VC: GR

 

25 May 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Councillor/Sir/Madam

 

You are invited to attend an STRATEGIC PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of Ashfield Council, to be held at the Haberfield Library, 78 Dalhousie Street, Haberfield on TUESDAY  31 MAY 2011 at 6:30 PM.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

 

VANESSA CHAN

General Manager

 

 

SEE ATTACHED AGENDA


 

Strategic Planning and Economic Development Committee - 31 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.

(31/05/2011)

 

7.                      Confirmation of Minutes of Council/Committees

 

Strategic Planning and Economic Development Committee - 22/03/2011

 

8.                      Staff Reports

 

8.1        ASHFIELD LEP PROJECT - AMENDMENT SUBMISSIONS

 

8.2        ASHFIELD LEP PROJECT - PROPOSAL TO REFER DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN TO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING (DOP) FOR PRELIMINARY FEEDBACK

 

 

9.                      General Business

 

 

 

10.                  Close

 

 

 

 

 


 

Ashfield Council

 

Strategic Planning and Economic Development Committee - 31 May 2011

 

 

8         Summary of  Staff Reports

 

8.1         ASHFIELD LEP PROJECT - AMENDMENT SUBMISSIONS. Con Colot - Senior Strategic Planner & Projects. Report submitted with attachments 1 and 2.

(05/05/11)       Planning & Building>Local Environmental Plan>Ashfield  LEP Project

                                             h:\reports.bp\Committees\Reports\SPC310511SR_1.doc

                                                                                                               SPC 8.1 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3    That Council adopt the recommendations contained in Column 2 of Table 1 of this report and the recommended changes be incorporated into the Working Draft LEP.

 

2/3    That the proposed changes to the Draft LEP resulting from consideration of the submissions be highlighted as part of the future public exhibition of the Draft Plan including relevant supporting documentation to facilitate informed community feedback.

 

3/3    That all applicants be advised of Council’s decision.

 

8.2         ASHFIELD LEP PROJECT - PROPOSAL TO REFER DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN TO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING (DOP) FOR PRELIMINARY FEEDBACK. Con Colot - Senior Strategic Planner & Projects. Report submitted with attachments 1 to 7.

(05/05/11) Planning & Building>Local Environmental Plan (LEP) >Ashfield LEP Project

                                             h:\reports.bp\Committees\Reports\SPC310511SR_2.doc

                                                                                                               SPC 8.2 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/4    That amendments resolved to be made by Council to the Draft Local Environmental Plan arising from the separate report “Ashfield LEP Project – Amendments Submissions” be incorporated into the Draft Local Environmental Plan document contained in Attachments 2 and 3.

 

2/4    That Council endorse the contents of the Draft Local Environmental Plan contained in Attachments 2 and 3 as amended by “Recommendation 1” above.


 

3/4    That Council refer the Draft Local Environmental Plan as amended to the Department of Planning for the purpose of making a “Pre -Section 64” referral, and to carry out a “Section 64” submission procedure under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, in order to obtain a “Section 65 Certificate” from the Department of Planning to enable Ashfield Council to publicly exhibit the Draft Local Environmental Plan.

 

4/4    That Council officers advise Council of any major changes the Department of Planning stipulate Council make to the content of the Draft Local Environmental Plan or any conditions attached to a Section 65 Certificate prior to the exhibition of the Draft Local Environmental Plan.

  

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Strategic Planning and Economic Development Committee held on Tuesday 31 May 2011

SPC8.1

Subject                            ASHFIELD LEP PROJECT - AMENDMENT SUBMISSIONS

 

File Ref                            Planning & Building>Local Environmental Plan>Ashfield  LEP Project

 

Prepared by                   Con Colot - Senior Strategic Planner & Projects       

 

 

Reasons                           Advise Council of applications seeking amendments to Working Draft    Local Environmental Plan

 

Objective                         Incorporate agreed amendments into Working Draft LEP for future public exhibition/feedback

 

 

 


1.0    BACKGROUND

 

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider submissions for rezoning of properties or changes to development standards applying to properties received as part of the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) project. It was initially reported to Council in September 2010 that a number of written requests had been received. The LEP Working Party then requested that officers brief the Working Party on the applications and so an information document was provided to a Working Party meeting on 29 March 2011.This is contained at Attachment 1.  There are a number of applications to consider and given the complexities of the application a ‘standardised’ assessment approach has been taken. Therefore, each site has:

 

§  A summary page explaining the key issues to consider which informs a technical town planning conclusion.

 

§  A mapping page, showing existing site locations, existing zonings and aerial maps to illustrate the general spatial context.

 

The LEP application requests and planning report have been made public in order to allow each applicant natural justice to view the officer recommendations and the logic which has informed them. Some applicants will also no doubt seek an opportunity to address Council on the matter.

 

A request was made by Councillors at the LEP Working Party meeting held on March 29 2011, that the briefing document includes additional data explaining the amount of additional development potential that might be generated with each application.  This has been added to the document only in terms of comparative ‘ballpark’ estimates and based on an assumption that development potential is maximised. The estimates do not constitute a precise calculation of dwelling yield for each site as that is subject to a number of factors including site constraints which will influence building design. Note also that the potential FSR in not an ‘automatic given’ to assess total dwelling yield.

 

A further, more recent request has been received concerning the property at 43-45 Junction Road and so this has been added to the briefing document.

 

Town planning conclusions in the briefing document are transposed into Table 1 as planning officer recommendations.  Council will need to decide whether it agrees with these recommendations. In some cases the Working Draft LEP coincidentally already implements some of the recommendations shown in the table because the issues affecting the sites were either reflected in the Urban Strategy or were picked up as part of the ongoing analytical work associated with LEP preparation.

 

2.0    LEP Amendment Application Requests

 

The specific LEP applications submitted to Council are contained in Attachment 2.

As explained above, an analysis of each application is contained in the briefing document in Attachment 1. The town planning conclusions in that document relevant to each application informs the recommendations listed in Table 1 below. Council needs to decide whether it concurs with these recommendations.

 

TABLE 1

 

 

 

Column 1

Application Requests

 

 

Column 2

Council Planning Officer Recommendations

1

Request by:

Boulos Rofail, Owner 358 and 362 Liverpool Road, 181 and 185 Norton Street.

 

Affected land: 358, 360,362 Liverpool Road, and 181,183, 185 Norton Street.

 

Request:             

Rezone from 2(a) to 3(a) or equivalent.

 

358, 360,362 Liverpool Road should be zoned mixed use B4, with a six storey height limit, maximum FSR 2:1, as currently shown in the Draft LEP, which is a reflection of the current Urban Strategy.

 

181,183, 185 Norton Street should be zoned R3 (permitting 3 storey flats development) with a maximum standard FSR of 0.7:1 and maximum height of 3 storeys (12.5m) as shown in the current Draft LEP. 

 

 

2

Request by:        

Elton Consulting on behalf of site owners.

 

Affected land :     

61, 63-65 Liverpool Road, Ashfield.

 

Request:             

Currently Residential 2(c). Increase FSR to 2:1 and increase height limit from 3 storeys to 6 storeys.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Land is zoned in the Draft LEP as R3 (Residential) with a max FSR of 0.7:1, and a max height of 3 storeys.

 

A 5 level flat building, with the appearance of a predominantly 4 storey building (upper level set back) would be similar and compatible in scale with existing nearby flat buildings.  Land at 63-65 Liverpool Road, Ashfield, (excluding 61 Liverpool Road which contains a heritage item house) should be zoned R3 with maximum FSR 1.5:1, maximum height of 5 storeys.

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Request by:

MJB Urban Planning, on behalf of the site owner.

 

Affected land :     

75 Milton Street, Ashfield

 

Request:             

Keep Residential 2(a) but allow flats on the site via a ‘stand alone’ clause in the new LEP.

 

Draft LEP shows the site as zoned R2 (Residential) which does not permit townhouses or flats.

 

Site is capable of having a R3 land zoning, which would allow multi unit development, comprising townhouses with site specific DCP controls being in place to achieve this.  Land should be zoned R3 with a maximum FSR 07:1 and maximum height of 8.5m. 

 

 

4

Request by:        

“Cooper Bros”, site owners.

 

Affected land :     

381 Liverpool Road, 16 Thomas Street (owned by Cooper Bros)

 

Request:             

Land is zoned 2(a), make B4 mixed use Separate letter also mentions sites 2B –20 Thomas St (not Cooper Bros owned) should go from Residential 2(a) to B4.

 

 

Front part of 381 Liverpool Road should be zoned B4 Mixed use, maximum FSR 2:1, maximum height of 6 storeys. Rear of site should be zoned R3 as shown in draft LEP.  This reflects the current Urban Strategy.

 

16 Thomas Street should be zoned R2 (equivalent of current Residential 2(a)), as currently shown in the Draft LEP.

 

Land at 10-20 Thomas Street should be zoned R2, as currently shown in the Draft LEP.

 

5

Request by:        

Peter Ferrone, part site owner on behalf of site owners.

 

Affected land :     

386 Canterbury Road, including rear of 386 Canterbury Road off Ida Street, Strip between 366-390 Canterbury Road

 

Request:             

Agree with proposed Enterprise Zone on Canterbury Rd, request residential uses also be allowed in Enterprise Zone.

 

 

 

 

Draft LEP shows site zoned Enterprise Zone, which reflects the Urban Strategy, with a max FSR of 1.5:1, and max height of 3 storeys.

 

Land at 386 Canterbury Road should have an Enterprise Zone with residential uses allowed, with a maximum FSR 1.5:1 and maximum height plane of 3 storeys. The R2 (low residential zone) should remain for the rear part of the site fronting Ida Street. 

 

 

Land within the Enterprise Zone along Canterbury Road should also permit residential uses.

 

The Enterprise Zoning boundary should reflect the position of the existing commercial buildings on the site.

 

 

 

 

 

6

Request by:        

D Cavallo, owner 233 Croydon Road.

 

Affected land :     

227-237 Croydon Road,

 

Request:             

Land should be rezoned from Business Park 3(d) to a residential use which includes flats, in a R1 zone. Also mentions zoning for entire length of land between West and Parramatta Road, should allow for flats, which includes property at 610 Parramatta Road.

 

 

New Zoning for at 227-237 Croydon Road should be R2 (Residential), with maximum height of 8.5m and maximum FSR 0.7:1 as shown in the Draft LEP, given there are houses on the land.

 

The area at the rear of 237 Croydon Road, currently used for Business purposes, should be zoned Enterprise Zone.

 

 

 

7

Request by:        

Moody and Doyle  on behalf of Wests Leagues Club,

 

Affected land :     

1-7 Victoria Street, Ashfield (Wests carpark), and extending to strip of land off Liverpool Road adjacent 132 Liverpool Road.   

 

Request:             

Land along Liverpool Road to have an 8 storey building height, and land at 1-7 Victoria Street permissible height limits should be 7 storeys to the northern 50 per cent of the car park site, with the southern 50 per cent of the car park site being limited to a maximum of 4 storeys in height.  Density control to permit a minimum of 74 units

 

Land fronting Liverpool Road adjacent 132 Liverpool Road should be zoned as B4 Mixed Use, maximum FSR 2:1 with 6 storey height limit, as shown in Draft LEP.

 

1-7 Victoria Street sites should be zoned R3 (Residential) which permits flats as shown in the Draft LEP, but with a 6 storey height plane (with a DCP requiring a stepping down to 4 storeys at the corner of Victoria Street and Norton Street), and maximum site FSR 1.8:1.

 

 

8

Request by:        

Planning Directions on behalf of site owner.

 

Affected land :     

112 Ramsay, 191-193 Ramsay Street Haberfield.

 

Request:             

Rezone from 2(a) to 3(a) to reflect existing medical practice and shops.

 

 

112 Ramsay Street, 191-193 Ramsay Street, Haberfield, should be zoned B2 – Local Centre, with maximum FSR 1:1 and maximum height 2 storeys, as shown in Draft LEP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

Request by:        

Robert Ten Kate, on behalf of Anglicare (site owner).

 

Affected land :     

105 Carlton Crescent, Summer Hill.

 

Request:             

Rezone from 2(a) to 2(b) to allow townhouses.

 

 

Land is currently zoned R2 (Residential) in draft LEP.

 

Land should be zoned R3 (residential, permits flats or townhouses) with maximum 3 storey height plane and maximum FSR 0.7:1.

 

 

 

10

Request by:        

Vincent Crowe (not owner of land)

 

Owners S & C Pighini

 

Affected land :     

142 Alt Street, Haberfield (currently zoned Residential 2(c))

 

Request:             

Extend Conservation Area boundary to include site and presumably apply a low density residential zone.

 

 

An independent consultant adviser should investigate the site and establish its degree of heritage significance and relevance, if any, to the Haberfield Conservation Area. The land owner should also be consulted as the request has come from an unrelated third party. A further report to be then brought back to Council as to whether the site should be included in the Haberfield Conservation Area.  

 

 

11

Request by:        

GSA Planning on behalf of the Site Owner

 

Affected land :     

106-108 Liverpool Road, Ashfield

 

Request:             

Make land zoning R3 or R4, with max height 5 storeys.

 

 

Sites are shown as zoned R3 (Residential) with a max FSR of 0.7:1, max height of 3 storeys, in Draft LEP.

 

Spatially, in terms of urban design, noting the Council depot to the rear, 106–108 Liverpool Road is able to take buildings of 5 storeys in height.  Land should be zoned Mixed Use B4 with maximum 5 storey height plane and maximum FSR 1.5:1.

 

Given the above, reconsideration should be given to the land at: 2-6 Victoria Street, sites along Liverpool Road from 90-106 Liverpool Road, and sites at 124 -127 Carlton Crescent,  to be zoned Mixed Use B4 with 5 storey height limit and maximum FSR 1.5:1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12

Request by:         

Zongde Xiao Bo Hua

 

Affected land :

154 Parramatta Rd, Ashfield

 

Request:             

Rezone from 3(b) to a new zoning which allows place of public worship and public assembly rooms.

 

 

Draft LEP shows the site within an Enterprise Zone will allow churches and assembly rooms, and this should remain. 

 

 

13

Request by: 

site owners

 

Affected land : 

441-459 Liverpool Road Ashfield

 

Request:             

Rezone from a number of different zones to Mixed Use B4. 

 

 

Draft LEP proposes B4 Zoning for the properties 441-459 Liverpool Road, with a four storey height limit and maximum FSR 1.5:1 and this should remain.

 

 

14

Request by:        

Mills Oakley lawyers on behalf of site owners.

 

Affected land : 

1-5 Hawthorne Parade , Haberfield

 

Request:             

Land is zoned Residential 2(a) and is used as a caryard, supports B6 Enterprise Zone, and requests in such a zone that “Bulky Goods Premises” and “Timber and Building Supplies” and “Caryards” will be permissible uses.

 

 

Draft LEP shows the site within an Enterprise Zone. This lists “Bulky Goods Premises” and “Timber and Building Supplies” and “Caryards” as permissible uses, and so this should remain. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

Request by:

SJB Planning on behalf of “EG Funds Management” (site owners)

 

Affected land :

2-32 Smith Street, Summer Hill

 

Request:

Land is zoned Industrial 4(b) and was previously used as Flour Mills.  They request the land be made B4—Mixed use.

 

 

 

Department of Planning via “Director General Requirements”, have opened the opportunity for a concept plan approval for the site to allow Mixed Use on the site, and to allow the building design specified on the approval. If such an approval is given, Council’s LEP will be required to have its LEP controls match such an approval.

 

If no concept plan approval is forthcoming from DOP, the zoning of the land should be B4 – mixed use with appropriate development standards including height and floor space ratios to be determined by Council.

 

16

Request by:

Tony Tuxworth , Coastal Planning, on behalf of site owner.

 

Affected land:

43-45 Junction Road , Summer Hill

 

Request:

Land is zoned Residential 2(a) and contains a shop and rear brick building previously used for light industry. Requests zoning be changed to B1– Local Centre.

 

 

Land at 43-45 Junction Road Should be zoned B1 - Local Centre, maximum 2 storey height plan and maximum FSR 1.5:1, as currently shown in draft LEP.

 

 

 

3.0   CONCLUSION

 

Council should adopt the recommendations detailed in Column 2 of Table 1.  Additional reasoning for these recommendations is contained in Attachment 1- Information Briefing Document.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Information Briefing Document

35 Pages

 

Attachment 2

LEP Amendment Applications - CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

198 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3    That Council adopt the recommendations contained in Column 2 of Table 1 of this report and the recommended changes be incorporated into the Working Draft LEP.

 

2/3    That the proposed changes to the Draft LEP resulting from consideration of the submissions be highlighted as part of the future public exhibition of the Draft Plan including relevant supporting documentation to facilitate informed community feedback.

 

3/3    That all applicants be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Information Briefing Document  /

 


































 


Ashfield Council – Report to Strategic Planning and Economic Development Committee held on Tuesday 31 May 2011

SPC8.2

Subject                            ASHFIELD LEP PROJECT - PROPOSAL TO REFER DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN TO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING (DOP) FOR PRELIMINARY FEEDBACK

 

File Ref                            Planning & Building>Local Environmental Plan (LEP) >Ashfield LEP Project

 

Prepared by                   Con Colot - Senior Strategic Planner & Projects       

 

 

Reasons                           Council endorse proposal to refer Draft LEP to Department of                Planning for preliminary comment/feedback.

 

Objective                         Progress new Principal Local Environmental Plan for Ashfield

 

 

 


1       Background

 

On 28 September 2010, Council considered a report on the Urban Planning Strategy and Local Environmental Plan (LEP) project. This explained:

 

§  Feedback obtained as a result of the public exhibition of the Urban Planning Strategy.

§  The LEP Project program indicating that it was behind schedule - and the critical dates agreed with DOP that must be adhered to.

§  The next steps in the process, including a requirement to formulate a new Draft LEP.

 

Council agreed to adopt the Urban Planning Strategy and commence the process of workshopping the content of the draft LEP. A number of workshops were held between October 2010 and March 2011.

 

The LEP project has reached a critical point where a referral must made to the Department of Planning (DOP) for the purpose of progressing to the next stages of the making of the LEP (explained in detail in part 4 of the report). 

 

The key purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of the contents of the Draft version of the LEP. In relation to this the report also canvasses matters that were raised at the LEP workshops and explains where they have been incorporated into the draft LEP (in part 2 of the report).  The report also outlines the project program which is further behind schedule and the conditional funding offer from the State Government for the for the project, which requires definitive action from Council to expeditiously proceed with the project in order to meet the March 2012 deadline for the making of the LEP.

 

Council must also consider various applications for “LEP Amendments applications” that have been received and whether Council will agree to the requests to incorporate these in the Draft Plan.  At the Working Party meeting of 29 March 2011, an “Information Briefing Document” on these applications was given to Councillors.  These matters are addressed in a separate report to this Council meeting and this should be considered prior to this report. Any recommendations arising from that “LEP Amendment Submissions” report can be incorporated into this draft LEP as part of the recommendations of this report.

 

 

2       Draft Local Environmental Plan Workshops

 

The following workshops have been held, with various briefing documents and explanatory notes handed out to attendees.

 

19 October 2010                            Introductory meeting only, this covered LEP Standard Instrument Basics

                                              

16 November 2010              Zoning and Land Uses, Meeting Notes in Attachment 4

                                                        

15 February 2011                 Development Standards, Meeting notes in Attachment 5

         

29 March 2011                     Presented Working Draft LEP, Meeting notes in Attachment 6

 

 

Key matters arising from LEP Workshops

 

The following issues were raised by Councillors at the workshops.

 

2.1    Church and School Uses should not be shown within an R2 (Residential) Zone but have a specific land use zoning.

 

          Officer Comment

 

Schools have been shown on the Draft LEP maps as an SP2-Educational Establishments Zoning, which is similar to the existing Special Uses Zone in the Ashfield LEP 1985.  Some Councillors attending the Workshop expressed the idea that there were an adequate number of places of public worship in existing Residential Areas and so it was not necessary to permit them in Residential Areas, on the basis that currently established church premises would have existing use rights, and that new churches in Residential Areas could cause amenity and nuisance issues for local residents. 

 

However, the Draft LEP shows Churches as a permissible use in R2 Zones as they have traditionally been permitted in these zones. This also aligns with planning practice notes issued by the DOP relevant to preparation of new LEP’s which state that these types of uses should be permissible in residential areas and should reflect the zoning of surrounding land.  Churches are also permissible with consent in Commercial Zones of the LEP, including B1, B2 and B4 zones. Any amenity issues can be addressed via development control plan measures – e.g. stipulating minimum allotment size/building separation distances from residential properties, etc.

 

2.2    Summer Hill Town Centre and Croydon Town Centre should not be a B4 Mixed Use Zone, because this would give the perception that they have the same hierarchical economic importance / town planning status as the Ashfield Town Centre, and might therefore be suitable for similar types of development in the future contrary to their desired low scale “Urban Village” character.

 

          Officer Comment

 

          Croydon Town Centre and Summer Hill Town Centre are now shown in the Draft LEP as zoned B2 – Local Centre.

 

2.3    Car park Site in Summer Hill Town Centre should not have a Business Zoning, and should be zoned Open Space, in order to ensure that the land is not capable of being developed in the future, and has potential for future open space.

 

          Officer Comment

 

          The car park site is now shown zoned RE1 – Open Space in the draft LEP.

 

2.4    Nos 4-12 College Street (west side), Croydon, should be zoned R2 (equivalent of Residential 2(a) zoning).

 

          Officer Comment

 

          This land is shown zoned R2 in the draft LEP map.

 

          2.5    Nos. 4, 6, 10 Queen Street which contain existing flat buildings, should be zoned R3 rather than a mixed use zoning i.e. the equivalent of the current Residential 2(c) zoning.

 

          Officer Comment

 

          These properties are now shown zoned R3 in the draft LEP.

 

2.6    Sex Service Locations should not be located near any churches.

 

          Officer Comment

 

          Their has also been a late submission from a Councillor (received after the 29 March Workshop) arguing that Sex Service Locations should not be restricted to any particular locations in Mixed Use/Business Areas, and should also be allowed as “home occupation-sex service premises”. 

 

          DOP mandates that these types of uses must be permitted in the Ashfield LGA.  A preference is that they be located at first floor level only in specific parts of business zones, and so mapping accompanying the Draft Plan show possible locations for sex service premises in business zones within the Ashfield Town Centre. However, the whole matter needs further detailed consideration and should therefore be deferred. DOP should be advised that irrespective of the proposals shown on the Maps Council has not made a final decision on this matter. Having sex service in areas other than business zones is not likely to have community support and may engender resident complaints, and such a proposal has not been entertained by Council to date.

 

          (Note: Marrickville Council allows sex service premises only in industrial areas – however, these are substantially large areas in comparison with the Ashfield LGA).

 

2.7    LEP should have anti-clustering provisions to control such things as child care centres.

 

          Officer Comment

 

          DOP advise that “Anti – clustering” provisions should not be included in a Draft LEP on the basis that these types of controls are a disincentive to competition.

 

2.8    An 8.5m Height Plane is too high for Haberfield.

 

Officer Comment

 

The Draft LEP now shows a height plane of 7m. This allows for various areas ranging from the distance from natural ground level (on sloping sites) to ground floor level, to attic rooms and then to the top of the roof ridge. The height plane must also have enough clearance so as to not prohibit rear roof extensions (currently allowed in the LEP and DCP).  Any house design within the height plane would need to conform to the Ashfield DCP.

 

2.9    A 12.5m Height plane in R3 “flats” zones is too high, and will allow a 4th storey (proposal applicable to current 2(c) flat areas).

 

Officer Comment

 

          Currently the “Ashfield LEP 1985 “has a maximum ceiling height control for 2(c) zones of 9m, which does not take into account any roof structures above this.  It is also an outdated 1980’s era control which had no regard for environmental requirements for high floor to ceiling heights for cross ventilation and to also allow “hot air” to rise above living spaces.

 

          The Draft LEP shows a 12.5m Height Plane.  This must take into account:

 

-        sloping sites and the varying distance between natural ground level and the building’s ground floor (e.g. ranging from 600mm to 1000mm);

 

-        the number of storeys, e.g. 3m per storey (9m in total) to accommodate a minimum of 2.7 high clear distance to ceiling,  the ceiling framing and any concealed services, and floor structural components

 

-        the distance from the top of the last storey to the top of the roof, or top of plant room, or top of lift overrun (e.g. approx. 2.5m);

 

          Noting the above, a reduction in the 12.5 high plane would create two major problems. Firstly, it would restrict the architecture of apartment buildings to cube like/flat roof forms and not allow the option for more traditional pitched roof architecture. Secondly, low “non - environmental” ceiling heights might result.  A lower height restriction would therefore not be beneficial for the built environment in terms of promoting good design. It is therefore necessary to control the design including the permitted number of storeys within Council’s DCP. 

 

          Therefore, the draft LEP shows the proposed height plane in those parts of the R3 zone which were formerly zoned 2(c) remaining as 12.5 metres (note that for existing town house 2(b) zones which are now within the single R3 medium density zone the maximum height plane is set at 9 metres).

 

2.10  There should be a 2 storey height maximum in the Croydon Town Centre and Summer Hill Town Centre, and the maximum height plane should be 10m - not 13m.

 

Officer Comment

 

Summer Hill Town Centre

 

Currently there is no height limit in the Ashfield LEP 1985 for the Summer Hill Town Centre (SHTC).  Part C14 of Ashfield DCP 2007 sets a maximum ceiling height of 7m, the equivalent of 2 storeys.  This is at odds/contradicts the fact that there are many 3 storey buildings in the Summer Hill Town Centre. 

 

          Summer Hill Town Centre is proposed to be listed as a Conservation Area, and its streetscape and historic buildings street will be conserved/protected if this occurs. This proposal is dependant on DOP supporting those heritage listings. Council therefore needs to be mindful to present a balanced position to DOP on the matter of achievable height within the Centre, and not to suggest something which might cause DOP to reject any Heritage Conservation listings. It is not advisable, given SHTC’s nodal inner west location, with a rail station, to propose to limit all new non-historic development to the rear of existing buildings to two storeys or 10 metres. Bearing this in mind, the following explains the rationale for the proposed 13m height plane control:

 

          A 13m height plane to be included in the draft LEP would allow some potential for unobtrusive 3 storey infill development to the rear of properties.  A reworked DCP for the Centre could also require the front historic part (e.g. for distance of 12m back from the primary street frontage) to be retained/protected. For new buildings a street frontage height zone of 10 metres would also apply for a distance of 12m from the street frontage.  Map 1 has been prepared (see below) to show the areas where this would occur. For more abundant caution it is recommended that Council planning officers should include such a map in the Draft LEP backed up by applicable clauses and this also be cross referenced in an updated DCP Part for Summer Hill.

 

 

 

Map 1.   Showing sites affected by a two storey, 10 height control applied from the street frontage and extending 12 m into the site, and thereafter allowing up to 13m to the rear of properties.

 

Croydon Town Centre

 

Currently there is no height limit in Ashfield LEP 1985 for the Croydon Town Centre and there is also no DCP control. It is recommended the same controls apply to Croydon as are proposed for Summer Hill (see above). Map 2 below shows which sites would be affected.

 

 

 

Map 2.   Showing sites affected by a two storey, 10 height control applied to street frontage and allowing up to 13m to the rear provided taller structures are setback at least 12m from primary street frontage. .

 

 

2.11  (a) Any Floor Space Ratio bonus in the Ashfield Town Centre for affordable housing should be 50% of  additional floor area not 25% proposed in the Draft LEP, and :

 

(b) What is the likely amount of FSR increase that will result from the 7 metre

(2 storey) height bonus for affordable housing?

 

Officer Comment:

 

 Clause 6.1 of the Draft LEP has been included in the LEP to address Council’s Corporate Community Strategic Plan position that the new LEP needs to address issues of housing affordability and sustainability.

 

There is no exact science for arriving at a ‘perfect’ allowable FSR percentage bonus.  In relation to affordable housing, these are dwellings that would be donated to for example a community housing provider. The costs for this must be borne by the developer after profits have been realised for the other dwellings.  At a basic level, if there is no reasonable incentive for a developer to construct the additional floorspace, no additional affordable units will result. Dedicating a 25% amount of any additional floorspace appears reasonable, whilst 50% appears an unreasonably high figure and will likely mean that the measure will simply be ineffectual. 

 

 One also cannot precisely state the amount of likely FSR increase as it will vary site by site and is dependent on the likely uptake by developers, which is unknown.  In round terms, assuming an upper level building floorplate of 600 sqm (15m wide x 40m long, say 8 dwellings x 75 sq m apartments),  over two levels, on a 1600m2 site (40 m wide x 40m long) , the FSR increase might be 0.75:1. So for example in the Ashfield Town Centre, an achievable FSR utilising the bonus might increase from 3:1 to 3.75:1. Using a rate of 25 percent of dwellings to be provided as affordable housing this would generate 4 ‘affordable housing dwellings’ and 12 other dwellings. (Note that if there is no residential component the building must achieve the highest possible “Green Star” sustainable energy rating to access height/fsr incentives). It is considered that the 25 percent requirement for affordable housing as a proportion of any additional floor area accessed via the proposed bonus provisions and the proposed sustainable building incentive should remain as shown in the Draft LEP.

 

2.12  Tall buildings within the Ashfield Town Centre will cause overshadowing of adjacent buildings and streets.

 

Officer Comment

 

There are only a few sites with increased heights in the Draft LEP. The following contains Map no 3 which shows the locations of these sites and thereafter there is a discussion of those sites. There is also a Map 4 below, showing sites with an increase in FSR since the two matters are interrelated.

 

Map 3. Sites within Ashfield Town Centre, with proposed increase in building heights in Draft LEP compared to heights in existing DCP 2007

Map 4. Sites within Ashfield Town Centre, with proposed increase in maximum total FSR in Draft LEP compared to existing Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

There are two sites which were proposed on the “March 29” version of the LEP to go to 10 storeys (current controls say 8 storeys), being 5Markham Avenue and 2A Brown Street (west side facing station).

 

(i)         5 Markham Avenue is adjacent to a 10 storey building, hence the rationale for this height.  A street wall height, 12 metre setback will be applied to ensure upper level building separation. So, for example, there might be a separation of 12m + 3.5m footpath+ 6m (lane) + 3.5m footpath giving a total 25 (m) separation to any buildings to the south. The site is also oriented approx 25 degrees to the east of north, meaning that afternoon winter solar access would be achieved to properties to the south.

 

(ii)        2A Brown Street site is a “lower site’, about 2-3 storeys below Liverpool Road,

adjacent the train station and several bus routes. A 10 storeys building would be a similar height to an 8 storey building off Liverpool Road. However given the recent decision of the JRPP in relation to a development application for a mixed use development on the site, the maximum achievable height should be altered to 8 storeys in the Draft LEP Maps.


 

Other sites where there are building height increases to bring them into compliance with the existing 8 storey maximum scale found in the present DCP 2007 are:

 

(iii)    Sites between 317-357 Liverpool Road (between Cavill Avenue and Markham Lane) currently have a 4 storey height limit, and total maximum FSR of 3:1.  A street wall height, 12 metre setback applies to ensure upper level building separation, then to the south there is the 20m wide Liverpool Road, a row of shops and then a Church (setback from the street) approximately 15m. The sites are oriented approx 25 degrees to the east of north, meaning that some degree of winter solar access is available after noon in winter along Liverpool Road.

 

(iv)    Sites at 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 Cavill Ave are zoned Res 2(c) have 2/3 storey flat buildings, and the new LEP proposes a zoning of Mixed use allowing 8 storey buildings, with potential separation distance of approx 15m between buildings. 

 

(v)    Sites at 8 Cavill Avenue currently have a 4 storey height limit and maximum permitted FSR of 2:1. They are shown in the Draft LEP with a 8 storey, 29m height limit, with a 3:1.FSR in order to have a consistent development standards in the town centre.  This site currently has tall commercial buildings and so it might be that no new additional development will be sought. There is therefore no objection to Council resolving to place a height limit on this site to reflect the existing building and adjusting the FSR to be 2:1 in the Draft LEP as currently exists in the LEP 1985. 

 

(vi)   Sites at 296-312 Liverpool presently have a 2 storeys height limit in the DCP 2007 and are shown in the draft LEP as 3 storeys (13m) max height. This is a minor increase in height to allow some more design flexibility for those sites.

 

(vii)   Sites along 2-12 Murrell Street currently have a 6 storey height limit in the DCP, they are shown on the Draft LEP as 8 storeys (23m) height plane. The sites are oriented approx 25 degrees to the east of north, and building will located along this axis, and so morning and afternoon solar access will be available to neighbouring properties. 

 

The above demonstrates that in some cases there is adequate building separation for afternoon winter solar access to buildings within the town centre setting, given the orientation of the sites, and a reasonable amount of winter solar access to buildings within a dense town centre context. Nevertheless, in order to provide more certainty, it is recommended that a clause be added to the future DCP for the Ashfield Town Centre requiring that any development take into consideration neighbouring sites and needs to achieve minimum acceptable levels of winter solar access for dwellings for those properties, and to demonstrate this by providing computer modelling that demonstrates they will achieve 3 hours winter solar access to a large proportion of any dwellings.


 

There are two (2) other sites of particular interest:

 

(vii)   The building heights for the Mall site in the Draft LEP are the equivalent of those in the current DCP. They show an 8 storey height limit in the current DCP (4 storeys above the car park level ) but with a maximum of 6 storeys allowed along the approx 30m  wide strip along the interface with Norton Street (equivalent to  one to two additional  storeys above the existing car park level at this point ).

 

          The Draft LEP will reflect the above DCP height limits. The Draft LEP also increases the maximum achievable FSR for the Mall site from 2:1 to 3:1 to be consistent with adjoining sites and the Town Centre generally. Any additional development, given the proposed building height constraints, will have to be located toward the Liverpool Road side rather than Norton Street side.  A future DCP will also control how the floorspace should be distributed on the site, including exploring possibilities of providing more public open space and greater amounts of business/shop floorspace.

 

(viii)      The current controls for the Meriton site at 2 Brown Street are 6 storeys and contained in the DCP 2007, and there is a maximum FSR of 2:1 in the LEP 1985.  The Draft LEP currently shows 8 storeys and maximum FSR of 3:1, in order to have consistent development standards in the Town Centre and to reflect the maximum existing height of the development.  The site has already been developed and it is probable that no new additional development will eventuate. There is no objection to Council resolving to place a 6 storey height limit on this site and concurrently adjusting the FSR to be 2:1 as currently exists in the Ashfield LEP 1985.      

 

Apart from the above sites (i)-(viii), there are no building height increases proposed in the draft LEP for Ashfield Town Centre, compared to the current LEP 1985.

 

The following is a discussion of the street wall height controls of the DCP for the Ashfield Town Centre and how they might be applied in the Draft LEP.

 

          (ix)    Ashfield DCP 2007 nominates a human scale street wall height zone in various areas in the Ashfield Town Centre. Concerns were expressed at LEP Workshops as to whether future development would adhere to this requirement. It is recommended that Council planning officers include a map in the draft LEP with applicable clauses, as follows:

 

          DCP 2007 map (Map 5 below)  shows the specific areas within the boundaries of site allotments bounded in red line (not fill),  where a street wall height  zone applies. This is not possible to show on an LEP map. An LEP map can only show in outline the entire boundaries of allotments affected, and then be referenced to a clause in the written Plan which would nominate the area of the site required to have the maximum 12m street wall building height-setback 12m from the front boundary.  Such a clause could be drafted along the following lines:

 

A street wall maximum height zone of 12m applies to land shown on Map X., extending a distance of 12 m back from Liverpool Road, Norton Street, Hercules Street and  Markham Place primary property street frontages. 

 

 It is recommended that a suitable Map and the above clause be added to the Draft  LEP.

 

 

Map 5: Areas shown in current Ashfield DCP affected by street wall height zone (indicative as to how they would also be shown in the new Draft LEP).

.

 


2.13  Request that Council Depot site be rezoned Open Space, including the laneway leading to Liverpool Road

 

Officer Comment

 

          This has been shown in the Draft LEP.

 

2.14  Drive through take-away establishments should be prohibited along Parramatta Road given the proximity of dormitory (house) areas and issues of amenity and nuisance.

 

Officer Comment

 

          There is no separate definition for ‘drive through take-away establishments’ in the LEP template definitions, so this type of use would fall under the definition of restaurants, retail or food and drink premises which need to be permitted along Parramatta Road.  Land Use definitions in the LEP template are determined by the Department of Planning. 

 

 

Council has resolved to lobby the State Government to create a separate definition for ‘drive through take-away establishments’ in the LEP template so that they (justifiably) can be more effectively controlled as a separate land use. However, DOP are unlikely to agree to this so officers have added Clause 6.8 to the draft LEP which includes a specific definition for ‘drive through takeaway establishments’ and also states that these type of uses are not permitted within the proposed Enterprise Zone along Parramatta Road. This matter will be raised with DOP during the Pre-Section 64 referral

 

Council officers are also currently preparing a DCP to address this type of land use.  A translation of some of those controls might also be possible in the future LEP.

 

2.15  There should be more employment generating buildings in the Town Centre, such as office buildings.

 

Officer Comment

 

          In order for this to occur, there needs to be incentives for this, including higher FSRs (but not necessarily allowing more building height).  For example, land opposite the office building cluster at Cavill Avenue, at 317-357 Liverpool Road, within close vicinity of the railway station. This would also have an economic multiplier effect, e.g. more trade for existing businesses.  Commercial development within a 6 storey height limit (equivalent of 8 residential storeys), could likely take an FSR of 5:1, since such building types have larger floor plates (almost twice the size), compared to flat buildings.  This has been explained previously to Councillors at workshop discussions, but Council has not been agreeable to this. If Council wishes to reconsider this issue a further explanatory report can be submitted to the Committee.

 

2.16  “Markham Place” building is 10 storeys and 30m high and Draft LEP shows the height plane for an 8 storey building as being 29m and is therefore wrong

 

Officer Comment

 

          As explained above elsewhere in the report, the LEP height plane must make allowances for all building components, from natural ground level to the top of plant rooms.  The existing 10 storey Markham Place has artificially low floor to ceiling heights for its commercial ground level, being ceilings of 2.4m in height.  The normal commercial height should be a minimum of 3.6 m, (ideally 4m clear to ceiling height).  The building has many low floor to ceiling heights of 2.4 metres. Attachment 7 has an elevation of this building, it shows its ground level as being mostly flat, but this is not normal, since sites will have a site fall across the land that must be taken into account. The diagrams in Attachment 7 show an elevation of Markham Place to the top of its plant rooms as approx 33.5m. Noting the above, as a comparison a section is shown through a 8 storey mixed use building which shows that a 29m height plane is an absolute minimum height.

 

          Council cannot have lower height planes in an LEP which are technically incorrect, and prohibit the last storey from being able to fit within the height plane, or result in low 2.4 m ceiling heights which do not meet well accepted BASIX and SEPP 65 environmental requirements, and do not provide adequate internal spatial living areas. Also, LEP controls cannot be in conflict with the BASIX SEPP control, which require as a minimum 2.7 floor to ceiling heights, with further allowances for mechanical fixing of ceilings and services and the thickness of floor slabs.

 

2.17  Semi detached houses should be allowed throughout Ashfield, except on heritage listed sites and in heritage conservation areas.

 

Officer Comment

 

          In theory, this is agreed with, as it would provide a large amount of housing choice.  Also, existing houses could be retained and subdivided which would be a cheaper option of producing such housing (compared to constructing new houses, given Ashfield’s high land costs).  This would also contribute locally to Sydney’s housing supply problem.

 

 The design of such development is of fundamental importance in order to ensure a good fit with the existing environment and neighbouring properties.  However, this has been compromised by the Department of Planning who have expanded the Complying Development provisions of the Codes SEPP to apply to smaller lots down to 200 m2 in area and 6m in width. The imposition of these requirements has potential for ‘blocky’ tall and bulky buildings up to 8.5m high and extending along the block, with minimal design control. Given this scenario, for reasons of accessibility the position has been taken to limit the semi-detached houses proposal to within 800m of rail stations. 


 

2.18 How much gross floor area does the Ashfield Town Centre (ATC) currently have and how much will the new Draft LEP allow?

 

Officer Comment

 

          It is not known how much existing gross floor area is contained in the ATC. This would require a site by site survey, which would be a lengthy and costly exercise. What can be provided is more relevant in town planning terms indicating the additional dwellings space using present LEP controls, and Draft LEP controls. The following table is a summary.

 

Table 1 comparison of Ashfield Town Centre existing LEP and draft LEP dwelling yield.

 

For the purposes of simplifying calculation to accord with standard dwelling sizes, the table below uses a gross rate of 100 sqm per dwelling. As a “snapshot”, it provides some ball park estimates (but is subject to continuing refinement). 

 

“Spatial capacity” means the amount of dwellings that can be constructed if the maximum floorspace ratio is utilised and all sites are developed. Not all sites will be redeveloped so one has to assume a build out rate/percentage.

 

“Build out” rate means the degree (amount) of development that would occur in any area. The rates used are conjectural, since it is not possible to forecast the future property market.  For example it may that particular sites remain undeveloped due to a lack of any economic incentive.

 

Existing LEP 1985

Dwellings

Draft LEP 2011

Dwellings

Spatial Capacity

1183

Spatial Capacity

1410

 

 

 

 

Hypothetical Build Out Rate 2010-2020

40%

Hypothetical  Build Out Rate

2010-2020

40%

No of Dwellings 2010-2020

474

No of Dwellings 2010-2020

 

564

 

 

 

 

Hypothetical Build Out Rate 2010-2030

65 %

Hypothetical Build Out Rate

2010-2030

65 %

No of Dwellings 2010-2030

 

768

No of Dwellings 2010-2030

 

916

 


 

3       Documents to be Referred to Department Of Planning

 

At the LEP Workshop of 29 March 2011 all Councillors were given:

 

(i)         Technical Town Planning Report giving an overview of the LEP (Attachment 1)

(ii)        Draft (written) LEP 2012 (Attachment 2)

(iii)       Draft  2012 Maps (Attachment 3)

 

The above documents will be referred to the Department of Planning as part of the Pre-Section 64 process described in part 4 of this report. Some minor corrections have been made as part of a checking process explained below.

 

Given that this report is a public one, the following must be noted: The above Draft LEP documents have the status of being a ‘Draft Proposal’ and should not be relied on by any parties external to Council as having any certainty, in theory any part of the Draft LEP content’s is capable of being changed up until such time as the final form of the LEP has been gazetted (made law).

 

3.1    Draft LEP Maps

 

-       Properties at 1 Lion Street (has side frontage to Liverpool Road) and 390-400 Liverpool Road are now shown as B4 Mixed Use, FSR 1.5:1, and maximum height 13m.  This is because they are affected by a road widening proposal. Houses and buildings at 390-400 Liverpool Road will therefore likely be demolished if this road widening should occur. The land is adjacent to a major road intersection and forms part of a corner shop/business node. It is not logical to have a R2 zoning in these circumstances

 

-        The Mall site height immediately adjacent to Norton Street is now shown as 6 storeys, to reflect the current DCP controls (previous draft incorrectly showed 8 storeys extending to Norton Street). 

 

-        Properties at 314-318 Liverpool Road which are adjacent to the Miller Avenue Conservation Area were shown as a B4 mixed use zoning, with a 6 storey height limit and FSR of 2:1. Given they are adjacent to houses in Miller Street, their maximum FSR has been changed to 1.5:1, and their maximum permitted height to 3 storeys.  This also corresponds to the height contained in the existing Ashfield DCP 2007.

 

-        The entire Summer Hill car park area is shown with 0 (zero) FSR.

 

-        46-56 Liverpool Road, the former Grosvenor Hospital site, has an Infrastructure SEPP approval, to its east side, to allow Residential Flat Buildings.  The west side has no “quasi-zoning” for flats and remains a Special Use Hospital Zone under the Ashfield LEP 1985, and contains the remains of the former hospital buildings and landscape which are heritage items. 


The west side has therefore been shown as low density R2, i.e. not allow multiple dwellings to be placed within this heritage landscape, and to be compatible with R2 area further to the west. However, a clause should be added to the LEP referencing this site and allowing apartments within the former historic hospital building to encourage its restoration.

 

-        Properties at 10-14 Thomas Street were incorrectly shown R3 medium density on the 29 March 2011 version of the draft LEP, and they are now shown low density R2.

 

-        Yeo Park Infants School was incorrectly shown within an Open Space, and is now shown as within an SP2-Educational Establishments Zone.

 

3.2    Technical Report summarising LEP content

 

This is a technical town planning document produced to provide a summary of the substance of the LEP, for the purpose of facilitating communication with town planning staff at DOP. Councillors received a copy of this document at the March 29 LEP Workshop. Since then some minor corrections were made to that version to reflect the contents of this planning report to Council.

 

4       Status of the LEP Project 

 

The September 2010 report to Council explained that the project was behind schedule.  There has been a further 4 month delay due to deferrals, and the following milestone tasks are repeated from the September report but shows updated estimates of completion dates for various tasks.

 

Section 62’ Consultation with Agencies

 

Council is required to formally notify public authorities of the draft LEP Project and seek the formal views of these authorities. 

 

This action was carried out during Feb/ March 2011. 

 

Finalise content of Working Draft Principal LEP

 

Council officers organised a series of workshops to progress the LEP as follows:

 

Workshop No 1           19 October 2010 workshop held

Workshop No 2           16 November 2010 workshop held

Workshop No 3           December workshop deferred

Workshop No 3           15 February 2011 workshop held

Workshop No 4           29 March 2011 workshop held.


 

Preliminary Referral to DOP (Pre Section 64)

 

Council is required to refer the completed version of the Draft LEP to the DOP under Section 64 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act in order to have DOP check whether it complies with the various state planning requirements and would therefore be supported by DOP.   The process will also identify any technical gaps that need to be addressed in order to be able to progress to the next stage of the making of the LEP. Due to the 2009 Ashfield’s Biggest Conversation process, the Urban Strategy has the advantage of being able to demonstrate that the new draft LEP contents have broad community support, since the LEP content will be a reflection of the draft Strategy.

 

(Action originally programmed: March 2011).

 

Action now programmed - June 2011. This will depend on the outcome of the May 31 Committee meeting and the referral to a full Council meeting on 14 June 2011. 

 

Section 64 Report and request issue of certificate to exhibit Draft Plan (Section 65)

 

The final content of the draft LEP, plus supporting technical documentation (Section 64), will be forwarded by Council in a report to DOP in order for DOP to issue a Section 65 Certificate under the Act.  This is a certificate which allows the public exhibition of the draft LEP.

 

(Action originally programmed: Forward final Section 64 report to DOP May 2011).  

 

Action now programmed: Forward final Section 64 report to DOP July 29, 2011.   Note: This depends on the date of response of “Pre Section 64” comments from DOP (assume late June response), and whether DOP agrees with the content of the draft LEP.  

 

Issue of Section 65 Certificate by DOP and Public Exhibition of the Draft LEP

 

(Action originally programmed:  Receive Section 65 certificate from DOP allowing public exhibition of Draft LEP May - June 2011).

Action now programmed: Receive Section 65 certificate from DOP Sept 2011 allowing public exhibition of Draft LEP.

 

Formal Public Exhibition of Draft LEP

 

This is a public exhibition process that must follow the steps laid out in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. On exhibition will be the LEP and accompanying maps, plus supporting material such as the Urban Planning Strategy and Analysis and Issues Document.

 

(Action originally programmed:  July - August 2011).

Action now programmed:  Extended exhibition period October - December 2011.


 

Review of Public Exhibition/Feedback

 

Review Public feedback and produce a report to Council and then forward to DOP under Section 68 of the Act detailing public submissions and any amendments Council wishes to make.

 

(Action originally programmed: December 2011).

Action now programmed: February 2012

 

Section 69 Report

 

Council is required to prepare a final report on the new Comprehensive LEP, summarising the Plan’s compliance with State Government Polices, etc, and forward this to DOP.  DOP will then forward the new LEP to the Minister requesting the LEP be made law. 

 

Action programmed: March 2012.

 

Gazettal and Notification

 

Once the Minister signs off on the LEP, notice is given in the Government Gazette that the LEP has been made law, and the date this commences. This will depend on how quickly DOP can process the Section 69 report, and so the earliest potential date for gazettal is likely April 2012.

 

5       New Funding for LEP Project

 

Council was previously advised by memo that DOP had agreed to fund Council for any additional work carried out to speed up the making of the LEP in order to meet the agreed March 2012 milestone for the submission of the final Section 69 report to the Minister. This is the ‘LEP Acceleration Fund’.

 

A signed agreement was received from DOP on 5 May 2011. This comprises two funding instalments of $63, 000 which will be paid if specific milestones are met for additional work, - for example, work done by consultants or temporary new staff. 

 

The next first instalment milestone dates (from which a maximum of $63,000 can be claimed) are:

 

-           24 May 2011- Pre section 64 submission and meeting with DOP. (This date is not achievable because of the cancellation of the April Council meeting). No significant additional costs have been incurred by Council for this to be a concern.

 

-           29 July 2011 for the submission of a Section 64 certificate from Council to DOP.  DOP advise that if this date is not met, the first instalment payment will be lost. 


 

            To achieve the above July target , Council should agree on the content of the draft LEP at its meeting on the 14 June 2011, and authorize Council officers to submit  the  ‘Council agreed draft LEP content’ as part of  the formal Section 64 submission to DOP.  Councillors would be kept in the loop at all times by way of memos/in touch, etc in relation to how the discussions with DOP are progressing. If there are fundamental areas of disagreement with DOP the matter would be reported to Council for further consideration.

 

The second Instalment additional work (from which a maximum of $63,000 can also be claimed from DOP) will include more detailed/more intensive community consultation processes than would normally be the case (e.g. more venues, staff and advertising of the LEP), during the public exhibition of the LEP, which is in the community interest to pursue. The exhibition period (as explained above in Part 4 of this report) must commence in October 2011 in order to meet the March 2012 deadline for the LEP.

 

It is therefore important that in order to fully access the funding offer no additional delays are incurred. This will enable a Section 64 submission to be made on 29 July 2011 and October 2011 start date for the public exhibition of the Plan. 

 

6       Request from Department of Planning

 

DOP officers have verbally requested that Council give Council’s town planning officers delegation to make any further changes to the LEP without seeking Council authority for this. This is, of course, for Council to decide.  Officers are under the understanding that Councillors wish to examine each step in the process, and so this may not be appropriate.

 

7       Conclusion

 

As explained in the report, the working Draft LEP is required by law to be referred to the Department of Planning for the purpose of obtaining feedback to Council on its contents. 

 

Council needs to decide on the final content of the LEP in order to allow Council’s planning officers to continue with process of making the LEP and carry out the required referrals to DOP, within the mandatory time frame.

 

As reported in September 2010, if Council is not able to forward a completed new Comprehensive LEP by March 2012 to DOP, DOP could potentially advise the Minister of Planning to take over the process of producing a new LEP for the Ashfield LGA. It is evidently in Council’s and the local community’s interest to keep control of the content of the LEP. 

 

Council should therefore agree to the content of the Draft LEP, give authority to Council officers to refer the agreed version of the draft LEP to DOP for pre Section 64 and Section 64 stages, and authority to obtain a Section 65 certificate from DOP to  publicly exhibit the draft LEP. If any changes are required by DOP to the Draft LEP, other than minor clerical ones, this would be first reported to Council for Council to determine whether such changes should be made.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

LEP Overview Planning Report

12 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Working Draft Local Environmental Plan

107 Pages

 

Attachment 3View

LEP Maps

19 Pages

 

Attachment 4View

LEP Working Party Meeting Notes - 16 November 2010

3 Pages

 

Attachment 5View

LEP Working Party Meeting Notes - 15 February 2011

3 Pages

 

Attachment 6

LEP Working Party Meeting Notes - 29 March 2011

5 Pages

 

Attachment 7

Diagram Building Height Comparison

1 Page

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/4    That amendments resolved to be made by Council to the Draft Local Environmental Plan arising from the separate report “Ashfield LEP Project – Amendments Submissions” be incorporated into the Draft Local Environmental Plan document contained in Attachments 2 and 3.

 

2/4    That Council endorse the contents of the Draft Local Environmental Plan contained in Attachments 2 and 3 as amended by “Recommendation 1” above.

 

3/4    That Council refer the Draft Local Environmental Plan as amended to the Department of Planning for the purpose of making a “Pre -Section 64” referral, and to carry out a “Section 64” submission procedure under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, in order to obtain a “Section 65 Certificate” from the Department of Planning to enable Ashfield Council to publicly exhibit the Draft Local Environmental Plan.

 

4/4    That Council officers advise Council of any major changes the Department of Planning stipulate Council make to the content of the Draft Local Environmental Plan or any conditions attached to a Section 65 Certificate prior to the exhibition of the Draft Local Environmental Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment


Attachment 1

 

LEP Overview Planning Report

 













Attachment 2

 

Working Draft Local Environmental Plan

 












































































































Attachment 3

 

LEP Maps

 


Attachment 3

 

LEP Maps

 



















Attachment 4

 

LEP Working Party Meeting Notes - 16 November 2010

 




Attachment 5

 

LEP Working Party Meeting Notes - 15 February 2011

 




Attachment 6

 

LEP Working Party Meeting Notes - 29 March 2011

 






Attachment 7

 

Diagram Building Height Comparison