How Councillors Vote

 



8 September 2017

Do you think it 'interesting' that The Greens would rather preference Liberal or Labor or anybody but SaveRandwick?

If you knew the voting record of East Ward Greens Councillor Murray Matson then it is totally understandable. His track record of voting with the Liberals and against his fellow Greens Councillors is there for all to see.

He voted for merging with Waverley & their $40m debt, for 18 storey high rise in Kensington & Kingsford, to rezone Kingsford Markets from PUBLIC OPEN SPACE to 8 Storey High Density High rise, for a $5,000/month additional allowance for sitting on the one committee (see below for more).  Worst of all for many was his vote that led to the destruction of the trees.  Always against the community and always the excuses follow.  "Gun to our head" - that's when we need Councillors to stand up for the community not themselves!

REMEMBER THE INGLIS SITE

Yes he voted for 8 storey high rise there as well.  He was in good company.

FOURTEEN COUNCILLORS vs One - voted in favour of rezoning from Heritage Conservation, Low density residential to HIGH DENSITY up to 8 Storey HIGH RISE- overlooking Rainbow St Public, Randwick Girls and Randwick Boys and to further choke Barker St.

ENOUGH SAID. Traffic chaos and windfall profits for developers go hand in hand...

The Community needs your vote tomorrow.  Do not make the mistake of voting for the politicians and their donors.

We want your Vote.  Vote for the Community tomorrow - NOT DEVELOPERS.

It has not mattered which party has been in power at Randwick or the State level - Developers keep getting the nod with the windfall profits whilst the Community is left with traffic chaos, over-crowded schools etc.

_________________________________

August 2017 We wish there was good news to report about how the Councillors voted - there is not.

All Political Parties campaigned at the 2012 Elections saying they'd "Fight Inappropriate OverDevelopment".  It seems their definition of "Inappropriate" is nothing like the community's.  In fact - OverDevelopment of any sort is wrong.  Unlike some others what we say we do.  Over the last 5 years we have continued to fight for residents against the developers and have testified at a number of Land & Environment Court hearings.  Randwick City Council HOWEVER chose to exit the hearings and create an 'agreement' with the developers instead of following through with the hearing.  Is this a case of "SEEN TO BE DONE"?

On the some of the most crucial votes for the community - guess which side the votes went?  Against the community's interests in our view.

Many times, certain high profile Councillors have claimed "Guns to their heads" as their excuse to roll over and let the developers or State Govt get its way.  Do you think that is FIGHTING or SURRENDERING?

When challenged the next excuse often given - "We needed to get a seat at the table."

NOT WHEN THAT seat comes at the community's expense they didn't.

 

WEST Ward

How vote

EAST Ward

NORTH Ward

 

18 Storey HIGH RISE for Kensington & Kingsford

Have you seen any mention of this in the election material coming into your letterboxes?  For some reason we haven't either?

Do you think Councillors voting to introduce 18 storey HIGH RISE = INAPPROPRIATE OVER-DEVELOPMENT?

At recent meet-the-candidates events (in West Ward) the Liberal Party apparently did not even respond to one email inviting them to attend despite follow-ups by both the Kensington West Kingsford and Kingsford South Precincts.  It was the first time in over 20 years that ANY party refused to take part at Kingsford South - invisible Councillors perhaps?

Was their absence due to the broken promises they made in 2012 to attend every opportunity they got.  They did not manage once in 5 years.  The Greens and Labor attended both and faced the music.

With changes to the planning rules introduced by the State Govt - the developers might not even have to provide on-site parking.  One local developer has complied with the law 100% - their donations to the major parties were made at the Federal level not the State Divisions.  We will post a link to allow you to see which developers have been supporting the political parties (at the Federal level of course).

 

FORCED MERGER - Council capitulated, with all but one Liberal Councillor abandoning residents, one ALP as well as the Greens East Ward Councillor Matson - both defied their respective party's State Policy and voted in favour of forced amalgamation.  If not for a number of BRAVE Woollahra Councillors defying the Liberal Party policy - RANDWICK would be gone and ratepayers would have been saddled with Waverley's $40 million in debt.

 

$5,000/mth Forced Merger Transition Committee Allowance - Eleven Councillors (5 Liberal, 3 Labor, 2 Green and 1 Independent) voted to approve the allowance and just 4 against.

 

Light Rail - Randwick to foot the costs of offsetting some of the damage ($67m+ ) caused by the State Govt -

Disturbingly, yet again Council voted against the interests of residents and elected to foot the bill in attempting to offset some of the over 1,000 lost car spaces, install new traffic lights required by the Light Rail as well as purchase part of the Kingsford Markets site back from the State Govt at the significantly increased price of nearly $12 million.

Contrast this with the State Govt compensating the Racecourse & Australian Turf Club for its lost parking by building FREE-OF-CHARGE a 4 storey car park.  After all the members could not be expected to have to park in the middle of the racecourse like everybody else could they?

What is worse is that the parcel of land RCC is buying was REZONED in 2012 despite residents putting in submissions, emails, phone calls to every Councillor - BEGGING them not to rezone it from PUBLIC OPEN SPACE reserved for future transport use to 8-storey high density.  Prior to the rezoning it was valued at less than $1m apparently.

Unfortunately the East Ward Greens Councillor voted (yet again?) against his fellow Greens AS WELL AS seconding the motion - which saw it pass by just one vote.  Did we mention that MEALS-on-WHEELS were kicked out of the site and forced to operate out in the open from a car park in all weather?  They asked us not to publicise this at the 2012 Council Elections - so we kept silent.

BTW - The Anzac Parade Figs, along with nearly 1,000 other trees were listed for Council to see long before they signed on the dotted line despite residents & SaveRandwick again pleading with them to support residents' wishes.

Do you think the Councillors' actions were in the Community's interests - we don't?

Did they live up to their previous election promises? 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randwick Council will hold its first meeting following the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor on 25 Sept.  Three of the development applications are clear examples of over-development.

It will be the first chance for the community to see if the election promises of opposing over-development will be fulfilled. There are 12 development applications, all except one recommended for approval by Council staff.


The most horrific application is for a 110 studio building over 8 levels at 390-396 Anzac Parade Kingsford. Just 34 carparking spaces are planned. The site backs onto the McDonalds carpark and is on the corner of Middle and Harbourne Lanes. There is already a large unit block on to the south of the site, facing Anzac Parade.

As the development is to be a boarding house a bonus 0.5 to floor space ratio is allowed, but even that is not enough, instead of a maximum 2.5 to 1, this proposal seeks 3.5 to 1. Also the very generous height if 24m for the commercial centre is not enough, with the plans being just under 26 metres. Incredible, but also very sad for many of the units to the south who will lose sunlight.

The Anzac Parade horror is closely followed by a proposed conversion of the Gemini Motel, on 65-71 Belmore Road Randwick. Currently 98 motel rooms, the plans are now for 63 studio units, 7 one bed, 4 two beds and 16 serviced apartments with 43 car parking spaces.

There’s no change to the building itself, but clearly a change of use to permanent occupation is an intensification of use, parking on demand for parking. Most of the planned studios are tiny, single aspect units. A proposal for larger and fewer units is required for this building.

The third over-development is at the old Prince Henry hospital site at 1-3 Jenner Street Little Baythere is a 73 unit building over 4-5 levels. The redevelopment of this site was governed by a special “2D” residential zoning which limits floor space ratio to 1.1 and building height to 15m (14m wall height). Instead what is proposed is 17 metres high with a floor space ratio of 1.45 to 1. As part of the ‘justification’ for excess floor space, it’s noted that an approval for an aged care facility also breached the floor space ratio, although by not as much. Tricky, get an approval for community need and then apply to build something else.

Too bad for neighbours who bought on the basis of the zoning being respected, never trust the representations of real estate salespeople regarding adjoining unbuilt sites, although in this case it seems developers and Council (if approved) will be to blame.

The development application recommended for refusal is for the Seals Club plan to extend their carpark at 9-11 Fenton Street Maroubra. The site adjoins the existing Seals carpark, but consent for this carpark was only granted for interim use, which expired in 2008. It seems the use of the existing has been continuing on an ‘unauthorised’ basis since then.

Expect some heavy lobbying for the application for the additional carpark, or perhaps it’s a lever to influence outcomes over controversial Maroubra Beach commercial centre rezoning process which by allowing buildings up to 16 metres high (Seals Club is around 22 metres) breaches a 12 metre height applied to other coastal areas in the area.

Let’s hope our new Council will respect their election promises. The community is watching. We will track the outcome of all over-development on our website www.SaveRandwick.com

Who Voted For What?

This spreadsheet (coming soon) will detail the SEPP-1 decisions by council and who voted for and against. Just who are our best elected representatives?

Voting Record - for updates on how Councillors vote

Since 2005 Randwick Council has approved MORE THAN 6,000 NEW DWELLINGS.
Hundreds of these EXCEED zoned limits.

Unhappy about Over-Development? Inadequate infrastructure, lack of parking, overcrowded schools, clogged roads, public transport & flooding?


!



 

New to our website? If you have noticed large developments, clogged roads, and like most of us struggled to find a parking space outside your own home, then you are not alone!

Please like us on Facebook, browse our site, read our bios, and if you can help us or wish to donate, contact us.


How can you help?

Easy - Firstly, say something! Tell your neighbours what is going on. Spread the word. Like us on Facebook. If you can offer your time to help us or wish to make a donation please contact us.

Keep Up To Date:

Please join our email list so we can keep you up to date with our progress!

WE NEED YOU!! - JOIN THE FIGHT AND BE HEARD - CONTACT US

BAD THINGS HAPPEN WHEN GOOD PEOPLE DO NOTHING


September 2017 UPDATE

Why is it that residents continue to see Development Application after DA recommended for approval EVEN THOUGH they are above the zoned limits?  Is it the weasel words such as pointing out that there are other existing cases where approval was given to exceed the limits?  Past mistakes should not be repeated should they?  If a DA was approved in the 1970s shortly before an Administrator was appointed due to widespread community concerns about 'curious' decisions made in favour of some developments - does that mean "Let's go for it then"?

Did you know that the ICAC conducted a fill covert investigation into RCC in the early 1990s?  Listening devices were planted throughout the RCC offices and transcripts of hundreds of 'relevant' conversations were placed up on their web site for some years?  They made very interesting reading.

If you would like to read a copy of the ICAC report into RCC - then please use the "contact us" above and we'll send it out.  It is timely to read it given recent news covered by the Southern Courier - very timely indeed.


17 May 2012 UPDATE - COUNCIL STAFF ARE NOT LISTENING

Virtually nothing in the staff report on the draft Local Environment Plan (LEP) reflects the input from the community from the consultation process, that's usual for government consultation. BUT an overwhelming response from the community against OVERDEVELOPMENT, that can't be hidden from consultation process.

Many of the responses focus on specific sites, which we have summarised in an update to the Local Environmental Plan - see tab on left. Ultimately, it's our elected representatives that will make the decision on the final LEP which is submitted to the State Government.

We need one final push to these Councillors to let them know we are against overdevelopment, specifically increased building heights in residential areas and not to proceed with commercial centre changes proposed.

Please email expressing your concern with overdevelopment to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with a request that he forwards this to each Councillor.  Even better, you can email Councillor direct, and here is the link for these addresses:

Email Councillors


MAY 2012 UPDATE

Well, the community feedback for the draft Local Environment Plan is now available and a summary will be presented to Council on Tuesday 22 May.  We will post a further update when we see the response of Council staff to the communities submissions.

Overwhelming, we are against OVERDEVELOPMENT. That's no surprise and THANKS everyone who has taken time to let Council know of your concerns.  We need a final push in the few days before 22 May to 'remind' Councillors of our concerns on OVERDEVELOPMENT, which if the Local Environment Plan proceeds in the current form is sure to come.

What do we hope will be changed?

1. No new commercial centres (9 were proposed) and no amendments to the existing, including Maroubra Beach, Kensington, Matraville and Carr Streeet Coogee.
2. Keep the height protection for residential areas. Existing "wall heights" in place should be adopted as the building heights in the new LEP.
3. Withdrawal of all the one-off rezoning proposals for residential areas that were sneeked through the origina discussion paper and the draft Local Environment Plan, all without properly notifying the nearby neighbours of course.

Verified Approved New Dwellings Randwick City Council (2005 to date)

 

 

6,000+

Randwick City Council looks to have by-passed the target of 8,400 new dwellings (set by the previous state government) for the Randwick City Council area by 2031, in less than 1/3rd the time!! By early 2013 by our count they were well over 6,000.  Thousands more have been approved since then.

As this only includes dwellings we have been able to verify, Randwick Council said it would publish a list when it released the "residential area' discussion paper (5 of 6) so the actual number may be a lot higher.

Instead RCC provided a number for ONLY THOSE that had been completed by then.  Sleight of hand?  Even more alarming - RCC categorically DENIES they keep track of how many new dwellings they approve. Fine way to run a business?

Please see our list of the development applications approved since 2005 to 2012 at the 'Residential Area Changes http://www.saverandwick.com/index.php/discussion-papers-may-inform-the-new-lep/residential-area-changes-5-of-6

This is only what we have identified, arranged by street order. Email us of any others you are aware of and we will investigate and update the list.

Read more: Verified Approved New Dwellings Randwick City Council (2005 to date)

Prelodgement - How developers get early access to Council

PRELODGMENT ?

 

WHAT IS IT ?

 

A service from Council through which applicants (home owners, developers, businesses etc) can, for a fee, get the advice on their plans from Council’s planning staff before lodging a formal development application.

 

The opinions of Council’s planning staff goes beyond advising what the site zoning requirements are (height, setback, floor space ratio etc) to a specific design scenario.  Council offers this service, as an ‘added extra’ outside the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

WHAT’S WRONG WITH PRELODGMENT

 

Depends.  When development applications have included the ‘pre-lodgment advice provided by Council staff, it can been seen that the more unacceptable aspects of development plans have been mitigated or modified, saving everyone’s time worrying about proposals that are unacceptable.

 

So it’s not the advisory part by Council staff that’s necessarily the problem, it’s the way the process is run.  How is it run?  Secretly.

 

Yes, that’s right, all behind closed doors, for a fee paid to the authority who generally assesses and determines the final development application.  The only way adjoining neighbours know of a pre-lodgment session has occurred is if the applicant chooses to disclose this in their development application, usually, this is with the objective that the development application is a ‘done deal’.

 

DONE DEAL ?

 

Maybe.  Nothing is certain until Council has determined the development application, either consent, which can include modifications to the plans lodged or refusal.

 

In determining development applications, Council must take into consideration any submissions made, most usually from neighbours on impacts to them, usually concerns such as loss of light and sun, privacy, views as well as concerns about traffic and parking. 

 

But if those lodging development applications have already been advised of what Council’s planning staff consider acceptable, what hope do neighbours have in their submissions?  Council say that the staff member who gave the advise is NOT the staff member who assesses and either determines (or provides a determination recommendation) the development application, so independence is maintained.

 

But how do we know, the prelodgment process is secret.  Council staff and the applicant know, but everyone else is unaware of previous, ‘fee for service’ meetings.

 

WHAT CAN BE DONE

 

Easy.  Council could require all those who use their pre-lodgment service to consent to release details of their original plans and the advise received from Council’s planning staff as part of any development application subsequently lodged.  Sure, applicants may need to lodge a short explanation of what changed between the plans subject to pre-lodgment advice and the final plans submitted.

 

With such disclosure, people interested in development application could at least get some indication of what one planning officer’s views were.  They could also ensure that the same planning officer was not involved in the assessment process for the final application.

 

YOUR COMMENTS

 

Has it happened to you?

Have you used Council’s pre-lodgment service and found it helpful?     or

Are you aware if development near you used the pre-lodgment service offered by Council?

 

Send us an email with your thoughts and experiences on Council’s pre-lodgment process.

----------------------------

This page is not moderated by the website owner and as such any person making changes to this page accepts responsibility for any material they publish. This disclaimer should not be removed.

Verified Approved New Dwellings Randwick City Council (2005 to date)

6,000+

Randwick City Council looks to have already met the target of 8,400 new dwellings (set by the previous State Government) for the Randwick City Council area by 2031, in less than 1/3rd of the time!! Our count up until early 2013 was over 6,000 dwellings, since then thre have been thousands more approved.

As this only includes dwellings we have been able to verify, Randwick Council said it would publish a list when it released the "residential area' discussion paper, but they changed the goalposts with a highly simplified table of development approvals which had been constructed.  Incredible they think we would fall for this trick.

Did you know Council DOES NOT KEEP TRACK of how many new dwellings they approve?  CRAZY??

Certainly.  CONVENIENT - You bet.  Do you think that if you don't know how many you've approved then it makes it easier to keep approving?

 

Please see part of our list of the development applications approved since 2005 to 2012at the 'Residential Area Changes http://www.saverandwick.com/index.php/discussion-papers-may-inform-the-new-lep/residential-area-changes-5-of-6

This is only what we have identified, arranged by street order.  Email us of any others you are aware of and we will investigate and update the list.

 

Read more: Verified Approved New Dwellings Randwick City Council (2005 to date)