VC: GR

 

5 May 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Councillor/Sir/Madam

 

You are invited to attend an ORDINARY MEETING of Ashfield Council, to be held at the Haberfield Library, 78 Dalhousie Street, Haberfield, on TUESDAY  10 MAY 2011 at 6:30 PM.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

VANESSA CHAN

General Manager

 

 

 

 

SEE ATTACHED AGENDA


 

Ordinary Meeting - 10 May 2011

 

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.

(10/05/2011)

 

7.                      Confirmation of Minutes of Council/Committees

 

Ordinary Meeting - 12/04/2011

Civic Centre Redevelopment Steering Committee – 19/04/2011

Ashfield Youth Committee – 18/04/2011

Ashfield Youth Committee – 04/04/2011

Aboriginal Consultative Committee – 16/03/2011

 

8.                      Mayoral Minutes

 

MM11/2011  SHOPPING TROLLEY WORKING PARTY

 

MM12/2011  A LOCAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLE

 

9.                      Notices of Motion

 

NM5/2011     SUMMER HILL FLOUR MILL AND OLD CANTERBURY ROAD "LEWISHAM ESTATE" PROPOSALS

 

              Presentation

 

              URBIS – UTS ROWING CLUB, HABERFIELD

10.                  Staff Reports

 

10.1     DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN & BUDGET 2011-2015 AND DRAFT FEES AND CHARGES FOR 2011/12

 

10.2     AQUA AEROBICS CONTRACT

 

10.3     CAPITAL WORKS AMENDMENT TO THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2010-14

 

10.4     PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ASHFIELD DCP 2007 - PART C02 (ADVERTISEMENTS AND ADVERTISING STRUCTURES)

 

11.                  General Business

 

 

 

12.                  Reports with Confidential information

 

Reports appearing in this section of the Business Paper are confidential in their entirety or contain confidential information in attachments

 

The confidential information has been circulated to Councillors separately

 

 

13.                  Close

 

 

 


document5

Ashfield Council

 

Ordinary Meeting

10 May 2011

 

 

8         Summary of  Mayoral Minutes

 

8.1         SHOPPING TROLLEY WORKING PARTY. Edward Cassidy - Mayor. Report submitted.

(18/04/11)                                                                                  Council - Working Parties

                                                    h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM100511MM_11.doc

                                                                                                         MM11/2011 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council re convene the Shopping Trolley Working Party as an avenue for further discussion.

 

 

 

8.2         A LOCAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLE. Edward Cassidy - Mayor. Report submitted.

(28/04/11)                                                                                                                  CCRD

                                                    h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM100511MM_12.doc

                                                                                                         MM12/2011 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the community rooms within the new Ashfield Civic Centre be named after nominated current members of Council’s Aboriginal Consultative Committee who have Aboriginal heritage.

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 10 May 2011

MM11/2011

Council - Working Parties

MAYORAL MINUTE

 

SHOPPING TROLLEY WORKING PARTY

       

 

The issue of shopping trolleys has been adequately addressed by Council officers as follows:

 

An examination of the procedure with Coles has confirmed that they have not changed their practices in regards to existing 240 L trolleys. They have installed coin deposit mechanisms to their new smaller 70 L trolleys. Officers have been informally advised that the higher rate of theft and private retention of the smaller trolleys has caused Coles to install the coin deposits to these trolleys. This would confirm Council’s assertion that this form of deposit is an effective solution.

 

Given that the Policy for the Management of Abandoned or Unattended Shopping Trolleys has not been as successful as desired we are suggesting a change to the policy that would delete the requirement for 24 hour notification to the owners of the trolleys. It is acknowledged that this may entail considerable cost in regards to vehicle and trailer costs as well as staff to pick up and process any impounding that would take place. If Council can continue to pressure the retailers by impounding trolleys it is expected it will become financially advantageous for them to install appropriate devices. This will especially be the case if they are all forced to implement the devices so that customers do not shop at opposition retailers that do not require a coin deposit.

 

I am aware of your efforts and concerns in wishing this matter to be improved. The major retailers have failed to implement any effective means despite your meeting with them to seek a cooperative approach.

 

It is proposed to write to all owners of shopping trolleys in our Local Government Area and advise them; of the ongoing concerns, request a response in regard to the situation and if an agreement is not reached that staff intend to prepare a report to Council recommending changes to the policy that would result in trolleys being impounded on the spot.

 

The major retailers have failed to:

 

·     Ensure that the trolley collection services are sufficiently resourced

 

·     Ensure that reported trolleys are immediately collected upon notification

 

·     Adequately inform customers that trolleys should not be removed from premises

 

·     Provide adequate signage within stores and carparks

 

·     Provide adequate signage at entry and exit points of stores and carparks

 

·     Provide signage on trolleys

 

·     Provide effective and ongoing pamphlets, local newspaper publicity and or direct mail information advising consumers not to remove and abandon shopping trolleys

 

·     Employ staff to provide advice to the public and to monitor exits to prevent the removal of trolleys from the store

 

The strong action is proposed to be accompanied by the agreement that if acceptable measures including coin deposits are implemented by the owners of the trolleys then any trolleys found would be subject to the existing 24 hour notification / grace period.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no attachments for this report

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council re convene the Shopping Trolley Working Party as an avenue for further discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

COUNCILLOR E CASSIDY

Mayor

 

 

Mayor’s Room

Civic Centre

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 10 May 2011

MM12/2011

CCRD

MAYORAL MINUTE

 

A LOCAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLE

       

 

To build a shared pride in our Aboriginal culture and history is a key goal of Council’s Reconciliation Action Plan. In this context, Council’s Aboriginal Consultative Committee last year recommended that the community rooms in the new Civic Centre be given suitable Aboriginal names. Since then, research has been undertaken on names of historical figures associated with the Eora nation & these have been presented to and discussed by the Committee.

 

However, at the meeting of the Committee held on 27th April, 2011, I put forward the suggestion that the new community rooms should be named after those members of our Committee with Aboriginal heritage who have formed the nucleus during preparation of Council’s Reconciliation Action Plan & during the establishment of the Aboriginal Consultative Committee. These members have shown outstanding commitment & do credit to their Aboriginal heritage.

 

The naming of community rooms after those who have so positively contributed to the process so far would be a just recognition of their work. It would also indeed provide meaningful, symbolic acknowledgement of the Aboriginal people of this area, their living culture and unique role in the life of our community of Ashfield Municipality.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the community rooms within the new Ashfield Civic Centre be named after nominated current members of Council’s Aboriginal Consultative Committee who have Aboriginal heritage.

 

 

 

  

 

COUNCILLOR E CASSIDY

Mayor

 

Mayor’s Room

Civic Centre

  


document5

Ashfield Council

 

Ordinary Meeting - 10 May 2011

 

 

9         Summary of  Notices Of Motion

 

9.1         SUMMER HILL FLOUR MILL AND OLD CANTERBURY ROAD "LEWISHAM ESTATE" PROPOSALS. Alex Lofts - Councillor. Report submitted.

(03/05/11)                                                                 Planning Development Applications

                                                       h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM100511NM_5.doc

                                                                                                            NM5/2011 Attached

 

Accordingly, we move:-

 

1/3         Ashfield Council notes both the RTA and the Regional Advisory Committee have given unfavourable assessments of the old Canterbury Rd (Lewisham Estate or Demian) proposal.

 

2/3         Council endorses the action outlined in our officer’s memo dated 18/4/2011 (signed by Mr Ron Sim) viz:

 

a)      should either proposal progress in any form, Ashfield Council does not support any reduction in designated parking ratios, either residential, commercial or retail;

 

b)      further studies of the cumulative or separate impacts of the Summer Hill Flour           Mill and Lewisham estate proposals will be required (using paramics);

 

c)      any costs relating to such studies or related public works should be borne by the developers

 

3/3        Council reiterates our previous motion requesting that the RTA undertake a study of the impacts of traffic on surrounding suburbs.

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 10 May 2011

NM5/2011

Planning Development Applications

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

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

 

 

SUMMER HILL FLOUR MILL AND OLD CANTERBURY ROAD "LEWISHAM ESTATE" PROPOSALS

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM5/2011

 

Councillors would have received a memo from Mr Ron Sim regarding traffic reports for the above proposals. The following motion seeks to give our officers the authority of Council to act, as outlined in Mr Sim’s memo but also to give Councillors the opportunity debate further action.

 

In brief:

 

·    The RTA and “The Regional Advisory Committee’ have both given unfavourable assessments of the Old Canterbury Rd ‘Lewisham Estate’ proposal.

·    We should not support any reduction in either residential or commercial parking ratios for either proposal and that retail (as distinct from commercial) parking demand should be assessed at only in the context of Council's adopted Development Control Plan dealing with off-street parking development (as the advent of Light Rail is not guaranteed post-election and we don’t have resident parking schemes).

·    Costs should be borne by the developers for further reports and any resulting public works.

·    Further studies and testing (using Paramics) will need to be commissioned to assess the cumulative impact of both the Flour Mill and Old Canterbury Rd proposals

·    We reiterate our previous motion that the RTA should be commissioned to undertake a regional traffic study to determine the impacts of the above proposals on surrounding suburbs as a whole.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, we move:-

 

1/3    Ashfield Council notes both the RTA and the Regional Advisory Committee have given unfavourable assessments of the old Canterbury Rd (Lewisham Estate or         Demian) proposal.

 

2/3    Council endorses the action outlined in our officer’s memo dated 18/4/2011 (signed by Mr Ron Sim) viz:

 

a)    should either proposal progress in any form, Ashfield Council does not support any reduction in designated parking ratios, either residential, commercial or retail;

 

b)   further studies of the cumulative or separate impacts of the Summer Hill Flour Mill and Lewisham estate proposals will be required (using paramics);

 

c)    any costs relating to such studies or related public works should be borne by the developers

 

3/3    Council reiterates our previous motion requesting that the RTA undertake a study of the impacts of traffic on surrounding suburbs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alex Lofts

 

Lucille McKenna

 

Mark Drury

 

 

Jeanette Wang

 

 

 

 

  


Ashfield Council

 

Ordinary Meeting - 10 May 2011

 

 

10       Summary of  Staff Reports

 

10.1       DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN & BUDGET 2011-2015 AND DRAFT FEES AND CHARGES FOR 2011/12. Gabrielle Rennard - Manager Governance. Report submitted with attachments 1 and 2.

(19/04/11)                                                                       Governance>Management Plan

                                                       h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM100511SR_7.doc

                                                                                                               CM 10.1 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2         That the draft Management Plan and Budget for the period 2011/15, be adopted for the purposes of public exhibition.

 

2/2         That the draft Fees and Charges schedule 2011/12 be adopted for the      purposes of public exhibition.

 

10.2       AQUA AEROBICS CONTRACT. Darren Thorne - Aquatic Services Supervisor. Report submitted with attachment 1.

(04/04/11)                                                                                                    Aquatic Centre

                                                       h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM100511SR_2.doc

                                                                                                               CM 10.2 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2         That Council continues to offer an Aqua Aerobics Program by directly employing instructors to provide the service.

 

2/2         That Council thank Tammy Giannoulis for the years of dedicated service to Ashfield Aquatic Centre

 

 

10.3       CAPITAL WORKS AMENDMENT TO THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2010-14. Tony Giunta - Senior Engineer - Infrastructure Management. Report submitted.

(19/04/11)                                                                          Governance>Corporate Plans

                                                       h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM100511SR_4.doc

                                                                                                               CM 10.3 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2         That this information be received and noted.

 

2/2         That Council approve the amendment to the capital works in the Management Plan 2010-14 as noted in this report.

 

10.4       PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ASHFIELD DCP 2007 - PART C02 (ADVERTISEMENTS AND ADVERTISING STRUCTURES). Ron Sim - Manager Strategic Planning & Projects. Report submitted.

(20/04/11)                                             Planning & Building>Development Control Plan

                                                       h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM100511SR_6.doc

                                                                                                               CM 10.4 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3         That Ashfield DCP 2007 Part C be amended to implement the recommendations detailed in Section 3A and 3B of this report.

 

2/3         That the recommended amendments to Ashfield DCP 2007 Part C02 be publicly exhibited and the outcome reported to Council as soon as practicable.

 

3/3         That a copy of the officer submission to DOP in relation to expansion of exempt development provisions to include certain categories of signage be provided to Councillors upon its completion.

  

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 10 May 2011

CM10.1

Subject                            DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN & BUDGET 2011-2015 AND DRAFT FEES AND CHARGES FOR 2011/12

 

File Ref                            Governance>Management Plan

 

Prepared by                   Gabrielle Rennard - Manager Governance       

 

 

Reasons                          For Council to endorse the public exhibition of the Draft Management Plan and Budget 2011 – 2015 in accordance with statutory requirements.

 

Objective                         For Council to adopt the Draft Management Plan and Budget 2011/15 for public exhibition purposes.

 

 


Overview of Report

This report requests that Council endorse the Draft Management Plan and Budget 2011- 15 and the Fees and Charges for 2011/12 for public exhibition in accordance with statutory requirements under the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

Background

 

Councillors received presentations in workshop format in November 2010, April and May 2011 to consider the draft Management Plan and Budget 2011-2015. The presentations highlighted the key aspects of the delivery program over the next four years, key budget parameters for the 2011/12 financial year, the financial and economic context  prevailing and the impact that this will have on the Council’s capacity to deliver and fund on-going services to the community.

 

In order to provide a truly integrated plan and to ensure a cross correlation of information in the new draft Management Plan 2011 – 2015, with an informed budget for proposed initiatives the document has been produced in parallel with the impending release of the draft community strategic plan.

 

This management plan has a 4 year or medium-term focus, reflective of the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009 and current DLG policy directions as outlined in the Integrated Planning and Reporting framework.

 

The draft Management Plan and budget 2011 – 2015 provides a view of Councils capacity to deliver the first 4 years of the strategic plan. The structure and ‘readability’ of the Management Plan is essentially the same as has been delivered to Council over the past three years, see (Attachment 1) and is reflective of the deliverables and the seven themes in the community plan.

 

The intention with this draft plan is based on maintaining the existing suite of services to the community, no new unfunded ‘big ticket’ items and an initial focus on strategy and policy development. The following list is by no means exhaustive but rather provides a snapshot of activities to be delivered in this draft management plan:-

•     Implementation of the Reconciliation Action Plan

•     Undertake an Ashfield Ageing strategy

•     Prepare a Library Strategic Plan and marketing strategy

•     Prepare a strategy for the new Ashfield Youth Centre

•     Implement Plans of Management for Algie, Centenary and Hammond Parks

•     Undertake a community facilities strategy

•     Prepare a Master Plan for the Haberfield shopping precinct

•     Develop a Public Art Strategy

•     Implement long term quality irrigation program for parks

•     Develop a Recreation strategy

•     Implement the Safer Community Compact Plan

•     Install cycle stands across the local government area

•     Council continue to work with State Government and neighbour Councils on developing the Light Rail project in conjunction with the Greenway project

•     Develop a tree planting strategy

•     Undertake water and energy use audits at all Council sites

•     Explore opportunities to create Parramatta Road as an enterprise zone

•     Continue to expand and implement Ashfield CBD cultural tours

•     Review and undertake works to improve the Markham Place area

•     Develop a futures strategy for Ashfield town centre

•     Prepare an organisation wide risk management plan

•     Complete a Workforce Plan

 

This draft Management Plan highlights Councils current strategic priorities, a rolling action program of works over the ensuing year, includes a detailed budget, significant achievements for the past year and informs the community of our key performance indicators and what tools we are currently measuring against.

 

The process of developing the draft management plan and budget 2011/15 included:-

•     holding presentations and workshops with Councillors to discuss community consultation outcomes, the budget and enable Council to explore and discuss its strategic priorities, current commitments and external economic drivers over the 2011-15 period.

•     holding workshops with program mangers and the executive management team to further discuss program budgets, the community priorities embed project integration and existing commitments

•     reviewing Council's Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges.

 

 

Financial Implications

 

In putting together the budget Council faces a number of challenges. These include:-

•     Rate pegging at/or below CPI

•     Cost shifting from other tiers of government

•     Growing awareness of the real costs of infrastructure renewal

•     Increased demand from the community for different types and increased quality of services

 

The draft budget for 2011/12 is based on the following core objectives:-

•     Maintain existing suite of services to the community

•     Fund the Management Plan priorities

•     Deliver a small cash surplus - $50k to $100k

 

These objectives aim to ensure a financially responsible budget for 2011/12, as well as supporting Council’s financial sustainability in the longer term. The most recent forecast budget for 2011/2012 is as follows:

 

Item           

      $ M

Income      

31,575

Expenditure                  

  (40,548)

Net position before transfers and proceeds of sales

  (8,973)  

Add Net transfers (to) from:-                                      

Reserves & Proceeds from sale & loan repayment 

   0.238       

Less Non-Cash items  

   8,777

Surplus (Deficit)                             

   0.042

 

Council has a 4% Special Rate Variation over a five year period for infrastructure projects, the 2011/12 period will be the third year of this program with the following program of works to be undertaken in 2011/12:-

•   Relay paving in Ashfield CBD

•   Integrated footpath and bike works from Bike Plan

•   Extra 20% road resurfacing

•   Reconstruct roundabout Queen Street and Norton Street  

•   Street furniture       

•   Condition 4 major patches

•   Croydon CBD streetscape works

•   Condition 4 footpath repairs

•   Traffic facilities and parking measures

•   Local Area Traffic Management Scheme – Northcote and Wolseley Streets

•   Building repairs

 

 

The draft Fees and Charges for 2011/12

There has been an overall increase in individual fees and charges of CPI increase of 2.8% and an additional increase of 3.5%. This additional amount is in accordance with the three year plan previously resolved by Council. (Attachment 2)

 

Statutory charges have been updated to reflect the current regulations and library fees and charges have been adjusted to maintain parity with other SWIFT member councils.

 

These changes in the Schedule of Fees and Charges are in line with the over-arching budgeting principle of maintaining the status quo and as such no new fees and charges have been introduced.

 

As part of the long term financial planning process a complete review of Council’s fees and charges will occur during the 2011/12 financial year.  This review will undertake to identify additional income opportunities and ensure that each item is meeting the financial objectives of the pricing policy.

 

 

 

Other Staff Comments

 

The Executive Management Team and Program Managers have been integrally involved in the development of the draft Management Plan and Budget 2011- 2015.

 

 

Public Consultation

 

The draft Management Plan and Budget 2011-15 has been developed with integration of the findings from the detailed consultation process that has been undertaken over the past few years with respect to the development of the draft Community Strategic Plan.

 

The Draft Management Plan and Budget 2011/15 and the draft fees and charges schedule 2011/12 are scheduled to be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 28 days commencing 12 May 2011, in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993. It is intended that the documents be well publicised including features in the next Community Newsletter, Council’s website and local newspapers.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Council staff are pleased to present Council with the draft Management Plan and Budget 2011 – 2015, integrated with the delivery of the findings of the draft community strategic plan.  It is pleasing to note that the Council’s commitment to maintain a surplus budget and the significant work undertaken by the Executive Management and Program Managers has resulted in a small cash surplus of $42,000.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Draft Management Plan 2011 - 2015

52 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2011 - 2012

28 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2    That the draft Management Plan and Budget for the period 2011/15, be           adopted for the purposes of public exhibition.

 

2/2    That the draft Fees and Charges schedule 2011/12 be adopted for the           purposes of public exhibition.

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services


Attachment 1

 

Draft Management Plan 2011 - 2015

 





















































Attachment 2

 

Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2011 - 2012

 





























Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 10 May 2011

CM10.2

Subject                            AQUA AEROBICS CONTRACT

 

File Ref                            Aquatic Centre

 

Prepared by                   Darren Thorne - Aquatic Services Supervisor       

 

 

Reasons                          The current Aqua Aerobics contractor has indicated they do not wish to take up the second one year option of their Aqua Aerobics Contract and there is a significant demand for Aqua Aerobics to be continued at Ashfield Aquatic Centre.

 

Objective                         For Council to continue to offer Aqua Aerobic classes at Ashfield Aquatic Centre by directly employing instructors and managing the program similar to that is done by Leichhardt and Canterbury Councils.

 

 


Overview of Report

Aqua Aerobics have been provided at Ashfield Aquatic Centre under a contract agreement. The contractor has indicated that they do not wish to take up the 2nd one year option. It is proposed that Council directly operates the Aqua Aerobics Program.

 

 

Background

 

The Ashfield Aquatic Centre located on the corner of Elizabeth and Fredrick Street first opened on the 21st November 1962 and was a seasonal pool that operated October through to April. The original facilities included a 7 lane 50m pool, a diving/water polo pool, a 23m training pool and a small children’s pool.

On Saturday 20th March 2004 a new Indoor Pool Facility that was built on the site of the old children’s pool was opened to the public. This indoor facility includes a program/LTS pool with water features, a 4 lane 25m pool and children’s pool with beach entry and water features.

With the opening of the indoor pools Aqua Aerobics was introduced and successfully run through a contract arrangement with a private company. However this contract is approaching the second of its 2 one year options and the contractor has indicated they do not wish to continue on with the agreement for the second one year option.

Council has the opportunity to continue to offer the Aqua Aerobics Program by directly employing Aqua Aerobic Instructors rather than contracting it out to another company.

 

Report

 

Currently most Sydney Council’s who directly operate their Aquatic Centres have moved away from engaging contractors to provide program services as it gives council more control over what is offered and it provides a better financial return.

 

To do this Council will need to add new items to the Fees and Charges however in doing this Council would be able to combine both the class and the pool entry fee into one payment, currently they are paid separately (pool entry to council and the class fee to the contractor). To maintain the current pricing the new fees would be as follows;

 

Aqua Aerobics, including Pool Entry;

§ Casual Class $16.00

§ Casual Class $11.50 resident pensioner

§ Casual Class $14.20 resident senior card holder

§ Ten Class $150.00 Multi Entry Pass

§ Ten Class $105.00 Multi Entry Pass resident pensioner

§ Ten Class  $132.00 Multi Entry senior card holder

Pool Pass Holder to include Aqua Aerobics;

§ Casual Class $11.00

§ Casual Class $9.00 resident pensioner

§ Casual Class $9.00 resident senior card holder

§ Ten Class $100.00 Multi Entry Pass

§ Ten Class $90.00 Multi Entry Pass resident pensioner

§ Ten Class  $90.00 Multi Entry senior card holder

 

It is proposed that Council would continue to offer the current number of classes with the same timetable so to minimise the impact on the Aqua Aerobics patrons.

 

Financial Implications

 

If Council directly operates the Aqua Aerobics program in the first year of operation it is forecast there will be a net return to Council of $7,000 (after initial set up costs, opportunity costs i.e. contract fees and pool entry). In the second year of operation it is forecast there will be a net return to council of $23,000.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

Public Consultation

Existing patrons are concerned if not to continue the service

 

Conclusion

 

The Aqua Aerobics classes run at Ashfield Aquatic Centre are an important community service that can continue to be offered as a Council run enterprise, additionally Council would benefit from the increased revenue gained from the Aqua Aerobics.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Aqua Aerobics - Business Case 2011

5 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2    That Council continues to offer an Aqua Aerobics Program by directly          employing instructors to provide the service.

 

2/2    That Council thank Tammy Giannoulis for the years of dedicated service           to Ashfield Aquatic Centre

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stephen Joannidis

Director Works and Infrastructure

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Aqua Aerobics - Business Case 2011

 

Ashfield Aquatic Centre


Ashfield Council Directly Operated

Aqua Aerobics Programs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aqua Aerobics Business Case

April  2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Background

 

The Ashfield Aquatic Centre located on the corner of Elizabeth and Fredrick Street first opened on the 21st November 1962 and was a seasonal pool that operated October through to April. The original facilities included a 7 lane 50m pool, a diving/water polo pool, a 23m training pool and a small children’s pool.

On Saturday 20th March 2004 a new Indoor Pool Facility that was built on the site of the old children’s pool was opened to the public. This indoor facility includes a program/LTS pool with water features, a 4 lane 25m pool and children’s pool with beach entry and water features. When the indoor centre opened the centre went from seasonal to a year round operation.

With the opening of the indoor pools Aqua Aerobics was introduced and successfully run through a lease arrangement with a private company. However this lease is approaching the second of its 2 one year options and the licensee has indicated they do not wish to continue on with the agreement for the second one year option.

 

Option for Council to Operate the Aqua Aerobics Program

Council has the option of calling for tenders for a similar licensee agreement or for Council operate the Aqua Aerobics Program itself. The second option of running in-house programs is one that many other councils have implemented as provides council with more direct control over the programs on offer.

 

Staffing Options for the Aqua Aerobics Program

If council goes ahead with operating an in-house Aqua Aerobics Program it is envisaged that the instructors would be employed on a 1 hour class casual basis. To ensure that council gains the highest quality of instructors an innovative approach to remuneration is required. The current industry best practice for the remuneration of fitness leaders is to pay a high hourly base rate (currently about $40 per hour) and then to pay an additional incentive rate of $1 per participant per class. This innovative approach provides incentive while maintaining a sufficient rate of pay for the less popular classes.

Given we will be initially offering 11 classes a week we will need to employ 3 to 4 casual instructors to ensure that all the classes are covered.

SCOT Analysis for Council In-house Aqua Aerobic Program

Strengths

§ Council will have full control over the fee structure

§ Council will have full control over who uses the lanes space and when they use the lane space

§ Council will have full control over the operation and quality control of the classes

§ If parts the centre is closed for refurbishment or maintenance council will not have to pay compensation

§ Council has an established customer relations process

§ The patrons will only have to pay one fee on entry; currently patrons pay pool entry to council then the class fee to the instructor.

 

Challenges

§ Council will have to pay weekend penalty rates

§ Council isn’t currently operating an Aqua Aerobics Program so we will need to purchase  equipment

 

Opportunities

§ There is scope to increase the programs on offer to include exercise classes for seniors, sporting groups and those recovering from injury or illness

§ All income can be put back into the council budget

 

Threats

§ The proposed renovations of the outdoor pools would reduce available pool space

 

Initial Start-Up Costs

Given that Council has not run an Aqua Aerobics Program previously there will be significant initial start up costs the cover such things as;

§ staff uniforms

§ A Portable battery operated sound system including PA, noddles, dumb-bells and float belts.

§ Signage costs

§ Printing and stationary costs

§ Initial promotional and marketing costs

 

Staff Uniforms

 

Item

Cost per item

Item per position

No. Staff in Position

Amount

Staff Uniforms

 

 

 

 

Aqua Aerobics Instructor

 

 

 

 

Polo Shirts

$40

2

4

$320

Shorts

$30

1

4

$120

Track Suit

$87

1

4

$348

Rash Shirt

$45

2

4

$360

Sun Hat

$20

1

4

$80

Total

 

 

 

$1,228

 

Aqua Aerobics Equipment

 

Aqua Aerobics Equipment

 

30 x Dumb bells @ $50

$1,500

30 x Noddles @ $8

$240

Portable battery powder sound system with headset

$3,000

30 x hydro belt @ $50

$1,500

Sub Total

$6,240

 

Other start up costs

 

Item

Cost

Signage

$1,000

Printing and Stationary

$1,000

Initial Marketing and Promotion

$2,000

Total

$4,000

 

Total start up cost for the Aqua Aerobics is approximately $11,500.

 

Projected Aqua Aerobic Income & Expenditure (first year)

Presently there are 11 Aqua Aerobics classes on offer which is provided by the contractor. It is assumed that council will provide a similar number of classes. It is also assumed that the class sizes will remain constant.

Item

Total

Income

$82,500

Cost of classes

$27,500

PPCA Tarrif (music licence)

$550

Net Operating Profit

$55,550

 

 

Start-up cost

$11,500

 

 

Opportunity Cost

 

Lease (based on a $4,500 per year lease)

$4,500

Pool Entry (Based on $5.70 entry fee)

$31,350

subtotal

$35,850

 

 

Net Income from Aqua Aerobics after opportunity and start up costs

$7,100

 

If Council operates the Aqua Aerobics it is projected that there would be a net gain in the first year of $7,650

 


Projected Aqua Aerobic Income & Expenditure (second year)

Presently there are 11 Aqua Aerobics classes on offer which is provided by the contractor. It is assumed that council will provide a similar number of classes. It is also assumed that the class sizes will remain constant.

 

Item

Total

Income

$88,000

Cost of classes

$28,325

PPCA Tarrif

$550

Net Operating Profit

$59,125

 

 

Opportunity Cost

 

Lease (based on a $4,500 per year lease)

$4,500

Pool Entry (Based on $5.70 entry fee)

$31,350

subtotal

$35,850

 

 

Net Income from Aqua Aerobics after opportunity and start up costs

$23,275

 

Marketing and Promotional Plan

The marketing and promotional plan shall include signage around the Aquatic Centre, libraries, other council buildings and the council web site. To encourage return usage and to maintain the current pricing plans council would also offer multi visit passes as well as casual visits;

Including Pool Entry

§ Casual Class $16.00

§ Casual Class $11.50 resident pensioner

§ Casual Class $14.20 resident senior card holder

§ Ten Class $150.00 Multi Entry Pass

§ Ten Class $105.00 Multi Entry Pass resident pensioner

§ Ten Class  $132.00 Multi Entry senior card holder

Pool Pass Holder

§ Casual Class $11.00

§ Casual Class $9.00 resident pensioner

§ Casual Class $9.00 resident senior card holder

§ Ten Class $100.00 Multi Entry Pass

§ Ten Class $90.00 Multi Entry Pass resident pensioner

§ Ten Class  $90.00 Multi Entry senior card holder

 

Conclusion

If Council goes ahead with running the Aqua Aerobics Program the benefits would include an increased revenue stream, continued delivery of the classes to the patrons, control of the class timetable and ownership of the program on offer at the centre.


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 10 May 2011

CM10.3

Subject                            CAPITAL WORKS AMENDMENT TO THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2010-14

 

File Ref                            Governance>Corporate Plans

 

Prepared by                   Tony Giunta - Senior Engineer - Infrastructure Management       

 

 

Reasons                          To inform Council of an amendment to capital works in the          Management Plan 2010-14

 

Objective                         That Council approve the amendment to the capital works in the Management Plan 2010-14

 

 


Overview of Report


In the Management Plan 2010-14 it is identified that the roundabout at the intersection of Queen and Norton Streets will be reconstructed in 2010/11.  Due to a reallocation of funds to other works in the works program it is necessary to defer the reconstruction of this roundabout to 2011/12.

 

Background

In the Management Plan 2010 -14 a five year program of capital works has been planned, and these works are being funded from the Infrastructure Levy (4% Special Rate Variation). One of the projects planned for 2010/11 is the reconstruction of the roundabout at the intersection of Queen St and Norton St.

 

There is the need to defer these works to the following financial year so that funds originally allocated for the roundabout reconstruction can be used to bring forward works to the Croydon CBD which were planned for 2011/12.

 

As a result the reconstruction of the roundabout at the intersection of Queen St and Norton St will be undertaken during 2011/12.

 

 

Financial Implications

Funds from the Infrastructure Levy originally allocated for the reconstruction of this roundabout have been reallocated in order to bring forward works to the Croydon CBD in the capital works program. The value of funds allocated in 2010/11 will be reallocated to the roundabout reconstruction in 2011/12. Therefore there are no financial implications due to this change. 

 

 

Other Staff Comments

N.A.

 

Public Consultation

N.A.

 

Conclusion

The deferred reconstruction of the roundabout at the intersection of Queen St and Norton St will be captured in the Management Plan 2011-15.

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2    That this information be received and noted.

 

2/2    That Council approve the amendment to the capital works in the Management Plan 2010-14 as noted in this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stephen Joannidis

Director Works and Infrastructure

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 10 May 2011

CM10.4

Subject                            PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ASHFIELD DCP 2007 - PART C02 (ADVERTISEMENTS AND ADVERTISING STRUCTURES)

 

File Ref                            Planning & Building>Development Control Plan

 

Prepared by                   Ron Sim - Manager Strategic Planning & Projects       

 

 

Reasons                          Council Resolution

 

Objective                         Council approve draft amendments to Part C02 of Ashfield DCP 2007 for public exhibition purposes

 

 

 


1.0    Background

 

Council recently resolved to prepare a new development control plan to control the impact of drive in take away food premises on adjacent residential areas. Preparation of a new DCP Part is underway.

 

Council also resolved as follows:-

 

That the current Development Control Plan for Advertising Signs be reviewed and a report be submitted to the next meeting of Council recommending amendments  discouraging ‘Pole Signage’ in the proposed “Enterprise Zone” of Parramatta Road- Ashfield Municipality, if the current Development Control Plan does not contain such provision.

 

2.0    Discussion

 

(a)     Proposed Ashfield Local Environmental Plan

 

Advertisements comprising third party signs such as “Coca Cola” signs unrelated to the primary use of a building will be prohibited within the Enterprise zone under the new Ashfield Local Environmental Plan (LEP). Only business identification signs that convey the type of the business carried out at the property will be allowed. This is important to avoid a proliferation of advertisements along Parramatta Road and to avoid advertising clutter. Note that most low key business identification signs such as awning and fascia signs within the Enterprise Zone will be exempt development in the new LEP as stipulated in the Standard Instrument LEP template.

 

However, more substantial business identification signs (such as pole signs) that advertise the use of a property will still require development consent (although DOP are now proposing in a discussion paper to make certain signs exempt development – see Section 4.0 of this report). It is not possible to prohibit pole signs which are also business identification signs in a Local Environmental Plan. This is unreasonable and would not be supported by the Department of Planning (business identification signs are necessary, ancillary and indispensible to the efficient functioning and identification of business premises). However, it is possible to discourage pole/pylon signs and in circumstances where there are no other alternatives, to encourage a higher standard of signage. To achieve this Council can specify new controls to replace/amplify those in the current Ashfield Development Control Plan Part C02 - See Section 2.0 of this report.

 

(b)     Ashfield Development Control Plan  2007 -  Part C02 (Advertisements and Advertising Structures)

 

Part C02 provides more detail on the planning principles and types/dimensions of pole signs which are acceptable in areas such as Parramatta Road. Relevant data extracted from the document is as follows (italics/emphasis added).

 

          Co-ordination of Signs along Parramatta Road

 

          Properties on the northern side of Parramatta Road are part of the Haberfield National Estate listed area of Haberfield, although Council's Haberfield Conservation Area excludes most properties fronting Parramatta Road.   Haberfield is important as the first "garden suburb" in Australia and as a townscape in the "Federation" style.   In this regard:

 

a)    Council accepts that the style of building and the land uses fronting Parramatta Road and outside the Council's Conservation Area are substantially different from the heritage values of Haberfield and therefore a different type of signage is acceptable.

 

b)   Signs along Parramatta Road (both sides) and elsewhere should not be substantially visible from within the Conservation Area to the extent that they would detract from its "garden suburb" values.

 

c)    Because of the large number of service stations, car sales yards, drive-in retail premises and the like along Parramatta Road, adherence to the principles of Section 4.5 is necessary to obtain an improvement to the appearance of Parramatta Road and improve the marketing of the businesses by reducing sign clutter.  The principles of Section 4.5 will also be applicable to other business activities found along Parramatta Road.

 

In relation to the size of (pole) sign that may be acceptable Part 4.5 of the   DCP states (emphasis added):-

 

a)    It shall be a rectangular shaped free-standing structure with the following dimensions:

·     Width generally 2.5m

·     Height either 3m or 9m (to encourage two consistent heights, rather than a variety of heights).

 

(c)     State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No 64 —Advertising and Signage overrides any LEP controls that are incompatible with the controls in the SEPP.  The SEPP outlines the following assessment criteria relating to  pole signs (termed “freestanding advertisements” in the SEPP) (Cl.23)

SEPP 64 - Cl. 23

Freestanding advertisements

     The consent authority may grant consent to the display of a freestanding advertisement only if the advertising structure on which the advertisement is displayed does not protrude above the dominant skyline, including any buildings, structures or tree canopies, when viewed from ground level within a visual catchment of 1 km.

 

There are also Guidelines issued by DOP that accompany SEPP64 and which are relevant to assessment of sign proposals generally (emphasis added)

 

(i)         The use of outdoor advertising in a given locality should not be inconsistent with the land use objectives for the area outlined in the relevant local environmental plan.

 

(ii)        Advertisements must not be placed on land where the signage is visible from the following areas if it is likely to significantly impact on the amenity of those areas.

 

(iii)       Advertising structures should not be located so as to dominate or protrude significantly above the skyline or to obscure or compromise significant scenic views or views that add to the character of the area.

 

(iv)       Advertising structures should not be located so as to diminish the heritage values of items or areas of local, regional or state heritage significance.

 

(v)        Where possible, advertising structures should be placed within the context of other built structures in preference to non-built areas. Where possible, signage should be used to enhance the visual landscape. For example, signs may be positioned adjacent to or screening unsightly aspects of a landscape, industrial sites or infrastructure such as railway lines or power lines.

 

3.0    Suggested Changes to Planning Controls - Ashfield DCP Part C02

 

Both SEPP 64 and Council’s DCP have broadly consistent aims and policy objectives in relation to reducing the adverse impacts of signage. These include meeting streetscape, skyline protrusion and visual catchment criteria as well as the need to position/design signs so as not to not diminish the heritage value of conservation areas.

 

All of these things are matters for consideration in a development proposal and will be tested further in the LEC in relation to the signage proposed by McDonalds for the property at 141 Parramatta Road.

 

The difficulty lies with the more detailed provisions of current Ashfield DCP 2007 Part C02 which indicates a preference for freestanding pole or pylon signs for larger sites and at the same time indicate that pole/pylon signs of up to 3m or 9m in height are an acceptable outcome if environmental impacts can be managed.

 

Stipulating two “acceptable heights” of 3m and 9m is not helpful. This is because irrespective of the visual impact/heritage provisions of SEPP 64 and Council’s DCP most applicants will probably attempt to justify a 9m high sign simply because the DCP implies that this is possible. There is a conflict between broader policy and detailed controls that needs to be resolved. Example: It will be inherently difficult to satisfy the requirements of Council’s DCP or SEPP in relation to minimising visual intrusion or visibility from heritage conservation areas if signs of up to 9m in height are constructed.

 

A.      Proposed DCP  Amendments

 

A more considered, responsible and environmentally sensitive approach would be to amend the current DCP Part C02 to state the following -

 

(a)  State that signs fixed to buildings are preferred to pole signs given that these types of signs can be very dominant/visually disruptive in the streetscape.

(b)  Require applicants to justify the need for pole signs in preference to conventional signs fixed to buildings.

(c)   Say that pole signs will only be considered for larger sites with street frontages exceeding 25 metres in width.

(d)  Highlight that the preferred location for signs is the building structure itself and that freestanding pole signs will not be permitted if the primary building is located within 5 metres of the street frontage.

(e)  State that freestanding pole signs will only be considered where signage fixed to a building will likely be ineffective (see above) and where strict compliance with the provisions of SEPP 64, the accompanying SEPP64 guidelines and the provisions of Council’s DCP are all achieved.

(f)    Indicate that pole signs will only be considered where an overall reduction in the number of signs on a property is implemented to reduce advertising “clutter” if this is present (all signs to be removed to be shown on plans).

(g)  Stipulate a maximum discretionary permissible height for any freestanding pole/pylon sign of 6 metres and maximum advertisement area outline of 3.3 m2.

(h)   Require the advertisement area of a pole/pylon sign to be of a simple, regular shape and dimension (e.g. rectangular, square, circular).

(i)    Specify that only one pole sign will be considered for each property.

 

B.      Proposed Expanded Development Submission requirements

 

Require all applicants in a development submission to clearly demonstrate using computer modelling software that any pole/pylon sign proposed will not be visible from a heritage conservation area or protrude above the dominant building skyline or tree canopy in the locality. In order to achieve this aim, mandate that applicants lodge with their application a drawing for all pole signs over 3 metres in height comprising a (“3ds”) file that can be loaded into Council’s SIMURBAN 3D model to validate compliance with this requirement. Alternatively, applicants to submit their own 3D electronic data that conclusively demonstrates compliance.

 

4.0    Extension of Complying Development Codes to allow more types of signs as exempt development – Department of Planning

 

The Department of Planning (DOP) is currently exhibiting a proposed amendment to the SEPP Exempt and Complying Codes that in part proposes to permit certain types of signage including pole signs of up to 6 metres as “exempt” development. It is also suggested that projecting wall signs above awning level could be “exempt” development if not in a heritage conservation area.

 

Various other types of signs would also be complying or exempt development if the changes are enacted. An officer response to these proposals is being prepared and will be in the form of a rebuttal of some of the proposals. Clearly, pole signs of up to 6 metres in height and projecting wall signs above awning level should not be exempt development as they can have significant effects on  local streetscapes – especially if a proliferation of such signs on narrow lots results. A copy of the officer response to DOP will be provided to Councillors in due course. Unfortunately, if these changes ultimately take effect they will undermine local controls since any new controls added to the DCP will then be superfluous if overridden by subsequent State legislation. Making these types of signs exempt also means that the comprehensive signage Guidelines previously issued by DOP in relation to SEPP 64 will be bypassed.

 

Once again (as arguably has already occurred to some degree with the recent housing codes) it appears that DOP is not prepared to give sufficient weight to potential long term adverse environmental impacts relating to developments such as pole signs that can have significant local impacts / visual clutter (and therefore should not be considered as candidates for exempt or complying development status) provided the requirement for an approval can be removed. A “lowest common denominator approach” or “tick the box” approval process which ignores important heritage streetscape and built form aesthetic considerations is inappropriate.

 

5.0    Conclusion

 

Existing controls for pole signs in Councils DCP Part C02 need to be updated to achieve more effective control over these signs and to discourage pole signs where other alternative signs are possible. In addition, development submission requirements should be reviewed as suggested in this report to ensure that the significant heritage/visual impacts of taller pole signs are properly addressed.

 

In order to achieve these aims, Council’s DCP should be amended as recommended in Section 3 A/B of this report.  DOP should also be advised that Council strongly objects to proposals to make projecting wall signs and pole signs up to 6 metres high “exempt” development types.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3    That Ashfield DCP 2007 Part C be amended to implement the recommendations detailed in Section 3A and 3B of this report.

 

2/3    That the recommended amendments to Ashfield DCP 2007 Part C02 be publicly exhibited and the outcome reported to Council as soon as practicable.

 

3/3    That a copy of the officer submission to DOP in relation to expansion of exempt development provisions to include certain categories of signage be provided to Councillors upon its completion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment