KG: AR

 

9 April 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Councillor/Sir/Madam

 

You are invited to attend an ORDINARY MEETING of Ashfield Council, to be held in the Ashfield Civic Centre, Level 3, 260 Liverpool Road, Ashfield on TUESDAY  14 APRIL 2009 at 6:30 PM.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KEN GAINGER

General Manager

 

SEE ATTACHED AGENDA


 

Ordinary Meeting

14 April 2009

 

AGENDA

 

1.                      Opening

 

2.                      Acknowledgement of Local Indigenous Community

 

3.                      Apologies/Request for Leave of Absence

                   

4.                      Condolence and Sympathy Motions

 

5.                      Moment of Private Contemplation

 

6.                      Disclosures Of Interest

 

Disclosures to be made by any Councillors who have a pecuniary / non-pecuniary interest in respect of matters that are before Council at this meeting.

(14/04/2009)

 

7.                      Confirmation of Minutes of Council/Committees

 

Ordinary Meeting - 24/03/2009

Ashfield Access Committee – 02/03/2009

 

8.                      Mayoral Minutes

 

 

9.                      Notices of Motion

 

9.1        REDUCING TRAFFIC 'RAT RUNS' IN THE ASHFIELD MUNCIPALITY

9.2        RECONCILIATION ACTION PLAN

9.3        ASHFIELD GETS ENVIRONMENTALLY SMART ABOUT SAVING ELECTRICITY

9.4        HELPING LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS DURING THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS

9.5        BILL POSTERS ARE NOT SO INNOCENT

9.6        MAYOR'S COLUMN IN LOCAL PRESS

 

 

10.                  Staff Reports

 

10.1     DRAFT SECTION 94A CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN

10.2     OUTDOOR DINING & FOOTPATH TRADING POLICY

10.3     FURTHER INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY PROJECTS 09/10

10.4     SECURITY PROCEDURES FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS

10.5     ASHFIELD COMPANION ANIMALS MANAGEMENT PLAN

10.6     STANDARD DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CONDITION TO SPECIFY GUTTERING TYPE

10.7     POLICY ON AD-HOC REQUESTS TO COUNCIL FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

 

 

11.                  General Business

 

 

 

12.                  Close

 

 

 

 

 


 

Ashfield Council

 

Ordinary Meeting

14 April 2009

 

 

9         Summary of  Notices Of Motion

 

9.1         REDUCING TRAFFIC 'RAT RUNS' IN THE ASHFIELD MUNCIPALITY. Councillors Rerceretnam, Kennedy and Kelso. Report submitted.

(09/03/09)                                                                                                 Traffic & Parking

                                                       h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM140409NM_8.doc

                                                                                                            NM9/2009 Attached

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

1/3        That Ashfield Council update its review of traffic trends in the municipality.

 

2/3        That after the completion of this review, that Ashfield Council look at ways to discourage, impede and circumvent the increasing traffic trend of ‘rat runs’ through the municipality; looking particularly at possible options such as road closures and or traffic calming.

 

3/3        That Ashfield Council incorporate changes by working with Council’s on-going Bicycle Planning Forum where alternative commuting strategies are being presently reviewed.

 

 

 

9.2         RECONCILIATION ACTION PLAN. Councillors Rerceretnam, Kennedy and Kelso. Report submitted.

(25/03/09)                                                                                                    Multiculturalism

                                                     h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM140409NM_14.doc

                                                                                                         NM14/2009 Attached

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

1/3        That in order to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people achieve equality in all aspects of life - particularly closing the 17 year gap in life expectancy - Ashfield Council develop a Reconciliation Action Plan.

 

2/2        That the General Manager initiate discussions with Reconciliation Australia and establish a Reconciliation Action Plan Working Group.

 

3/3        That the General Manager report regularly to LIMEAC on the progress of the Reconciliation Action Plan.

 

 

 

 

9.3         ASHFIELD GETS ENVIRONMENTALLY SMART ABOUT SAVING ELECTRICITY. Councillors Lofts, McKenna, Wang and Drury. Report submitted.

(31/03/09)                                                                                          Environmental Issues

                                                     h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM140409NM_15.doc

                                                                                                         NM15/2009 Attached

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

1/3        That Council purchase a number of ‘smart meters’, to be lent to the public through the Library or Customer Service desk. The lending period should be set at two weeks.

 

2/3        This will allow members of the community to determine their power usage as part of their household carbon footprint, thus enhancing the development of stronger environmental awareness.

 

3/3        That the lending program be publicised through the Council’s newsletter and the website, as appropriate.

 

 

 

9.4         HELPING LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS DURING THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS. Councillors Rerceretnam, Kennedy and Kelso. Report submitted.

(02/04/09)                                                                                     Economic Development

                                                     h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM140409NM_16.doc

                                                                                                         NM16/2009 Attached

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

1/6        That Ashfield Council request a report by Planning Officers, the Economic Development Officer, in conjunction with Council’s Community Services section, to examine ways Council can assist local businesses.

 

2/6        That points A to C in this motions preamble, be considered in this report.

 

3/6        That the report to come back to Council for determination within 6 weeks.

 

4/6        That any initiatives be implemented for a trial period of 12 months, and reassessed by a full sitting of Council at the end of this period.

 

5/6        That Ashfield Council consult associated peak Chamber of Commerce within the different Town Centres.

 

6/6        That the Mayor initiate discussion on this issue in his Mayoral column.

 

 

 

 

 

9.5         BILL POSTERS ARE NOT SO INNOCENT. Councillor Drury. Report submitted.

(06/04/09)                                                                                            Outdoor Advertising

                                                     h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM140409NM_17.doc

                                                                                                         NM17/2009 Attached

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

 

1/4        That Ashfield Council review the current practice of graffiti control and the operation of the clean team and codify a graffiti and commercial advertising bill poster policy.

 

2/4        That in the first instance a review be conducted by a team of council officers from each of the directorates.

 

3/4        That the review team also consider the approach to commercial advertising bills and posters taken by the Sydney City Council and any other approach that might be effective in Ashfield.

 

4/4        That a report be brought forward to a council committee meeting and that the Council provide notice to residents and AshBiz to advise them that they may address the committee about the draft policy, in order to assist council in determining an effective policy.

 

 

 

9.6         MAYOR'S COLUMN IN LOCAL PRESS. Councillor McKenna. Report submitted with attachments 1 and 2.

(06/04/09)                                                                                                           Advertising

                                                     h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM140409NM_18.doc

                                                                                                         NM18/2009 Attached

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

1/3        That all comment in the Mayoral Column be consistent with the current policy of Council.

 

2/3        That any issue subject to a resolution of Council – that position as per the resolution should be reflected in the Mayor’s Column.

 

3/3        That any comment in any Council publication must reflect the position of Council.

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 April 2009

NM9/2009

Traffic & Parking

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLORS Marc Rerceretnam, Lyall Kennedy and Patrick Kelso

 

 

REDUCING TRAFFIC 'RAT RUNS' IN THE ASHFIELD MUNCIPALITY

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM9/2009

 

 

The Ashfield municipality, like many intermediate areas, act as transit routes for mainly east-west and to a lesser extent north-south, small and large vehicle traffic in Sydney.

 

It is therefore imperative that Council look at ways to discourage, impede and circumvent the use and exacerbation of neighbourhood streets as traffic ‘rat runs’. The increase of such traffic into such streets makes it much more dangerous for local residents, pedestrians, the elderly and children.

 

This motion proposes that Council update its review of traffic trends in the municipality. We believe the last one was done in the early 1990s.

 

 

Officers Comments

 

Anthony Ogle – Manager Infrastructure

 

The description of “rat runs” from Wikipedia has been attached as it provides a good explanation of the term. It is basically a response of through traffic to congestion on the major roads system, and is common in most cities of the world.

 

There is no definition as to the threshold at which traffic additional to that accessing properties within a street or adjacent streets becomes a significant enough nuisance to warrant intervention with traffic controls, especially controls that block selected traffic movements. The impact is very much relative to each street and the perceptions and expectations of the residents.

 

Attached is a guide from Wiltshire County Council as to how to identify the extent of rat running. It can be seen from this that identifying and counting non local traffic is resource intensive, which is why it is normally done by residents. Where left to Council, traffic counts are the most cost effective way to do it, with counters at 3 to 4 locations normally required, costing about $1,200.

 

I t is noted that motorists will respond and adapt opportunistically to road conditions, and that the choice of local streets as an alternative to congested State and Regional roads is a balance of time and convenience to the motorists. Blocking some streets may result in changes in other streets, and any measures need to be considered within a Local Area Traffic Management scheme. As the Haberfield scheme in Northcote & Wolseley St Haberfield is showing, the process of consultation and planning is time and resource intensive.

 

Council’s traffic staff are aware from previous resident contacts of several potential and/or known rat runs, mainly associated with Parramatta Rd. Petitions have also been received requesting road closures to prevent rat running, being Martin St which has been previously reported, and Rogers St which has recently been received. As advised in a traffic matters report to the Works & Infrastructure Committee, the RTA would require an area traffic study before considering any closures, with such studies costing upwards of $5,000 depending on the area of affected streets.

 

With regard to the motions proposed, an existing formal analysis of traffic trends in the municipality has not been done within the last several years (and possibly not ever). As part of the forthcoming Councillor workshop on traffic and parking issues, Council may wish to consider making this a priority over dealing with individual requests for parking changes and traffic controls. Similarly, the potential schemes that would emanate from the analysis will need consideration of the resourcing and priorities.

 

Should such an analysis be proposed, it’s significance is such that it should be placed into the Management Plan for resourcing and public awareness. In addition, Council will need to consider the additional funding that would be required for works to implement any schemes, as at present there is no recurrent funding allocation for traffic control facilities, and the RTA has no funding programs to deal with this issue.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

1/3              That Ashfield Council update its review of traffic trends in the municipality.

 

2/3              That after the completion of this review, that Ashfield Council look at ways to discourage, impede and circumvent the increasing traffic trend of ‘rat runs’ through the municipality; looking particularly at possible options such as road closures and or traffic calming.

 

3/3              That Ashfield Council incorporate changes by working with Council’s on-going Bicycle Planning Forum where alternative commuting strategies are being presently reviewed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marc Rerceretnam

 

 

 

Lyall Kennedy

 

 

 

Patrick Kelso

 

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 April 2009

NM14/2009

Multiculturalism

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLORS Marc Rerceretnam, Lyall Kennedy and Patrick Kelso

 

 

RECONCILIATION ACTION PLAN

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM14/2009

 

 

The following information has been obtained from the Reconciliation Australia website, www.reconciliation.org.au.

 

Reconciliation Australia is an independent, not-for-profit organisation that was established in 2000 by the former Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. It is dedicated to closing the unacceptable 17 year life expectancy gap between indigenous and non-indigenous children. One of its key strategies in achieving that ambition is to support and encourage organisations to sign up to their own tailored Reconciliation Action Plans (RAPs).

 

A Reconciliation Action Plan is a tool to help organisations build positive relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous people. The RAP program was launched in July 2006 as a forward looking aspect of the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, the most successful in Australia's history, in which more than 90% of voters said "YES" to equality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander fellow citizens.

 

The RAP program turns "good intentions into action" by encouraging and supporting organisations, large and small, to engage within their sphere of influence in the national effort to close the 17-year life expectancy gap.

 

Reconciliation Australia has developed a RAP toolkit to assist organisations to develop their plan.

 

We Greens believe that the development of a RAP for Ashfield Council will formalise Council's commitment and contribution to the reconciliation process.

 

 

Officers Comments

 

Gerard Howard – Manager Community Services

 

Ashfield was originally home to the Wangal people and their ancestors. Some years ago Council contributed to the completion of an Indigenous Heritage Mural which depicted some of the ancient and modern history of Indigenous people in this part of Sydney. It is enlightening to read the story depicted in this artwork and become aware of little known facts regarding Aboriginal associations with the Ashfield area.

 

Place names such as Cadigal Reserve in Summer Hill and the Cooinda Room at Ashfield Civic Centre, have been symbolic ways in which Council has sought to recognize the original inhabitants of our local government area.

 

The establishment of a Reconciliation Action Plan would provide a framework for Council to identify strategies in which to build positive relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous residents of the Municipality. Interaction with new migrants who have settled in the Municipality suggests that they are keenly interested to learn more about the indigenous history of Australia. A Reconciliation Action Plan would identify practical steps for Council to implement in order to recognize local Indigenous history and affirm the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander residents of the Ashfield Municipality.

 

Other Councils to have adopted a Reconciliation Action Plan include Adelaide City, City of Melbourne, Moyne Shire Council and Warringah Council. Should Ashfield Council resolve to establish an Action Plan it is anticipated that the process of preparation and implementation can be driven by Council’s Local Indigenous, Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Committee (LIMEAC) with assistance from staff. Already one local Indigenous person has nominated to join LIMEAC. However for the formulation of a Reconciliation Action Plan, additional community representatives will be invited to assist the Committee and provide a structure for effective communication with local Indigenous residents.

 

Possible topics for a Reconciliation Action Plan include promotion of Aboriginal culture locally, consultation techniques, flying the Aboriginal flag on significant occasions, Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country protocols, equal employment opportunities at Council etc. Drafting of the Reconciliation Action Plan can occur during the 2009-10 financial year. Such a target could be incorporated into Council’s new integrated planning framework and adoption of the new Strategic Plan. It is anticipated the first Action Plan would cover a four year period of implementation.  Consideration of establishment of a Reconciliation Action Plan was also signalled in Council’s response to the Promoting Better Practice review conducted by Department of Local Government.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

1/3              That in order to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people achieve equality in all aspects of life - particularly closing the 17 year gap in life expectancy - Ashfield Council develop a Reconciliation Action Plan.

 

2/2              That the General Manager initiate discussions with Reconciliation Australia and establish a Reconciliation Action Plan Working Group.

 

3/3              That the General Manager report regularly to LIMEAC on the progress of the Reconciliation Action Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marc Rerceretnam

 

 

 

Lyall Kennedy

 

 

 

Patrick Kelso

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 April 2009

NM15/2009

Environmental Issues

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLORS Alex Lofts, Lucille McKenna, Jeanette Wang and Mark Drury

 

 

ASHFIELD GETS ENVIRONMENTALLY SMART ABOUT SAVING ELECTRICITY

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM15/2009

 

Smart Meters, or power consumption meters, come in various forms from hard-wired devices which need to be professionally installed, to simple hand held energy auditing tools. This motion refers to the latter type.

 

The portable models will enable residents to measure their household electricity consumption and the running costs of electrical appliances, including the difference in cost between turning off appliances at the power point or at the standby switch. The meters purchased should be able to provide hourly, quarterly and yearly measurements. Residents can therefore develop a better understanding of the individual power needs of various appliances and then make small changes that, on a quarterly or yearly basis, can accumulate to significant differences in power consumption.

 

When we consider that the average Australian household produces around 14 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, mostly due to household electrical appliances, the potential to develop environmental awareness through the use of smart meters is obvious.

 

Smart meters are available for a variety of prices. The motion deliberately does not nominate a particular model or number to be purchased to enable council officers to make purchases according to available budget, although a minimum of five meters is likely to be necessary to test the popularity of the service. The meters would also need the capacity to provide the measurements outlined above.

 

The library has been suggested as the lending agency because, similarly to e-books or other reading material, the technology already exists to monitor lending patterns and the popularity of the service. More smart meters could be purchased as demand increases. It also is a busy point of public contact to promote smart meters as part of general environmental awareness campaigns. Otherwise the Customer Service Counter, would also be appropriate.

 

With proper publicity this service could prove to be very popular helping council, even in a tough budget year, to keep environmental issues at the forefront.

 

Officers Comments

 

Janene Harris – Sustainability Team Leader

 

I have undertaken a quick internet search to price electricity usage metres as described in this Notice of Motion. There are a number of various meters available and the costs range from $30-$300. This Notice of Motion calls for a meter that provides hourly, quarterly and yearly electricity consumption measurements as well as the difference in consumption by appliances in the stand by modes. Meters that are able to provide all of these functions are toward the upper end of the price range approximately $300.

 

It is our best advice that Council consider purchasing one meter the use of which could be tested in house by Council staff to ensure we can provide a safe and easy to use meter to our residents prior to proceeding with the suggested lending option contained within this Notice of Motion.

 

Council's Sustainability Team as part of the Environmental Levy program is proposing to run a year long Eco Challenge for our residents which will include education and activities around energy saving and we believe that we are best placed to focus the education efforts of and the budget allocations for our team on this program.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

1/3           That Council purchase a number of ‘smart meters’, to be lent to the public through the Library or Customer Service desk. The lending period should be set at two weeks.

 

2/3           This will allow members of the community to determine their power usage as part of their household carbon footprint, thus enhancing the development of stronger environmental awareness.

 

3/3           That the lending program be publicised through the Council’s newsletter and the website, as appropriate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alex Lofts

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lucille McKenna

 

 

 

Jeanette Wang

 

 

 

Mark Drury

 

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 April 2009

NM16/2009

Economic Development

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLORS Marc Rerceretnam, Lyall Kennedy and Patrick Kelso

 

 

HELPING LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS DURING THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM16/2009

 

The Global Economic Crisis has affected all sectors of the economy. From small to large business enterprises, the loss of confidence in the financial system and the ramifications from poor policy decisions in some leading economic regions has had an affect on all.

 

In the Ashfield Council area, business confidence has plunged with many proprietors claiming a significant drop in profitability. In Summer Hill alone it is conservatively estimated at least 3 to 4 businesses are up for sale – one assumes because of economic hardship.

 

This motion is designed to assist local business in our various Town Centres through this difficult time. The Greens have always recognised the important role small business plays in our community. This is why the Greens introduced the on-going Revitalisation/Community Harmony program in the Ashfield Town Centre in 2005/6. In 2008 the Greens also introduced a motion seeking to enliven nightlife on the weekends with the introduction of live bands and street markets.

 

The Greens acknowledge some of the recent initiatives undertaken by Council to support local business including the inner west small business expo. We believe that Council should also look at other ways to support local businesses in these worsening economic times. Some issues that warrant consideration include:

 

a)   Working cooperatively with local restaurants on the footpath dining policy to allow sustainable outcomes for residents, local businesses and Council;

b)   Allow shopkeeper initiatives to help beautify the local area within limits of the DCP and OHS requirements e.g. planter boxes; and

c)   Allow outdoor music in central community areas, during pivotal business periods i.e. weekends.

 

Any implemented initiatives should be reviewed after twelve months.

 

Officers Comments

 

Duncan Gilchrist – Economic Development Officer

 

In many respects the Ashfield Council area is atypical of the effect being caused by the current global economic crisis. At a recent meeting of the Ashfield Business Chamber one of the members of the executive committee, a prominent Chinese born businessman operating in the Ashfield CBD, reported that businesses saw a slump of around ten percent just after Christmas 2009 but now it was back to what he referred to as “the expected trading level”. It was indicated that some businesses in Hercules Street were feeling the effects slightly more and the general opinion was the loss of parking recently with the closure of the public car parking facility in the Goodman building and the extra distance from the Ashfield mall parking are the main contributing factors.

 

In Haberfield, Ashfield, Summer Hill and to a much lesser extent Croydon there are many long serving businesses with well developed regular customer bases. These businesses have developed very strong local custom by filling niches in the market and providing very good service. This is evidenced by the success of the Shanghai style Chinese restaurants and the Asian grocery stores. They cater to a particular market and community which ensures a constant flow of custom. This is also evidenced in Haberfield with its specialty food shops and to a lesser extent some of the more established food outlets in Summer Hill.

 

In many respects businesses in the Ashfield LGA have inadvertently recession proofed themselves to a certain extent by providing low to mid-range priced products and services to a receptive customer base.

 

It is not surprising to note that a business in the mortgage loans and brokerage area was the first to close. Katies and Millers, two clothing chain entities, left the Ashfield Mall as part of the group’s overall restructuring. The clothing industry has been in turmoil on a number of fronts trying to compete with cheap imports and the current crisis is more of the straw that broke the camel’s back rather than the sole determining factor.

 

Specialty shops that deal in items where the purchasing decision may be deferred are suffering the most, for example, a leadlight business, kitchenware/furnishings suppliers and gifts/novelties.

 

In stark contrast and running contrary to the current “doom and gloom”, seven new businesses will open in the Ashfield LGA this month – large hairdressing salon in Liverpool Road, Chinese BBQ shop in Hercules Street, medical centre in the Ashfield Mall, relocation and upgrade of medical centre in Lackey Street, specialist coffee bean supplier in Lackey Street, revamped restaurant in Haberfield and a real estate franchise is looking for premises.

 

The EDO has read the Outdoor Dining and Footpath Trading Policy relevant to Ashfield Council and discussed the contents with businesses individually and collectively at business association meetings. Most of the outdoor activities being requested are non-complying. It is my experience that in order to successfully cater for outdoor dining and footpath trading there is a substantial cost to Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the footpath has to be wide enough to cater for the activities being requested and safe enough for patrons and public traffic. This is why the most successful examples take place is streets that have been closed off, have very wide footpaths and/or have had ‘blisters’ constructed specifically for this purpose. Ashfield Business Chamber has requested a workshop inviting all interested traders, Council officers and Councillors to spend a day thrashing out what is possible, where it can happen and how to make it happen. The outcomes would result in a review of the current policy.

 

The EDO investigated the possibility of night markets which included placing an expression of interest (EOI) in the Sydney Morning Herald. The EOI attracted some very large market providers and some traders only interested in having a stall or providing support infrastructure such as lighting and security. In all instances the operators indicated that night markets were not financially viable for private traders due in particular to the lack of suitable venue space and infrastructure. The operator of the Southbank Markets in Brisbane who was on the lookout for new opportunities indicated that the basic costs to be covered per market before there would be any return on investment would be at least $20,000.

 

One point that needs to be made with markets is that they are a specialist event with many of the people involved coming from out of the area. The result is a considerable amount of escape spending; that is, revenue that would normally go to locals leaving the area. The economic development perspective is not to provide entertainment per se but to increase the turnover in the local area.

 

 This year will see the Ashfield Business Chamber present the first Business Achiever Awards. This is a back to basis project that seeks to recognise and promote excellence among local businesses. The first event will be themed around recognising businesses that have been operating for twenty or more years. Despite the enormous contribution these businesses make to creating local jobs and supporting the economy, they are rarely if ever acknowledged.

 

The Ashfield Business Chamber at its 20 April meeting will also be tabling its plan to provide a bus, known as the Ashfield Explorer, which will operate on a continuous loop around Croydon, Ashfield, Haberfield and Summer Hill to increase the connectivity between the various CBDs and facilitate wider shopping opportunities for locals.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

1/6           That Ashfield Council request a report by Planning Officers, the Economic Development Officer, in conjunction with Council’s Community Services section, to examine ways Council can assist local businesses.

 

2/6           That points A to C in this motions preamble, be considered in this report.

 

3/6           That the report to come back to Council for determination within 6 weeks.

 

4/6           That any initiatives be implemented for a trial period of 12 months, and reassessed by a full sitting of Council at the end of this period.

 

5/6           That Ashfield Council consult associated peak Chamber of Commerce within the different Town Centres.

 

6/6           That the Mayor initiate discussion on this issue in his Mayoral column.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marc Rerceretnam

 

 

 

Lyall Kennedy

 

 

 

Patrick Kelso

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 April 2009

NM17/2009

Outdoor Advertising

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLOR Mark Drury

 

 

BILL POSTERS ARE NOT SO INNOCENT

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM17/2009

 

Ashfield Situation

 

Now that we have made significant progress on the removal of graffiti there is a need to formalise our practice into a policy and to extend the action to another great pollution blight in our suburb….Illegal commercial advertising; bill posters.  Currently the Ashfield Clean team removes posters but we need to do better and perhaps we can recoup some of the cost of doing so.

 

Bill posting as a form of commercial advertising on telegraph poles and on other surfaces is not acceptable to the Ashfield Community. 

This form of advertising is pollution.  It can be safely assumed that the companies that have them put up do not pay for them to be pulled down.  So they have the real potential to become street litter and washed down our drains, ending up in our waterways and the harbor.

 

Entertainment venues based outside of the council area in particular seem to use this form of advertising.

 

The NSW Protection of the Environment Operations (POEO) Act gives Council the power to take preventative action to stop posters from disintegrating and making their way into the storm water system. Specifically, s.96 of this legislation allows prevention notices to be issued on the basis of “reasonably suspecting that an activity has been or is being carried on in an environmentally unsatisfactory manner”.

 

In summary, commercial advertising in the form of bill posting can be considered an illegal form of pollution.  The POEO Act gives council the right to issue fines directly to the organization responsible for producing the poster.

 

Small community notices for lost dogs, school and church fetes, public notices and garage sale notices should not be covered by this policy because they seldom have the potential for the level of environmental damage caused by the larger and more systematically,  frequently installed commercial advertising posters.

 

The policy should not cover political candidate posters related to elections that are safely secured and are removed within seven days of an election.

 

City of Sydney approach

 

The process used by the City of Sydney is worthwhile considering replicating in Ashfield.

 

Their rangers established a database of bill posters which have caused, or have the potential to cause, environmental damage. 

 

They identified the businesses and premises associated with illegal advertising bill posters and took photos of the relevant posters. 

 

The City of Sydney wrote to these organizations asking them to provide an undertaking not to cause any commercial advertising posters or bills on surfaces where there is no explicit permission for them be displayed. 

 

They also informed the organisation that the council would commence enforcement action from 10 November 2008.

 

Then, if Rangers identify those responsible for installing posters (not necessarily the person who actually installed the poster) in an environmentally unsatisfactory manner, the following steps will be taken in appropriate cases to facilitate enforcement under the provisions of the POEO Act.

 

1.   The responsible party will be asked to provide a written undertaking not to place any bill posters other than on the approved poster pillars.

 

2.   Should an undertaking not be received, or further bill posting occurs, Rangers will take appropriate steps towards the issue a Prevention Notice under section 96 of the POEO Act. The Prevention Notice incurs a $320 administration fee payable by the recipient.

 

3.   If further bill posting occurs, once a prevention notice has been served, the person or company responsible will be fined for failing to comply with the notice. The on the-spot fine is $750 for individuals and $1500 for a corporation.

 

4.   The Council will also remove the offending posters and a cost compliance notice for this may be served on the offender.

 

 

Officers Comments

 

Maurice Morsanuto – Manager Regulatory Services

 

Discussions with the City of Sydney indicates that their programme has to date been a resounding success. This success appears to be as a direct result of the amount of preparation, resources and general effort that they undertook in the implementation of the project. This involved a two year preparation time that involved extensive recording of data, series of letters, photos and information gathering as well as the making available of "Poster Pillars" for free advertising. Their statistics indicated approximately 500,000 posters pa having been erected prior to the project at a cost of $3 million dollars to remove them. They have also advised that as of the time of preparation of these comments no prosecutions have been necessary.

 

Should Council wish to proceed with this Policy and any implementation it is suggested that a survey be conducted as to the number of potential posters and advertisers Council may be dealing with. The survey should if undertaken also be accompanied by an estimate of costs in regards to its implementation. This is especially important given Councils inability to recoup any costs if at all until the Policy is fully underway. Education of and communication with the individual venues is seen as a vital part in making any program a success by minimising the need for any prosecutions or penalties.

 

Council may also wish to invite adjoining Councils to consider working with Ashfield on this Policy. The advantages apart from greatly minimising potential costs would be that it would avoid bill posters from being pushed from one area to another until the resolve and resources of one or more Councils is lost.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

 

1/4              That Ashfield Council review the current practice of graffiti control and the operation of the clean team and codify a graffiti and commercial advertising bill poster policy.

 

2/4              That in the first instance a review be conducted by a team of council officers from each of the directorates.

 

3/4              That the review team also consider the approach to commercial advertising bills and posters taken by the Sydney City Council and any other approach that might be effective in Ashfield.

 

4/4              That a report be brought forward to a council committee meeting and that the Council provide notice to residents and AshBiz to advise them that they may address the committee about the draft policy, in order to assist council in determining an effective policy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Drury

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 April 2009

NM18/2009

Advertising

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLOR Lucille McKenna

 

 

MAYOR'S COLUMN IN LOCAL PRESS

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM18/2009

 

The Mayors Column is published in the Inner Western Courier each week, forming one section of Council’s paid page of notices.

 

The Mayors Column should reflect the view of the Council. The Mayor speaks for Council and it is expected that “his” column truly be the voice of Council.

 

Any item canvassed in the Mayor’s Column, paid by Council, using ratepayer’s money, must always be consistent with Council’s position.

 

There is no place for political or personal opinions in Council publications or in the media in Council paid space.

Anyone reading the column has the expectation that the Mayor’s article is the Council position.

 

Councillors are well aware of the various ways that they can express their opinion on issues both in the media and in debate at Council.

Once a position has been taken by Council, no contrary view should be canvassed in the Mayoral Column.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

Lauren McIver – Corporate Relations Officer

 

Following a request by the Mayor following the Mayoral Election in 2008, Council officers commenced the role of drafting copy for the “From the Office of the Mayor” column which appears in Council’s weekly news column in the “Inner West Courier”.  Generally this content reflects Council’s current issues and events, or media releases being distributed by the Corporate Relations department.  This content is sent to the Mayor for approval before its inclusion in the column.  On some occasions, the Mayor may choose to provide his own copy for inclusion in the column (as per 24 March 2009.)  The column includes the Mayor’s signature at the bottom to indicate his authorship of the content.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Inner Western Weekly Mayor's Column dated 24 March 2009

1 Page

 

Attachment 2View

Notion of Motion November 2007, 501/07

1 Page

 

 

 

 

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

1/3              That all comment in the Mayoral Column be consistent with the current policy of Council.

 

2/3              That any issue subject to a resolution of Council – that position as per the resolution should be reflected in the Mayor’s Column.

 

3/3              That any comment in any Council publication must reflect the position of Council.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lucille McKenna

 

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Inner Western Weekly Mayor's Column dated 24 March 2009

 

 


Attachment 2

 

Notion of Motion November 2007, 501/07

 

  


 

Ashfield Council

 

Ordinary Meeting

14 April 2009

 

 

10       Summary of  Staff Reports

 

10.1       DRAFT SECTION 94A CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN. Phil Sarin - Director  Planning and Environment. Report submitted with attachment 1.

(27/03/09)                                                                                   Section 94 Contributions

                                                       h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM140409SR_2.doc

                                                                                                               CM 10.1 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3        That the Council adopt the draft Section 94A Plan for public exhibition purposes.

 

2/3        That the draft plan be exhibited in accordance with Council policies and procedures for a 28 day period.

 

3/3        That a further report be prepared for the consideration of Council on the draft plan following the conclusion of the public exhibition period.

 

 

 

10.2       OUTDOOR DINING & FOOTPATH TRADING POLICY. Phil Sarin - Director  Planning and Environment. Report submitted with attachment 1.

(06/04/09)                                                                                                                  T01/53

                                                       h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM140409SR_6.doc

                                                                                                               CM 10.2 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council consult with all key stakeholders on the current Outdoor Dining and Footpath Trading policy and a report be prepared for the further consideration of the Council on the outcome of the consultation process.

 

 

 

10.3       FURTHER INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY PROJECTS 09/10. Janene Harris - Team Leader Sustainability. Report submitted with attachment 1.

(07/04/09)                                                                                 Environmental Committee

                                                       h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM140409SR_7.doc

                                                                                                               CM 10.3 Attached

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse the Environmental Levy Projects and budget allocations as described in table 1 of this report.

 

 

 

10.4       SECURITY PROCEDURES FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS. Ken Gainger - General Manager. Report submitted.

(30/03/09)                                                                   Council Meetings & Arrangements

                                                       h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM140409SR_3.doc

                                                                                                               CM 10.4 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be noted and that no action be taken at this point to upgrade or change existing security arrangements for Council meetings.

 

 

 

10.5       ASHFIELD COMPANION ANIMALS MANAGEMENT PLAN. Ken McKew - Team Leader Environmental Health. Report submitted with attachment 1.

(30/03/09)                                                                           Companion Animals Register

                                                       h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM140409SR_4.doc

                                                                                                               CM 10.5 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopts the Companion Animals Management Plan 2009.

 

 

 

10.6       STANDARD DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CONDITION TO SPECIFY GUTTERING TYPE. Michael Kountourogianis - Team Leader Construction Assessment. Report submitted.

(30/03/09)                                                                                 Building Code of Australia

                                                       h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM140409SR_5.doc

                                                                                                               CM 10.6 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse new condition E114a Guttering Requirements – BCA for all development consents for building work requiring the installation of guttering and/or down pipes.

 

 

 

10.7       POLICY ON AD-HOC REQUESTS TO COUNCIL FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. Gerard Howard - Manager Community Services. Report submitted.

(08/04/09)                                            Financial Management, Donations from Council

                                                       h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM140409SR_8.doc

                                                                                                               CM 10.7 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the procedures outlined in this report when determining ‘sundry’ requests for financial assistance from organisations and individuals.

  

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 April 2009

CM10.1

Subject                            DRAFT SECTION 94A CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN

 

File Name                        Section 94 Contributions

 

Prepared by                   Phil Sarin - Director  Planning and Environment       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         For Council to adopt the draft plan for public exhibition purposes

 

Strategic Plan Link       N/A

 

Management Plan         2.11 Development & Building Control, Strategic Planning

Activity

 

 


Overview of Report

A draft Section 94A plan (soon to be Section 116 Indirect) was completed by Council’s consultant in August of last year (refer to Attachment 1). The draft plan has not progressed further at this time as not all components of the new planning reform legislation passed by the NSW parliament in June 2008 have been proclaimed by the Minister (particularly those pertaining to Section 94 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act).

 

As this delay is now becoming protracted it is recommended that the Council proceed to exhibit the draft plan under the current E P & A Act provisions and review the plan at a later date when the new legislation is proclaimed.

 

In December last year a workshop was held to discuss the draft plan. Concern was expressed at the requirement for an applicant to submit a quantity surveyor’s report with their DA which details the estimated cost of works. While it is acknowledged that this will be a cost to the applicant it is essential that this figure is accurate to establish the correct levy amount

 

 

Background

 

The following information provides a summary of the process followed in relation to the preparation of the current draft Section 94A Plan.

 

In May 2005 the State government passed legislation which varied the way in which developer contributions (known as Section 94 contributions) could be collected and used. The changes offered two additional ways for contributions to be obtained:

 

§ Voluntary planning agreements

§ Fixed development consent levies (Section 94A)

 

In July 2006 the Council resolved that a project brief be prepared for a comprehensive review of the current Section 94 Plans and that this be discussed through a working party. A project brief was adopted by the Council in October 2006. Expressions of interest were called for and in December 2006 consultants Connell Wagner were appointed to undertake the review.

 

In February 2007 the Council resolved that a report be prepared on the pros and cons of introducing a ‘fixed levy’ plan under Section 94A. A report was subsequently prepared and in March 2007 it was resolved that a Section 94A plan be prepared and that its application be restricted to commercial and residential development above $100k in value. The plan was also to be reviewed 12 months after its implementation.

 

In July 2007 Council’s consultants prepared an issues paper which examined Council’s current S94 plans and made recommendations on a preferred approach to developer contributions (essentially going down the path of a Section 94A plan to replace the existing plans).

 

Council considered an update report on the Section 94 review in September 2007 and resolved as follows:

 

§ A S94A plan be prepared for the whole Municipality for all forms of development not covered by Council’s current S94 plans

§ To retain its current S94 plans

§ To review its current S94 plans once the DOP has finalised its new guidelines for developer contribution plans

 

Since this resolution was passed Council’s consultant has continued work on the Section 94A plan but work was halted as a result of the new planning reform agenda the State government began consulting on in late 2007. The reform agenda resulted in the introduction of a new bill in early 2008 and the passing of amendments to the EP & A Act in June. The new legislation covers a broad range of new initiatives including a revamp of Section 94 and the requirement for all Councils to review their current developer contribution plans within specific time periods and using new guidelines to be prepared by the State government.

 

Draft Section 94A Plan

 

The draft Section 94A Plan has been prepared based on the new Act provisions passed by the parliament in June 2008 and could be readily adapted to the new Act provisions at a later date (Section 116).

 

It is structured in three parts – Part A (Summary of Schedules), Part B (Expected development and demand for public facilities) and Part C (Administration and operation of the plan). A number of appendices contain the full works schedule and maps which show the location of the proposed works.

 

The total value of works detailed in the plan is just over $37 million and as agreed by the previous Council the levy will not be applied to works less than $100,000 in value or for multi dwelling housing (e.g. flats, units, the housing component of mixed development, etc – this will still be covered by the Council’s existing Section 94 Plan which will be reviewed at a later date).

 

Other levy exceptions include works involving the provision of disabled access and adaptive reuse of an item of environmental heritage.

 

Applicants will be required to submit a cost summary report certified by a registered quantity surveyor (two versions will apply – for works less than and more than $500,000 in value). The levy calculations will be based on the value of the works certified by the surveyor i.e.  0.5% for development between $100,001 and $200,000 in value and 1.0% for development over $200,000 in value.

 

Works Schedule

 

The works schedule which identifies various projects from Council’s current programs was put together in consultation with Council staff across all areas of the organisation. Many of the projects are based in the Works and Infrastructure Directorate. Each has been assigned a high, medium or low priority.

 

Section 94 Changes

 

In January this year the Department of Planning (DOP) issued a Ministerial direction to restrict the maximum contribution that could be applied under Section 94 for new dwellings or residential lots to $20,000 in total. This will come into effect after 30 April 2009.

 

Many growth area Councils (outer Sydney) and others have lodged objections to the Minister about this restriction as their Section 94 Plans currently allow their councils to levy for contributions well in excess of this amount. Ashfield’s current contribution rate for new dwellings and residential lots is well below the new threshold figure ($9070 for new lots and detached dwellings and $6385 for new flats/apartments).

 

Financial Implications

 

The new plan will provide additional funds to assist the Council in the provision of new community infrastructure.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

Comments from other Council staff were sought in the preparation of the plan.

 

Public Consultation

 

This will be sought through the exhibition of the plan.

 

Conclusion

 

The draft Section 94A Plan has been prepared in accordance with Council’s requirements and will assist the Council in delivering vital infrastructure to the whole community.

 

Given the uncertainty over the timing of the State government’s planning reform agenda program it is recommended that the Council proceed with the draft plan under the current legislation and exhibit the document for public comment.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Draft Section 94A Plan

23 Pages

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3              That the Council adopt the draft Section 94A Plan for public exhibition purposes.

 

2/3              That the draft plan be exhibited in accordance with Council policies and procedures for a 28 day period.

 

3/3              That a further report be prepared for the consideration of Council on the draft plan following the conclusion of the public exhibition period.

 

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Draft Section 94A Plan

 























 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 April 2009

CM10.2

Subject                            OUTDOOR DINING & FOOTPATH TRADING POLICY

 

File Name                        T01/53

 

Prepared by                   Phil Sarin - Director  Planning and Environment       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council resolution

 

Objective                         For Council to review the Outdoor Dining & Footpath Trading Policy

 

Strategic Plan Link       Not applicable

 

Management Plan         2.11 Development & Building Control, Strategic Planning

Activity

 

 


Overview of Report

This report provides an update on the current status of Council’s Outdoor Dining & Footpath Trading Policy which has been the subject of ongoing discussion in recent months and has been amended on several occasions since its introduction in 2003.

 

It is perhaps timely that the newly elected Council consider the current policy and perhaps look at ways in which it could be improved and amended.

 

 

Background

 

The Council introduced an Outdoor Dining and Footpath Trading policy in response to the growing interest in outdoor dining in Ashfield at the time and to bring some order to the ‘ad hoc’ approach traders were taking in how and where tables, chairs and other goods were displayed on the footpath.

 

The following provides a short summary of the evolution of the policy since its introduction.

 

Original Policy

 

All outdoor dining and footpath trading was to be located kerbside (i.e. away from the shopfront to allow a consistent unrestricted pedestrian path of travel) and solely within the confines of the width of the shopfront.

 

First Amendment

 

Outdoor dining was retained exclusively on the kerbside but footpath trading was allowed against the shopfront with restrictions on the extent of the protrusion into the footpath area. In addition, outdoor dining was allowed to extend beyond the width of the principal shopfront to adjacent premises provided the owner and occupier of the adjacent premises gave written consent.

 

Second Amendment

 

In response to requests from traders to consider outdoor dining against shopfronts the Council agreed to further review the policy.

 

Following a workshop held in December 2007 further amendments were put forward which recommended that outdoor dining be allowed both against the shopfront and kerbside. In addition, a further change required ashtrays on tables to be ‘secured’ to prevent their accidental displacement or removal from tables.

 

When the revised policy was presented to Council for endorsement the provision relating to outdoor dining being allowed against shopfronts was deleted (essentially preserving the status quo).

 

Current Policy

 

Key Features

 

Approvals – a development approval is required for outdoor dining and/or footpath trading. In addition, a licence is required and an annual payment based on the area of the footpath being leased - current fee is $135 per m2.

 

Road Classification  - RTA consent is required if the outdoor dining area is on a classified road, e.g. Ramsay St, Liverpool Rd, Parramatta Rd, etc.

 

Footpath Width Must be a minimum of 3.6 metres from property boundary to kerb otherwise outdoor dining or footpath trading is not allowed. This means that areas such as Smith Street in Summer Hill are not suitable i.e. footpath width is too narrow. Note this width is the ‘bare minimum’ and really doesn’t allow much give and take in the placement of tables and chairs on the footpath.

 

Pedestrian Clearance – a minimum 1.8 metre clearance is required between a leased area and a shopfront or kerb line.

 

Footpath Trading – if against the shopfront must not protrude more than 0.6 metres onto the footpath area from the shopfront.

 

Further more detailed provisions are included in the policy (refer to Attachment 1).

 

Possible Amendments

 

In my view the policy is basically sound and could be enhanced by a few minor changes to assist Council officers in the ongoing task of monitoring compliance with approvals granted by the Council.

 

This could include a requirement for the approved license plan to be displayed in a window of the premises at all times – this would include details of the leased area and number of tables and chairs that are the subject of the approval (at present the operator is required to have approval documents available for perusal in the premises).

 

Another option the Council may wish to pursue is creating a ‘streetscape display’ provision in the policy whereby a trader could display an item on the footpath in front of the premises that is linked to the business (in terms of the nature of the business) or an item(s) aimed at enhancing the front of the premises (i.e. planter boxes, etc). These items are not strictly ‘footpath trading’ i.e. goods for sale, but displays aimed at drawing attention to the passerby or an attempt to enhance the shopfront appearance. Council may be willing to waive specific fees for such items and the policy could be more flexible in allowing such items to be displayed in areas where footpaths are narrower than those where outdoor dining and footpath trading is allowed. 

 

Enforcement

 

In the past the Council has granted ‘relief’ to traders to lodge development applications and obtain the necessary license, etc within a reasonable timeframe before commencing enforcement action. What has been disappointing, however, is the inconsistent message the Council has been sending to the business community when it receives complaints from traders about fines that have been issued, particularly as the enforcement action is aimed at ensuring the policy is applied fairly and consistently.

 

In recent months Council enforcement officers have gone to some lengths to issue warnings to traders that are not complying with the policy that fines will eventually be issued if the breaches continue. This approach is generally not acknowledged by the trader when complaining to a Councillor about a fine.

 

The message here is that there needs to be a consistent approach to the enforcement of Council’s policy otherwise traders will continue to either ignore the policy and we will go back to a situation where ‘anything goes’.

 

 

Financial Implications

 

Nil

 

 

Other Staff Comments

 

Not sought.

 

 

Public Consultation

 

It is recommended that all key stakeholders be consulted about potential changes to the current policy (traders, local chambers of commerce, residents, access committee, etc) and that a report be brought back to Council for further consideration. The consultation could be in the form of ‘workshops’ with local area groups – Ashfield, Haberfield, Summer Hill, Croydon, etc) and involve Council’s Economic Development Officer, Duncan Gilchrist and other Council officers.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The recommendation to further consult the community on the current policy will provide additional feedback for the Council in its review and assist in preparing new initiatives and possible amendments.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Current Outdoor Dining & Footpath Trading Policy

19 Pages

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council consult with all key stakeholders on the current Outdoor Dining and Footpath Trading policy and a report be prepared for the further consideration of the Council on the outcome of the consultation process.

 

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Current Outdoor Dining & Footpath Trading Policy

 



















 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 April 2009

CM10.3

Subject                            FURTHER INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY PROJECTS 09/10

 

File Name                        Environmental Committee

 

Prepared by                   Janene Harris - Team Leader Sustainability       

 

 

Reasons                          To provide further information to Council on report on the Environmental Levy for the 2009/10 financial year

 

Objective                         To seek endorsement of the 2009/10 Environmental Levy Projects

 

Strategic Plan Link       ONE 1.3

 

Management Plan         N/A

Activity

 

 


Overview of Report

 

This report provides further information as request by Council regarding the Environmental Levy and the potential to allocate funds from the Levy to the Ashfield Aquatic Centre.

 

 

Background

 

Council at its Ordinary Meeting 24 March 2009 considered a report on the Environmental Levy Projects proposed for 2009/10.  Council resolved in minute number 113/09:

 

1/2             That the environmental levy funding for 2009/10 be deferred for further information

 

2/2             That consideration be given to allocating at least 25% of the environmental levy for 2009/10 and future years, to fund the Aquatic Centre water quality repairs and maintenance projects.

 

This report provides further information as requested in the above resolution for consideration by Council prior to the approval of the 2009/10 Environmental Levy Projects.

 

Special Rate Variation

 

In 2006/07 Council implemented a special rate variation in order to fund various projects and programs in the LGA. Part of this special rate variation was the environmental levy.

The original intention of the Environmental Levy was to fund projects in line with Councils ESD Policy. When the application for the rate variation was submitted to the Department of Local Government the main areas for funding through the Environment Levy were identified as:

·          Environmental Education & Awareness programs for the community, school groups, local business and Council staff;

·          Water conservation projects;

·          Energy conservation projects;

·          Street Trees; and

·          Cycle way projects.

 

The Environmental Levy was granted as part of the Special Rate Variation and each year the levy funds approximately $140,000 worth of environmental programs.  Environmental Levy funds are also used to leverage further grant funding for our environmental projects.

 

Another part of the original special rate variation was set aside to fund improvements to the Ashfield Aquatic Centre.  For the 2009/10 financial year the amount allocated from the special rate variation to the Aquatic Centre is $150,000.

 

Water Conservation Projects at the Pool

 

Water conservation activities were identified as a main area of focus for the Environmental Levy and through Councils participation in the Sydney Water Every Drop Counts Program, we were offered the opportunity to have a detailed energy and water audit conducted of the Ashfield Aquatic Centre. An audit funded by Sydney Water of the Aquatic Centre was carried out in 2008 by National Project Consultants (NPC) Pty Ltd.  Following the audit NPC recommended a number of cost effective water conservation initiatives that could be undertaken at the Centre.  These initiatives included:

·          Installing flow regulation devices on taps

·          Installing high efficiency, low flow and vandal resistant shower heads

·          Installing flow regulation devices to taps within the kitchen sinks in the community and staff rooms.

 

These initiatives have been included within works proposed for completion in 2008/09 financial year funded through a Community Water Grant and in part the Environmental Levy to upgrade amenities in parks and public facilities.

 

Other water conservation measures such as harvesting rainwater were considered for the Aquatic Centre but due to the lack of space to house sufficiently sized rainwater tanks, the lack of roof space to collect rainwater to fill tanks and the cost of treating any water for use within the pool or connecting tanks to other uses (i.e. toilets) has meant that at this stage it is not possible nor cost effective to harvest rainwater on site.

 

Leak reduction is a general maintenance issue and whilst repairing leaks can create significant water savings they are not generally considered as water conservation initiatives, as they should be carried out as part of maintenance programs.  In addition the leak reduction repairs required at the pool have been estimated to cost more than the entire yearly allocation of the Environmental Levy funds.

 

Impact of allocating 25% of Environmental Levy to the Aquatic Centre

 

The Environmental Levy Projects and budget allocations for 2009/10 proposed as reported to Council on 24 March 2009 are included in Table 1.

 

Project

Budget Allocation

Street Trees

$30,600

Water Efficiency Programs

$16,500

Environmental Workshops

$11,000

School Environmental Education

$7,000

Energy Efficiency & Climate Change Initiatives

$41,049

Community Eco challenge

$25,000

Community Garden

$15,000

Total 2009/10

$146,149

 

Table 1: Environmental Levy Projects & Budget allocations proposed for 2009/10.

 

As mentioned above the Environmental Levy raises approximately $140,000 per year to implement environmental and sustainability initiatives, through the same special rate variation that the Environmental Levy originated from, an allocation of $150,000 has been made to the Ashfield Aquatic Centre for the 2009/10 financial year.

 

The Council has requested information on allocating a further 25% of the Environmental Levy to the Aquatic Centre.  This extra allocation would amount to approximately $35,000 being redirected from the Environmental Levy to the Aquatic Centre.

 

A redirection of this amount ($35,000) would have significant impact on the delivery of the Environmental Levy projects put forward for the 2009/10 financial year and would continue to impact on the delivery of future Levy projects if the amount was to be reallocated to the Aquatic Centre on a yearly basis.  If Council were to proceed with a redirection as suggested above then one of the larger projects or several of the smaller programs proposed for the Environmental Levy would have to be removed from the proposed program altogether.  An allocation of $35,000 to the pool would be insufficient funding to carry out any of the maintenance or improvements required and it would not necessarily bring forward any of the proposed works.

 

Financial Implications

 

As described above

 

Other Staff Comments

 

N/A

 

Public Consultation

 

N/A

 

Conclusion

 

Due consideration has been given to the potential impact of redirecting 25% of the Environmental Levy to fund water quality repairs and maintenance projects at the Ashfield Aquatic Centre.  A redirection of this kind would significantly impact on Council’s ability to deliver on the Environmental Levy Projects as scheduled for the 2009/10 financial year and in turn would not enable any of the required works for the Aquatic Centre to be brought forward. 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Environmental Levy – Projects 09/10 Report to Council 24 March 2009.

9 Pages

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse the Environmental Levy Projects and budget allocations as described in table 1 of this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Environmental Levy – Projects 09/10 Report to Council 24 March 2009.

 









 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 April 2009

CM10.4

Subject                            SECURITY PROCEDURES FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS

 

File Name                        Council Meetings & Arrangements

 

Prepared by                   Ken Gainger - General Manager       

 

 

Reasons                          Resolution of the Council

 

Objective                         Determination by the Council

 

Strategic Plan Link       N/A

 

Management Plan         N/A

Activity

 

 


Overview of Report

On 12 August 2008 the Council resolved that Ashfield Council review and report on the security practices and protocols of other councils in relation to Council meetings held in the Council Chambers. This report seeks to summarise the findings of the review.

 

 

Background

 

In the lead up to the last local government elections held in September 2008 there were many animated debates in the Council Chamber and significant public participation in the Council decision-making processes including busy public access sessions at Council meetings. It is fair to say that feedback from councillors at the time indicated that during this period some felt a little intimidated by some of the “active” community participation at meetings.

 

In this context staff were asked, by resolution of the Council, to review security practices at other councils and to report back to the Council.

 

What are other Councils doing?

 

Over the past few months I have informally asked the General Managers of other SSROC councils how they address security issues in their respective Council Chambers with respect to meetings where the general public has access. The consistent response from the General Managers is encapsulated in the following:

 

·        Most take a low key approach to security on the basis that they do not wish to be seen to be stifling democratic participation in meetings;

·        Mayors are encouraged to call short adjournments to meetings where there is any disruption either by the public or councillors to allow things to “cool down”;

·        Where it is anticipated that there may be an “active” gallery at a Council meeting in response to an emotive issue some councils take the precaution of either (a) having a uniformed Community Enforcement Officer in attendance; and/or (b) seeking police monitoring of the meeting.

 

How should Ashfield Council respond?

 

During my time with the Council I have witnessed many rigorous debates in the Council Chambers and many passionate community members advocating on issues, but I have not seen behaviour that has been threatening or physically intimidating. In short, what we have at Ashfield Council is a vigorous and active local democracy, and a community which is actively participating in the decision-making processes of the Council.

 

While at times this might become a little uncomfortable for some, in my view it is a healthy situation and ought not be stifled by an overbearing response to perceived security issues. At Ashfield Council we deal with security matters in a manner similar to that applied at most other councils and, in my opinion, this has been and will continue to be adequate for our needs.

 

Financial Implications

 

Nil

 

Other Staff Comments

 

Not required.

 

Public Consultation

 

Not required.

 

Conclusion

 

As Council’s security measures mirror those applied at many other councils and appear to be meeting our needs, it is proposed that no action be taken at this point on upgrading or changing security arrangements for Council meetings.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be noted and that no action be taken at this point to upgrade or change existing security arrangements for Council meetings.

 

 

 

 

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 April 2009

CM10.5

Subject                            ASHFIELD COMPANION ANIMALS MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

File Name                        Companion Animals Register

 

Prepared by                   Ken McKew - Team Leader Environmental Health       

 

 

Reasons                          Plan requires Council endorsement.

 

Objective                         To comply with the requirements of the Companion Animals Regulation 1999 and the Department of Local Government for Council to have a Companion Animals Management Plan

 

Strategic Plan Link       N/A

 

Management Plan         2.13 – Environmental Health Services

Activity

 

 


Overview of Report

A plan for the management of companion animals in the Ashfield LGA which will comply with the requirements of the Companion Animals Regulation 1999 and the Department of Local Government.

 

 

Background

 

Ashfield Council was assessed under the Promoting Better Practice program by the Department of Local Government (DLG) Internal audit bureau assessor in February 2008.

 

The DLG provided a confidential draft review report of the Audit which was considered by Council in July 2008.  Council noted that a majority of the recommendations of the audit were being actioned or had been completed.

 

The Assessor reported that the adoption of a Companion Animals Management Plan (CAMP) is recognised as good practice.  Council provides a whole range of community education programs for companion animals but does not currently have a CAMP to comply with the Companion Animals Regulation 1999.

 

Accordingly a Companion Animals Management Plan has been prepared for Council’s consideration and approval.

 

Financial Implications

 

N/A

 

Other Staff Comments

 

N/A

 

Public Consultation

 

N/A

 

Conclusion

 

The Companion Animals Management Plan satisfies the Department of Local Government requirements as well as providing for good practice in assisting residents in the management of companion animals.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Companion Animals Management Plan

13 Pages

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopts the Companion Animals Management Plan 2009.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Companion Animals Management Plan

 













 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 April 2009

CM10.6

Subject                            STANDARD DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CONDITION TO SPECIFY GUTTERING TYPE

 

File Name                        Building Code of Australia

 

Prepared by                   Michael Kountourogianis - Team Leader Construction Assessment       

 

 

Reasons                          Requested by Council.

 

Objective                         For Council consideration

 

Strategic Plan Link       N/A

 

Management Plan         2.11       Development & Building Control, Strategic Planning

Activity

 

 


Overview of Report

The report outlines a new standard Condition for development consents to specify guttering in accordance with BCA and AS/NZ Standards.

 

 

Background

 

Council at its meeting of the 10 March 2009 resolved to amend the standard conditions of consent to explicitly ensure that all new approvals for building works involving new or replacement guttering comply with the Building Code of Australia.

 

The proposed new condition is as follows:

 

E114a   Guttering Requirements - BCA

 

The roof shall be provided with a guttering system in accordance with the provisions of Part 3.5.2 “Gutters and Downpipes” of the BCA and AS/NZS3500.5 – 2000. 

 

We advise that the Dept of Planning has advised in circular BS 08-001 that the use of high-front guttering has been associated with water penetration into the building and non compliance with the standard.

 

On completion of the works, a qualified plumber shall furnish the Principal Certifying Authority a certificate certifying that the guttering system complies with Part 3.5.2 of the BCA and AS/NZS3500.5 – 2000. 

 

Financial Implications

 

N/A

 

Other Staff Comments

 

N/A

 

Public Consultation

 

N/A

 

Conclusion

 

The new condition will be applied to all development consents where building work requiring guttering and/or down pipes is proposed.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse new condition E114a Guttering Requirements – BCA for all development consents for building work requiring the installation of guttering and/or down pipes.

 

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 April 2009

CM10.7

Subject                            POLICY ON AD-HOC REQUESTS TO COUNCIL FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

 

File Name                        Financial Management, Donations from Council

 

Prepared by                   Gerard Howard - Manager Community Services       

 

 

Reasons                          Council request for a report

 

Objective                         To present a draft policy which will guide Council in the assessment of ‘Ad-hoc’ requests for financial assistance

 

Strategic Plan Link       Our Community Well-being

 

Management Plan         Our Community Well-being

Activity

 

 


Overview of Report

Requests are regularly received by Council for financial assistance from individuals and groups. Council requires guidelines on how these requests can be assessed and determined expediently. Although there already exists an annual program of community grants, it is nevertheless necessary to have a separate procedure for dealing with ‘ad-hoc’ requests for financial assistance.

 

 

Background

 

At its meeting of 9 December 2008 Council considered a Notice of Motion concerning “Assist Pacific Calling Partnership”. One of the recommendations adopted as a result of the Notice of Motion was:

 

That a report be brought back to the Community Services Committee, with a policy on adhoc donations by Council.

 

The Annual Community Grants program is the main source of financial assistance provided to not-for-profit community groups. The grants aim to respond to some of the major community needs facing the Municipality. This financial year Council made available $ 39,848 under this program.

 

However Council requires a framework for assessing requests for assistance which fall outside of Council’s Annual Community Grants program. The General Manager, the Mayor and/or Councillors will occasionally receive requests from community organisations & individuals seeking to pursue an opportunity which was not anticipated at the time of their own planning process. For example, recently Council has received funding requests and/or provided assistance to :

 

·    KU Croydon Pre School

·    Australian Paralympic Committee

·    Bridge for Asylum Seekers Foundation

·    The Children’s Hospital at Westmead.

·    Australia Day Botany Bay Regatta Committee

·    Assist Pacific Calling Partnership

 

Occasionally Council may also receive a request from an individual who is chosen to represent State or National teams in competitions inter-state. In these cases the individual may have received short notice of their selection. Such requests to Council require a timely response and one which will ensure equity in the assessment process.

 

For the purposes of this report these will be known as Sundry Grants. Council will consider requests for financial assistance, when the applicant is either not eligible for other grant programs or where it is demonstrated that an application could not be lodged when other grants programs were available.

 

It should be noted that apart from a Council grant, individuals and groups may also be eligible to apply for a grant under the Ashfield CDSE program which administers funds made available through local registered clubs. A Sundry Grant will also only be considered where the applicant is either not eligible for CDSE or it is demonstrated that an application could not be lodged when the CDSE was available.

 

Eligibility for assessment of a Sundry Grant

 

Council can consider applications for financial assistance from individuals and groups/organizations in the following categories apply:

 

a)   Individual residents living in the Ashfield Council area. Residents must provide proof of residency with their application.

 

b)   Locally based groups, teams and organisations, requiring assistance for projects and activities for the benefit of residents of Ashfield Municipality. Such organisations must be located in the Municipality of Ashfield or provide benefits for a significant proportion of the residents; and established as not-for-profit, community based and/or charitable organisations (ie not commercial or profit-driven entities, including registered clubs).

 

c)   Other group and organizations requiring assistance for humanitarian or community concerns consistent with Council’s social and/or other policies.

 

Preference for funding will generally be given to groups/organizations with limited sources of funding or fund-raising. In cases where individuals and teams apply for assistance they should provide support documentation from their club or association and peak body.

 

Council will not consider applications for a Sundry Grant if financial assistance has been approved in other categories of Council grant funding eg the Annual Community Grants program.

 

 

 

Nature of proposal

 

Council may consider applications or proposals involving financial assistance of the following nature:

 

·    An initiative which strengthens formal and informal support networks, reduces isolation and increases community participation and opportunities especially for people with the greatest need.

·    A special event servicing the local community, which is not provided for in Council’s events programs.

·    Establishment of new service where no other source of funding exists

·    State or national representation in chosen field, including academic, cultural, artistic & sporting endeavours, where people require financial assistance to attend or compete.

·    A team or individual from a disadvantaged background in pursuit of a unique cultural, academic or sporting experience and which will produce considerable social capital for those involved.

·    Requests for use of Council facilities, which involve either waiving of charges or reduction of fees and charges at a level below the scheduled amounts in Council’s Annual Management Plan Fees and Charges.

·    Donations towards humanitarian or community concerns consistent with Council’s social and/or other policies.

 

Not Eligible

 

Applications for a Sundry Grant will not be considered in cases where they:

 

·    Are eligible to apply for a Ashfield Council Community Grant or have already been granted assistance from another Council assistance program.

·    Will gain a personal financial benefit from the grant

 

How will requests be assessed?

 

All requested for financial assistance received by Councillors and staff will be referred to Director Corporate and Community Services. An assessment of the application will be undertaken by Community Services against the assessment criteria outlined in this report.

 

It is proposed that the requests be considered by Council at regular intervals throughout the year, during Council’s quarterly budget review process. Leading up to quarterly budget reviews, Council’s Community Services Manager will prepare a summary report, with recommendations, on all requests received during the previous quarter. Council will then make a recommendation on the requests after receiving this report.

 

Where there is a specific and unavoidable time constraint, interim reports will be prepared by Community Services for Council. Council’s determination with respect to such applications will be included in the quarterly report.

 

Approved financial assistance should be on the basis that the recipient organisation or individual will provide evidence to Council that funds have been expended for the purpose the funds were approved. Any variation to stated objectives needs to gain approval from Council.

 

Successful recipients should also be required to acknowledge Council’s contribution in any publications or publicity material associated with funded activities.

 

Financial Implications

 

This new policy and procedure will allow Council to better assess and track unforseen requests for financial assistance. Funds for sundry donations will be sourced from the existing Councillors’ Donations vote, funded at $15,000.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

Nil

 

 

Public Consultation

 

N/A

 

Conclusion

 

This report has sought to define the criteria on which Council will determine sundry requests for financial assistance. Whether or not Council provides assistance and the level of assistance provided needs to be considered in the context of the broader annual and open process for requesting financial assistance from Council that is the Annual Grant Programs.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no attachments for this report

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the procedures outlined in this report when determining ‘sundry’ requests for financial assistance from organisations and individuals.