rear built form.   Once these sites are developed it is expected that the rear built form will be similar to the proposed development.

 

It is agreed that the FSR has been calculated incorrectly and as a result amended plans have been received deleting components of the basement level to Units A & B to meet the FSR control allowable for a dual occupancy development.

 

The amended FSR now meets the FSR control. The height and built form of the development is considered to be generally compatible with the size and scale of other similar dual occupancy development within the immediate area and will not detract from the established attributes of the residential area and streetscape.

 

Overshadowing Impacts

The proposed development will cause overshadowing impact to their property in the afternoon.  Does not believe the shadows are taken from true north and believes the shadows will be far worse than shown on the shadow diagrams.

Refer to Key Issues below under Sub-Section 5.1 - Solar Access and Overshadowing which address this issue.

 

Overlooking concerns

The proposed rear balconies will overlook their backyard and will impede on their privacy.

Refer to Key Issues below which addresses privacy impacts via conditions.

 

 

Key Issues

Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards

The application is seeking request under clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards to vary the minimum subdivision lot size standard under clause 4.1 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

Minimum allotment size - subdivision

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

 

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

 

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

 

Site area

720.8m²

 

Minimum lot size for dwelling house in R2 zone

400m²

 

 

Unit A

Unit B

Proposed lot size

358.71m²

362.09m²

Variation to LEP control

41.29m2 below the development standard this equates to a proposed 10.32% shortfall.

37.91m2 below the development standard this equates to a proposed 9.48% shortfall.

 

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

 

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

 

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

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the floor space ratio buildings standard are set out in clause 4.4 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

a)       To ensure that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual privacy, overshadowing and views

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

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

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

 

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

 

Introduction

This 4.6 variation is to be read in conjunction with the Statement of Environmental Effects for the proposed two-storey attached dual occupancy development including Torrens title subdivision at 44 Daunt Avenue, Matraville. This 4.6 variation seeks to vary the minimum subdivision lot size provisions contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012).

Figure 1: Site Location Map. Source: SIX Maps

 

Figure 2: Aerial Location Map. Source: SIX Maps

 

 

Figure 3: Daunt Avenue streetscape. Source: Google Street View

 

The site is located in the R2-Low Density Residential zone. The planning objectives for this zone include:

 

·      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.

 

This submission forms a request to grant an exception to the development standard minimum subdivision lot size in clause 4.1 of the RLEP 2012 under clause 4.6 “Exceptions to development standards” of the RLEP 2012.

 

4.6 Exceptions to development standards

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

 

(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

(b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.

 

(5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Director-General must consider:

 

(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, and

(c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director-General before granting concurrence.

 

(6) Development consent must not be granted under this clause for a subdivision of land in Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone R5 Large Lot Residential, Zone E2 Environmental Conservation, Zone E3 Environmental

 

Management or Zone E4 Environmental Living if:

 

(a) the subdivision will result in 2 or more lots of less than the minimum area specified for such lots by a development standard, or

(b) the subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90% of the minimum area specified for such a lot by a development standard.

 

(7) After determining a development application made pursuant to this clause, the consent authority must keep a record of its assessment of the factors required to be addressed in the applicant’s written request referred to in subclause (3).

 

(8) This clause does not allow development consent to be granted for development that would contravene any of the following:

 

(a) a development standard for complying development,

(b) a development standard that arises, under the regulations under the Act, in connection with a commitment set out in a BASIX certificate for a building to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies or for the land on which such a building is situated,

(c) clause 5.4.

 

Development Standard to be varied

This clause 4.6 variation request relates to a departure from a numerical standard set out under clause 4.1 of the RLEP 2012 in relation to the specified minimum subdivision lot size of 400 square metres.

This development standard relates to the subdivision of the attached dual occupancy development, clause 4.1 of the RLEP 2012 falls within a scope of a “development standard” as defined under section 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EP&A Act).

 

Clause 4.1 of the RLEP 2012 contains development standards for buildings proposed in the R2 Low Density Residential zone where attached dual occupancies are permitted with consent.

 

4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties,

(b) to ensure that lot sizes allow development to be sited to protect natural or cultural features, including heritage items, and to retain special features such as trees and views,

(c) to ensure that lot sizes are able to accommodate development that is suitable for its purpose,

 

(2) This clause applies to a subdivision of any land show on the Lot Size Map that requires development consent and that is carried out after the commencement of this Plan.

 

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

 

(4) This clause does not apply in relation to the subdivision of individual lots in a strata plan or community title scheme.

 

The proposal seeks a minor variation to the minimum subdivision lot size for the proposed subdivision of an attached dual occupancy dwelling.

 

The proposed subdivision will result in a lot size of 360.4sqm each which equates to a 10% variation of the minimum 400.0sqm lot size requirement. The requested variation is negligible and will not have any adverse impact on the locality or neighbouring properties.

 

Figure 4 RLEP 2012 Minimum Lot Size Map

 

Whilst the proposal does not comply with the numeric lot size requirements; it meets the objectives of the R2-Low Density Residential zone as stated below;

 

Table 1 Objectives of R2-Low Density Residential zone.

 

Assessment of the Provisions of Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

Clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012 allows for flexibility to be applied to development standards where objectives can be obtained notwithstanding the variation. The mechanics of the clause, the objectives of the minimum subdivision lot size standard and a response is outlined below; however, the main opportunities and justifications for the subdivision lot size variation are presented here:

 

·      The subdivision will result in a density that is compatible with the existing eclectic building styles of the neighbourhood and will complement the emerging character as older building stock gets replaced over time.

·      The variation will make no material or visual difference to the street or neighbourhood amenity than that of a large single dwelling.

·      Site orientation and setbacks create a situation where amenity is maintained to neighbours.

·      Proposal will appear as one large dwelling from the street frontage ensuring bulk and scale of the development is suitable.

·      Proposal complies with all other RLEP 2012 development standards including floor space ratio, building height save for Architectural roof features (sky lights?) and Randwick DCP 2013 controls including setbacks and private open space requirements.

·      Proposal maximizes the development potential for the site introducing contemporary homes that will suit larger families without the price tag of traditional larger lot sizes.

 

Relevant extracts of clause 4.6 are outlined below:

 

(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument….”

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

 

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

 

(b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.

 

Table 2 Request to vary development standard 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size

Achieving the objectives of the standards

 

4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

 

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

(b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.

 

In terms of clause 4.6 (4)(a)(i) this submission is the written request that addresses the matters required to be considered. Refer to Table 2 above where sub clause 3 is addressed.

With reference to clause 4.6 (4)(ii), the proposed subdivision of an attached dual occupancy is consistent with the objectives for development within the R2 Low Density Residential zone that the minimum lot size standard is applicable to. That is:

 

1.  The low density environment is not compromised by the imperceptible variance in lot size.

2.  Local amenity, particularly aspect, solar access, views and privacy will not be compromised by the variation sought.

 

In addition the proposal achieves the setback and private open space requirements detailed in the Randwick DCP 2013 for the proposed dual occupancy dwellings.

 

Clause 4.6(5) Considerations

 

4.6 Exceptions to development standards

(5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Director-General must consider:

(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, and

(c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director-General before granting concurrence.

 

The matters for consideration in clause 4.6(5) have been addressed in Table 3.

 


 

Table 3 Clause 4.5(5) Assessment

 

 

Conclusions

The proposed application satisfies requirements to enable proper assessment under Part 4 of The EP&A Act 1979.

 

The proposal is permissible with consent and the slight variation required from the standard does not compromise the objectives for the zone contained in the LEP or DCP. Nor does it impact the amenity of neighbours or the broader precinct.

The proposed non-compliance with the minimum lot size requirement will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and will not be readily discernable from the street or any public place.

 

Therefore, strict compliance with the minimum lot size standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary and warrants approval.

 

Planner’s comments:

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

 

The objective of the clause for minimum subdivision lot size for Torrens Title subdivision in Zone R2 is to ensure that the subdivision patter in the locality is not fragmented.

 

The proposed allotment size for the two proposed allotments, at 358.71m² (Unit A) & 362.09m² (Unit B), are a departure from the development standard of 400sqm. When considering this shortfall in the context of site the proposed shortfall would not be consistent with the prevailing subdivision pattern in the area.

 

In this respect, a review of properties in the vicinity of the subject site, as shown in the cadastral image below shows a relatively consistent subdivision pattern between the subject site (red) and those sites in the vicinity (blue). The salient statistical aspect of these surrounding properties is that over 90% of the surrounding allotments are below 800sqm and at least 44.7% of the properties have a site area that is within a 5% variance of the subject site. This would suggest that allowing the shortfall would encourage the subdivision of these other similarly sized allotments in the vicinity as well as the surrounding area. This would have the effect of fragmenting subdivision pattern which will set an undesirable precedent in the vicinity. It is also important to consider that several of these sites also contain dual occupancies under one title only having been developed on the basis that the minimum lot size for an attached dual occupancy being 450m².   If Council was to abandon its minimum lot size standard for subdivision, then every attached dual occupancy approved below the minimum would be able to subdivided allowing some to have a minimum of 225m² per lot.

 

Moreover, an application was refused at a Planning Committee Meet to vary the lot size for Strata subdivision of an approved attached dual occupancy at no. 275 Beauchamp Road, Matraville which is in close proximity of the subject site and shown in light blue shade below in figure Cadastral.

 

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

 

Planner’s comments:

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

 

The objective of the clause for minimum subdivision lot size for Torrens Title subdivision in Zone R2 is to ensure that land in the R2 zone is not fragmented.

 

The proposed allotment size for the two proposed allotments, at 358.71m² (Unit A) & 362.09m² (Unit B), are a departure from the development standard of 400sqm. When considering this shortfall in the context of site the proposed shortfall would not be consistent with the prevailing subdivision pattern in the area.

 

In this respect, a review of properties in the vicinity of the subject site, as shown in the cadastral image below shows a relatively consistent subdivision pattern between the subject site (red) and those sites in the vicinity (blue). The salient statistical aspect of these surrounding properties is that over 90% of the surrounding allotments are below 800sqm and at least 44.7% of the properties have a site area that is within a 5% variance of the subject site. This would suggest that allowing the shortfall would encourage the subdivision of these other similarly sized allotments in the vicinity as well as the surrounding area. This would have the effect of fragmenting subdivision pattern which will set an undesirable precedent in the vicinity. It is also important to consider that several of these sites also contain dual occupancies under one title only having been developed on the basis that the minimum lot size for an attached dual occupancy being 450m².   If Council

 

Moreover, an application was refused at a Planning Committee Meet to vary the lot size for Strata subdivision of an approved attached dual occupancy at no. 275 Beauchamp Road, MATRAVILLE which is in close proximity of the subject site and shown in light blue shade below in figure Cadastral.

 

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

 

Planner’s comments:

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

 

The objective of the clause for minimum subdivision lot size for Torrens Title subdivision in Zone R2 is to ensure that land in the R2 zone is not fragmented.

 

The proposed allotment size for the two proposed allotments, at 358.71m² (Unit A) & 362.09m² (Unit B), are a departure from the development standard of 400sqm. When considering this shortfall in the context of site the proposed shortfall would not be consistent with the prevailing subdivision pattern in the area.

 

In this respect, a review of properties in the vicinity of the subject site, as shown in the cadastral image below shows a relatively consistent subdivision pattern between the subject site (red) and those sites in the vicinity (blue). The salient statistical aspect of these surrounding properties is that over 90% of the surrounding allotments are below 800sqm and at least 44.7% of the properties have a site area that is within a 5% variance of the subject site. This would suggest that allowing the shortfall would encourage the subdivision of these other similarly sized allotments in the vicinity as well as the surrounding area. This would have the effect of fragmenting subdivision pattern which will set an undesirable precedent in the vicinity. It is also important to consider that several of these sites also contain dual occupancies under one title only having been developed on the basis that the minimum lot size for an attached dual occupancy being 450m².   If Council was to abandon its minimum lot size standard for subdivision, then every attached dual occupancy approved below the minimum would be able to subdivided allowing some to have a minimum of 225m² per lot.

 

Moreover, an application was refused at a Planning Committee Meet to vary the lot size for Strata subdivision of an approved attached dual occupancy at no. 275 Beauchamp Road, Matraville which is in close proximity of the subject site and shown in light blue shade below in figure Cadastral map.

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A Report by the Director City Planning (No 42 of 2005) stated:

 

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

 

The 2005 report noted (at p11) that under the provisions at the time approximately 7,000 properties were able to develop attached dual occupancies within minimum lot sizes of 450sqm.  However, the restriction on strata subdivision had limited demand for this form of housing with only 114 applications being considered for dual occupancy development in the previous five years.

 

The Report continued:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has not successfully demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.  However, the dual occupancy development has be supported subject to conditions on the grounds that the proposed development will protect the amenity of residents and will provide for the housing needs of the community within the low density residential environment which is the key objectives of the R2 zone land.

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

•    To protect the amenity of residents.

•    To encourage housing affordability.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

Part C1:  Low Density Residential

Sub-section 2.1 - Minimum Lot Size and Frontage

The proposed application is for a dual occupancy development with Torrens Title subdivision into 2 lots.  As a result of the subdivision, the development will fall under the LEP definition of a semi-detached dwelling in that the dwellings will be on their own lot of land and attached to only one other dwelling.  

 

The minimum frontage width for allotments resulting from the subdivision of land within Zone R2 (Low Density Residential) for the purposes of dwelling houses and semi-detached dwellings is 12m. The subdivision proposed for Lot 1668 (Unit A) & (Unit B) have a frontage width of only 7.6775m for Unit A and 7.6775m for Unit B falling well short of the 12m frontage control for each allotment. 

 

The proposed development is subject to the following DCP objective:

 

·      To ensure land subdivision respects the predominant subdivision and development pattern of the locality.

 

As discussed above, under Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012: Exception to a Development Standard, the proposed strata subdivision is not support as it would create additional dwelling entitlements that would fragment the land and will not respect the predominant subdivision pattern of the locality. Also, as demonstrated above in the Figure Cadastral, there are numerous lots sizes of similar size to the subject land in the immediate area, and as such, if proposed to be subdivided will result in the lot sizes to be smaller setting an undesirable precedent in the area. It would also encourage the speculative development of these lots and creates the potential to transform the character of locality.

 

The application as submitted is seeking approval for a dual occupancy development, given that Council is not in support of the Torrens Title subdivision, the development will be assessed as a dual occupancy development as presented in the documentation provided by the applicant.

 

The minimum frontage width control for an attached dual occupancy within Zone R2 (Low Density Residential) is 15m.   The site has a frontage of 15.355m which meets the control given that the proposed subdivision is being deleted. 

 

Sub-section 3.2 - External Wall Height:

Objectives for the external wall height control include ensuring the provision of interesting roof forms which are compatible with the street and the minimisation of bulk in order to limit overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity impacts.

 

A submission has been received from the neighbouring property at no. 42 Daunt Avenue question whether the development complies with the external wall height limit and concerned that this would cause additional overshadowing impacts their eastern elevation.  A submission was also received from the neighbouring property at no. 42 Daunt Avenue on the grounds that it exceeds the external wall height control of 7m and questions whether it is a sloping site to warrant the external wall height of 8m.

 

The building has a maximum height of 9.43m from the existing nature ground line, which complies with the 9.5m maximum height standard set out in the RLEP 2012.  The DCP stipulates that the maximum external wall height must not exceed 8m for sloping site.  The subject site has a cross fall from the west to the east of approximately 1.03m and has a maximum fall across the site depth from the rear to the front of approximately 5.91m along the eastern side boundary and approximately 4.96m from the western side boundary; and therefore, it is considered to be a sloping site. 

 

However, the proposed development has a maximum external wall height of 8.8m from the natural ground line which does not meet this control.  

 

The non-compliance is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The external wall height portion that is over the control is limited to the front eastern elevation where the site has a considerable fall.

 

·      The development complies with the 1.2m setback control in the DCP and subject to conditions it is not considered to result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties and streetscape.

 

·      As discussed in the relevant section of this report the proposed development will meet the solar access requirements in the DCP and will not have an unreasonable overshadowing impact on neighbouring properties.

 

·      The development is well articulated and will be consistent in height and scale of other dual occupancy development in the immediate locality. 

 

Given the above reasons, the development is considered to meet the external wall height control objectives of the DCP.

 

Sub-section - 4.6 Earthworks

Depth of cut & fill

Sub-clause 4.6 of Randwick DCP 2013 contains controls relating to earthworks, including excavation. The objectives of the controls is to minimise change to natural ground levels, to ensure excavation does not result in unreasonable structural, visual, overshadowing and privacy impacts on adjoining dwellings and to enable the provision of usable private open space fir dwellings.

 

Control 4.6(i) states that excavation within the building footprint must be limited to 1m at any point on the allotment, unless it is demonstrates that the site gradient is too steep to reasonably construct a dwelling within this extent of modification while control 4.6(vi) states that cut outside the building footprint must take the form of terracing following the natural landform in order to minimise the depth of earthworks at any point on the site.

 

The proposed depth of cut and fill will exceed the 1m numeric limitation prescribed by the DCP. At the greatest depth, cut measures approximately 2.2m to the rear of the dwelling and the fill measures approximately 1.9m to the front of the dwelling.

 

The site slopes to the street with a maximum fall from the rear to the front of approximately 5.91m along the eastern side boundary and approximately 4.96m from the western side boundary.

 

In this instance, the depth of cut and fill is considered acceptable as there is no resulting amenity impacts and, provided the excavation is undertaken in an appropriate manner and in accordance with the conditions of consent, will not result in structural damage to neighbouring properties.  The cut to the rear will provide better access and more functional private open spaces for the dwellings.  The fill at the front will not cause any significant visual or privacy concerns to the neighbouring properties nor will it impact on the amenity or character of the streetscape. 

 

Sub-section 4.3 - Additional Provisions for Attached Dual Occupancies

The proposed attached dual occupancy dwellings both have double width garages and does not satisfy the RDCP control limiting the garages to single widths for each dwelling.

The relevant objectives under the RDCP 2013 are:

 

·      To ensure the configuration, scale, massing and proportions of attached dual occupancies are compatible with other dwellings in the street.

·      To ensure parking facilities do not dominate the street elevations of dual occupancy dwellings but present as an integrated architectural element.

 

The proposed development satisfies the above objectives by providing single driveway openings which tapers outwards further within the site. The front setback also contains landscaping across the front, which serves to articulate and soften the garage entry areas minimising the degree to which the garage openings are viewed from street to a smaller entry width than the actual double width for each of the dwellings.

 

Also, this will be consistent with a recently approved dual occupancy development (DA/353/2015) at 40 Daunt Avenue for double garage spaces and single driveway width tappering into the front boundary with landscaping inbetween.

 

However, to reduce the visual dominance of the double width garages it is recommended that the solid balustrades to the front terraces above the garages be converted into glass balustrades.   

 

Sub-clause 5.1 - Solar Access and Overshadowing

Objectives

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

 

Solar access to proposed development:

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

 

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

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

-     Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

-     Location and level of the windows in question.

-     Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

 

A submission was received from the neighbouring property at no. 46 Daunt Avenue objecting to the development on the grounds that it will cause additional overshadow impacts in the afternoon to their property.  The objector also does not believe the shadows are taken from true north and believes the shadows will be far worse than shown on the shadow diagrams.

 

The shadow diagrams submitted demonstrate that solar access to the principal outdoor recreation space to the rear yard on the subject site and adjoining properties will still receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

The additional overshadowing impacts in the afternoon to the objector’s property at no. 46 Daunt Avenue as a result of the proposed development are considered to be minor. Whilst it is noted that the shadows haven been taken from magnetic north the additional shadows if taken from true north does not restrict the site from receive the required 3 hours of solar access between 8am and 4pm on 21 June to their private open space or north facing windows.

 

In relation to the neighbouring property at no. 42 Daunt Avenue, the existing awning structure attached to this property at the rear mainly restricts the rear north facing windows from receiving the required 3 hours of solar access.  If this site was to be redevelopment the proposed development will not restrict the property from receiving the required 3 hours of solar access to future north facing windows.

 

Also, the development will not impact on any future solar collectors and the application is considered to be acceptable in this regard given general compliance with the DCP controls.

 

Figure 2: Existing and proposed shadow diagrams

 

Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy

 

Objective

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

 

Controls

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

 

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

·       Front or rear of the allotment;

·       Side courtyard.

 

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

 

It is not expected that the proposed development will result in any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties.

 

Windows

The window openings to the southern elevation will predominantly overlook the street and front yards of the subject and adjoining sites and to the northern elevation will predominantly overlook the rear yard of the site.

 

The window openings to the eastern and western elevations on the first floor level are either highlight windows or are recessed within the courtyard areas of the main built form and do not cause any significant overlooking concerns.   The ground floor window openings will be screened by the dividing fencing to the sides and rear of the property boundaries.

 

Terraces & balconies

A submission was received from the neighbouring property at no. 46 Daunt Avenue objecting to the rear first floor balcony on the grounds that it will cause overlooking impacts into their rear yard. Privacy concerns were also raised from the neighbouring property at no. 42 Daunt Avenue in relation to the front entry stairs.

 

The proposed terraces and balcony to the front of the are not expected to cause any overlooking impacts as they will primarily overlook the street and front yards of the subject and adjoining sites. 

 

Privacy screens are proposed to the sides and rape around to the north eastern and north western corners of the rear first floor balconies to minimise overlooking in an oblique angle.  These balconies are also off bedrooms which are considered to be low use rooms and are not expected to generate significant traffic flow.  

 

To ensure an adequate level of privacy is maintained to the neighbouring properties a condition is included which requires all privacy screens to be constructed with either:

 

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

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

 

In relation to the side entry stairs it is agreed that there will be some privacy concerns associated with the stairs due to its elevated nature and close proximity to the side boundaries and therefore, a condition is included requiring the side entry stairs including vertical lourves to be relocated to the centre of the site.

 

Subject to the above recommendations, the proposal will meet the objectives of the visual privacy control.

 

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 strata subdivision is permissible with development consent under Randwick LEP 2013. The proposed subdivision of Units A & B do not comply with the minimum allotment size required under Clause 4.1(a) of the RLEP and are lower than the average allotment sizes within the locality.

 

The exception to the development standard lodged with respect to the non-compliance with the minimum allotment size of 400sqm is not considered to be well founded in the circumstances.

 

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

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has not successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.  However, the dual occupancy development has be supported subject to conditions on the grounds that the proposed development will protect the amenity of residents and will provide for the housing needs of the community within the low density residential environment which is the key objectives of the R2 zone land.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     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/477/2017 for demolition of existing structures, construction of 3 level attached dual occupancy with garages to front, spa pool to rear of unit A and associated works, at No. 44 Daunt Avenue, Matraville, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     The Torrens Title subdivision into 2 lots is not supported and shall be deleted for the following reasons:

 

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

 

·       The proposed subdivision does not comply with Clause 4.1 minimum allotment size standard under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the proposed lots will fragment the subdivision pattern, is inconsistent with the objectives and the Clause 4.6 variation to the development standard is not well founded.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

b.     The solid balustrades to the front terraces above the garages shall be replaced with clear glass balustrades.   

 

c.     All privacy screens must be constructed with either:

 

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

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

 

d.     The finished floor level of the spa pool to the rear of Unit A shall not excessed RL 38.35.

 

e.     The front entry stairs including associated vertical louvres and garbage bin storage areas along the eastern and western side boundaries shall be deleted and the existing ground levels along the eastern and western side boundaries of the site up to the southern side of the ground floor recessed garden area shall be retained and new balustrades to be provided to both sides of the front terraces. New front entry stairs shall be provided in the centre of the site and the driveways to be adjusted to allow adequate vehicular access to the basement garages. Details of new front entry stairs and driveways are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning prior to a construction certificate being issued for the relevant building works.  

 

 


 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 44 Daunt Avenue, MATRAVILLE 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP78/17

 

Subject:             9 Denning Street, South Coogee (DA/487/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/487/2017

Author:                   Anthony Betros, Planning Consultant - ABC Planning Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of a 3 level dwelling with double garages to front, swimming pool to rear and associated works.

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Ian Bennett Design Studio

Owner:                        Mr J H Bowman & Mrs C Bowman

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=701a8f3a-c34f-4532-9647-d5149f801862&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

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 Matson, Bowen, Veitch and D'Souza.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal seeks to demolish the existing dwelling and erect a new part 2, part 3 storey dwelling house with a swimming pool in the rear yard.

 

After submissions were received from the property to the south at 11 Denning Street (in regard to view loss), the applicant arranged for height poles (certified by surveyor) to be erected. Inspection from the objectors’ property was permitted and photos were taken of the view impacts from the ground level living/balcony areas and upper level bedroom/study areas.

 

Amended plans were provided (and notified to the objector) in an attempt to address the concerns of the neighbours property to the south. Such amendments included:

 

-    Increased rear setback from10.3m to 11.3m by shifting the built form closer to the Denning Street frontage

-    Reduction of FSR from 0.75:1 to 0.72:1

-    Reduction in overall height from 9.43m to 9.28m

-    Reduction in wall height from 7.86m to 7.67m

 

Further objections were received and an assessment of the issues raised is provided below.

 

Site

 

The subject property has a skewed frontage of 10.59 metres to Denning Street as well as a frontage of 10.05 metres to Garnet Street.

 

Figure 1: Aerial photo showing the subject site outlined in red

 

The site has a significant slope of approximately 5m from Denning Street down to Garnet Street.

 

IMG_7190

Figure 2: Existing dwelling on the subject site as viewed from Denning Street

 

Subject siteIMG_7158

Figure 3: Subject site as viewed from Garnet Street

 

IMG_7160

Figure 4: Northern adjoining 3-storey dwelling at 7 Denning Street

 

IMG_7162

Figure 5: Southern adjoining 3-storey dwelling at 11 Denning Street

 

The proposal achieves a high degree of compliance with the LEP and DCP controls in regard to:

 

·      Overall height

·      FSR

·      Wall height

·      Front and rear setbacks

·      Landscaped area

·      Site coverage

·      Deep soil

·      Location of pool

·      Car parking

·      Solar access, privacy and view loss considerations

 

The proposal is recommended for approval.

 

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:

 

·      7 Denning St, SOUTH COOGEE

·      11 Denning St, SOUTH COOGEE

 

Issues

Comments

·      View loss

All issues raised are discussed in the Key Issues section below

·      Overshadowing

·      Non-compliance with rear setback

·      Swimming Pool

 

Key Issues

 

1.   Rear Setback

 

Figure 6: Aerial photo with street addresses shown which are relevant to the assessment of rear setback and view loss below.

 

The aerial photograph shows that there are 4 properties in this section of Denning Street which have a rear setback through to the secondary street frontage of Garnet Street. The remaining properties to the north, are subdivided and have single frontages to either Denning Street to the west or Garnet Street to the south. As shown above, the newly approved and erected dwellings at 7 and 11 Denning Street replaced older style dwellings which were consistent with the style of dwelling proposed to be demolished on the subject site and which exists at 11a Denning Street. It is evident from the aerial photo that the new dwellings extend beyond the rear building line (to a greater height) than the adjoning properties to the south. This resulted in view and shadow impacts.

 

Figure 7: Aerial photo from 2010 prior to the construction of 7 and 11 Denning Streets

 

The subject proposal is consistent with this outcome and it is considered that the provision of an increased setback from 10.3m to 11.3m represents a reasonable application of the rear setback provisions under Clause 3.3.3 of C1 of the DCP, as extracted below:

 

Provide increased rear setbacks over and above the aforementioned minimum requirements, or demonstrate that this is not required, having regard to the following matters: -

Existing predominant rear setback line in the subject urban block. –

The need to achieve reasonable view sharing with the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. –

The need to adequately protect the privacy and solar access to the neighbouring dwellings.

 

It is considered that the provision of a setback 3.3m greater than the numeric DCP requirement and the partial retention of views and compliant solar access requirements suitably address the above rear setback provisions. It is also considered to be acceptable on the basis that the redevelopment of sites at 7 and 11 Denning Street has had similar outcomes to their southern neighbours at 9 and 11a Denning Street respectively. The planning assessment reports for the two dwellings (DA 745/2013- 7 Denning Street and DA763/2010- 11 Denning Street) addressed the impacts of views and solar access with both reports acknowledging that both types of impacts are inevitable on east-west sites in this location. The modified proposal reasonably preserves views and solar access by increasing the rear setback from 10.3m to 11.3m

 

There is no predominant rear building line due to this section of Denning Street being in transition with older dwellings being replaced by new dwellings, as shown above.

 

The assessment report for 7 Denning Street outlined the view impacts on 9 Denning Street (its southern neighbour), in the following manner:

 

Figures 6 and 8 indicates that the views from the centre section of the living room and dining area will not be obstructed from the proposed development as the rear building line is not within the viewing frame…Figure 7 indicates that half of the views of Wedding Cake Island will be retained from the rear balcony and figure 9 indicates that the headland views of Coogee Bay, Gordons Bay and Clovelly Bay will be lost from the northern side of the kitchen window. This is not unreasonable given that the majority of views to the east and Wedding Cake Island will be retained. Also, retaining views to the side of the property is very difficult and redevelopment of the property will regain majority of views to the rear of the site that may have been lost as a result of this development.

 

It is considered that such outcome is consistent with the subject proposal and its relationship with its southern neighbour.

 

IMG_7189

Figure 8: Relationship of the approved/constructed dwelling at 11 Denning Street with 11a Denning Street in the foreground which shows that the majority of side views were removed from the dwelling/rear balcony

 

IMG_7164

Figure 9: Relationship of the approved/constructed dwelling at 7 Denning Street (on the right) with 9 Denning Street (subject site on the left- existing dwelling) which shows that the majority of side views were removed from the dwelling/rear balcony

 

IMG_7161

Figure 10: 7 Denning Street and 5 Denning Street further north

 

 

2.   View loss

 

The southern neighbour has objected to the proposal on the grounds that the rear setback is insufficient and that a greater rear setback should be provided so as to retain greater views of Pacific Ocean to the east, Wedding Cake Island to the east, north-east and to the Coogee headland and those beyond to the north, north-east.

 

The applicant erected height poles which were certified by surveyor and the objector allowed the author of this report and the applicant's architect and planning consultant to take photographs. The objectors' planning consultant was also present.

 

Subsequent to the erection of the height poles, the applicant has amended the proposal by shifting the built form closer to the street frontage, thereby increasing the rear setback 10.3m metres to 11.315 m.

 

The rear setback is now 11.315 metres which is metres beyond the 8-metre numeric requirement of the DCP.

 

It is acknowledged that the DCP notes that consideration of the rear setback shall have regard to where there is a predominant rear building line or if there are adverse overshadowing or view impacts.

 

It is considered that the increased rear setback has achieved a reasonable outcome which balances the amenity of the subject proposal and the amenity of the objector's property to the south.

 

The objector is of the opinion that the skewed nature of the Denning Street frontage should require a skewed/stepped rear building line which would transition between 7 and 11 Denning Street. Such proposition is disputed as the rear setback is measured from the rear boundary which is not skewed.

 

The architect has provided a photographic analysis showing the effect of the amended proposal when viewed from the living room of 11 Denning Street looking east to the rear as well as from the southern room which projects further south towards the rear:

 

As amendedAs submitted

Figure 11: View assessment with height poles showing the amended proposal retains views to Wedding Cake Island (red box) from 11 Denning Avenue

 

As shown above, the amended proposal now retains a full view of the Ocean and Wedding Cake Island when looking due east which is the primary and typical aspect from the east-facing living room. The photos show that the outdoor terrace accessed from the primary living area lies to the east of this photo and would enjoy a greater degree of view retention than shown in the photo.

 

The second photo is taken from the secondary living area/breakfast nook which projects further east and has been designed to view the headlands to the north. Such views are across the side boundary of the subject property and are affected by a development which is well beyond the numeric rear setback requirement in the DCP.

 

The amended proposal has been pulled back from the rear to maintain a minor extent of the headlands as shown below. There are opportunities further east of this photo to retain a greater proportion of the headlands than shown in the photo.

 

Given that the headland views to the north are across a side boundary and that the proposal complies with each of the critical elements when determining view loss (height, FSR and rear setback), it is considered to be an unrealistic expectation to retain a greater proportion of views as contended by the objector’s submissions.

 

The Planning Principal under Tenacity v Warringah SC acknowledges that views across a side boundary are difficult to retain.

 

It is also noted that a substantial proportion of the views from the upper bedroom level will be retained and benefit from the increased rear setback associated with the amended plans.

 

The following assessment under the 4 steps of the Planning Principle under Tenacity Consulting v Warringah SC is provided below which confirms the above assessment:

 

Step 1 - What views will the proposal affect?

 

The views are of the Pacific Ocean to the east, Wedding Cake Island to the north-east and Coogee headland and those beyond to the north, north-east.

 

Step 2 - Where are the views from?

 

The views are obtained from the primary living area which is at ground level as well as the rear balcony which is accessed from the primary living area. The views are also obtained from a projecting room which is oriented to the north across the side boundary of the subject property. Views are also available from the upper level bedrooms and the lower ground floor private open space area at the rear of the site.

 

Step 3 - What is the extent of the view impact?

 

From the living area, the direct eastern orientation will retain unobstructed views of the Pacific Ocean as well as to Wedding Cake Island, as shown in the photo above. A greater degree of view will be retained the closer one stands to the east and on the terrace whilst a lesser degree of view will be retained deeper into the living room.

 

The extent of view loss is therefore considered to be minor from the living area as its primary orientation is to the east. The outdoor terrace will also retain east- facing views towards the ocean and Wedding Cake Island while a proportion of the north- facing views to the headlands will be removed. In regard to the east-facing view, the impacts are considered to be negligible whilst the view loss to the north is considered to be moderate to severe.

 

In regard to the projecting breakfast nook to the east of the main living room and south of the outdoor terrace, the views to the ocean will be retained in an easterly and north-easterly direction but the views of the headlands north will be impacted. A small degree of the headland will be retained. In regard to the east-facing views from this room, there are no impacts whilst the north- facing views are moderate to severe.

 

Step 4 - What is the reasonableness of the proposal?

 

Given that the proposal is compliant with the height (both wall and overall height) and that the proposed FSR is below that permitted and that the rear setback is 3.13 metres further back than the 8-metre numeric setback, and that the rear setback is comparable to the rear setback of the middle level of the southern neighbour, the building envelope and associated impacts are considered to be reasonable in such circumstances. In this regard, it is reiterated that the affected views are across a side boundary and are difficult to retain. It is also noted that the dwelling house to the south at 11 Denning Street removed all side-facing views to the headlands from the southern neighbour at 13 Denning Street when it was approved and developed under DA-763/2010. This is considered to highlight that a reasonable compromise has been achieved for the subject proposal as some headland views are retained. This assessment also notes the vulnerability of the side-facing windows to potential view impacts.

 

Note: The applicant has advised that they have amended the proposal despite being fully compliant and would not agree to mediation as the applicant has had the opportunity to erect height poles and has amended the already compliant proposal. From the applicant's perspective, it is their position that they have already "mediated".

3.   Overshadowing

 

The applicant has provided updated shadow diagrams which reflect the amended scheme which provides for a lower height and increased rear setback. The combination of these modifications allows for 3 hours solar access between 8am and 11am on June 21 to the primary living and private open space areas of the southern neighbour. Such outcome complies with the solar access requirements of the DCP. Given the east-west orientation of the subject site such outcome is considered to be reasonable given that the new dwellings at 7 and 11 Denning Street removed solar access to the north-facing living room windows of the southern neighbours at 9 and 13 Denning Street respectively. It is also noted that the pool in the rear yard will maintain more than 3 hours solar access.

 

On the above basis, the proposal is considered to be compliant and reasonable in regard to overshadowing.

 

4.   Privacy

 

The proposal has its primary orientation to the front and rear with limited side-facing windows. Such outcome retains privacy to the northern and southern neighbours. Such outcome is less impacting than the southern neighbouring property which has elevated side facing living and terrace areas which overlook the subject property. There are also numerous elevated decks and balconies which are oriented to the rear/east to take advantage of the coastal views. Therefore, there is a substantial degree of mutual overlooking and the proposal does not unreasonably add to such impacts.

 

The proposed pool is located in the rear yard and is not unreasonably elevated when compared with neighbouring properties. Standard conditions of consent will be imposed to restrict potential acoustic impacts from pool equipment and plant operations.

 

A condition of consent is imposed for windows 7 – 10 on the southern elevation shall have opaque fixed glazing to a height of 1.6m.

 

5.   Swimming pool

 

The southern neighbour has objected to the proposed swimming pool, and particularly the height of the pool decks which are believed to be 1.1m-2.4m above ground.

 

Section XX demonstrates that the raised nature of swimming pool.

 

Proposed ground line

Figure 12: Section XX through the swimming pool

 

The swimming pool is set back 900mm from the rear and southern boundary and will be enclosed by glass balustrading.

 

It is noted that the proposed in ground swimming pool will be lower than the lowest decks of the southern adjoining neighbour, whilst also being lower than the pool coping of the southern neighbour (RL 68.20), as shown on the elevation below:

 

In-ground swimming pool levelLower deck of southern neighbour

Figure 13: Eastern elevation showing that the proposed swimming pool is lower than the lower deck of the southern neighbour

 

 

6.   Second storey side setbacks

 

Despite the upper level not complying with the numeric requirement, the variation does not generate any unreasonable amenity impacts to either the southern or northern neighbour in terms of privacy, overshadowing or additional view loss.

 

It is considered that the minor variation from the numeric requirement would be indiscernible from that of a compliant setback in regard to shadow, visual bulk, privacy and view considerations.

 

Such setback is also compatible with those of the adjoining properties, as detailed below:

 

The DA for 7 Denning Street (DA745/2013) was approved with non-compliant upper level side setbacks, whilst the DA for 11 Denning Street (DA763/2010) was also approved with non-compliant side setbacks of 900mm.

 

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. 487/2017 for demolition of the existing dwelling, construction of a 3 level dwelling with double garage to front, swimming pool to the rear and associated works, at No. 9 Denning 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 condition

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

 

a.     The sill height of the following windows are to be increased to be a minimum height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the windows are to be fixed and provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below 1.6m above floor level.

 

·      Window 7;

·      Window 8;

·      Window 9;

·      Window 10

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - DA/487/2017 - 9 Denning Street, SOUTH COOGEE

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP79/17

 

Subject:             8 Norton Street, Kingsford (DA/703/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/703/2016

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including new first floor, construction of carport to wetern side of dwelling with associated works.

 

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                JWC Group

Owner:                        Mr H L Tjioe and Mrs W K Tjioe

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=1afe494f-7f39-4226-899b-1d1ee2033aaa&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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


 

1.        Proposal

 

The application is seeking approval for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including new first floor level containing 4 bedrooms, living room, new kitchenette, two new bathrooms, rear unroofed deck and front balcony, construction of carport to the western side of dwelling with associated works.

 

Amended plans have been received by Council on 5 October 2017 to address concerns relating to the height and length of the building, use of the first floor level due to the kitchenette area, rear setback and privacy.  As a result the wall height was reduced by 450mm to the eastern elevation by changing the roof form from a pitched roof profile to a low pitch gable roof profile and the kitchenette was changed to a study room.

 

The assessment is based on the amended plans received by Council on 5 October 2017.

 

2.        Site description & surround sites

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Norton Street, between Fern Street and Seaview Street and is known as Lot 4 in DP 309724 at Norton Street, Kingsford.

 

The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage width to Norton Street of 12.19 metres, a depth of 32.67 metres to the eastern side boundary and a depth of 33.025 metres to the western side boundary.  The site is generally flat across the depth of the boundary and has a drop of 1.28 metres towards the rear and a cross fall of 1.54 metres from east to west across the width of the boundary.

 

The subject site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling house.  Adjoining the site to the east are three properties which contain two storey dwelling houses. To the west of the site adjoins a single storey dwelling house and to the rear the site adjoins a single storey dwelling.

 

The locality is predominantly occupied by a mix of residential development comprising of one and two storey dwelling houses and semi-detached dwellings.  In close proximity of the site to the rear is the NSW University site.

 

3.        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:

 

·      6 Kennedy Street, Kingsford (Clare Findlay – Urban Planning Services & Solutions Zane – Land Use Planning Services have both been engaged to prepare submissions on behalf of the owner’s)

·      8 Kennedy Street, Kingsford (In addition to the owners submission, Solutions Zane – Land Use Planning Services has been engaged to prepare submission on behalf of the owner’s)

 

Issue

Comment

Apparent attached dual occupancy and or a boarding house

The proposed development appears to have the form of an attached dual occupancy and or a boarding house development despite the description as alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house.

Noted and amended plans have been received replacing the use of the room from a kitchenette to a new study room.  A condition is also included which states that the premises must only be used as a single residential dwelling and must not be used for dual or multi-occupancy purposes.

 

Zone Objectives

The proposal is inconsistent with several of the key zone objectives and is unsuitable in the low density residential context.

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling is permissible in the R2 zone which applies to this site. Subject to conditions, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is sympathetic to the existing residential environment and built form and would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of residents.

 

Built form and Scale

The proposed development includes a built form that does not satisfy DCP objectives of section 3 Building Envelope or 4.1 Building Design.

 

The adoption of a skillion roof form results in excessive wall heights of nearly 8m on the eastern side boundary which interfaces with the rear of 6 & 6 Kennedy Street.  This is contrary to Clause 3.2(ii) of the RDCP 2013 which nominates a maximum wall height of 7m.

The proposed FSR and height of the development is considered to be generally compatible with the size and scale of other similar dwelling house development within the immediate area and will not detract from the established attributes of the residential area and streetscape.

 

Amended plans have been received lowering the height of the development by 450mm, this will result in the development complying with the external wall height control of 8m for sloping sites.

 

Refer to Key Issues below under Sub-section 3.2 - External Wall Height which explains why the development is considered to be a sloping site.

 

FSR

The proposal will constitute an excessive bulk, height, scale form and massing as viewed from the objectors properties.

 

The proposed FSR currently excludes the existing outbuilding from the FSR calculation.  If this area is included the may render the development to be non-compliant with the allowable FSR maximum.

 

The proposed development complies with the FSR & height of building standards in the LEP 2012 and also meets the side setback and built form controls in DCP 2013. The scale and mass of the proposed development complement the desirable future streetscape character and achieve a suitable urban design outcome that is generally consistent in scale and built form of other dwelling houses in the immediate streetscape.

 

The FSR calculation has been checked as defined under the LEP 2012 and Council is satisfied the proposed development is under the FSR standard.

Streetscape

The alterations and additions is completely out of odds with the aesthetic of the existing built structure and will have a negative impact on the streetscape.

The alterations and additions are not considered to cause a negative impact on the streetscape as the proposed external materials and finishes are considered to be generally consistent with other dwelling houses in the immediate vicinity. 

Solar access and Overshadowing concerns

The proposed development does not satisfy the DCP objectives in section 5.1 Solar Access and Overshadowing.

 

Due to the east west orientation of the properties in Kennedy Street, the objector’s properties rely principally on afternoon sunlight to achieve the required solar access to their principle private open spaces at the rear of the site. 

Refer to Key Issues below under Sub-Section 5.1 - Solar Access and Overshadowing which address this issue.

 

It is considered that the proposed development provides a built form outcome that is of commensurate in height and scale with neighbouring development and complies with the provisions of the DCP.  As discussed below under the Key Issues section, the proposal is considered acceptable.

 

Visual and acoustic privacy concerns

The proposed development does not satisfy the DCP objectives in Section 5.3 Visual Privacy.

 

The proposed windows on the first floor addition will have the capacity for direct cross-viewing into the living areas of the objector properties at no.’s 6 & 8 Kennedy Street.

 

Both the lower and upper level balconies will also have privacy impacts onto these objectors’ properties. 

Refer to Key Issues and Areas of Non Compliance section of this report which addresses privacy impacts via conditions.

 

Private open space

The proposed private open space is inadequate, particularly should the site be intended for more than single occupancy.

Refer to Key Issues below under Sub section 2.4 - Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces which address this issue.

 

View loss impacts

The volume and non-compliant height of the proposal would significantly change the outlook and view from the rear of their properties at no.’s 6 & 8 Kennedy Street.

Refer to Key Issues below under Sub section 5.6 – View Sharing which address this issue.

 

Economic impacts

Reduced property value do to impacts from the development.

This issue is not considered to be a planning related matter, which can be addressed under Section 79C of the EP&A Act.

Parking

The application proposed the equivalent of two separate dwellings – one with 2 bedrooms and the other with 4 bedrooms.  Should it be intended to be used as a dual occupancy, the proposal would require three spaces as opposed to two for a single dwelling.   The proposal only provides one car space which is significantly deficient and consequently likely to negatively impact upon the availability of on-street parking. 

 

In addition to the above the site currently has a home business operation in the area marked as ’storage room’ on the plan.  The operation of this home business coupled with the proposed development will further exacerbate existing parking issues in the locality.

Refer to comments made by Council’s development Engineers in relation to the car parking space and driveway.

 

 

4.        Key Issues

 

4.1      Development Control Plan 2013  - Part C1 – Low Density Residential

Sub-section 2.4 - Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces

Objectives

       

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

·      To provide privacy screening between dwellings.

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

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

 

For a site area of 400m² a minimum of 25% of the site area must be provided on the site as deep soil permeable surface.  The site currently does not meet this control requirement.  The proposal has provided loose gravel to the new hard stand car spaces and driveway which is along the western side of the boundary to improve deep soil permeable surface area on the site.

 

In accordance with the definition of deep soil permeable surfaces, areas occupied by loose gravels upon soil at the ground level of the site can be included as deep soil permeable surface area and therefore, with the addition of a condition which requires the part of the new hard stand carspace to be converted into deep soil planting area the proposal will meet the objectives and controls for Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces.

 

The proposed development is for a single dwelling on the site.  Part C1, Sub-section 2.5 requires the provision of at least 6m x 6m of continuous private open space for a site area of approximately 400m².   Whilst it is noted that the proposal does not provide 6m x 6m of continuous private open space to the rear of the site, the proposal does meet the objectives of the control for the following reasons:

 

·      The development offers 1 continuous private open space with dimension of approximately 6m x 3m and a sunroom with the dimensions of approximately 6m x 3m both located to the rear of the site have north facing aspects.  These areas are capable of providing sufficient recreation facility for the occupants of the site.

·      The existing swimming pool and paved area can also be used for recreational activity. 

 

Subject to a condition which requires the deep soil planting to be increased at the front of the property, the landscaping and permeable surfaces on the site will comply with the objectives of the control.

 

Sub-section 3.2 - External Wall Height:

Objectives for the external wall height control include ensuring the provision of interesting roof forms which are compatible with the street and the minimisation of bulk in order to limit overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity impacts.

 

The maximum building height of the dwelling is 8.49m, which complies with the 9.5m maximum height standard set out in the RLEP 2012. The DCP stipulates that the maximum external wall height must not exceed 8m for sloping site.  The subject site has a fall from the east to the west of approximately 1.28m and therefore, is considered to be a sloping site.  The proposed development has a maximum external wall height of 7.74m which complies with this control.   In addition to the above, the development is setback 1.2m from eastern side boundary and 2.67m from the western side boundary which complies with the setback control in the DCP and is not considered to result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties and streetscape.

 

Sub-section 3.3 - Setbacks

 

Objectives

·      To maintain or establish a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the character of the neighbourhood.

·      To ensure the form and massing of development complement and enhance the streetscape character.

·      To ensure adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access.

·      To reserve adequate areas for the retention or creation of private open space and deep soil planting.

·      To enable a reasonable level of view sharing between a development and the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

Controls

i)   The minimum rear setback must be 25% of allotment depth or 8m, whichever is the lesser.

 

Note: Rear setback controls do not apply to corner allotments.

    

ii)  Provide increased rear setbacks over and above the aforementioned minimum requirements, or demonstrate that this is not required, having regard to the following matters:

 

-    Existing predominant rear setback line in the subject urban block.

-    The need to achieve reasonable view sharing with the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

-    The need to adequately protect the privacy and solar access to the neighbouring dwellings.

 

iii) Garages, carports, outbuildings, swimming or spa pools, above-ground water tanks, and unroofed decks and terraces attached to the dwelling may encroach upon the required rear setback, in so far as they comply with other relevant provisions of this DCP.

 

iv) For irregularly shaped allotments, or allotments with the longest boundary abutting the street or the rear adjoining neighbour (that is, the frontage width being longer than the site depth), the rear setback will be assessed on merit having regard to demonstration of the following:

 

-    Compatibility with the existing development pattern in the subject and adjoining urban blocks.

-    Provision of adequate private open space with dimensions compliant with the requirements of this DCP.

-    Potential impacts on the neighbouring dwellings in terms of solar access, privacy and view sharing.

 

The proposed ground floor additions and new first floor level are setback 9.651m from the rear boundary.   A new rear ground floor elevated balcony is proposed to replace the existing which is setback 6.561m from the rear boundary and does not comply with the control.  

 

The new unroofed deck area above the existing store room is setback approximately 6.1m to 6.2m from the rear boundary and also does not comply with the control.

No objections are raised in relation to the new rear elevated ground floor balcony as it is replacing an existing balcony and the boundary fence to the western side is sufficient in height to provide reasonable levels of privacy between the properties.

 

However, in relation to the unroofed deck area above the existing store room this may cause additional privacy concerns and in order to meet the rear setback control it is recommended that the depth of the deck be reduced to 1.2m.  Privacy screens are to be provided to the eastern and western sides of this deck to maintain reasonable levels of privacy between the subject and neighbouring properties.

 

Subject to the above condition, the proposed rear setback of the development is considered acceptable and will comply with the control.

 

Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy

Objective

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

 

Controls

 

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

 

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

·       Front or rear of the allotment;

·       Side courtyard.

 

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

 

Subject to conditions, it is not expected that the proposed development will result in any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties. The new window and door openings to the southern and northern elevations will predominately overlook the street and rear yard of the subject site, respectively. 

 

The following windows may cause potential overlooking impacts to the neighbouring properties private living areas and rear yards and for this reason a condition is included requiring these windows to have minimum sill heights of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the windows are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height:

 

·           New Living room windows (W2-11 & W2-12) to the western elevation on the first floor level; and

 

·           Stair case window (W2-13) to the western elevation.

 

Frosted glazing is proposed to the new awning hung windows on the first floor level to the eastern elevation. To ensure these windows when open do not cause overlooking impacts to the neighbouring properties, a condition is included restricting the windows to open outwards only sufficiently to allow airflow, and not to intrude on privacy.  

 

Balconies

The proposed balcony on the first floor level to the southern elevation is located to the front of the dwelling and will primarily overlook the streetscape.  However, in relation to the unroofed deck area above the existing store room to the rear of the dwelling this may cause additional privacy concerns and therefore, it is recommended that a condition be included which requires the deck to be reduced to a maximum depth of 1.2m and privacy screens be provided to a height of 1.6m to the eastern and western sides of the deck.

 

Sub-clause 5.1 - Solar Access and Overshadowing

Objectives

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

Solar access to proposed development:

       

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

 

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

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

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

 

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

 

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

 

A submission was received from the neighbouring properties at no.’s 6 & 8 Kennedy Street objecting to the development on the grounds that it will cause additional overshadow impacts in the afternoon to their principle private open spaces which is located at the rear of their property.   

 

The shadow diagrams submitted demonstrate that solar access to the principal outdoor recreation space to the rear yard on the subject site will still receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

Whilst it is noted that there will be additional overshadowing impacts in the afternoon to the objector’s properties as a result of the proposed development, the additional overshadowing impacts when compared to the existing are not significant and the neighbouring property at no. 6 Kennedy Street will still receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct solar access to at least 50% of the rear yard in the afternoon.  In relation to the neighbouring property at no. 8 Kennedy Street the shadow diagrams below demonstrates that majority of the yard in the afternoon is already overshadowed by the existing development due it its east west orientation and when taking this into consideration the development will not be resulting in any unreasonable additional impacts. 

 

In addition to the above, the proposed development complies with the maximum FSR and height building standards under the LEP 2012 and complies with the setback and external wall height controls for sloping sites in the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

The proposed development will not be impacting north facing living area windows and private open spaces of neighbouring dwellings.

 

Also, the development will not impact on any future solar collectors and the application is considered to be acceptable in this regard given general compliance with the DCP controls.

 

 

Shadow diagram – 8am, June 21                      Shadow diagram – 12pm, June 21

 

Shadow diagram - 4pm, June 21

 

Figure 1: Existing and proposed shadow diagrams

 

Sub-section 5.6 - View Sharing

 

The objectives of the view sharing control are as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

vi)    Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted.

 

View loss assessment

Two submission were received in relation to view loss from 6 & 8 Kennedy Street which adjoins the eastern side boundary of the subject site. 

 

The views in question are across the side boundary of the subject site and are obtained from the rear of these properties.  The views to the south west are of Botany Bay and Mascot and along the western boundary to the north are district views.  There are no valuable iconic or ocean views that are obtained across the western side boundary from these adjoining properties in question.

 

The views obtained from no. 8 Kenndey Street are restricted due to existing vegetation and existing building and there is no evidence to suggest that outlook surrounding this property is of any value. 

 

The image below in figure 2 demonstrate that the view looking due west to the subject site from the ground floor rear living area at no. 6 Kennedy Street will be partially lost.  Some of the views to the north west will be retained.

 

Figures 3 & 4 demonstrate that the view over the subject site from the first floor bedroom at no. 6 Kennedy Street will be retained.

 

Given that the views are not iconic and are mainly district views the impacts associated with the proposed development are not unreasonable and will meet the objectives of the view sharing control.

 

In addition to the above, the proposed development complies with the LEP numerical control standards in relation to building height and FSR. Furthermore, the proposed development satisfies the relevant objectives and controls of the DCP with regard to Building Envelope and Building Design.

 

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

 

Figure 2: View looking due west to the subject site from the ground floor rear living area at no. 6 Kennedy Street.  (Photo taken by Solution Zane)

 

Figure 3: View over subject site from the first floor bedroom at no. 6 Kennedy Street.  

 

Figure 4: Panoramic view from first floor bedroom at 6 Kennedy Street including distant views of Botany Bay which is shown in blue area.  (Photo taken by Solution Zane)

 

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 site is located within Zone R2 - low Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal is consistent with the aims of the LEP and the specific zoning objectives, in that the development will deliver dwelling house, which will protect the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

The proposal complies with the relevant objectives and controls contained in Comprehensive DCP for Low Density Residential.

 

Subject to conditions, the proposal will not result in significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of solar access and privacy. An adequate level of amenity will be retained for the surrounding residents and the public domain.

 

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/703/2016 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including new first floor, construction of carport to wetern side of dwelling with associated works, at No. 8 Norton Street, Kingsford, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     The new rear deck on the first floor level above the existing store room shall be reduced to a maximum depth of 1.2m.  Privacy screens having a height of 1.6m (measured above finished floor level) shall be provided to the eastern and western sides of this deck.

 

Privacy screens must be constructed with either:

·      Translucent or obscured glazing;

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

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

 

b.     The following windows 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:

·      New Living room windows (W2-11 & W2-12) to the western elevation on the first floor level; and

·      Stair case window (W2-13) to the western elevation.

 

c.     The new awning hung windows along the eastern elevation on the first floor level shall open outward only sufficiently to allow airflow, and not to intrude on privacy.

 

Council Driveway Design

d.     The driveway and carspace width at the front of the building alignment shall have a width of 3.5m from the western side boundary as the paved area in front of the ground floor western bay window does not meet the minimal length requirements for an off-street car space.  The remaining portion of the front yard shall be converted to deep soil area to improve storm water infiltration and the visual amenity at the front of the property. 

 

A paved pathway area having a maximum width of 1.2m may be provided directly adjacent the bay window to connect with the front steps.

 

Details of compliance shall be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP80/17

 

Subject:             Report for Variation to Development Standard under SEPP No. 1 and Clause 4.6 - 26 to 9 November 2017

Folder No:                   F2008/00122

Author:                   Terry Papaioannou, Environmental Planner Officer (Technical & Research)      

 

Introduction

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in November 2008 advising Councils to adopt additional procedures in relation to the administration of variations to development Standard. The additional measures are largely in response to the ICAC inquiry into Wollongong City Council. Those additional measures are:

 

1)     Establishment of a register of development applications determined with variations in standards under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP1) and Clause 4.6;

 

2)     Requirement for all development applications where there has been a variation greater than 10% in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6 to be determined by full council (rather than the general manager or nominated staff member);

 

3)     Providing a report to Council on the development applications determined where there had been a variation in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6;

 

4)     Making the register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6 available to the public on council’s website.

 

This report is in response to point 3) above. A table is attached to this report detailing all Clause 4.6 exceptions approved in the period between 26 September and 09 November 2017.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4b:      New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in 2008 advising of additional requirements Councils are required to adopt in relation to SEPP1 objections and Clause 4.6 exceptions. This report is in response to one of those requirements.

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

SEPP1 AND CLAUSE 4.6 Between 26 SEPTEMBER  to 09 NOVEMBER 2017

 

 

 

 


SEPP1 AND CLAUSE 4.6 Between 26 SEPTEMBER  to 09 NOVEMBER 2017

Attachment 1

 

 


 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP81/17

 

Subject:             Queens Baton Relay and Community Celebration

Folder No:                   F2017/00447

Author:                   Katie Anderson, Manager, Cultural Events and Venues      

 

Introduction

 

The Queen’s Baton Relay is a Commonwealth Games tradition that celebrates the Commonwealth’s diversity, inspires community pride and excites people about the world-class festival of sports and culture to come. The Queen’s Baton carries a message from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II that calls the Commonwealth’s athletes to come together in peaceful and friendly competition.

 

The Gold Coast 2018 Relay will be the longest and the most accessible ever, not just passing through, but spending quality time in each community it visits. Having started on 13 March 2017 at Buckingham Palace, the Baton will travel on an epic 388-day journey through all nations and territories of the Commonwealth.

 

The Queen’s Baton will arrive on the Gold Coast for the XXI Commonwealth Games Opening Ceremony on 4 April 2018, where Her Majesty, or a representative, will remove the message from the Baton and read it aloud to officially open the Games.

 

Queens Baton Relay Sydney route:

3 February –Sydney CBD

4 February – Penrith, Sydney Olympic Park, La Perouse

5 February – Wollongong

 

The Queen’s Baton relay is a good opportunity to hold a community celebration at La Perouse to highlight the local aboriginal history, to showcase the unique geography of La Perouse and to celebrate our sports culture.

 

Issues

 

The Queens Baton relay is due to visit Little Bay and La Perouse on Sunday 4 February 2018. It will start with a media photo opportunity on Little Bay beach and finish at The Loop in front of the La Perouse museum, where a community celebration will take place.

 

The relay will commence at 5:00pm on Pine Avenue outside the Prince Henry Centre and end at the La Perouse Loop at 5:30pm. There will be 12 baton bearers along the 2.6KM track. The rolling road closure will be managed by NSW Police and Randwick Council Traffic contractors and there will be delays of up to 9 minutes while the convoy passes.

 

A letter will be sent to local residents four weeks prior advising of temporary changes to traffic conditions and also to promote the event program. Variable message signs will also be in place four weeks prior to let any visitors to La Perouse and Yarra Bay know that there will be changed traffic conditions on Sunday 4 February. STA will be contacted about organising additional bus services on this day.

 

 

The Baton Relay provides a good opportunity for Council to hold a community event in La Perouse. The community celebration will highlight the local aboriginal history & people, the unique geography of La Perouse and also celebrate our sports culture.

 

The program will include:

 

Games

2:00pm – 4:00pm – Games and activities on the lawn including quoits, totem tennis, mini relays and DJ.

 

Community stage

3:00pm – 6:00pm

MC Welcome

Local school performances from Chifley Public, Soldiers Settlement School, La Perouse School

Djawan dancers

Feathered friends bird show

Casey Donovan

Official ceremony – baton bearers arrive; Welcome to Country; Speeches

 

Supplementary activities

10:00am – 4:00pm - La Perouse Museum open – free entry, guided tours, history talks

10:00am – 4:00pm – Blak Markets on Bare Island – free entry, cross promotion

12:00pm – 4:00pm – John Cann at the snake pit

 

EVENT BUDGET

The cost of holding this event is outlined below:

 

Item

Detail

Costing

Production

Staging & staging structures, audio, lighting

$42,000

Entertainment

Casey Donovan, DJ, Indigenous dance and singing groups, games facilitators

$20,000

Infrastructure

Toilets, flooring, fencing, marquees, seating, flags

$20 000

Traffic Management

Road closures, signage, traffic personnel

$15,000

Publicity & promotion

Advertisements, letterbox drop, posters, signage

$10,000

 

Total

$107,000

 

 

 

In-kind contribution

 

 

Waste services and cleaning, traffic liaison, venue hire.

Total

$5000.00

 

The audience for this event will include the local community and beyond. The location of the celebration will be the western edge of the La Perouse headland with up to 4000 people that could view and hear the stage activity and participate in the activities.

 

Council will engage with local businesses to ensure they can cater for additional crowds on this day. Minimal vendors will be brought onsite just to supplement the existing cafes and restaurants.

 

Site services will include production, cleaning, first aid, toilets, drinking water, fencing, sound, staging and security.

 

Police will manage the traffic and parking around the loop and aim for as minimal disruption as possible. Approximately 43 car parks will be reserved for the stage and baton convoy parking which improves security of the event site.  193 car parks around the Loop will remain open for the public.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

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

Direction 2:       Our cultural diversity is appreciated and respected.

Outcome 2d:      Deliver and/or sponsor a range of cultural programs to                                         promote a sense of community.

Outcome 5:       Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The Queens Baton Relay and community celebration requires funding of $107,000 and an additional $5,000 for in-kind support to be provided in the Council’s contingency budget for the 2017-18 financial year.

 

Conclusion

 

The Queen’s Baton Relay will encourage whole-of-community participation in the relay including athletes, businesses, youth and community achievers from the 71 Commonwealth nations and territories. The Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Corporation will deliver engaging content that entices communities across the Commonwealth to follow and share the Baton’s journey via social and digital media.

It is expected that both the relay and the shared community celebration will generate much excitement amongst the local community and beyond and also receive international media coverage. A community celebration at La Perouse will highlight this beautiful area in Randwick City and give our community an opportunity to come together to celebrate.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council supports the 2018 Queens Baton Relay and community celebration at La Perouse and approve a budget allocation of $107,000 cash and $5000 in-kind support, to be sourced in the December quarterly budget review.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP82/17

 

Subject:             Draft Randwick Disability Inclusion Action Plan

Folder No:                   F2017/00218

Author:                   Teresa Mok, Manager Community Planning & Development; Warren Ambrose, Senior Social Planner      

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s endorsement of the Draft Randwick Disability Inclusion Action Plan.

 

The NSW Disability Inclusion Act 2014 requires all state and local public authorities to develop a Disability Inclusion Action Plan.  This Act was passed to help remove barriers and enable people with disability to participate equally in their communities. While Randwick City Council is already implementing programs and internal processes for addressing the needs of people with disability, there are always opportunities for further innovation and improvements.

 

In the development of this Action Plan Randwick and Waverley Councils worked together to develop an overarching regional framework facilitating a consistent approach to disability planning across the two local government areas in the Eastern Suburbs. This regional framework commits both Councils to a suite of shared strategies to be actioned over four years.  Each Council then developed its own disability inclusion action plan to accommodate local issues and work priorities.

 

The strategic directions and actions of the Council’s Draft Disability Inclusion Action Plan were informed by the outcomes of an extensive community consultation process held with residents, local community service organisations, and key Council staff. 

 

The Draft Disability Action Plan (DIAP) was publically exhibited between 1 September and 3 October 2017.  Copies of the draft action plan were made available on Council’s website, branch libraries and customer service centre.

 

Council has received three (3) submissions during the public exhibition period, and one (1) late submission.  These submissions were reviewed and where relevant, incorporated into the attached Draft DIAP.

 

Plan Development Process

 

Waverley and Randwick Councils developed an overarching regional framework to improve physical connectivity and facilitate a consistent approach to disability planning in the Eastern Suburbs.  Disability support providers are allocated government funding to provide regional-wide services.  A joint approach was also considered prudent since the population in general move between the LGAs.

 

Research and Community Consultation Activities

Randwick and Waverley Councils shared the cost of engaging the services of access and inclusion consultants Funktion, to:

 

·      Assess existing actions, programs and commitments to disability inclusion.

·      Identify gaps and opportunities for improving participation, engagement, and inclusion for people with disabilities.

·      Conduct a series of consultative workshops with residents, local community service providers and Council staff.

·      Identify the issues and solutions important to people with disabilities. 

 

Extensive community consultations were conducted over the month of April 2017 with the following activities held:

 

§ A survey that could be completed on-line, on paper or by telephone, targeting all members of the community (62 respondents).

§ Community conversations held with two focus groups participated by representatives from Eastern Sydney Multicultural Project and Eastern Suburbs Mental Health Support Group (10 participants).

§ Two community workshops attended by people with a range of disability, families and carers, disability providers and community organisation advocates (80 participants).

§ Three internal council staff workshops comprising of senior executives, frontline customer service staff and relevant officers from various departments across the whole of council (59 participants).

 

Structure and Content of the Draft Plan

 

Structure

The Council’s Draft Disability Inclusion Action Plan (Attachment One) is divided into two key sections:

 

1.  Draft Regional Disability Framework containing a suite of shared strategic directions to guide the development of Randwick City and Waverley Councils’ respective disability inclusion action plans

2.  Draft Randwick Disability Inclusion Action Plan containing detailed actions for implementation by Randwick City Council staff

 

Implementation and Monitoring Process

Every year, staff from the different departments across Council will implement the endorsed strategies and actions that they have responsibility for through their annual Operational Plan. The progress of these actions will be monitored and reported via the Council’s integrated planning and reporting cycle.  The Community Development Department will be responsible for the preparation of an annual progress report to be submitted as part of Council’s reporting obligations.

 

Summary of the Draft Regional Disability Framework

Key directions from the Draft Eastern Suburbs Regional Framework are:

 

·      Work with adjoining councils, state agencies, and government funded aged and disability service providers across the Eastern Suburbs Region to share information, facilitate consistent service delivery and improve access for people with disabilities.

·      Collaborate with adjoining council departments to identify programs and projects located in vicinity of adjoining LGA boundaries to facilitate uniform and design, connectivity, and seamless travel pathways.

·      Implement a staff training program and review of internal human resource policies to reduce workplace barriers.

·      Work with and advocate to government agencies and authorities for improved accessibility of the public, private and community transport system and related services.

·      Engage with local businesses and chambers of commerce to promote accessible shops and offices.

·      Increase local employment opportunities for people with disability.

·      Ensure council managed events and activities are accessible where possible and are actively promoted.

·      Ensure the Council’s Disability Access Advisory Committees are actively consulted when planning for new buildings and relevant capital works.

 

Randwick Disability Inclusion Action Plan

The Draft Randwick Disability Inclusion Action Plan covers tasks or actions that are to be implemented by the different departments, and is a component of the Council’s integrated four year delivery program and operational planning cycle.

 

Some examples of actions proposed under the Draft Randwick Disability Action Plan for implementation by council staff:

 

·      Better targeting of joint disability and inclusion awareness raising events.

·      Investigate the feasibility of including a Mayor’s Award as part of Randwick Business Awards event in recognition of businesses that have made a significant contribution to improving access and services for people with disabilities.

·      Actively promote Council’s accessible facilities and services on Council’s website and event portals.

·      Increase short term drop off and pick up zones at key locations and town centre destinations.

·      Investigate the feasibility of providing on-beach access resources such as beach wheelchairs and mats for use by carers and people with disabilities.

·      Partner with key stakeholders and relevant government agency and businesses to develop resources designed to inform employers of financial incentives and assistance available to support employment of people with disability.

·      Promote council job vacancies through appropriate mediums to achieve a diversity of candidates.

·      Liaise/link with neighbouring councils, when upgrading pathways, to ensure a seamless travel of pathways across local government boundaries.

·      Create and publish access maps on Council’s website for major centres showing mobility parking, playgrounds, adult change rooms and equipment and location of accessible toilets.

·      Advocate/liaise with State and Federal Governments for improved services and facilities for people with disabilities in areas such as public transport access and infrastructure.

·      Support employment opportunities for people with disabilities by purchasing, where available and practicable, goods and services from an identified list of social enterprises that employ people with disabilities.

·      Hold a biennial Disability Employment Expo to assist employment opportunities for people with disabilities and prospective employers.

·      Strengthen diversity and inclusion principles in Council’s workforce planning and strategies.

·      Investigate technological options to improve access for people with a wide range of disabilities.

·      Consult with members of the Randwick Council’s Access Advisory Committee during the planning and design stages of major building construction or upgrade projects.

 

Public Exhibition

 

The Draft Randwick Disability Action Plan and Regional Framework were publically exhibited between 1 September and 3 October 2017 (34 days). 

 

Members of the public were invited to review the Draft DIAP and make comments and suggestions by submission.

 

During the public exhibition period Council:

 

·      Placed notices in the Southern Courier on three occasions during the exhibition.

·      Included the Draft DAIP on Council’s Have Your Say consultation webpages.

·      Placed notices on the TV screens located at the libraries, and Customer Services Centre.

·      Provided hard copies of the draft DIAP, for reading and available to take away, the Customer Services centre, and all three branch libraries.

·      Emailed members of the Eastern Sydney Aged and Disability Interagancy, and Council’s Access, and Older Persons Advisory Committees.

·      Presented to members of the Council’s Access, and Older Persons Advisory Committees details of the Draft Regional Framework and Council’s draft Action Plan.

 

Outcomes of the Public exhibition

Council’s Have your say consultation Draft DIAP webpage received 34 visits during the exhibition period, and the Draft DIAP was downloaded 20 times.

 

Council received a total of four (4) written submissions, and comments from members of the Access, and Older Persons Advisory Committees (Attachment Two – summary and review). The issues raised in the submissions and comments from advisory committee members have been considered and did not require specific changes to the draft DIAP.  They will be addressed as part of the plan implementation phase by the department with the relevant responsibilities.  The comments are generally supportive of the making of the action plan. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  2:     Vibrant and diverse community.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should the Plan be endorsed, it is expected that the DIAP implementation costs will be absorbed through its annual resource allocation process.  Many actions are already being implemented as part the Council’s day to day functions, and will not require additional funding.  A number of actions which may require improvement works, such as identification of new funding, such as purchasing specialist equipment or making structural alterations to older buildings to improve accessibility will be delivered through Councils program of capital works over a number of years.  There may also be opportunities for the Council to seek funding from other external sources to help with the cost of identified improvement works.

 

Conclusion

 

The strategies and actions contained in the Draft Randwick Disability Inclusion Action plan are consistent with the Council’s City Plan themes of demonstrating strategic leadership, and in working collaboratively with a range of government agencies and support service providers to better serve our diverse community.

 

The draft plan has been developed in consultation with a range of community stakeholders including local residents, people living with a disability, disability support providers and members of the Council’s Older Persons and Access Advisory Committees.

 

Randwick City Council has a good record of improving access for people with disability and enabling their full participation in community life. Key achievements include the provision of accessible community centres, beach wheelchairs, a fully inclusive play area at Chifley Sports Reserve, pool and change room hoists at the Des Renford Aquatic and Leisure Centre.  More recently Council endorsed a decision to provide beach access mat for wheelchair users in Malabar Beach.

 

This new plan, if adopted by Council, will serve to maintain and build on the strengths of the Council’s achievements, and sets out a four year undertaking to meet the identified needs of people with disability.

 

 

Recommendation

That:

 

a)     Council endorse the Randwick Disability Inclusion Action Plan 2017-18 to 2020-21, and

 

b)     The Director City Planning be given the authority to make minor editorial amendments to the document in preparation for publication.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DRAFT - Randwick disability Inclusion Action Plan

 

2.

Attachment Two - Draft Randwick DIAP - details of and responses to submissions and comments received

 

 

 

 


DRAFT - Randwick disability Inclusion Action Plan

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Attachment Two - Draft Randwick DIAP - details of and responses to submissions and comments received

Attachment 2

 

 



Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

General Manager's Report No. GM19/17

 

Subject:             Police Request for Temporary Alcohol Restrictions

Folder No:                   F2005/00873

Author:                   Allan Graham, Coordinator Regulatory Projects      

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this Report is to inform the Council that at a recent meeting with the Eastern Beaches Local Area Commander, Superintendent Karen McCarthy has requested that Council consider implementing a temporary prohibition on the consumption of alcohol at all of Council’s beachside parks and reserves on Christmas Day and Boxing Day, New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day and on Australia Day.

 

This request from Police (for a temporary alcohol free footprint at the City’s beachside parks and reserves) is based on the reasonable assumption that many of the City’s beachside parks and reserves will be the preferred destination for large crowds of people who wish to celebrate the Festive Season and Australia Day in a beachside setting.

 

A Council declared alcohol free footprint at the City’s beachside parks and reserves will provide Police with the seizure and tip-out powers conferred by s. 632A(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, and thereby reduce the likelihood for instances of alcohol anti-social behaviour occurring in these public spaces.

 

Alcohol Prohibited Areas

 

Pursuant to s. 632A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993 (“LG Act”), a council may declare any public place (or any part of a public place) in the council’s area to be an alcohol prohibited area. However, an alcohol prohibited area cannot be established in relation to a public place that is a public road (or part of a public road) or car park.

 

Although irrelevant for present purposes, public roads and car parks may be established as an alcohol free zone under discrete provisions contained at Part 4 (Street drinking) of Chapter 16 of the LG Act. Randwick City Council has an already well established and effective network of roads and streets that are designated alcohol free zones. No changes to the current streets and roads designated as alcohol free zones are required, as a result of the current Police request.

 

Temporary Bans

 

Eastern Beaches Local Area Command Police have requested that Council impose a temporary prohibition on the consumption of alcohol at all of the City’s beachside parks and reserves on various dates during the Festive and Holiday season, including Australia Day.

 

In making this request, it is understood that Police consider that the success of the existing total alcohol prohibition at Coogee’s beachside parks and reserves is such that this should be replicated, on a temporary basis, at all beachside parks and reserves on particular days when large numbers of people are attracted to these areas. It should be noted that all of the beachside parks and reserves the subject of the Police request are also the subject of current alcohol restrictions. These existing restrictions prohibit the consumption of alcohol from sunset to sunrise and the Police request, if granted by Council, will extend the time in which the current restrictions operate on a temporal basis without disturbing the existing physical alcohol prohibited areas.

 

It is the recommendation of Council officers’ that Council agree to the Police request and put in place a “temporary” alcohol prohibition by extending the time that the existing alcohol restrictions operate at all beach side parks and reserves by utilising the alcohol prohibited area provisions contained at Part 2 of Chapter 16 of the LG Act. It is proposed that should Council make the declaration sought by Police that establishes the temporary alcohol prohibited areas that these restrictions operate in perpetuity each year. Should the Council wish to modify or revoke the operation of an alcohol prohibited area at a future date, the Council may do so by resolution. 

 

A Schedule to this Report has been created which identifies all of the City’s beachside parks and reserves (save for those areas which have a total prohibition on the consumption of alcohol currently in place) to which the proposed declaration applies and covers the beach side parks and reserves from the suburbs of Clovelly to Yarra Bay. These parks and reserves are as follows:

 

·      Burrows Park – Clovelly

·      Bundock Park – Clovelly

·      Gordons Bay Reserve - Clovelly and Coogee

·      Jack Vanny Reserve – Maroubra

·      Arthur Byrne Reserve – Maroubra

·      Cromwell Park – Malabar

·      Yarra Recreation Reserve - La Perouse

 

Should the Council declare the above parks and reserves to be temporary alcohol prohibited areas as requested by police, this declaration will work in unison with the current ‘permanent’ alcohol prohibition that operates at all of Council’s beaches and the beachside reserves at Coogee and Yarra Bay.

 

Alcohol Related Anti-social Behaviour

 

Randwick City Council has, for a number of years, imposed temporary alcohol restrictions at Coogee on specific dates to minimise the potential for alcohol related anti-social behaviour. Coogee’s popularity has always seen large crowds congregate at the beach and adjoining public spaces, particularly during the Festive Season and on Australia Day.

 

The implementation of these restrictions has always been conducted in consultation with our Police with the overarching objective being to ensure that access to our popular public spaces is equitable, enjoyable and safe. Measures put in place by Council, such as restricting alcohol consumption, assist Police in managing large gatherings in public places which in turn promotes equitable access and the safe use of these areas.  

 

The Council would recall that as a result of a number of alcohol related incidents associated with congregation of large numbers of revellers at Goldstein Reserve last Christmas Day the then Mayor, in consultation with NSW Police, imposed a temporary total alcohol ban at Goldstein Reserve and Dunningham Reserve for the 2017 summer period effectively creating an alcohol free footprint at Coogee which encompassed the beach and all of the surrounding parks and reserves.

 

The Council subsequently resolved, at its Ordinary Meeting held on the 28 February 2017, to make permanent the temporary ban at Coogee (noting that a Motion to rescind the resolution was lost at Council’s Ordinary Meeting of the 28 March 2017). As such, all of Coogee’s beach side park and reserves are subject to total alcohol prohibition which is enforceable by Police on a 24/7 basis.

 

It is Council officers’ view that the consumption of alcohol in a public places may influence the behaviour of people in those areas. Where there are present large numbers of drinkers in an uncontrolled environment the potential for alcohol related incidents and anti-social behaviour is significantly increased.

 

In addition, the absence of alcohol restrictions in itself becomes an “attracter” to Council’s parks and reserves making these places the preferred destination for mass gatherings promoted through the social media, as was the case at Coogee last Christmas Day.

 

It follows that should the Council declare to make all of the City’s beachside parks and reserves as requested by Police, sufficient signs that comply with s. 632A (7) of the LG Act must be erected at each park of reserve. It is also recommended that Council engage a public awareness strategy so that the community and broader public are informed of the proposed restrictions.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

The cost for Council to erect (install) temporary signs at all of the beachside parks and reserves will be approximately $20,000. No funding for this purpose has been allocated within Council’s existing budget.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:             A Liveable City.

Direction 6c:            The safety of our community is paramount and is acknowledged and supported through proactive policies, programmes and strategies.

Key Actions:            Implement actions identified in the Council’s crime prevention and community safety plan (A Safer Randwick City) to reduce anti-social behaviour and foster a safer city.

 

Conclusion

 

Eastern Beaches Local Area Command Police have requested that Council impose a temporary prohibition on the consumption of alcohol at all of the City’s beachside parks and reserves to operate on Christmas Day and Boxing Day, New Year’s Eve, New Year’s Day and Australia Day. The proposed prohibition sought by Police would, effectively, extend the current alcohol restrictions at these parks and reserves (currently sunset to sunrise) to bring about a temporary total alcohol ban.

 

The temporary alcohol prohibition at the City’s beachside parks and reserves will provide Police with the seizure and tip-out powers conferred by s. 632A(1) of the Local Government Act 1993. This in turn will provide Police with the ability to address problematic public drinking and thereby proactively reduce the likelihood for instances of alcohol related anti-social behaviour occurring in these public spaces.

 

It is proposed that should Council make the declaration sought by Police that establishes the temporary alcohol prohibited areas that these restrictions operate in perpetuity each year until such time as Council resolves otherwise.

 

 


 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Pursuant to s. 632A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, the Randwick City Council hereby declares that each of the parks and reserves contained in the Schedule of Parks and Reserves that attaches to this Report to be an alcohol prohibited area at which no alcohol is to be consumed, and will operate each and every year henceforth, from:

 

i)      Midnight on the 24 December, ceasing at 6.00am on the 27 December, and

ii)     From Midnight on the 30 December 2017, ceasing at 6.00am on the 2 January 2018, and

iii)     From 8.00pm on the 25 January, ceasing at 6.00am on the 27 January.

 

b)     Pursuant to s. 632A (7) of the Local Government Act 1993, the General Manager install temporary notices at each of the parks and reserves, contained in the Schedule of Parks and Reserves that attaches to this Report, sufficient to give effect to the declaration of the Council at “1.”

 

c)     A public awareness advertising campaign be implemented to advise that the consumption of alcohol at all beachside parks and reserves is prohibited as provided for by the declaration contained at “1.”

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Schedule of Parks & Reserves Declared as Temporary Alcohol Prohibited Areas - Council Report Attachment - OMC 28 November 2017

 

 

 

 


Schedule of Parks & Reserves Declared as Temporary Alcohol Prohibited Areas - Council Report Attachment - OMC 28 November 2017

Attachment 1

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

General Manager's Report No. GM20/17

 

Subject:             Continution of Community Partnership with South Sydney Rugby League Football Club in 2018

Folder No:                   F2010/00282

Author:                   David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services      

 

Introduction

 

At its ordinary Council meeting held 22 November, 2016 Council resolved:

 

(Andrews/Stavrinos) that:

 

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

 

b)     the General Manager be delegated authority to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the South Sydney Football Club and Souths Cares; and

 

c)     a report on the success of the 2017 Community Partnership to come back before Council.

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council, in accordance with clause (c) of the above resolution, of the continued outstanding success of this partnership throughout 2017 and to recommend extending this partnership into 2018 to continue with a number of wonderful community service initiatives.

 

Issues

 

As part of our 2017 partnership Council received ten tickets to all South Sydney home games. These tickets were distributed to targeted schools and youth service providers which were identified as being in the best position to take advantage of this new initiative. The schools and service providers identified were La Perouse Public School, South Sydney High School, Maroubra Bay Public School, Chifley Public School, Matraville Soldiers Settlement Public School, Matraville Sports High School, La Pa Youth Haven, The Shack Youth Services and Father Chris Riley’s Youth Off The Streets.

 

The feedback Council received from all groups has been outstanding. At each school the tickets were used as a reward to students for positive behaviour, attendance and participation at school and, according to the School Principals, the response from the kids was overwhelming. The youth service providers reported that they used the tickets to encourage attendance by targeted youth in order to keep them involved in the respective Centres.

 

In addition, two ambassador tickets to all home games were distributed to those community members identified as having made the most outstanding contribution to our community in a voluntary capacity. As part of the partnership tickets were distributed to volunteers from:

 

·           NSW/ACT Youth Cancer Services Youth Advisory Committee;

·           La Perouse Youth Haven / La Pa Bummers Programs;

·           La Perouse United Rugby League Club and the Pearlers Netball Club;

·           Kooloora Community Centres Veg Co-op Program;

·           Council’s Corroboree event at Coogee Beach for Reconciliation Week;

·           Youth Off The Streets;

·           Kool Kids Club;

·           Organiser of the Blak Markets at Bare Island;

·           Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council;

·           Soroptomist in La Perouse Public School Library;

·           Outreach Program (Jump Rope for Heart); and

·           La Perouse United Junior Rugby League Football Club.

 

Council also received 16 tickets for use throughout the year at The Legends Lounge. Council made the decision to provide them to all our junior rugby league clubs as a reward for long serving clubmen or women or to use as fundraisers. As part of the partnership these tickets were distributed to:

 

·           La Perouse United, who raffled the package as part of their annual fundraising night;

·           Maroubra Lions, who raffled the package as part of their annual fundraising night;

·           Matraville Tigers, who raffled the package as part of their annual fundraising night; and

·           South Eastern Seagulls, who raffled the tickets as a fundraiser for the club. The raffle proceeds were used to help fund the cost of trophies and end of season gear for the junior players.

 

A coaching clinic was held at Pioneer Park, Malabar on 5th September 2017. Students were invited from all our target schools. The clinic was attended by most of the first graders, a number of under 20’s players, reps from the ARL, James Sutton and Cain Slater from Souths’ Cares and David Kelly from Randwick City Council. Coverage of the event was posted on the websites of both organisations with very positive feedback received from the community.

 

Council also received a table for 10 at the South Sydney Football club’s annual business networking event held at the Australian Technology Park in August 2017. Tickets were given to representatives from Randwick City Tourism, The Spot Business Association and the Kingsford Chamber of Commerce.

 

A number of community service initiatives were conducted throughout 2017 by Souths Cares (the Community Services arm of the football club) in partnership with Council. These initiatives are summarised below and have been of immense benefit to the youth in our targeted schools.

 

Souths Cares delivers the ‘Rabbitohs KARI Wellbeing Program’ which is a health promotion initiative specifically designed for primary school students. In 2017, over 1700 students from schools within the Randwick City Council area participated in the program. These participating schools included:

 

·      Chifley Primary School

·      La Perouse Primary School

·      Malabar Primary School

·      Maroubra Bay Primary School

·      Matraville Primary School

·      Matraville Soldiers Settlement Primary School

·      Our Lady of the Annunciation

·      Our Lady of the Rosary Primary School

·      Rainbow Street Primary School

·      South Coogee Primary School

·      St Andrews Primary School

·      St Marys St Joseph Primary School

 

The Schools to Work Transition Program has achieved some outstanding results with Year 11 and 12 Indigenous students from schools such as Matraville Sports High School, South Sydney High School and Marist Pagewood well on the road to extremely successful and rewarding careers. This program is proudly supported by the Australian Government through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy.

 

Souths Cares NAIDOC Festival was held on Wednesday 5th July 2017 at Heffron Park, Maroubra. This was third annual NAIDOC Festival and the event continues to be popular with the local community. Souths Cares also provided assistance with merchandise and promotional resources for a number of other Randwick City Council events, including the Koojay Corroboree, Grandparents Fun Day and Coogee Family Day.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2c:      Strong partnerships between the Council, community groups and government agencies.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The current sponsorship amount of $40,000.00, including GST, has been allowed for in the 2017-18 budget.

 

Conclusion

 

This unique and exciting “Community Partnership” with the South Sydney Football Club continues to provide major benefits for both our organisations and, more importantly, our local community. These benefits include:

 

·           Both organisations raising their profile in the community through the local media and with mutual marketing and advertising opportunities;

·           Better targeting of particular disadvantaged groups using high profile footballers who can better connect with these traditionally difficult areas;

·           Greater community awareness of the programs being run by both organisations; and

·           Being able to reward our volunteers and disadvantaged youth for their efforts.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

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

 

b)     the General Manager be delegated authority to enter into a Memorandum of     Understanding with the South Sydney Football Club and Souths Cares; and

 

c)     a report on the success of the 2018 Community Partnership to come back        before Council.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

General Manager's Report No. GM21/17

 

Subject:             Rock Fishing Safety Act - Implementation & Communication update

Folder No:                   F2016/00539

Author:                   Joshua Hay, Communications Manager     

 

Introduction

 

This report provides an update on Council’s current approach to the Rock Fishing Safety Act.

 

Background

 

On 1 December 2016, the NSW State Government introduced the Rock Fishing Safety Act making it compulsory for people to wear lifejackets while rock fishing in declared high risk areas.

 

Due to the number of fatalities over many years and 18 deaths in the past decade or so, the Randwick City Local Government Area was declared the first high risk location for the purpose of trialling the new legislation. The decision to introduce compulsory lifejackets in the Randwick City area was welcomed by Randwick Council. Council had previously resolved on 17 September 2013 to support the compulsory wearing a lifejackets for rock fishers. The compulsory lifejacket law followed many years of concerted effort by government agencies and organisations, including Randwick City Council, to increase safety for anglers off the eastern suburbs rocks.

 

In 2013, Randwick Council initiated an on-the-ground survey of rock fishers to better understand the people who fish the rocks and some of their behaviour. This survey revealed a lack of knowledge amongst anglers about the risks involved in rock fishing and little awareness of recent fatalities in the very area they were fishing. This lead Randwick Council to become the first in the country to pilot a series of ‘shock signs’ – large multilingual red signs featuring skulls and crossbones installed at the fishing location with the number of fatalities displayed like a scoreboard. The rationale behind the signs was to reinforce to those fishing the rocks just how many deaths have occurred and attempt to influence the behaviour of rock fishers for the better.

 

During a Coronial Inquest in June 2015 into the deaths of a number of fishermen along the NSW coast, Deputy State Coroner Magistrate Forbes noted Randwick Council’s proactive approach to rock fishing safety and recommended that the shock signs be rolled out in other coastal council areas and that lifejackets be made mandatory.

 

In late 2016, Randwick Council was invited to join the State Government’s Rock Fishing Lifejacket working group to help oversee and advise on the implementation of the new lifejacket legislation. A communication strategy was developed by Randwick City Council and recommended to the NSW State Government for consideration in late 2016.

 

In 2017, the NSW Government via the Office of Emergency Management, Department of Justice advised it would provide a grant of $59,650 under the NSW Water Safety Fund to help fund the strategy as a partner with Council.

 

Randwick City Council’s contribution was also significant and included:     

§ Overall event management responsibility

§ Procurement

§ Design and branding

§ Promotion and communication

§ Event bookings and enquiries

§ Venue hire

§ Staff time and expertise

 

The workshops were also supported strongly by a number of other organisations who provided advice as well as a presence at the workshop. This included:

 

§ Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW

§ Department of Primary Industries - NSW Fisheries

§ NSW Marine Rescue

§ Bellissimo Rock & Beach Charters

§ Old4New Lifejacket Van run by JCME Marketing & Events

The strategy forms part of Council’s overall commitment to rock fishing safety which also includes ongoing communication, signage and research. The strategy focused on practical immediate actions to improve safety for those considered most at risk – beginner rock fishers and those already fishing the rocks without lifejackets. The strategy complemented existing communication efforts by the NSW Government to inform people about the new legislation. The strategy formed two main components – signage and face to face workshops.

Issues

An expert rock fisher and Sydney’s only professional rock and beach guide Alex Bellissimo was engaged to run the workshops. Alex was chosen because of his experience and knowledge, but also because of his dedication and commitment to the industry and improving safety.

 

Three workshops were held on Wednesday 25 October 2017, Saturday 28 October 2017 and Wednesday 1 November 2017.

 

25-Oct

28-Oct

1-Nov

Total

Attendees

61

54

107

222

 

The free workshops were well attended with limited non-attendance which is unusual for free events.

 

Online registration for the event was very strong with 1,917 page views of the booking website and 242 registrations. Of the page views, 602 came from the paid website advertising with the remaining 1,315 views likely coming from people clicking on social media posts or directly searching for the event. Participants were asked to complete a paper-based evaluation survey at the conclusion of each workshop. The survey shows the following results.

      100%                0%                 0%

 

Graphic: Overall workshop satisfaction (164 responses)

The workshops were very successful with all 164 respondents rating their overall satisfaction with the workshop as positive (recorded as a smiley face).

 

Chart: Reasons for attending workshop

 

Workshop attendees indicated a wide range of reasons for attending with a desire to learn and be safer the most cited reasons. On a positive note, fewer people indicated their main reason in attending was just to receive a free lifejacket.

 

Participants were also asked to rate their agreement with the following statements from 1 to 5 with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. Every statement received an average rating of more than 4.7 out of 5 – which is an outstanding result.

 

Chart: Average agreement rating (out of 5)

 

While all statements received a very high agreement rate, on a relative level some scored slightly higher than others. The statement respondents most strongly agreed with related to the knowledge of the presenter Alex Bellissimo, while the second most strongly agreed with statement was that people would recommend the workshop.

 

This feedback is positive testament to the overall structure of the workshops. Of particular note, people agreed that after attending the workshops they are now safer to fish off the rocks.

 

In total, 222 lifejackets were distributed free of charge to workshop participants aged 16 years and older who successfully completed the workshop.

 

Workshop participants were briefed by a representative of NSW Maritime’s Old4New Lifejacket Van and given a choice of either a rockfisher jacket (in choice of two colours) or an inflatable lifejacket (manual or inflatable). Participants were briefed about the features of both jackets and able to make an informed decision about the one that best suits their needs.


Total lifejackets distributed

 

 

Rockfisher 50

Rockfisher 50s

Inflatable - manual

Inflatable - auto

Distributed: 74

Distributed: 75

Distributed - 23

Distributed - 50

33%

34%

10%

23%

Chart : Lifejackets distributed at workshops

 

All lifejackets distributed complied with Australian Standards and the requirements of the Rock Fishing Safety Act.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2: A vibrant and diverse community

Direction 2c: Strong partnerships between Council, community groups and government agencies

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The communications strategy was successful and the workshops in particular were well received. They were fully booked with hundreds on a waitlist. The feedback from participants was the content and presentations were informative and that people now feel they are safer to fish on the rocks. Importantly the workshops targeted those people most at risk – men with an interest in rock fishing, but with limited experience. 222 people now have lifejackets and more knowledge and skills to be safer on the rocks.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Randwick City Council commends the NSW State Government for supporting and funding the rock fishing safety workshops and writes to the Minister for Emergency Services recommending that future consideration be given to:

 

a)     Holding more workshops, particularly in other areas of Sydney with a high non-English speaking background population;

 

b)     Using the structure of the Randwick Council Communications Strategy as a guide to implement in other areas that are declared high risk in the future;

 

c)     Expanding the Rock Fishing Safety Act to include other dangerous rock fishing areas;

 

d)     Expanding the rock fishing ‘shock signs’ to other coastal areas; and

 

e)     Giving people found rock fishing without a lifejacket the opportunity to attend a rock fishing safety workshop as an alternative to paying the $100 fine.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

General Manager's Report No. GM22/17

 

Subject:             Review of the Randwick City Council 2017-18 Operational Plan – September Quarter

Folder No:                   F2017/03001

Author:                   Karen Hawkett, Coordinator Integrated Planning & Reporting      

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to update Councillors and the community on the implementation of the annual Operational Plan. The 2017-18 Operational Plan was adopted by Council on 27 June 2017. In this report, achievement and status comments are provided for each action in the 2017-18 Operational Plan. Highlights are also provided where appropriate.

 

Issues

 

This is the September 2017 Quarterly Report and first review of the 2017-18 annual Operational Plan. All projects are proceeding as planned and overall all services were delivered to agreed standards.

 

This report demonstrates our commitment to meeting the actions in the 2017-18 annual Operational Plan.

 

During the September report period, work on a number of key projects commenced including construction on new tennis courts at Heffron Park, the review of the Randwick City Plan and development of a draft suite of resourcing strategies.

 

Highlights of Council’s activities during the quarter include:

 

·       signing the lease for the management of the La Perouse Museum

·       opening the new amenities at Coogee Beach

·       staging the All Stops to Randwick training event for all employees

·       publication of Council’s 2012-17 End of Term Report

·       hosting a series of events celebrating NAIDOC week

·       staging the Architecture and Urban Design Awards

·       pubic exhibition of Council’s Disability Inclusion Action Plan

·       staging community events including the Eco-living Fair and NOX Night sculptures

·       ongoing upgrades to technology including the conversion to a new security tag system

·       staging the second annual After Dark program at the library attended by Maroubra Junction Primary School children.

 

A number of projects were completed during the September quarter including access works to the Town Hall, a new footpath in Tunstall Ave, Kingsford, a new wombat crossing in Carrington Rd, Coogee and a new roundabout and pedestrian refuge on Cowper St, Randwick. The completion of the amenities at Coogee Beach also incorporated connecting the new facility to the foreshore recycled water network to use recycled water for flushing toilets.

 

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

 

Randwick City Council’s Melinda Leves won the Council Employee (non-Aboriginal) award presented by the Local Government Aboriginal Network and George Bounassif was a finalist for the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia’s Australasian Public Works Leader award.

 

In partnership with JMD Design, Randwick Council was awarded the Randwick City Architecture and Urban Design Award for the Kensington Community Centre Park by the independent judging panel.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of the September Quarterly Review is to inform and update Council and the community on the progress of all actions as set out in the adopted 2017-18 Annual Operational Plan. In addition, given that the Operational Plan is based on the 20-year Randwick City Plan and that Council’s reporting format is based on outcomes rather than organisational structure, the September quarterly report also provides a level of accountability against our long term vision for the City of Randwick.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the information contained in the September Quarterly Review of the 2017-18 annual Operational Plan be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

2017-18 Randwick City Council annual Operational Plan - September Quarter Report

Refer to the PDF version of the agenda

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

General Manager's Report No. GM23/17

 

Subject:             State of the City Report 2017

Folder No:                   F2017/03005

Author:                   Karen Hawkett, Coordinator Integrated Planning & Reporting     

 

Introduction

 

The State of the City suite of information informs the review of the City Plan which will include the Delivery Program 2018-21. The State of the City Report 2017 incorporates the latest census information, the results of the Community Satisfaction Survey 2014, the Statutory Information required in an annual report, our State of the Environment reporting requirements and a detailed analysis of key performance data and trends.

 

The State of the City Report 2017 relates to the End of Term Report 2012-17 adopted by Council in August 2017.

 

The entire suite of documents that comprise the State of the City Report 2017 are:

 

·           The State of the City Report 2017

·           The State of the Environment Report 2017

·           The Randwick City Plan Indicators Methodology

·           The Statutory Information 2016/17

·           The Financial Statements 2016/17

·           The End of Term Report 2012-17

 

The Council must prepare an Annual Report and publish it by 30 November each year. The Annual Report must also include the Audited Financial Report and satisfy statutory reporting in line with the Office of Local Government’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Manual.

 

In the year that an ordinary election is held the Council must include the State of the Environment Report in the Annual Report.

 

Issues

 

The State of the City Report 2017 has been prepared in accordance with the Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009. It should be noted that the Audited Financial Reports have been the subject of a previous report to Council in November 2017.

 

Since the adoption of the 20-year Randwick City Plan, Council has demonstrated a strong commitment and continuous improvement approach to integrated planning. In line with this approach, the section of the State of the City Report that is a review of the 2013-17 Delivery Program (as extended) is organised according to the Randwick City Plan themes and outcomes. This provides accountability to our community regarding the implementation of the 20-year Randwick City Plan, as is required under the Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009.

 

The State of the City Report is one of the key accountability mechanisms between Council and its community. The report focuses on the responsibility of Council through the implementation of the Delivery Program and Operational Plan. The report also includes information that is prescribed by the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. This information is included as it is important for the community to be made aware of how council has been performing as a community leader.

 

The State of the City report includes the following sections:

 

Demographic Information

According to the ABS, at 30 June 2016 the Estimated Resident Population of Randwick City was 149,276. Planning NSW projects the resident population will increase to 155,350 by 2026.

 

Community Satisfaction Survey Results

The 2014 Community Satisfaction Survey shows that the residents of Randwick City satisfaction with the Council remains at consistently high levels, and that the Council’s forward planning is in accordance with the community’s aspirations.

 

Council appointed Micromex Research to carry out a Community Satisfaction Survey in September 2014. The survey asks residents to rate the importance of a range of the Council’s delivery areas, and their satisfaction with the Council’s performance.

 

This is the fifth in a series of surveys of which the first was conducted in 2006, designed to examine trends within the community and to gather information on what residents see as the Council’s most important priorities. The cumulative information provided by the surveys assists Councillors and Council management with future planning, establishing long term priorities and identifying key opportunities for improvements. The scope of this consultation provides Randwick Council with research findings that they can confidently assert reflect the attitudes of the broader community.

 

The 2014 survey was based on the surveys for 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012 with some modifications provided by Randwick Council and Micromex. Residents of Randwick City were interviewed by telephone between 10 to 26 September 2017.

 

Micromex conducted the survey with a demographically representative sample of 1,000 Randwick residents. A sample size of 1,000 residents gives a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 3.1% at the 95% confidence interval, making it statistically valid. Interviewing was conducted in accordance with IQCA (Interview Quality Control Australia) Standards and the Market Research Society Code of Professional Conduct.

 

From the 2014 survey and in line with current industry benchmarks, the measure of satisfaction is derived by aggregating the top 3 of the unipolar 5 scale rating. The table below shows satisfaction with Council from the 2008, 2010 and 2012 surveys also measured using this methodology and as presented by Micromex Research. 

 

Overall satisfaction with the performance of Council*

2008

2010

2012

2014

89%

94%

92%

95%

*Based on top three box

 

Part A of the survey asked respondents to rate the importance of, and their satisfaction with, 37 different Council services and activities. The 2014 survey retained the same measures as 2012 survey.

 

Parts B–D of the survey gathered information on customer service, communication, community connectedness and quality of life. In this part of the survey one question was amended, with the remainder carried over from 2012. The amended measure related to including a list of the reasons residents use Council’s website e.g requesting services, to get information on DAs, pay a bill, find a form, access general information such as events/waste collection or to find info on council’s app and other social media.

 

The analysis of the survey data is consistent with previous years, making multi-year trend analysis possible. Micromex have refined and ‘value added’ to their quadrant analysis technique and now also use the Shapley Value Regression. This allows councils to better identify and understand the hierarchy of community priorities and allocate resources in line with community aspirations.

 

Micromex conducts similar research for a number of other councils and has developed a Local Government Benchmark from the results of over 30,000 surveys conducted through a range of local government areas since 2005. This means that we can see our results in relation to results for other councils.

 

Summary of findings:

 

·           Satisfaction with the performance of Council has remained consistently high and the result of 95% in 2014 is consistent with the result of 92% in 2012. This indicates that Council is maintaining its delivery levels.

·           Dissatisfaction with the Council’s performance remains low with 5% in 2014, which is consistent with the 8% in 2012. This result retains Council’s position above the Local Government Benchmark for overall satisfaction, where Randwick Council is at a mean score of 3.80 compared to 3.31 for the benchmark.

·           There is a consistent trend in community satisfaction across the survey. All satisfaction scores for the Council’s services and activities are similar in 2014 to that of 2012, and higher for 28 of the 37 measures. The scores for four measures were significantly higher in 2014 than in 2012:

Des Renford Leisure Centre

Community safety

Ovals and sporting facilities

Maintaining footpaths

·           Satisfaction with 33 of the 37 measures is in the higher range, from ‘moderate satisfaction’ to ‘very high satisfaction’. The average score for satisfaction is 3.44, where 1=very dissatisfied and 5=very satisfied.

·           The survey identified 14 factors that have the greatest impact on community satisfaction. The top three are ‘long term planning for the City’, ‘street cleaning’ and ‘community safety’.

·           A question about the highest priority issues facing the Randwick area showed that ‘Managing development/population density’ and ‘Providing sufficient transport infrastructure’ were the dominant responses.

 


 

Graph 1: Overall satisfaction with the Council’s performance (2014)

Randwick City Plan Indicators Model

The Randwick City Plan Indicators Model was developed in 2010 to monitor trends for the state of the city in terms of the themes and directions set by the community in the Randwick City Plan. Examples of some of the indicators in each theme include:

 

Responsible management

·      overall community satisfaction

·      percentage of service requests completed within Service Level Agreement targets

 

A sense of community

·      number of people attending Council events

·      percentage of surveyed residents that stated they feel part of their local community

 

Places for people

·      hectares of open space per 1,000 people

·      satisfaction with the cleanliness of Randwick City

 

A prospering city 

·      the proportion of residents who prefer to shop in the local area

·      satisfaction with the vitality of town centres

 

Moving around

·      number of vehicles per household

·      community satisfaction with the construction of cycleways

 

Looking after our environment

·      Solar energy generation exported back to Ausgrid network from small power systems within Randwick City per annum

·      Amount of residential waste diverted from landfill

 

State of the Environment

The State of the Environment (SoE) report is prepared in accordance with Section 428A of the Local Government Act 1993 and prepared in conjunction with the Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines as described under Section 406 of the same Act.

 

The key element required of Randwick Council in the preparation of this SoE report is that reporting is completed against the environmental objectives identified in Council’s 20-year City Plan specifically in the Looking after our environment theme and for each environmental objective we will:

 

·      report on how Randwick is responding in relation to each of the environmental directions

·      report on the overall trend for the environmental issue reported; and

·      assess the reliability of the data used to assess the issue.

 

The objectives of Randwick’s 2017 comprehensive SoE report align directly with the six environmental objectives (10a to 10f) adopted by Council within Outcome 10, A Healthy Environment, of Council’s 20-year City Plan.

 

The environmental indicators are represented in datasets reported under each of these objectives i.e.

 

10a:        Toward environmental sustainability

10b:        Environmental risks and impacts

10c:         Land use planning, biodiversity and natural heritage

10d:        Resource recovery

10e:        Water cycle management

10f:         Energy and greenhouse gas emissions

 

A summary is provided for each of the environmental objectives in the form of traffic light symbols with three of these traffic lights available for each objective.

 

·      The first traffic light indicates the overall trend for the environmental objective reported

·      The second traffic light indicates the reliability of the data used for this SoE report

·      The third traffic light indicates the adequacy or effectiveness of Randwick’s response in relation to the environmental objective reported.

 

The End of Term Report 2012-17

The End of Term Report narrates how we implemented the 20-year Randwick City Plan, our achievements, our partners and how our actions in implementing the City Plan are benefiting our community. The End of Term Report was the subject of a previous report to Council in August 2017, and can be found on Council’s website.

 

Statutory Information

In accordance with the Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009, the Council must prepare an Annual Report addressing required statutory information. This information is included in the attached Statutory Information report.

 

Audited Financial Statement 2016/17

The 2016-17 Randwick City Council Financial Reports have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993, Australian Accounting Standards, and the NSW Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.  

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:           Leadership in sustainability.

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

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

Financial impact statement

 

Council reported a $9.902 million operating surplus for the 2016-17 financial year, maintaining our sound financial position.

 

For the 2016-17 financial year Randwick City Council performed very well against the financial performance indicators mandated by the NSW Office of Local Government. The benchmark for five of the performance indicators was achieved and in most cases exceeded. The financial indicator that Randwick City Council did not meet was the Debt Service Ratio which was a result of Council’s choice to not undertake any borrowings.

 

Conclusion

 

The State of the City Report 2017 meets the stipulated statutory requirements and provides the community with a snapshot of the Council, its activities and the impact these activities make. It outlines the key community, business and environmental achievements over the reporting period.

 

The results of the State of the City Report 2017 and its appendices, the 2016 Census information and the Community Satisfaction Survey all inform Council’s future planning via the Randwick City Plan.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the Randwick City Council State of the City Report 2017, and its appendices be received and noted;

 

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

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s: Refer to the PDF version of the agenda for these attachments

 

1.

State of the City Report 2017

 

2.

State of the Environment Report 2017

 

3.

Randwick City Plan Indicators Methodology

 

4.

Statutory Information Report 2016/17

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                             28 November 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

General Manager's Report No. GM24/17

 

Subject:             2018-21 Financial Strategy

Folder No:                   F2006/00588

Author:                   Mitchel Woods, Manager Corporate and Financial Planning     

 

Introduction

 

During the review of the Randwick City Plan, the development of the 2018-21 Delivery Program, the launch of the Mayor’s Digital Strategy, and following recent Commonwealth Government initiatives, Council has identified projects and programs that, combined, require resourcing on a scale that is significantly larger than in the past.

 

Resourcing requirements have been identified to fund Council’s new obligations under those Commonwealth initiatives including obligations associated with protecting crowded places from terrorism.

 

These projects and programs include:

 

-    implementation of anti-terrorism obligations outlined in the document released by the Commonwealth Government titled Australia’s Strategy for Protecting Crowded Places from Terrorism (Attachment 1);

-    implementation of Council’s Digital Strategy which will enhance the way Council does business with customers by adopting new technologies, work practices and breaking free of traditional thinking;

-    delivering on a list of Future Major Projects totalling almost $150 million over the next seven years (Attachment 2) incorporating recently identified projects as well as increases in scale and scope of projects previously identified under Council’s Buildings for our Community program. 

 

Issues

 

Protecting Crowded Places from Terrorism

Earlier this year the Commonwealth Government published Australia’s Strategy for Protecting Crowded Places from Terrorism. The document states that local government plays a key role in the safety and wellbeing of Australian communities, including helping protect crowded places from terrorism.

 

The document also states that given local governments are often responsible for managing civic spaces, public activities etc., “This means they have the same role and responsibilities as other owners and operators of crowded places, including a duty of care to develop, implement, and regularly test protective security measures.”  See page 7 of Australia’s Strategy for Protecting Crowded Places from Terrorism as attached.

 

The document also refers to the role that local government plays in designing and approving public spaces. In that they are in a unique position to consider and creatively apply protective security during the early stages of crowded place design. And in doing so the disruptive effect of the public’s enjoyment of public spaces can be minimised.

 

 

The release of this document, particularly the duty of care requirements contained within it in relation to Local Government, now places a clear obligation on Randwick City Council to deliver appropriate protection measures for crowded places.

 

Randwick City Council will advocate for reimbursement by the Federal Government for the expenditure it incurs implementing its anti-terrorism obligations.

 

ICT Digital Strategy

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 10th October 20