VC: JA

 

6 December 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Councillor/Sir/Madam

 

You are invited to attend an ORDINARY MEETING of Ashfield Council, to be held in the Council Chambers, Level 6, Civic Centre, 260 Liverpool Road, Ashfield on TUESDAY  13 DECEMBER 2011 at 6:30 PM.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

VANESSA CHAN

General Manager

 

 

 

SEE ATTACHED AGENDA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Meeting - 13 December 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.

(13/12/2011)

 

7.                      Confirmation of Minutes of Council/Committees

 

Ordinary Meeting - 22/11/2011

Budget and Operations Review Committee - 22/11/2011

Ashfield Youth Committee – 21/11/2011

Aboriginal Consultative Committee – 17/11/2011

Civic Centre Redvelopment Committee – 15/11/2011

Ashfield Access Committee – 14/11/2011

Ashfield Seniors Committee – 8/11/2011

 

8.                      Mayoral Minutes

 

MM56/2011  MONITORING 24 HOUR OPERATION OF MCDONALDS HABERFIELD

 

MM57/2011  CORRUPTION PREVENTION

 

9.                      Notices of Motion

Nil

10.                  Staff Reports

 

10.1     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.206.1
179 ELIZABETH STREET, ASHFIELD

 

10.2     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.239.1
108 VICTORIA STREET, ASHFIELD

 

10.3     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.168.1
137 EDWIN STREET NORTH, CROYDON

 

10.4     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.209.1
11 MILLER STREET, HABERFIELD

 

10.5     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2010.018.2
59 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ASHFIELD

 

10.6     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.139.1
185 NORTON STREET, ASHFIELD

 

10.7     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.100.1
8 PEMBROKE STREET, ASHFIELD

 

10.8     ASHFIELD COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN – ASHFIELD 2022 – OUR PLACE, OUR FUTURE

 

10.9     DRAFT PRINCIPAL LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012 AND ASHFIELD DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2007

 

10.10   PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ASHFIELD DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN (DCP) 2007 PART C02 (ADVERTISEMENTS AND ADVERTISING STRUCTURES)

 

10.11   LEASE FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE  - CIVIC CENTRE BUILDING

 

10.12   CENTENARY PARK LEASE FOR SIX (6) A SIDE SOCCER COMPETITION

 

10.13   COUNCIL BOUNDARY CHANGE REQUEST - CROYDON

 

10.14   REVIEW OF EXISTING MANAGEMENT OF ABANDONED OR UNATTENDED SHOPPING TROLLEYS POLICY

 

10.15   CIVIC CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT INQUIRY - REPORT AND ACTION PLAN 2011

 

10.16   AUSTRALIA DAY AWARDS 2012

 

11.                  General Business

12.                  Closed (Public Excluded) Committee

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

 

12.1     AUSTRALIA DAY AWARDS 2012

 

  Confidential - It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session        with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that personnel matters concerning particular individuals. 

 

13.                  Close

 

 

 

 

Ashfield Council

 

Ordinary Meeting

13 December 2011

 

 

8         Summary of  Mayoral Minutes

 

8.1         MONITORING 24 HOUR OPERATION OF MCDONALDS HABERFIELD. Lyall Kennedy - Councillor. Report submitted.

(30/11/11)                                                                                                               Planning

                                                  h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211MM_57.DOC

                                                                                                         MM56/2011 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3         That in early 2012, Council convenes a community meeting to                  consult and engage the community on strategies to be used to monitor the 24 hour trial operation of the McDonalds’ Haberfield outlet.

 

2/3         That the General Manager provide a report to the first meeting of             Council in 2012 on the strategies which the Council will support for             effective monitoring of the 12 month trial of 24 hour operation of                     McDonalds Haberfield. 

 

3/3         That the report include strategies for facilitating community             involvement in reporting incidents and options for effective             surveillance of the intersection of Parramatta Road and Dalhousie Street and Ashfield Park .

 

8.2         CORRUPTION PREVENTION. Lyall Kennedy - Councillor. Report submitted.

(02/12/11)                                                                 Governance>Corruption Prevention

                                                  h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211MM_58.DOC

                                                                                                         MM57/2011 Attached

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3         That a letter of thanks be sent to Mr Mark Eady for his presentation.

 

2/3         That a copy of our Staff Expenses Policy be sent to ICAC seeking          comment on the effectiveness of the Policy from a corruption prevention standpoint.

 

3/3         That a copy of Council’s recently adopted Public Interest Disclosures           Policy be sent to the NSW Ombudsman’s Office for comment.

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011 MM56/2011

Planning

MAYORAL MINUTE

 

MONITORING 24 HOUR OPERATION OF MCDONALDS HABERFIELD

       

 

Commissioner Brown of the Land and Environment Court has granted McDonalds a 12 month trial of 24 hour operation.

 

There is much concern expressed by residents that 24 hour operation will facilitate anti-social behaviour around the premises (including Ashfield Park) and generate noise from patrons entering and leaving the premises in the hours between Midnight and 5am.

 

Unless incidents are properly reported and recorded during the trial period, it is likely that the Land and Environment Court will approve 24 hour operation in perpetuity.

Residents are looking to Council to assist in setting up systems to make it easy for them to report incidents and have them processed in a way that can be used as credible evidence when the Land and Environment Court reviews McDonalds’ performance during the trial period.

 

At the August 2011Traffic Committee the RTA was requested to install a traffic camera at the intersection of Parramatta Road and Dalhousie Street to monitor the performance of the intersection before and after the opening of the McDonalds outlet.

 

The RTA has written back to Council advising that it did not propose to install a camera at the intersection. Council should consider what alternate options are available to provide effective surveillance of the intersection of Parramatta Road and Dalhousie Street and Ashfield Park.

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3    That in early 2012, Council convenes a community meeting to consult and engage the community on strategies to be used to monitor the 24          hour trial operation of the McDonalds’ Haberfield outlet.

 

2/3    That the General Manager provide a report to the first meeting of   Council in 2012 on the strategies which the Council will support for   effective monitoring of the 12 month trial of 24 hour operation of    McDonalds Haberfield. 

 

3/3    That the report include strategies for facilitating community involvement in reporting incidents and options for effective   surveillance of the intersection of Parramatta Road and Dalhousie Street   and Ashfield Park .

 

COUNCILLOR L KENNEDY

Mayor


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011 MM57/2011

Governance>Corruption Prevention

MAYORAL MINUTE

 

CORRUPTION PREVENTION

       

 

Councillors would be aware that earlier this year Ashfield Council adopted its first ever Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy and Corruption Prevention Plan outlining a range of actions to improve awareness and the organisation’s resistance to corruption over the next 4 years.

 

I am aware that the General Manager and the Executive Management Team are being very proactive in ensuring that we implement the Plan.  In the last couple of weeks, all Council staff have received training on the new Public Interest Disclosures legislation and specifically on how to make and handle public interest disclosures in relation to corruption and maladministration. Staff are currently in the process of confirming a date for an information session on the new Public Interest Disclosures legislation to be delivered to Councillors by the Ombudsman’s Office in February 2012.

 

On 29 November 2011, Mr Mark Eady from the ICAC gave a presentation to Councillors, Internal Audit Committee members and Council staff on the recent ICAC investigation into Burwood Council.  This investigation centred on the activities of a former General Manager of Burwood Council and resulted in a number of findings of corruption, including in relation to the General Manager’s use of expenses.  Arising out of the recommendations from the Burwood Inquiry, Ashfield Council recently adopted a Staff Expenses Policy.  There is currently no formal requirement for councils to have a Staff Expenses Policy, nor is there a template or guidelines in place by the Division of Local Government.  Given the ICACs findings in relation to Burwood Council it would be useful to get ICACs feedback on our policy.

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3    That a letter of thanks be sent to Mr Mark Eady for his presentation.

 

2/3    That a copy of our Staff Expenses Policy be sent to ICAC seeking           comment on the effectiveness of the Policy from a corruption prevention           standpoint.

 

3/3    That a copy of Council’s recently adopted Public Interest Disclosures           Policy be sent to the NSW Ombudsman’s Office for comment.

 

COUNCILLOR L KENNEDY

Mayor  


Ashfield Council

 

Ordinary Meeting - 13 December 2011

 

 

10       Summary of  Staff Reports

 

10.1       DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.206.1

179 ELIZABETH STREET, ASHFIELD

.Philip North - Specialist Planner. Report submitted with attachments 1 to 4.

(29/11/11)                                                                                                 DA 10.2011.206

                                                   h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211SR_15.DOC

                                                                                                               CM 10.1 Attached

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) approve Development Application No. 2011.206 for alterations and additions to an existing building and its use as a boarding house on Lot 1 in DP 83082, known as 179 Elizabeth Street, Croydon, subject to the following conditions:

 

10.2       DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.239.1

108 VICTORIA STREET, ASHFIELD

Haroula Michael - Development Assessment Officer. Report submitted with attachments 1 to 4.

(29/11/11)                                                                                                 DA 10.2011.239

                                                   h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211SR_16.DOC

                                                                                                               CM 10.2 Attached

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) approve Development Application No. 10.2011.239.1 for the construction of a cabana on Lot 5 in DP: 2681, known as 108 Victoria Street, Ashfield subject to the conditions as noted in the Officer’s report.

 

10.3       DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.168.1

137 EDWIN STREET NORTH, CROYDON

William Daskalopoulos - Development Assessment Officer. Report submitted with attachments 1 to 5.

(29/11/11)                                                                                                 DA 10.2011.168

                                                   h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211SR_17.DOC

                                                                                                               CM 10.3 Attached

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2         That the objection to Clause 12(2)(a) of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended), lodged pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1, is not considered to be well-founded and it is recommended that the objection not be supported; and

 

2/2         That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Section  80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) refuse Development Application No. 10.2011.168.1 for alterations and additions to existing dwelling house including a basement level to be used as a rumpus and laundry area, a new swimming pool, construction of a front fence, rainwater tank and various landscape works on Lot 30 in DP: 733, known as 137 Edwin Street North, Croydon, for the reasons as noted in the Officer’s report.

 

10.4       DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.209.1

11 MILLER STREET, HABERFIELD

William Daskalopoulos - Development Assessment Officer. Report submitted with attachments 1 and 2.

(30/11/11)                                                                                                 DA 10.2011.209

                                                   h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211SR_18.DOC

                                                                                                               CM 10.4 Attached

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) refuse Development Application No. 2011.209 for alterations and additions to a dwelling house including an attic and demolition of a garage on Lot 190 in DP: 4960, known as 11 Miller Street Haberfield for the reasons as noted in the Officer’s report.

 

10.5       DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2010.018.2

59 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ASHFIELD

Philip North - Specialist Planner. Report submitted with attachments 1 to 3.

(30/11/11)                                                                                                 DA 10.2010.018

                                                   h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211SR_19.DOC

                                                                                                               CM 10.5 Attached

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) refuse modification of Development Consent No. 10 2010.199 for the construction of a boarding house on Lot 7, Sec 10 in DP 439, known as 59 Liverpool Road, Ashfield for the reasons as noted in the Officer’s report.

 

10.6       DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.139.1

185 NORTON STREET, ASHFIELD

Philip North - Specialist Planner. Report submitted with attachments 1 and 2.

(30/11/11)                                                                                                 DA 10.2011.139

                                                   h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211SR_20.DOC

                                                                                                               CM 10.6 Attached

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) refuse Development Application No. 10.2011.139.1 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and outbuilding, and the construction of an in-fill residential flat building on Lot 1 in DP 1007091, known as 185 Norton Street, Ashfield, for the reasons as noted in the Officer’s report.

 

10.7       DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.100.1

8 PEMBROKE STREET, ASHFIELD

Atalay Bas - Manager Development Services. Report submitted with attachments 1 to 5.

(01/12/11)                                                                                                 DA 10.2011.100

                                                   h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211SR_22.DOC

                                                                                                               CM 10.7 Attached

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Ashfield Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) refuse Development Application No. 10.2011.100.1 on Lot 1 in DP 303772 and Lot B DP 361610, known as 8 Pembroke Street, Ashfield for the reasons as noted in the Officer’s report.

 

10.8       ASHFIELD COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN – ASHFIELD 2022 – OUR PLACE, OUR FUTURE. Nellette Kettle - Director Corporate & Community Services. Report submitted with attachment 1.

(28/11/11)                                                                                 Community Strategic Plan

                                                   h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211SR_14.DOC

                                                                                                               CM 10.8 Attached

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the draft Community Strategic Plan for exhibition.

 

10.9       DRAFT PRINCIPAL LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012 AND ASHFIELD DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2007. Ron Sim - Manager Strategic Planning & Projects. Report submitted with attachments 1 to 4.

(24/11/11)                                                                                      P&E>PRINCIPAL LEP

                                                   h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211SR_10.DOC

                                                                                                               CM 10.9 Attached

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/6         Council authorise a Section 64 Report to be prepared and submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure with a request that a     Section 65 Certificate be issued to enable public exhibition of Draft          Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

2/6         The Section 64 technical document referred to in ‘Recommendation 1’ above incorporate the officer recommendations detailed in Section 5 of this report and a copy of the Section 64 submission be circulated to Councillors for information prior to its submission to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure.

 

3/6         A further report be provided to Council detailing the future response of Department of Planning and Infrastructure to Council’s Section 64   submission including details of any conditions attached to the issue of a Section 65 Certificate by the Department prior to exhibition of the        Plan.

 

4/6         The additional report referred to in ‘Recommendation 3’ above outline an appropriate Council response to any conditions applied by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to the Section 65 certificate including (where there are clear differences of opinion which Council      considers the Ashfield community needs to be aware of) publicising    Council’s preferred policy stance in conjunction with public exhibition of Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

5/6         An interim updated version of Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 be prepared as soon as possible to align legislatively with the Draft LEP and a report be submitted to Council providing a synopsis of recommended changes as soon as practicable.

 

6/6         A report be submitted to Council in February 2012 detailing a proposed comprehensive community engagement strategy to effectively promote        and manage consultation processes for the Draft Local Environmental Plan and interim updated Draft Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007.

 

10.10    PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ASHFIELD DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN (DCP) 2007 PART C02 (ADVERTISEMENTS AND ADVERTISING STRUCTURES). Ron Sim - Manager Strategic Planning & Projects. Report submitted with attachment 1.

(25/11/11)                                                                                                           P&B>DCP

                                                   h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211SR_11.DOC

                                                                                                             CM 10.10 Attached

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3         That Draft Amended Part C02 - (Advertisements and Advertising Structures) Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 be approved

          and notice of approval of the document be published in a local newspaper as required under the regulations to the Act.

 

2/3         That a copy of Draft Amended Part C02 - (Advertisements and Advertising Structures) Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007

          as approved be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure as required under the regulations to the Act.

 

3/3         That the Department of Planning and Infrastructure be provided with a copy of this report as contextual supporting data to augment officer responses to current proposals by the Department to expand exempt development categories for pole/pylon signs and projecting wall signs.

 

10.11    LEASE FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE  - CIVIC CENTRE BUILDING. Nellette Kettle - Director Corporate & Community Services. Report submitted.

(28/11/11)                                                                                         Leases>Civic Centre

                                                   h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211SR_13.DOC

                                                                                                             CM 10.11 Attached

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2         That Council note the contents of this report.

 

2/2         That Council authorise the General Manager to negotiate and execute a suitable lease with MMRC for the commercial premises at the entrance to the Civic Centre building.

 

10.12    CENTENARY PARK LEASE FOR SIX (6) A SIDE SOCCER COMPETITION. Peter Kapocius - Coordinator Parks and Trees. Report submitted.

(10/11/11)                                                                            Park and Reserves > Leases

                                                     h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211SR_4.DOC

                                                                                                             CM 10.12 Attached

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/4         That Council note the current operational position and work being undertaken to activate a Tendering Process including a project timeline.

 

2/4         That the contractual arrangement be for a period of three (3) years.

 

3/4         That the lease arrangement be for one night a week for five hours during Summer and four hours in Winter.

 

4/4         That Council staff be authorised to proceed to a tender process to             establish a lease arrangement with a commercial organisation for the             use of Centenary Park for a six a side soccer competition.

 

10.13    COUNCIL BOUNDARY CHANGE REQUEST - CROYDON. Phil Sarin - Director Planning and Environment. Report submitted with attachments 1 and 2.

(05/12/11)                                                                                                                      PLC

                                                   h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211SR_24.DOC

                                                                                                             CM 10.13 Attached

RECOMMENDATION

 

Submitted to Council for consideration.

 

10.14    Review of existing Management of Abandoned or Unattended Shopping Trolleys Policy. Maurice Morsanuto - Manager Regulatory Services. Report submitted with attachment 1.

(25/11/11)                                                                                                                    Policy

                                                   h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211SR_12.DOC

                                                                                                             CM 10.14 Attached

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/4         That Council write to all trolley owners including their corporate offices and Ashfield Mall inviting them to meet with Council representatives with a view to forming an agreement on timelines and processes to introduce management of shopping trolley containment systems. This meeting to be held before the end of February 2012.

 

2/4         That Council representatives advise trolley owners of its intended course of action should a satisfactory agreement not be reached.

    

3/4         That Council obtain general legal advice on matters raised in the report.

 

4/4         That a further report be prepared for Council by the end of March 2012 which details the outcome of the meeting held with trolley owners and other stakeholders and appropriate follow up actions.

 

10.15    CIVIC CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT INQUIRY - REPORT AND ACTION PLAN 2011. Vanessa Chan - General Manager. Report submitted with attachment 1.

(05/12/11)                                                               Civic Centre Redevelopment Project

                                                   h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211SR_25.DOC

                                                                                                             CM 10.15 Attached

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2         That the Report be received and noted

 

2/2         That a copy of the Report be sent to the NSW Division of Local                     Government, for their information and consideration.

 

10.16    AUSTRALIA DAY AWARDS 2012. Nicola Feltis - Communications Officer. Report submitted with attachments 1 to 3.

(05/12/11)                                                                                   Public Relations>Awards

                                                   h:\reports.bp\Council\Reports\CM131211SR_23.DOC

                                                                                                             CM 10.16 Attached

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/5         That Council determine the recipient of the Citizen of the Year Award

 

2/5         That Council determine the recipient of the Young Citizen of the    Year                Award

 

3/5         That Council determine the recipient of the Young Sportsperson of the Year Award

 

4/5         That Council determine the recipient of the Young Artist of the Year Award

 

5/5         That Council determine recipients of any additional Australia Day               Achievement Awards

  

 

12.         CLOSED (PUBLIC EXCLUDED) COMMITTEE

 

              That the Committee resolve into Closed (public excluded) meeting to consider the following items and the Press and Public be excluded during the committee’s consideration in accordance with Section 10A Subclause (2)(a) of the Local Government Act, 1993.

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011   CM10.1

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.206.1
179 ELIZABETH STREET, ASHFIELD

File Ref                            DA 10.2011.206

 

Prepared by                   Philip North - Specialist Planner        

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0     Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Clause 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council’s consent to use an existing building as a boarding house.

 

The proposal involves alterations and additions to an existing single storey building to create:

·     16 rooms (6 with ensuites): consisting of 8 double rooms and 8 single rooms

·     2 living rooms

·     3 kitchens

·     5 communal bathrooms

·     Private open space

·     4 car parking spaces (including one accessible)

·     3 motorcycle spaces

·     Bicycle parking

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

2.0     Summary Recommendation

 

The development is recommended for conditional approval.

 

Background

 

3.0     Application Details

 

Applicant                                 :         Mr D Chen

Owner                                     :         Mr D Y Chen & Ms Z Niu

Value of work                          :         $86,900

Lot/DP                                    :         LOT: 1 DP: 83082

Date lodged                            :         16/09/2011

Date of last amendment         :         16 September 2011

Building classification             :         3

Application Type                     :         Local

Construction Certificate         :         No

Section 94A Levy          :         Yes/No

 


Council’s compliance officer investigated a complaint that the premises were being used as a boardinghouse earlier this year and this was confirmed upon inspection. An order was subsequently served on the operators to cease the use and this was complied with and the lodgement of this development application followed.

 

4.0     Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the Northern side of Elizabeth Street, bounded by Etonville Parade to the West and Frederick Street to the East.  The site area is approximately 1516 square metres.  An existing single storey building is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises dwelling houses as well as Ashfield Aquatic Centre across the street.  Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.

 

5.0     Development History

 

Previous building and development applications submitted to Council for the subject site include:

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

6.1955.1777

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

6.1956.1826

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

6.1958.2438

13/5/1958

Unknown

Approved

6.1960.3141

10/05/1960

Convalescent Home Additional Room 7/Re-roof verandah

Approved

6.1960.3273

30/08/1960

 

Approved

6.1961.4856

14/02/1961

Amenities block & sleeping quarters

Approved

6.1965.5540

17/08/1965

 

 

6.1966.5963

26/08/1966

Wyoonga Hospital – Enclosure of verandahs

Approved

6.1968.6690

02/04/1968

Detached sleeping quarters for matron

Approved

6.1978.199

03/07/1978

Alterations to Wynoonga Nursing Home

Approved

6.1981.308

03/09/1981

Refurbish & extend bathroom

Approved

6.1988.296

13/09/1988

Additions to nursing home

Approved

6.1992.381

24/02/1992

Alterations & additions to existing nursing home

Approved

 

Previous consents are not relevant to the current proposal but establish that the site has been used as a nursing home for a considerable time.

 

Assessment

 

6.0     Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

·     The site is zoned 2(a) - Residential under the provisions of Ashfield LEP 1985.

·     The property is not located within a Conservation Area.

·     The property is not a heritage item.

·     The property is located within the vicinity of a proposed heritage item (a 2 storey dwelling house) at 177 Elizabeth Street. It is considered that the development does not have a detrimental impact on the heritage item.

·     The proposed development is reliant upon a number of development standards and provisions in SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing).

 

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

 

7.0     Section 79C Assessment

 

The following is an assessment of the application with regard to the heads of consideration under the provisions of Section 79C of the EP&A Act.

 

7.1     The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

7.1.1  Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

The site is located within the 2(a) Residential zone under Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

Although the LEP prohibits Boarding Houses in the zone, the proposal is permissible with consent under the Part 2, Division 3, of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

The proposed Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is 0.34:1. This complies with the maximum floor space ratio of 0.75:1 permitted under Clause 17 of Ashfield Local Environmental Plan.

 

It is considered that the proposal generally complies with the provisions of the Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

7.1.2  Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

It is considered that the carrying out of the proposed development is generally consistent with the objectives of the Plan and would not have any adverse effect on environmental heritage, the visual environment, the natural environment and open space and recreation facilities.

 

7.1.3  State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

 

The application does not propose any variation to development standards and as such SEPP 1 is not applicable.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

According to Council records, the site has been used for residential purposes for at least 50 years and as such, is not considered likely to require remediation.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality Of Residential Flat Development

 

The proposal is not classed as a Residential Flat Building under the SEPP and as such this policy does not apply.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

 

The proposal is compliant with boarding house standards in SEPP ARH as follows:

 

BOARDING HOUSES

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY

 (AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING) 2009 - DIVISION 3

CLAUSE

REQUIREMENT

PROPOSED

COMPLIANCE

(* - subject to condition)

Clause

4(1)

Land to which policy applies

Site located in Residential - 2(a) Zone

(Land Zone equivalent to Residential Zones).

YES

Clause 27

For purpose of Boarding House

Boarding House proposed.

YES

Clause 28

Development able to be carried out with consent

Consent sought.

YES

Clause 29

Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

 

N/A

(1) Density or Scale

a) the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land
(ALEP 1985 - CL. 17(2) permits 0.75:1 floor space ratio in Residential 2(c) Zone), or

0.34:1 FSR proposed.

YES

b) if the development is on land within a zone in which no residential accommodation is permitted- the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of development permitted on the land, or

Residential Accommodation permitted. Refer to Subclause (c).

N/A

c) if the development is on land within a zone in which residential flat buildings are permitted and the land does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an EPI or an Interim heritage order or on the State Heritage Register-the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land
(ALEP 1985 - CL. 17(2) permits 0.75:1 floor space ratio in Residential 2(c) Zone), plus:
(i) 0.5:1, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less (1.25:1), or
(ii) 20% of the existing maximum floor space ratio, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is greater than 2:5.1

N/A

Residential flat buildings not permitted on the land.

N/A

(2)(a) - Building Height

if the building height of all proposed buildings is not more than the maximum building height permitted under another EPI for any building on the land
(ALEP 1985 -CL. 17A(3)(b) permits 9m building height in Residential 2(c) Zone)

Approx 6.8m max.

YES

(2)(b) - Landscaped Area

if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located,

There is adequate landscaping compatible with the streetscape.

YES

(2)(c) - Solar Access

where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter,

Communal living room > 3 hours direct sunlight.

YES

(2)(d) - Private Open Space

(i) one area of at least 20sqm with a minimum dimension of 3metres is provided for the use of the lodgers,

136.6m2 and minimum  dimension > 3m.

YES

(ii) if accommodation is provided on site for a boarding house manager - one area of at least 8sqm with a minimum dimension of 2.5m is provided adjacent to that accommodation,

No on-site manager.

N/A

(2)(e) - Parking

(i) in the case of development in an accessible area—at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room:

3.2 spaces required

Development located in an accessible area.  4 Spaces provided.

YES

(ii) in the case of development not in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room,

N/A

N/A

(iii)  in the case of any development—not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site,

N/A

N/A

(2)(f) - Accommodation

 

if each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least:

 

(i) 12sqm in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or

All rooms  12sqm or more.

YES

(ii) 16sqm in any other case.

All other rooms  12sqm or more and of those, 8 are 16m2 or more.

YES

(3) Kitchen/Bathroom

A boarding house may have private kitchen or bathroom facilities in each boarding groom but is not required to have those facilities in any boarding room

6 rooms have an ensuite bathroom.

YES

(4) Consent

A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standard set out in subclause (1) or (2)

 Proposal complies.

N/A

Clause 30

Standards for Boarding Houses
A consent Authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it is satisfied of each of the following:

 

(1)(a) - Communal living room

if a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided,

Several communal rooms provided.

YES

(1)(b) - floor area

no boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 square metres,

All rooms < 25sqm.

YES

(1)(c) - Occupation

no boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers,

All rooms are indicated to be single or double occupancy.

YES

(1)(d) - bathroom/kitchen facilities

adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger,

8 rooms have ensuites and 6 common bathrooms are provided.

YES

(1)(e) - On site manager

if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager,

N/A  

N/A

(1)(f)

Repealed

 

 

(1)(g) - Street Front (Commercial Zone)

if the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposes, no part of the ground floor of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use,

N/A

N/A

(1)(h) - Bicycle Parking

at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.

(Req. 31 rooms – 6.2 motorcycles and 6.2 bicycles)

3 motorcycle spaces and 3 bicycle racks provided.

YES

30A

Character of Local Area:

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

No change is proposed to the overall presentation of the existing building to the street and the character is considered to be acceptable.

YES

Clause 52

No subdivision of Boarding Houses.

A consent Authority must not grant consent to the strata subdivision or community title subdivision of a boarding house.

Not proposed.

YES

 

It is considered that the proposal has suitably addressed the development standards and as such meets the aims of the policy.

 

7.2       The provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority.

 

There are no draft environmental planning instruments applicable to the proposal.

 

7.3       The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

The proposal has been considered against the provisions of the Ashfield Development Control Plan (DCP) 2007:

 

C1

ACCESS AND MOBILITY

See report below.

C5

 

MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL FLAT ZONES

N/A .The property is not in a flat zone.

C11

PARKING

The proposal has provided parking (vehicle/motor cycle and bicycle) in accordance with the minimum requirements of SEPP (ARH). It also includes one accessible space as required by clause 4.1(a) of Part C11.

C18

BOARDING HOUSES

Complies with this part.

 

Part C1  - ACCESS ADAPTABILITY AND MOBILITY.

 

Access is provided from the front boundary to and throughout the entry level of the building.

 

All communal rooms are accessible. The proposal includes one accessible room and two accessible bathrooms. An accessible path of travel is provided from the car park to the accessible room.

 

It is not nominated if the internal fixtures and fittings are accessible, however, this could be reaffirmed by way of condition should the application be approved by Council.

 

It is considered the application complies with the parts as indicated and ultimately achieves the aims and objectives of the Ashfield DCP.

 

7.4       Any matters prescribed by the regulations that apply to the land to which the development application relates.

 

These matters have been considered in the assessment of this application.

 

7.5     The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts on the locality.

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application.  It is considered that the proposed development will have no significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts upon the locality.

 

7.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application. There are no natural hazards or other site constraints that are likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the proposed development.  The proposed development is considered suitable in the context of the locality.

 

7.7       Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

 

The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants and Councillors from 22 September 2011 to 14 October 2011.

 

7.7.1 Summary of submissions

 

Two individual submissions (Attachment 3) were received during the notification of the development application:   

 

Submissions

 

Rainbow Educational Child Care Centre

181 Elizabeth Street

ASHFIELD 2131

David Zhou

22 Frederick Street

ASHFIELD 2131

 

The matters raised in these submissions are detailed below in italics, followed by a response from the assessing officer:

 

Strangers watching children.

 

It is noted that the childcare centre entrance is located away from the path of entry to the boarding house. Additionally, the open children’s play areas are located away from common usage areas of the boarding house. It is also protected by reasonably high fences. It is therefore unlikely that visitors to the boarding house would be easily able to watch children at the child care centre. 

 

Boarding house residents may be dangerous to the children.

 

There is no reason to believe that boarding house residents would be more likely to pose a risk to children than any other member of the community.

 

Increased littering and pollution.

 

The proposal will be required to operate in accordance with an operational plan of management which requires appropriate management of garbage and litter. Non-compliance with these requirements would become a regulatory matter for Council to enforce.

 

Boarding house may currently be used illegally.

 

The unauthorised use of the premises was investigated earlier this year and an order to cease the use was complied with at the time of this action.

Dangerous people living at the boarding house and rubbish being thrown into the children’s play area.

 

There is no reason to believe that boarding house residents would be more likely to pose a risk to children than any other member of the community. Control of rubbish is addressed by the Plan of Management and non-compliance with this would become a matter for regulatory action by Council.

 

Boarding house located too far from essential services.

 

The proposal is within walking distance (260m) to the Croydon neighbourhood centre and about 120m from the nearest bus stop. This is considered to be a suitable location and is consistent with the locational criteria of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing).

 

Inadequate car parking.

 

The parking provision is consistent with the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing).

 

Negative impacts upon property values.

 

There is no independent evidence to substantiate this claim.

 

Negative amenity impacts.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant planning criteria and has been found to have minimal amenity impacts upon the surrounding area.

 

Increased noise and domestic violence.

 

There is no evidence to suggest that the proposal will lead to increased noise and domestic violence impacts upon the locality. Noise control is an issue for the Plan of Management and non-compliance with this would become a matter for regulatory action by Council.

 

Lack of support services in Ashfield.

 

Council and other agencies and groups provide various levels of support to members of the community that require financial and other support services.

 

7.8     The public interest

 

Matters of the public interest have been taken into consideration in the assessment of this application. The proposed use is considered to be acceptable warrants Council support.

 

8.0     Referrals

 

8.1     Internal

 

Department

Support/Objection (* subject to conditions)

Heritage

Support

Hydraulic Engineer

Support *

Traffic Engineer

Support

Environmental Health

Support *

Construction

Support *

 

9.0     Other Relevant Matters

 

Nil.

 

10.0   Building Code of Australia (BCA)

A Construction Certificate will be required by condition of consent.

 

 

Financial Implications

 

Section 94 Contributions:

The existing building accommodated 26 residents when it operated as a nursing home. Given that the current proposal is for a boarding house containing 24 beds (a reduction of 2 beds), no section 94 contributions are payable. 

 

Other Staff Comments

 

See Section 8.1 of this report.

 

Public Consultation


See Section 7.7 of this report.

 

Conclusion

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the EP&A Act 1979 with all matters specified under Section 79C (1) Clauses (a) to (e) having been taken into consideration.

 

The proposal complies with the all applicable requirements of both the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) and Part C 18 of Ashfield DCP 2007. Furthermore, it involves the upgrading of an existing building, largely within its existing envelope, which has no adverse impacts upon surrounding properties in respect of overshadowing, privacy or the like.

 

The proposal is acceptable and is therefore recommended for conditional approval.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

5 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Submissions

3 Pages

 

Attachment 4View

Heritage Advice

1 Page

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) approve Development Application No. 2011.206 for alterations and additions to an existing building and its use as a boarding house on Lot 1 in DP 83082, known as 179 Elizabeth Street, Croydon, subject to the following conditions:

 

 

 

A         General Conditions

 

(1)     Approved plans stamped by Council

 

The development must be carried out only in accordance with the plans and specifications set out on the drawings in the table below and date stamped by Council and any supporting documentation received with the application, except as amended by the conditions specified hereunder.

 

No.

Title

Prepared by

Amendment Date

A01(issue 02)

Site Plan/Floor Plan

3D Archplan

08.08.2011

A02 (issue 01)

South & East Elevations

3D Archplan

08.08.2011

A03 (issue 01)

North & West Elevations

3D Archplan

20.06.2011

A04 (issue 01)

Section AA

3D Archplan

20.06.2011

 

Operational Plan of Management

Urban Planning Group

July 2011

 

(2)     Maximum number of rooms and residents

 

The boarding house shall comprise of no more than 16 rooms and accommodate no more than 24 persons at any time.

 

Management of the premises must at all times monitor the number of rooms and persons within the building to ensure that the maximum numbers are not exceeded.

 

(3)     Operational Plan of Management

 

The use must operate in accordance with the Operational Plan of Management dated July 2011. The Operational Plan of Management may be amended but only if it consistent with the consent and approved in writing by Ashfield Council.

 

(4)     Subdivision Prohibited

 

Any form of subdivision of the boarding house is prohibited.

 

(5)     Boarding House Operational Requirements

 

In addition to the Operational Plan of Management, the boarding house must be operated carrying out the following requirements:

 

a)   Boarding house shall be maintained and comply with the Place of Shared Accommodation under the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 of the Local Government Act 1993 (As Amended).

 

b)   An application form for the Registration of the Place of Shared Accommodation shall be submitted to council prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate by Authority.

 

c)   An annual inspection will be carried out by Council officer and the premises shall be readily accessible by Council officer at the arranged mutually convenient time.

 

d)   An inspection and Administration Fees is applicable for the required annual inspection to be carried out to the boarding house.

 

B         Design Changes

 

nil

C         Conditions that must be satisfied prior to issuing/releasing a Construction Certificate

 

(1)     Waste Management Plan

 

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Waste Management Plan in accordance with the provisions of Ashfield Development Control Plan  - Planning For Less Waste and the Waste Planning Guide for Development Applications (Planning for Less Waste, prepared by the Regional Waste Boards), including:

 

(a)        Estimations of quantities and type of materials to be reused, recycled or left over for removal from site; 

 

(b)        Identification on a plan of on site material storage areas during construction, waste storage, recycling and composting areas;

 

(c)        Details of construction materials and methods to be used to minimise the production of waste in the completion of the new building work.

 

(d)     How waste is to be treated on the site.

 

(e)        How any residual non-reusable and non-recyclable waste is to be disposed of and including details of the approved waste disposal outlets where disposal will take place.

 

(2)        Long service levy

 

Compliance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 – payment of the long service levy under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Acts 1986 – is required. All building works in excess of $25,000.00 are subject to the payment of a Long Service Levy fee. A copy of the receipt for the payment of the Long Service Levy shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.  Payments can be made at Long Service Payments Corporation offices or most Councils.

 

(3)       Home Building Act 1989 Insurance

 

Compliance with Part 6 of Home Building Act 1989 is required. A copy of either the Builder’s Indemnity Insurance OR a copy of the Owner-Builder’s Permit shall be submitted to Council.

 

(4)       Access and services for people with a disability

 

Detailed plans drawn to the scale of 1:50 shall be submitted detailing compliance with the requirements of AS1428 Part 1 prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The plans are to show compliance to all adaptable and accessible rooms within the development and details of complying levels, ramp slopes, door widths, circulation spaces within the development.

 

(5)                   Sydney Water - Section 73 Compliance Certificate

 

A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.

 

Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator.  Please refer to the “Your Business” section of the web site www.sydneywater.com.au then follow the “e-Developer” icon or telephone Sydney Water 13 20 92 for assistance.

Following application, a "Notice of Requirements" will advise of water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid.  Please make early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of an occupation or subdivision certificate.

 

(6)        Damage deposit/footpath, road, kerb and gutter

 

A Damage Deposit of $3,000 is to be submitted prior to the release of the Construction Certificate covering repair and/or replacement of adjoining footpath, road shoulder, road pavement, kerbing and guttering both outside the subject site and the surrounding area. This is to be paid to Council and may be refunded subject to satisfactory completion of construction or demolition.

 

This Damage Deposit covers unforeseen damage to the above property by construction vehicles, skip bins, construction methods etc.  Note:  Should repair works or maintenance be required on Council land, a Road Opening Permit must be obtained before those works take place.

 

Bank Guarantees are accepted in lieu of any Council security deposit/bond subject to the following:

 

A charge equal to the value multiplied by the current “overdue rates interest charge” be levied, per month or part thereof, with a minimum charge of three months is to be paid upon lodgement.

 

Any remaining charge is to be calculated at the prevailing "overdue rates interest rate" for each month or part thereof beyond the original three months that the Bank Guarantee was held, and paid prior to its release.

 

Any costs incurred in the acceptance, administration or release of such Bank Guarantees be on-charged to the entity claiming the release of such Bank Guarantee, and that these amounts be paid prior to its release.

 

At the time of lodgement, Council will seek verification of the Bank Guarantee.  Please provide contact details for the branch (phone number and officer) to assist with verification of the bona fides of the Bank Guarantee.

 

Until all items above are completed, no documents or usage sought from Council by the party lodging the Bank Guarantee can be issued.  Please allow a minimum of 2 business days for this process.

 

(7)       Lighting to basement/pedestrian routes-safety

 

Lighting which meets the relevant Australian Standard of 40 lux., spaced at appropriate intervals to provide the required surveillance shall be provided to the communal areas, entry and along pedestrian access routes for safety and security purposes during the evenings.

 

Details to be shown on the construction certificate.

 

(8)       Water conservation

 

Water saving devices must be fitted to all showers and dual flush cisterns installed within all WC/ sanitary facilities provided throughout the development to reduce ongoing water consumption. Documentation to be shown on the plans to be provided with the Construction Certificate

 

(9)       Services adjustment or relocation

 

The applicant shall meet the full cost for Telstra, Sydney Electricity, Sydney Water or Natural Gas Company to adjust/relocate their services as required. The applicant shall make the necessary arrangements with the service authority. (For information on the location of these services contact the “Dial before you Dig” service on 1100.)

 

Documentary evidence from the public utility authorities confirming that all of their requirements have been satisfied shall be submitted to Council with the Construction Certificate under Section 68 of the Local Government Act, 1993, for construction of the development

 

D         Conditions that must be complied with before work commences

 

(1)       Requirement for a Construction Certificate

 

In accordance with the provisions of Section 81A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the erection of a building and/or construction works must not commence until:

 

(a)        detailed plans and specifications of the building have been endorsed with a Construction Certificate by:

 

         (i)      Council; or

         (ii)      an accredited certifier; and

 

(b)        a principal certifying authority (PCA) has been appointed and the Council has been notified in writing of the appointment, and

 

(c)        at least two days notice, in writing, has been given to Council of the intention to commence work.

The documentation required under this condition shall show that the proposal complies with all development consent conditions and the Building Code of Australia.

 

Note:  If the principal certifying authority is the Council, the appointment will be subject to the payment of a fee for the service to cover the cost of undertaking building work and / or civil engineering inspections.

WARNING:  Failure to obtain a Construction Certificate prior to the commencement of any building work is a serious breach of Section 81A(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.  It is a criminal offence that attracts substantial penalties and may also result in action in the Land and Environment Court and orders for demolition.

 

(2)       Inspections required by Principal Certifying Authority

 

Inspections shall be carried out at different stages of construction by Council or an accredited certifier.  If Council is selected as the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) the inspection fees must be paid for in advance which will be calculated at the rate applicable at the time of payment.

 

(3)        Site Controls

 

Sediment and erosion controls must be in place before work is commenced on the site.  The control strategies must be consistent with the technical requirements set out in the Sydney Coastal Councils’ Stormwater Pollution Control Code for Local Government.

 

Material from the site is not to be tracked onto the road by vehicles entering or leaving the site.  At the end of each working day any dust/dirt or other sediment shall be swept off the road and contained on the site and not washed down any stormwater pit or gutter.

 

A sediment and erosion control plan must be prepared and identify appropriate measures for bunding and siltation fencing.  Any such erosion and sedimentation controls shall also include the protection of stormwater inlets or gutter systems within the immediate vicinity of the site.

 

The sediment and erosion control measures are to be inspected daily and defects or system failures are to be repaired as soon as they are detected.

 

(4)       Building location - check survey certificate

To ensure that the location of the building satisfies the provision of the approval, a check survey certificate shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority either prior to the pouring of the ground floor slab or at dampcourse level, whichever is applicable or occurs first, indicating the: -

 

            (i)    location of the building with respect to the boundaries of the site;

 

(ii)        level of the floor in relation to the levels on the site (all levels are to be shown relative to Australian Height Datum);

 

            (iii)   site coverage of the buildings on the site.

 

(5)       Sydney Water approval

The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements and if further requirements need to be met.  Plans will be appropriately stamped.  For Quick Check agent details please refer to the web site: www.sydneywater.com.au, see Your Business then Building & Developing then Building & Renovating or telephone Sydney Water 13 20 92.

 

(6)       Structural engineer’s details

 

To ensure compliance with the provision of Section B of the Building Code of Australia structural engineer’s details of all structural elements shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of work, including:

 

           (i)    pier and beam footings;

           (ii)   reinforced concrete slabs;

           (iii)   stairs, including patio steps;

           (iv)  retaining walls

           (v)   all structural timber including floors, walls and roof; and

           (vi)  all structural steel.

 

(7)       Notice of Commencement – Notification of Works

 

Work must not commence until the Principal Certifying Authority or the person having the benefit of the development consent has given Notification in Writing to Council no later than two days before the building work commences. 

(8)       Sanitary facilities - demolition/construction sites

 

Toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site on which work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is being carried out, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site.

 

The provision of toilet facilities in accordance with this clause must be completed before any other work is commenced.

 

(9)       Site fencing/security

 

The site must be appropriately secured and fenced to the satisfaction of Council during demolition, excavation and construction work to ensure there are no unacceptable impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties.  Permits for hoardings and or scaffolding on Council land must be obtained and clearly displayed on site.

 

(10)        Public liability insurance – Works on Council/public lands

 

The applicant or any contractors carrying out works on public or Council controlled lands shall have public liability insurance cover to the value of $10 million and shall provide proof of such cover prior to carrying out the works.

 

(11)        Erosion, dust, topsoil and sediment control

 

Temporary measures shall be provided during construction e.g. bunding, shade cloth to prevent dust leaving the site, sandbags around Council/private stormwater pits etc. in order to prevent sediment, dust, topsoil and polluted waters discharging from the site.  Plans showing such measures shall be submitted to Council and approved prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

E          Conditions that must be complied with during construction or demolition

 

(1)          Building materials - storage/placement on footpath/roadway  - Council approval

 

All building materials shall be stored wholly within the property boundaries and shall not be placed on the footpath, grass verge or roadway without prior written approval of Council.

 

Bulk refuse bins shall not be placed on the grass verge, footpath or roadway without Council permission.  Application forms and details of applicable fees are available from Council’s Customer Service, telephone 9716 1800.

 

(2)       Signs to be erected on building and demolition sites

 

(1)        A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any work site on which work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is being carried out:

 

          (a)     stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited; and

 

(b)        showing the name and address of the contractor for the building work and the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours; and

 

(c)        showing the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority appointed for the building works.

         

(2)     Any-sign shall be maintained and not removed until work has been finished.

 

(3)       Demolition/excavation/construction – hours of work

 

Demolition, excavation and construction work, including loading and unloading of materials and machinery, shall be restricted to between the hours of 7.00 am to 6.00 pm, Monday to Friday and from 7:00 am to 1 pm on Saturday.  Work is prohibited on Sundays, and on public holidays.

 

(4)       Demolition requirements/standards

 

Demolition is to be carried out in accordance with the following:

 

(a)        Australian Standard 2601 and any requirements of the Workcover Authority.

 

(b)        The Waste Management Plan submitted with the Development Application.

 

(c)       The property is to be secured to prohibit unauthorised entry.

 

(d)        All precautions are to be exercised in the handling, removal and disposal of all asbestos materials.  Licensed contractors and the disposal of asbestos is to be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Work Cover Authority.

 

(e)        All other materials and debris is to be removed from the site and disposed of to approved outlets.

 

(f)         Any demolition on the site is to be conducted in strict accordance with, but not limited to, sections 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 3.1 and 3.9 of the AS 2601 - 1991, demolition of structures. The following measures must be undertaken for hazardous dust control:

 

(g)        Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit a Work Plan prepared in accordance with AS 2601 by a person with suitable expertise and experience to the Principal Certifying Authority.  The Work Plan shall identify any hazardous materials, the method of demolition, the precautions to be employed to minimise any dust nuisance and the disposal methods for hazardous materials.

 

(h)        Hazardous dust must not be allowed to escape from the site or contaminate the immediate environment.  The use of fine mesh dust proof screens, wet-lead safe work practices, or other measures is required.

 

(i)         All contractors and employees directly involved in the removal of hazardous dusts and substances shall wear protective equipment conforming to AS 1716 Respiratory Protective Devices and shall adopt work practices in accordance with WorkSafe Requirements (in particular the WorkSafe standard for the Control of Inorganic Lead At Work (NOHSC: 1012, 1994) and AS 2641, 1998).

 

(j)         Any existing accumulations of dust (e.g.; ceiling voids and wall cavities must be removed by the use of an industrial vacuum fitted with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter and disposed of appropriately.

 

(k)        All dusty surfaces and dust created from work is to be suppressed by a fine water spray. Unclean water from the suppressant spray is not be allowed to enter the street gutter and stormwater systems.

 

(l)         Demolition is not to be performed during high winds that may cause dust to spread beyond the site boundaries without adequate containment.

 

(m)      All lead contaminated material is to be disposed of in accordance with the NSW Environment Protection Authorities requirements.

 

(n)        Construction and demolition waste, particularly timber, bricks and tiles, concrete and other materials need not be disposed of- they can be recycled and resold if segregated properly from any hazardous waste contamination.

 

(o)        Following demolition activities, soil must be tested by a person with suitable expertise to ensure the soil lead levels are below acceptable health criteria for residential areas.  Full certification is to be provided for approval by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

(5)       Laundry facilities - BCA

Clothes washing facilities to be provided on the premises in accordance with the relevant requirements of Clause F2.1 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

In addition, two coin operated washing machines are to be provided for communal use.

 

(6)       Termite treatment

Treatment for the protection of the building from subterranean termites shall be carried out in accordance with AS 3660.1:2000 ‘Protection of Buildings from Subterranean Termites’.

 

On completion of the installation of the barrier the Principal Certifying Authority shall be furnished with a certificate from the person responsible, stating that the barrier complies with AS 3660.1.

 

A durable notice shall be permanently fixed to the building in a prominent location, such as the meter box or the like indicating:

            -      the method of protection;

            -      the date of installation;

-      where a chemical barrier is used, its life expectancy as listed on the National Registration Authority label; and

            -      the need to maintain and inspect the system on a regular basis.

 

Due to the present limited effective life of soil chemical treatments, Council does not permit hand spraying as a stand alone method of termite protection.  It is recommended that any soil chemical treatment should embrace a reticulation system.

 

(7)       Waterproofing materials/installation – BCA/Australian Standards

 

Approved products that are impervious to water shall only be used as a substrate or as a lining and as a finish to floors and walls of wet areas (i.e. bathroom/shower room, WC compartment and laundry). Floors and cubicles shall be properly graded and drained to approved outlets.

 

The wet areas in the building shall be impervious to water as required by Part 3.8.1 of the Building Code of Australia (BCA). The junction between the floor and wall and the construction of the bath shower recess, basin, sink or the like shall be in accordance with the BCA & AS 3740:2004 ‘Waterproofing of wet areas within residential buildings’.

 

On completion of the waterproofing of the wet areas, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be furnished with a certificate from the person responsible.  This is to state that the materials are suitable for the situation and that the application and/or installation has been carried out in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, the BCA and AS 3740.

 

(8)       Safety Glazing - BCA

 

Safety glazing complying with B1 of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) is to be used in every glazed door or panel that is capable of being mistaken for a doorway or unimpeded path of travel.  The glazing must comply with AS 1288:2006 ‘Glass in Buildings – Selection and Installation’.

 

Framed panels or doors enclosing or partially enclosing a shower or bath shall be glazed with "A" or "B" grade safety glazing material in accordance with AS 1288 and Part 3.6.4 of the BCA.

 

(9)       Footpath, kerb and gutter reconstruction

 

The public footpath outside the site shall be completely reconstructed to the requirements of Council’s Works & Infrastructure Department at the applicant’s expense. This work shall be carried out prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate.

 

(10)     Plans to be available on site

 

The Council stamped approved plans, Development Consent and Construction Certificate shall be held on site to be produced unobliterated to Council’s officer at any time when required.

 

(11)     Waste Management Plan – compliance

           

(a)        All requirements of the approved Waste Management Plan must be implemented during the demolition and/or excavation and construction period of the development.  Adequate measures need to be in place to ensure the ongoing waste management of the site.

 

(b)        Keep receipts of where waste will be taken to be treated or disposed.  The receipts must be presented to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the occupation certificate.

 

(12)        Finished ground surface levels at property boundary

 

Finished ground surface levels shall match existing levels at the property boundary.

                                                                                                                                

(13)        Road opening permit- Council controlled lands

 

A “road use-opening permit” shall be obtained for all works carried out in public or Council controlled lands. Contact Council’s Works and Infrastructure Department for details.

 

(14)        Inspection of Works

 

Where works are to be carried out on a public roadway, or involve Council owned / operated structures, then advance notice and inspections will be required at specified stages during the works to ensure compliance with any requirements or conditions. Works are to be carried out in accordance with Council’s specifications and in accordance with Council’s construction standards.

 

(15)     Traffic control on public roads

 

Where works are undertaken on public roads, adequate traffic control in accordance with AS 1742.3 1996  “Traffic Control Devices for work on Roads”, particularly regarding traffic movement controllers, advance warning signs and directions to motorists, shall be provided.  Where such measures are not satisfactorily provided to this Australian Standard, Council may provide such and recover the costs from any bonds held.

 

(16)     Engineering staff to inspect roadworks/drainage

 

An inspection by Council’s staff will be required for (kerb/gutter/crossing etc) at the following stages:

(i)     After excavation.

(ii)    After the erection of formwork and the placement of reinforcement and prior to pouring of concrete.

(iii)    After placement of road base course.

(iv)   After completion of any pits.

(v)    After pipes have been laid and prior to backfilling.

(vi)   On completion of works.

 

A minimum of 24 hours notice is required to be given to Council to obtain an inspection. Work is not to proceed until the works or activity covered by the inspection is approved.

 

(17)        Spoil and building materials on road and footpath

 

Spoil and building materials shall not be placed or stored within any public roadway or footpath.

 

(18)   Garbage Area

 

a)   Provide a water supply within the garbage bay area for the weekly washing of rubbish and recycling bins to maintain bins in a safe and healthy condition.

 

b)   Provide a floor waste drain in the garbage bay area with a minimum diameter of 100mm drain opening connecting directly into Sydney Water. Concrete floor is to be finished of a smooth even surface and graded to the drain.

 

(19)   Boarding house requirements

 

The building shall incorporate the following as per Part C18 – Boarding Houses, Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007:-

a)   A communal lockable storage facility is to be provided.

b)   Secure storage facilities for each room.

c)   Minimum Room furnishings.

d)   Kitchenette requirements.

e)   Food Standards requirements.

f)    Laundry Energy Rating to be satisfied.

g)   Internal doors to communal living areas are to be glass.

h)   All adaptable rooms are to be furnished or fitted out, to allow adequate circulation space for a person using a wheelchair.

i)    All doorways and corridors to the ground floor are to be wide enough to allow a person using a wheelchair to manoeuvre into and out of rooms.

j)    All adaptable rooms are to have door furniture, switches, controls and outlets are within reach of and can be used by all.

k)   A complaints register is to be kept and made available fro inspection by Council

l)    All requirements for On-Site Management and Registration are to be satisfied.

 

(20)   Fire Resistance BCA Upgrade

 

Under the provisions of Clause 93 & 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the existing premises shall be upgraded so as to satisfy the matters identified in Item No. 3.0 in the BCA report prepared by BCA Logic Pty Ltd dated 8 July 2011.

 

(21)   Design and Construction of Car Parking Area

 

The car park layout is to be designed and constructed in accordance with Australian Standards AS 2890.1 2004 “Off Street Car Parking” as well as AS 2890.6-2009 “Parking Facilities – Off-street Parking for people with disabilities”.

 

F          Conditions that must be complied with prior to installation of services

 

nil

 

G         Conditions that must be complied with before the building is occupied

 

(1)       Approval to use/occupy building

 

The building or any part thereof must not be used or occupied until an Occupation Certificate has been issued for the class 2-9 buildings, or a completion inspection, has been satisfactorily carried out for class 1&10 structures.

 

(2)       Street Number

 

A street number appropriately designed to complement the character of the building must be displayed in a position clearly visible from the street, in numbers having a height of not less than 75 mm.  The number must be in place before the premises can be occupied.

 

H         Conditions that are ongoing requirements of development consents

 

(1)     Noise abatement

 

The proprietors and owners shall take all steps necessary to ensure that no noise nuisance occurs from persons entering or leaving the premises at any times.

 

(2)     Mechanical Plant

 

All mechanical plants and air conditioner units shall be inaudible in your neighbour’s home during the hours of 8.00pm to 7.00am on weekdays and 8.00pm to 8.00am on weekends and public holidays.

 

(3)     Security gates - noise attenuation

 

Any security gate operation shall not emit any offensive noise as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

(4)     Garbage bins

 

All garbage/recycling collections must not be collected from the property by a private contractor company in between the hours of 6.00 pm to 6.00 am on any days.

 

All garbage/recycling bins are to be kept in the garbage bin storage area in the main block.  Bins are only to be placed in the designated pick up area on the day of garbage collection and are to be returned to the storage area immediately after collection.

 

(5)     Annual Inspections

 

The boarding house is to be inspected annually by Council officers.

 

I           Advisory Notes

 

nil

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 






Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Submissions

 




Attachment 4

 

Heritage Advice

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011   CM10.2

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.239.1
108 VICTORIA STREET, ASHFIELD

File Ref                            DA 10.2011.239

 

Prepared by                   Haroula Michael - Development Assessment Officer       

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine application

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0     Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Clause 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council’s consent for the construction of a cabana.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

2.0     Summary Recommendation

 

The development is recommended for conditional approval.

 

Background

 

3.0     Application Details

 

Applicant                                 :         Vaughan Milligan Development Consulting P/L

Owner                                     :         Mr P J & Mrs R J Easton

Value of work                          :         $15,000.00

Lot/DP                                    :         LOT: 5 DP: 2681

Date lodged                            :         28/10/2011

Date of last amendment         :         28 October 2011 & 25 November 2011*

Building classification             :         10a

Application Type                     :         Local

Construction Certificate         :         No

Section 94A Levy          :         N/A

 

*        Shadow diagram provided.

 

4.0     Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Victoria Street, bounded by Robert Street to the north and Clissold Street to the south.  The site area is approximately 746.1 square metres.  An existing two storey Italianate villa is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises residential development and a hospital.  Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.

 

5.0     Development History

 

Previous building and development applications submitted to Council for the subject site include:

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

DA88/380

20/12/1988

Carport

Approved

6.1988.436

30/1/1989

Carport

Approved

DA88/75

7/4/1988

Construction of a pool

Approved

6.1988.15

16/5/1988

Swimming pool

Approved

DA86/38

6/5/1986

Alterations and additions to dwelling including the erection of a new 1.8metre in high timber front fence

Approved

6.1986.198

17/6/1986

Alterations and additions to dwelling

Approved

6.1974.9218

6/2/1974

Garage

Approved

6.1959.2732

20/3/1959

unknown

Approved

6.1958.2575

14/10/1958

Deck/patio

Approved

 

The previous consents were noted in the assessment of this application.

 

Assessment

 

6.0     Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

·     The site is zoned 2(a) - Residential under the provisions of Ashfield LEP 1985.

·     The property is located within a proposed Heritage Conservation Area.

·     The property is a heritage item.

·     The property is located within the vicinity of a number of heritage items  identified as 98, 102, 104 and 110 Victoria Street, 31, 33 Tintern Road and 63, 83, 85, 87, 89 Victoria Street and two heritage conservation areas indentified as Tintern Road Conservation Area and Victoria Square Conservation Area.

 

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

 

7.0     Section 79C Assessment

 

The following is an assessment of the application with regard to the heads of consideration under the provisions of Section 79C of the EP&A Act.

 

7.1     The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

7.1.1  Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

It is considered that the proposal complies with the provisions of the Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

7.1.2  Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

It is considered that the carrying out of the proposed development is generally consistent with the objectives of the Plan and would not have any adverse effect on environmental heritage, the visual environment, the natural environment and open space and recreation facilities.

 

7.1.3  State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

Remediation of the site is not required prior to the carrying out of the proposed development.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

 

Not applicable. The proposed works cannot be defined as ‘exempt’ or ‘complying’ development.

 

7.2       The provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority.

 

Not applicable.

 

7.3       The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

The proposal has been considered against the provisions of the Ashfield Development Control Plan (DCP) 2007:

 

C10

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Council's Heritage Adviser did not raise any objections to the proposal and as such is not expected to detract from the character or significance of heritage item or adjoining heritage items.

C11

PARKING

The proposed application does not seek to alter the existing parking arrangements on the site.

C12

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS AND ALL ASPECTS OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council’s notification policy. Refer to part 7.7.1 of this report for details.

C15

HOUSES & DUAL OCCUPANCIES

Refer to comments below.

D1

PLANNING FOR LESS WASTE

A waste management plan was submitted with the application.

 

Part C15 Houses and Dual Occupancies:

 

Scale and bulk

 

The proposed cabana is located to the rear of the existing dwelling-house. As the proposal is for a detached structure and for the ancillary use of the existing main dwelling house, it is considered that the overall height of 4.17metres from the top of the existing paved slab and a 36 degree roof pitch; is excessive and therefore in order to reduce the visual impact of the proposal a condition is recommended requiring the roof pitch to be lowered to 22 degrees.

 

The subject site has a maximum FSR requirement of 0.5:1. The proposal complies with this requirement having a FSR of 0.48:1.

 

Aesthetics:

 

The Ashfield Development Control Plan requires new development to be sympathetic to the context of the site, and have a high standard of architectural composition. There are varying architectural forms of development within the vicinity of the site including dwellings of different styles and scale and a hospital.

 

Landscape and Site Layout:

 

The subject site requires 50% of the site area to be landscaping and 70% of the minimum landscaped area shall be deep soil planting. The proposal will result in a landscaped area of 469.41sqm (63.6% of the site area) and a deep soil area of 265.61sqm (258.16sqm minimum required).

 

The proposal does not seek to remove any trees on site. 

 

Amenity for neighbours:

 

The DCP requires solar access to at least 50% (or 35m2, whichever is lesser) of the principal private area at ground level of the private open spaces of the adjacent properties is not reduced to less than three hours between 9am and 3pm on the 21 June. Where existing overshadowing by building and fences is greater than this, sunlight is not to be further reduced.

 

The DCP also requires that solar access be maintained to at least 40% of the glazed areas of any neighbouring north facing living room/dining room windows.

 

Given the setback of the proposed cabana and single storey scale is not considered that the proposed structure will adversely impact the solar access to the private open space to the adjoining neighbour/s. The shadow diagrams provided indicate that the proposed structure will create minimal additional shadows beyond the shadows already cast by the dividing boundary fence. No north facing windows are affected.

 

Therefore, it is considered that the solar access to the adjoining properties is within the requirements outlined in the DCP.

 

Neighbour's Privacy:    The proposed cabana is a single storey structure and will consist of a brick wall to the southern elevation which would obscure views into the adjoining property, therefore, it is considered that the proposal will not adversely impact the privacy of the neighbouring property.

Ecological Sustainable Development:

 

A BASIX certificate was not required for the proposal as the estimated values of works is below $50,000.00

 

It is considered the application complies with the parts as indicated and ultimately achieves the aims and objectives of the Ashfield DCP.

 

7.4       Any matters prescribed by the regulations that apply to the land to which the development application relates.

 

These matters have been considered in the assessment of this application.

 

7.5       The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts on the locality.

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application.  It is considered that the proposed development will have no significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts upon the locality.

 

7.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application. There are no natural hazards or other site constraints that are likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the proposed development.  The proposed development is considered suitable in the context of the locality.

 

7.7       Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

 

The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants and Councillors from 02 November 2011 until 18 November 2011.

 

7.7.1 Summary of submissions

 

One submission (Attachment 3) was received during the notification of the development application:   

 

Submissions

 

Mr and Mrs P Griffith

110 Victoria Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

 

The matters raised in these submissions are detailed below in italics, followed by a response from the assessing officer:

 

“The plans show a high pitched roof and although the copy of the plans we have does not show exactly how high the peak of the roof will be this appears to be a substantial construction that will have a visual impact on us and has potential to cause some overshadowing of our garden. We would like to be provided with the actual dimensions of the proposed building and we note that no shadow diagrams have been provided”.

 

The plans provided to Council indicate that the overall height of 4.17metres from the top of the existing paved slab and a 36 degree roof pitch. In order to reduce the height of the roof structure a condition has been recommended to alter the roof pitch to 22 degrees. The finished floor level to the ceiling height is indicated at 2.2metres and is considered a reasonable ceiling height for its intended use. Refer to previous comments in relation to solar access and overshadowing.

 

 

“We note that the plans show enclosure of an existing BBQ but no apparent provision for a chimney or vent. At the moment the applicants have an existing bbq on that side fence and we are forced to close our bedroom window each time they use it because the smoke comes in through our bedroom window”.

 

The BBQ is proposed to be located beneath the proposed cabana which is to be setback 900mm from the side boundary. It is noted that the BBQ will be shielded by the proposed brick wall which would reduce the amount of smoke and disperse it to the sides of the cabana.

 

Under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, Sub-division 7 - Barbecues and other outdoor cooking structures can be setback 450mm from each lot boundary.

 

“The proposed building is of generous proportions and will have visual impact upon our garden outlooks and in particular impact upon us as we use the rear patio areas of our house.

 

The plans do not specify proposed colours or roof materials. The choice of “selected roof tiles” will make a difference to the visual impact the building has upon us. We would like to be provided with more detail about this”.

 

Refer to previous comments in relation to visual impact. The applicant has provided a colour schedule as part of the application, it was also referred to Council’s heritage adviser who did not raise any objections to the colour schedule.

 

“Our bedroom, and hence bedroom windows are located in the north east corner of our building which makes it the closet part of our house to the proposed development. It seems likely that the building will be used as an entertainment space with potential for greater noise impact upon us.

 

We also note the inclusion of a wall mounted TV screen in a building that appears to be open except for a wall at the back. This concerns us because the noise from the television will come straight to our bedroom.

 

“……a condition of approval that sound proofing of the television is included in the approval and that the outside is not to be used after 12pm. If it is not possible to sound proof the television in such an open area then we ask that it not be included in the proposed development approval.”

 

The proposed use of the cabana is considered an ancillary use to the residential dwelling-house and the noise impacts would be assumed to be reasonable for its use as an ancillary structure to the main dwelling house.

 

It is acknowledged that the installation of a television to the cabana may result in an amenity impact to the adjoining properties and therefore will be required to be deleted from the proposal (refer to conditions of consent).

 

“Given the proximity of the proposed building to our bedrooms we ask that hours of building be confined to 7am to 5pm Monday to Friday”.

 

Council has a general condition relation to the restriction of hours of construction which is as follows:

 

Demolition, excavation and construction work, including loading and unloading of materials and machinery, shall be restricted to between the hours of 7.00 am to 6.00 pm, Monday to Friday and from 7:00 am to 1 pm on Saturday.  Work is prohibited on Sundays, and on public holidays. These hours are considered to be reasonable.

 

7.8     The public interest

 

Matters of the public interest have been taken into consideration in the assessment of this application. The proposal is considered acceptable and therefore recommended for approval.

 

8.0     Referrals

 

8.1     Internal

 

Heritage Adviser: The application (at the provisional development application stage) originally also included a front fence. Council’s heritage adviser raised concerns in relation to this fence and it was subsequently withdrawn from the proposal.

 

Council’s heritage adviser did not raise any objections to the cabana or the proposed colour scheme and materials.

 

Comments from Council’s heritage adviser are included at Attachment 4.

 

Engineering: No objections raised, subject to conditions.

 

Tree Management Officer: No objections to the location of the proposed cabana as it will not impact any significant trees.

 

9.0     Other Relevant Matters

 

Section 94A Contribution Plan

 

The costs of works has been nominated as $15,000 therefore no contributions are applicable.

 

Stormwater Pipes – Have you checked the Drainage Map for affectation by pipes?

 

Council’s stormwater map does not indicate that the subject property is burdened by any Council or Sydney Water stormwater pipes.

 

10.0   Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

A Construction Certificate will be required to be applied for by condition of consent.

 

Financial Implications

 

Nil.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

See Section 8.1 of this report.

 

Public Consultation


See Section 7.7 of this report.

 

Conclusion

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the EP&A Act 1979 with all matters specified under Section 79C (1) Clauses (a) to (e) having been taken into consideration.

 

The proposal is acceptable, subject to some minor changes, and is therefore recommended for conditional approval.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

2 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Submissions

2 Pages

 

Attachment 4View

Heritage Advice

1 Page

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) approve Development Application No. 10.2011.239.1 for the construction of a cabana on Lot 5 in DP: 2681, known as 108 Victoria Street, Ashfield subject to the following conditions:

 

 

 

A         General Conditions

 

(1)     Approved plans stamped by Council

 

The development must be carried out only in accordance with the plans and specifications set out on drawing numbers 1009/11-1-1 prepared by G & A Draftline and date stamped by Council  28 October 2011 and any supporting documentation received with the application, except as amended by the conditions specified hereunder.

 

(2)     Compliance with BCA

 

All works are to comply with the Building Code of Australia and relevant Australian Standard requirements.

 

B         Design Changes

 

(1)     Amended plans to be submitted

Amended plans and specifications incorporating the following amendments are to be submitted with the application for a construction certificate

 

(a)   The roof pitch to the cabana shall be reduced to a 22 degree pitch

(b)        The following structures do not form part of this consent and shall be deleted from the plans:

 

·           Proposed front fence and electric gate;

·           Demolition of the existing retaining wall and timber fence;

·           Extension of the front driveway and excavation;

·           Extension of Council’s vehicular crossing;

·           Removal of Council’s street tree and

·           Wall mounted television in the cabana.

 

C         Conditions that must be satisfied prior to issuing/releasing a Construction Certificate

 

(1)          Damage deposit/footpath, road, kerb and gutter

 

A Damage Deposit of $3,000 is to be submitted prior to the release of the Construction Certificate covering repair and/or replacement of adjoining footpath, road shoulder, road pavement, kerbing and guttering both outside the subject site and the surrounding area. This is to be paid to Council and may be refunded subject to satisfactory completion of construction or demolition.

 

This Damage Deposit covers unforeseen damage to the above property by construction vehicles, skip bins, construction methods etc.  Note:  Should repair works or maintenance be required on Council land, a Road Opening Permit must be obtained before those works take place.

 

Bank Guarantees are accepted in lieu of any Council security deposit/bond subject to the following:

 

A charge equal to the value multiplied by the current “overdue rates interest charge” be levied, per month or part thereof, with a minimum charge of three months is to be paid upon lodgement.

Any remaining charge is to be calculated at the prevailing "overdue rates interest rate" for each month or part thereof beyond the original three months that the Bank Guarantee was held, and paid prior to its release.

 

Any costs incurred in the acceptance, administration or release of such Bank Guarantees be on-charged to the entity claiming the release of such Bank Guarantee, and that these amounts be paid prior to its release.

 

At the time of lodgement, Council will seek verification of the Bank Guarantee.  Please provide contact details for the branch (phone number and officer) to assist with verification of the bona fides of the Bank Guarantee.

 

Until all items above are completed, no documents or usage sought from Council by the party lodging the Bank Guarantee can be issued.  Please allow a minimum of 2 business days for this process.

 

(2)       Home Building Act 1989 Insurance

 

Compliance with Part 6 of Home Building Act 1989 is required. A copy of either the Builder’s Indemnity Insurance OR a copy of the Owner-Builder’s Permit shall be submitted to Council.

 

(3)       Footpath/laneway- photographs to be submitted

 

Prior to the release of the Construction Certificate, the applicant shall lodge with Council photographs of the roadway and footpath at the property indicating the state of the relevant pavements. At the completion of construction, again at the expense of the applicant, a new set of photographs is to be taken to determine the extent, if any, of any damage, which has occurred to the relevant pavements. If any damage has occurred, the applicant shall meet the full cost to repair or reconstruct these damaged areas to Council’s relevant standard. Failure to do this will result in the applicant being held accountable for the cost of all repair works in the area near / at the site.

 

(4)          Erosion, dust, topsoil and sediment control

 

Temporary measures shall be provided during construction e.g. bunding, shade cloth to prevent dust leaving the site, sandbags around Council/private stormwater pits etc. in order to prevent sediment, dust, topsoil and polluted waters discharging from the site.  Plans showing such measures shall be submitted and approved by Council prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

D         Conditions that must be complied with before work commences

 

(1)       Notice of Commencement – Notification of Works

 

Work must not commence until the Principal Certifying Authority or the person having the benefit of the development consent has given Notification in Writing to Council no later than two days before the building work commences.

(2)       Requirement for a Construction Certificate

 

In accordance with the provisions of Section 81A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the erection of a building and/or construction works must not commence until:

 

(a)        detailed plans and specifications of the building have been endorsed with a Construction Certificate by:

         (i)      Council; or

         (ii)      an accredited certifier; and

 

(b)        a principal certifying authority (PCA) has been appointed and the Council has been notified in writing of the appointment, and

 

(c)        at least two days notice, in writing, has been given to Council of the intention to commence work.

The documentation required under this condition shall show that the proposal complies with all development consent conditions and the Building Code of Australia.

 

Note:  If the principal certifying authority is the Council, the appointment will be subject to the payment of a fee for the service to cover the cost of undertaking building work and / or civil engineering inspections.

 

WARNING:  Failure to obtain a Construction Certificate prior to the commencement of any building work is a serious breach of Section 81A(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.  It is a criminal offence that attracts substantial penalties and may also result in action in the Land and Environment Court and orders for demolition.

 

(3)       Inspections required by Principal Certifying Authority

 

Inspections shall be carried out at different stages of construction by Council or an accredited certifier.  If Council is selected as the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) the inspection fees must be paid for in advance which will be calculated at the rate applicable at the time of payment.

 

(4)       Sydney Water approval

 

The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements and if further requirements need to be met.  Plans will be appropriately stamped.  For Quick Check agent details please refer to the web site: www.sydneywater.com.au, see Your Business then Building & Developing then Building & Renovating or telephone Sydney Water 13 20 92.

 

(5)       Structural engineer’s details

 

To ensure compliance with the provision of Section B of the Building Code of Australia structural engineer’s details of all structural elements shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of work, including:

           (i)    pier and beam footings;

           (ii)   reinforced concrete slabs;

           (iii)   stairs, including patio steps;

           (iv)  retaining walls

           (v)   all structural timber including floors, walls and roof; and

           (vi)  all structural steel.

 

E          Conditions that must be complied with during construction or demolition

 

(1)       Plans to be available on site

 

The Council stamped approved plans, Development Consent and Construction Certificate shall be held on site to be produced unobliterated to Council’s officer at any time when required.

 

(2)       Building construction - check survey

 

A check survey is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for perusal at an early stage of construction indicating excavated levels, boundary distances, site coverage and building alignment to ensure compliance with the approved plans.

 

(3)        Locate structures within boundaries

 

The proposed structure(s) to be erected must stand wholly within the boundaries of the allotment.

 

(4)          Spoil and building materials on road and footpath

 

All building materials shall be stored wholly within the property boundaries and shall not be placed on the footpath, grass verge or roadway without prior written approval of Council.

 

Bulk refuse bins shall not be placed on the grass verge, footpath or roadway without Council permission. Application forms and details of applicable fees are available from Council’s One Stop Shop telephone 9716 1800.

 

(5)       Signs to be erected on building and demolition sites

 

(1)        A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any work site on which work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is being carried out:

 

             (a)       stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited; and

 

(b)        showing the name and address of the contractor for the building work and the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours; and

 

(c)        showing the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority appointed for the building works.

         

(2)     Any-sign shall be maintained and not removed until work has been finished.

 

 

(6)     Demolition/excavation/construction - hours of work

 

Demolition, excavation and construction work, including loading and unloading of materials and machinery, shall be restricted to between the hours of 7.00 am to 6.00 pm, Monday to Friday and from 7:00 am to 1.00 pm on Saturday.  Work is prohibited on Sundays, and on public holidays.

 

(7)       Materials and colour schemes

 

Materials of construction are to be as specified in the schedule of finishes submitted with the development application and on the approved plans, except where amended by the conditions hereunder.

 

(8)       Termite treatment

Treatment for the protection of the building from subterranean termites shall be carried out in accordance with AS 3660.1:2000 ‘Protection of Buildings from Subterranean Termites’.

 

On completion of the installation of the barrier the Principal Certifying Authority shall be furnished with a certificate from the person responsible, stating that the barrier complies with AS 3660.1.

 

A durable notice shall be permanently fixed to the building in a prominent location, such as the meter box or the like indicating:

 

            -      the method of protection;

            -      the date of installation;

-      where a chemical barrier is used, its life expectancy as listed on the National Registration Authority label; and

            -      the need to maintain and inspect the system on a regular basis.

 

Due to the present limited effective life of soil chemical treatments, Council does not permit hand spraying as a stand alone method of termite protection.  It is recommended that any soil chemical treatment should embrace a reticulation system.

 

(9)       Timber framing - compliance with Australian Standards

 

All timber used in the construction of a building shall comply with the requirements of AS 1684 - 1999 Residential Timber Framed Construction.

 

(10)        Footpath, kerb and gutter protection

 

The applicant is to take all precautions to ensure footpaths and roads are kept in a safe condition and to prevent damage to Council's property.

 

Pedestrian access across this footpath must be maintained in good order at all times during work. Any damage caused will be made good by Council at Council's restoration rates, at the applicant's expense

 

(11)        Road opening permit- Council controlled lands

 

A road opening permit shall be obtained for all works carried out in public or Council controlled lands. Contact Council’s Infrastructure Services Department for details.

 

(12)        Roof guttering and drainage system/ disposal of stormwater

The roof area for all the external additions shall be provided with a complete guttering and drainage system.  Roofwater shall be disposed of by approved drainage lines discharging into the street gutter.

 

F          Conditions that must be complied with prior to installation of services

 

nil

 

G         Conditions that must be complied with before the building is occupied

 

(1)       Approval to use/occupy building

 

The building or any part thereof must not be used or occupied until an Occupation Certificate has been obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Note: If Council is chosen as the Principal Certifying Authority a fee is applicable prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

H         Conditions that are ongoing requirements of development consents

 

nil

 

I           Advisory Notes

 

(1)       Modifications to your consent - prior approval required

 

Works or activities other than those authorised by the approval including changes to building configuration or use will require the submission and approval of an application to modify the consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. You are advised to contact Council immediately if you wish to alter your approved plans or if you cannot comply with other requirements of your consent to confirm whether a Section 96 modification is required.

 

Warning:  There are substantial penalties prescribed under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for breaches involving unauthorised works or activities.

 

 

COMPLIANCE TABLE - ASHFIELD LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1985

 

CLAUSE 2

Aims, objectives etc.

This plan aims to:

(a) promote the orderly and economic development of the local government area of Ashfield in a manner consistent with the need to protect the environment; and

(b) retain and enhance the identity of the Ashfield area derived from its role as an early residential suburb with local service industries and retail centres; and containing the first garden suburb of Haberfield (now listed as part of the National Estate).

Complies.  It is considered that the carrying out of the proposed development will meet the aims and objectives of Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

CLAUSE 10

Zoning

Complies.  The property is zoned 2(a) Residential and the proposal is permissible with Council consent.

CLAUSE 10A

Development consent required for change of building use and subdivision

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 11

Dwelling houses – residential allotment size

(1) Except as provided by subclause (2), the council shall not consent to development for the purposes of a dwelling-house on an allotment of land within Zone No. 2(a), 2(b) or 2(c) unless-

(a) where the allotment is hatchet shaped – it has an area of not less than 700 square metres; or

(b) in any other case –

(i) the allotment has an area of not less than 500 square metres; and

(ii) the allotment is not less than 15 metres wide at the front alignment of the proposed dwelling house.

(2) The council may not consent to the erection of a dwelling-house on an allotment of land which does not comply with subclause (1) where the allotment was in existence as a separate allotment on the appointed day.

(3) For the purposes of subclause 1(a), in calculating the area of a hatchet-shaped allotment, the area of any access corridor shall be disregarded.

The allotment was in existence on the appointed day.

 

 

CLAUSE 12:

Number of floors in dwelling-houses

(1) In this clause, “floor” means any separate level within a building but does not include a level used exclusively for car parking.

(2) A person shall not erect a dwelling house which contains more than –

(a) in the case of land within Zone No. 2(a) or 2(b) – 2 floors; or

(b) in the case of land within Zone 2(c) – 3 floors, except with the consent of the council.

Complies.   

No. of floors           = Two

 

CLAUSE 13

Dwelling houses – dual occupancy

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 17

Floor space ratios

(1) In this clause “building” does not include a building used exclusively as a dwelling- house or residential flat building, but includes a building or buildings comprising 2 dwellings only on the same allotment.

(2) A person shall not, upon an allotment of land within a zone specified in Column I of the Table to this clause, erect a building with a floor space ratio that exceeds the ratio set out opposite the zone in Column II of that Table.

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 29

Provision for public amenities and services

The demand for public amenities and public services is not likely to increase as a result of this proposal.

 

CLAUSE 29A

Classification and reclassification of public land as operational

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 30

Heritage provisions – aims

The aims of this Part are:

(a) to retain the identity of Ashfield by conserving its environmental heritage, which includes the first garden suburb of Haberfield now listed as part of the National Estate; and

(b) to integrate heritage conservation into the planning and development control processes; and

(c) to provide for public involvement in the conservation of Ashfield’s environmental heritage; and

(d) to ensure that any development does not adversely affect the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas and their settings as well as landscapes and streetscapes and the distinctive character that they impart to the land to which this plan applies.

It is considered that the carrying out of the proposed development will meet the aims of the heritage provisions of Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

CLAUSE 32

Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics

 

 

 

 

1. Requirement for development consent

Complies.  The proposal requires development consent and this has been sought in the appropriate manner.

2. Development consent not required

Not applicable.

3. Assessment of impact on heritage significance

Complies.  It is considered that the carrying out of the proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the heritage significance of the Heritage Item

 

4. Requirement for conservation plan or heritage impact statement

Complies.  A heritage impact report has been submitted and has been used in the assessment of the application.

 

5. Assessment criteria for development of land within heritage conservation areas.

Complies.  These matters have been considered in the assessment of the application and are further discussed in part 8.1 of this report.

CLAUSE 34

Notice to Heritage Council

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 35

Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area

Not applicable.


CLAUSE 36

Development of known or potential archaeological sites

Not applicable.

 


CLAUSE 37

Development in vicinity of heritage items, heritage conservation areas, archaeological sites or potential archaeological sites

Complies.  It is considered that the carrying out of the proposal will have no adverse impact upon the heritage significance of any heritage items, conservation areas, archaeological sites in its vicinity.

 

CLAUSE 37A

Conservation incentives

Not applicable.

 

MODEL PROVISIONS

 

5(1) - Aesthetic appearance of proposed development from waterway, main or arterial road, railway, public reserve or land zoned for open space.

Not applicable.

5(2) – Car impacts

a)   adequate exits and entrances so as not to endanger persons and vehicles using public roads

b)   adequate car-parking

c)   compliance with RTA representations

d)   adequate area for loading, unloading and fuelling vehicles and for the picking up and setting down of passengers

Not applicable. The proposal does not seek to alter the parking arrangements of the site.

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 



Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Submissions

 



Attachment 4

 

Heritage Advice

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011   CM10.3

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.168.1
137 EDWIN STREET NORTH, CROYDON

File Ref                            DA 10.2011.168

 

Prepared by                   William Daskalopoulos - Development Assessment Officer       

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 

 


Overview of Report

 

Development application 2011.168 for alterations and additions to a dwelling house, new fence and swimming pool was refused under delegated authority on 14 October 2011 on the following grounds:

·    The State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 1 Objection varying Number of floors in dwelling-house- Clause 12(2)(a) of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 is not well-found and therefore is not supported;

·    The proposal fails to meets the objectives of Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007-Part C15 Houses and Dual Occupancies in particular Scale and Bulk as it exceeds the maximum floor space ratio under Clause 2.7.1;

·    The proposal fails to meets the objectives of Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007-Part C15 Houses and Dual Occupancies as it exceeds the maximum height under Clause 2.3;

·    The proposal is not in the public interest.

 

The assessment report, which is the subject of the review, is included at Attachment 5.

 

The applicant is seeking a review of the refusal of the application under section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

Applicant’s submission

 

The applicant has included a submission (refer to Attachment 4) which outlines a response to the issues raised in the assessment report. This goes to the issue of calculating the FSR and the bulk and scale of the addition. Some points in the original officer’s report have been clarified/corrected in response to the submission from the applicant.

 

The proposal has not been altered and the view of the assessment officer who has reviewed the matter in response to the submission of the 82A application is that the original recommendation for refusal should still stand.

 

Conclusion

 

The applicant is essentially asking for Council to use its discretion to support the proposal, notwithstanding the areas of technical non-compliance identified by the officers in their assessment report.

 

It is acknowledged that Council’s heritage adviser has no significant concerns with the proposal and no submissions were received in response to the public exhibition of the application. Therefore, the matter is submitted for the consideration of Council to review the original recommendation.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

24 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Heritage Advice

1 Page

 

Attachment 4View

Applicant's submission for review of application.

6 Pages

 

Attachment 5View

Delegated Assessment Report subject of review

14 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2    That the objection to Clause 12(2)(a) of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended), lodged pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1, is not considered to be well-founded and it is recommended that the objection not be supported; and

 

2/2    That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Section  80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) refuse Development Application No. 10.2011.168.1 for alterations and additions to existing dwelling house including a basement level to be used as a rumpus and laundry area, a new swimming pool, construction of a front fence, rainwater tank and various landscape works on Lot 30 in DP: 733, known as 137 Edwin Street North, Croydon, for the following reasons:

 

Reasons for Refusal

 

1.   The State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 1 Objection varying Number of floors in dwelling-house- Clause 12(2)(a) of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 is not well-found and therefore is not supported;

2.   The proposal fails to meets the objectives of Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007-Part C15 Houses and Dual Occupancies in particular Scale and Bulk as it exceeds the maximum floor space ratio under Clause 2.7.1;

3.   The proposal fails to meets the objectives of Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007-Part C15 Houses and Dual Occupancies as it exceeds the maximum height under Clause 2.3;

4.   The proposal is not in the public interest.

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 

























Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Heritage Advice

 


Attachment 4

 

Applicant's submission for review of application.

 







Attachment 5

 

Delegated Assessment Report subject of review

 















Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011   CM10.4

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.209.1
11 MILLER STREET, HABERFIELD

File Ref                            DA 10.2011.209

 

Prepared by                   William Daskalopoulos - Development Assessment Officer        

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 

 


1.0       Reasons for Report

 

Council at its meeting of 22 November 2011 deferred consideration of the above application involving additions and alteration to an existing dwelling to allow the applicant the opportunity to address the concerns of Council’s Heritage Adviser, officers and the adjoining property owner.

 

Council’s Heritage Adviser had concerns with the following design elements of the proposal:

 

·     The Jerkin Head roof profile of the new addition.

·     The row of casement windows in the rear (north) attic level.

 

The applicant has submitted amended plans (refer to Attachment 1).

 

2.0       Summary/ Recommendation

 

The amended plans include the following changes:

 

·     Replacement of the Jerkin Head Roof with a gable roof.

 

·     Replacement of the casement windows to the attic with new awning windows and fixed glass panels.

 

Council’s Heritage Adviser reviewed the amended plans on 28 November 2011 and advised that they still cannot be supported as they do not comply with the DCP on what is one of the principal issues with the Heritage Conservation Area. The revised roof profile has actually increased in length and added to the bulk of the addition. There is scope to address this issue by moving the attic rooms partially within the original roof form and altering the rear roof profile as has been suggested in the past, however, the applicant has not accepted this approach.

 

See Attachment 2 of this report for Heritage Adviser’s comments.

 

The previous recommendation for refusal is still relevant.

 

3.0     Background

 

Application Details

 

Applicant                                 :         Mr S Green

Owner                                     :         Mr D J & Mrs R J Mitchell

Value of work                          :         $290,000

Lot/DP                                    :         LOT: 190 DP: 4960

Date lodged                            :         21/09/2011

Date of last amendment         :         25/11/2011

Building classification             :         1a

Application Type                     :         Local

Construction Certificate         :         No

Section 94A Levy          :         Yes

 

4.0     Conclusion

 

The application has been amended to remove the Jerkin Head Roof and replacing the casement windows to the attic with new awning windows and fixed glass panels.

 

However, the amendments still fall short of what Council’s Heritage Adviser recommends to achieve compliance with ADCP.

 

The recommendation in this supplementary report has been changed from the original recommendation to remove the reference to the Jerkin Head Roof and the casement windows. 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Amended Plans

3 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Heritage Advice on Amended Plans

1 Page

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) refuse Development Application No. 2011.209 for alterations and additions to a dwelling house including an attic and demolition of a garage on Lot 190 in DP: 4960, known as 11 Miller Street Haberfield for the following reasons:

 

Reasons for Refusal

 

(1)     The proposed development has a row of windows at the rear to the attic level. These windows are not allowed by clause 2.6(K) of Part C7 of Ashfield Development Control Plan (ADCP). 

 

(2)     The proposed windows to the attic level are not allowed by clause 35(2)(e)(iii)(iv) of Ashfield Local Environmental Plan (ALEP).

 

(3)     The proposed development does not satisfy the aims of clause 30 of ALEP which are to retain the identity of Ashfield by conserving its environmental heritage, which includes the first garden suburb of Haberfield0 listed as part of the National Estate.

 

(5)     The windows to the attic will result in an unreasonable loss of privacy to the adjoining properties and do not comply with clause 5.5 of Part C15 of ADCP.

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment


Attachment 1

 

Amended Plans

 




Attachment 2

 

Heritage Advice on Amended Plans

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011   CM10.5

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2010.018.2
59 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ASHFIELD

File Ref                            DA 10.2010.018

 

Prepared by                   Philip North - Specialist Planner       

 

0Reasons                       Application referred to Council for determination via a Councillor request

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 

 


1.0     DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

 

An application pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, seeks Council’s approval to:   

 

·     Add an additional room to the western side of the second floor; and

·     Modify Condition 2 of the original consent to state:

The boarding house shall comprise no more than 32 rooms and accommodate no more than 40 persons at any time.

Management of the premises must at all times monitor the number of rooms and persons within the building to ensure that the maximum numbers are not exceeded.

 

The original consent permitted 31 rooms and a maximum of 39 persons.

 

2.0       SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

 

The development is recommended for refusal.

 

It is considered that the proposed amendment unacceptably alters the nature of the original proposal and its compliance with Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended) and the applicable development control plans.

 

3.0     APPLICATION DETAILS

 

Applicant                                 :         Jamisa Design Pty Ltd

Address                                  :         Suite 4 / 112 Cronulla Street CRONULLA  NSW 2230

Owner                                     :         Mr J Galatis &  Prasino Pty Ltd

Lot/DP                                    :         LOT: 7 SEC: 10 DP: 439

Date lodged                            :         11/10/2011

Date of last amendment         :         N/A

Building classification             :         3

Application Type                     :         Local Integrated

Construction Certificate         :         No

 

4.0     SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Liverpool Road, bounded by Gower Street to the north and Pembroke Street to the south.  The site area is approximately 855.6sqm.  The approved boardinghouse is currently under construction on the site. Surrounding development comprises residential accommodation of single dwelling-houses, residential flat buildings, commercial uses and a motel. 

 

Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.

 

5.0     DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

 

Previous building and development applications submitted to Council for the subject site include:

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

10.2010.18

11/05/2010

Boarding house

Approved

10.2004.106

10/09/2004

Change of use from existing squash centre to shelving and display warehouse

Approved

10.1997.112

19/08/1997

Replacement of Sign on front pole

Approved

6.1992.384

24/12/1992

Alterations to Squash Court

Approved

6.1989.373

23/11/1989

Verandah Enclosure

Withdrawn

6.1989.278

03/08/1989

Carport

Approved

6.1957.2323

26/11/1957

Unknown

Unknown

6.1957.2102

19/02/1957

Unknown

Unknown

 

This Section 96 Application seeks to amend 10.2010.18.

 

6.0     ZONING/PERMISSIBILITY/HERITAGE

 

Not altered by proposal.

 

7.0     SECTION 79C and 96(2) ASSESSMENT

 

The following is an assessment of the application with regard to the heads of consideration under the provisions of Section 79C and 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

7.1     The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

7.1.1  Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

The proposal fails to comply with the aims and objectives of Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended) in that it fails to promote the orderly development of the local government area in a manner consistent with the need to protect the environment due to the additional overshadowing of the adjacent residence that would result.

 

7.1.2  Regional Environmental Plans

 

Not applicable.

 

7.1.3  State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

The original proposal was assessed by Council’s Urban Designer who supported the building form and confirmed its compliance with the objectives of ten design quality principles of SEPP 65. 

 

The amendments proposed, however, impact upon the amenity of adjacent property at 61 Liverpool Road in respect of solar access and do not comply with the requirements of SEPP 65 and the Residential Flat Design Code as follows:

a.   SEPP 65, cl. 15, Principle 7: Amenity: The proposal does not provide adequate amenity to the adjacent dwelling at 61 Liverpool Road in respect of solar access;

b.   Residential Flat Design Code, Part 01, Local Context, Building Separation: The proposal does not achieve the recommended separation of 12m to control overshadowing of adjacent properties and fails to demonstrate adequate solar access.

 

7.2       The provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority.

 

The proposed development is not affected by any draft environmental planning instrument.

 

7.3       The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

The amended proposal has been considered against the provisions of the Ashfield Development Control Plan (DCP) 2007.

 

It is considered that the proposal would unacceptably impact upon the level of solar access to the north-eastern bedroom of the building at 61 Liverpool Road, Ashfield.

 

The proposed room, which was included in the original application, was removed during the assessment process, to permit greater solar access to the windows of the north-eastern rear room of the adjacent dwelling at 61 Liverpool Road. At the time, this room was considered to be a living room and thus subject to the provisions of Ashfield DCP 2007, Part C5, Section 5.16 (c) as follows:

 

Existing solar access should be maintained to at least 40% of the glazed areas of any neighbouring north facing living/dining room windows for a period of at least three hours between 9am and 3pm in midwinter on 21 June. If existing solar access is already less than this standard, it should not be reduced by more than 20% at any one time.

 

The applicant argues that the use of room in question has recently been determined to be as a bedroom rather than a living room and as such is exempted from the requirements of this clause. Photographs and plans have been provided to support this argument showing the room occupied by bedroom furniture.

 

Despite this, several factors cast doubt on this argument:

·     The dwelling at No. 61 has a total of 9 bedrooms (including the room in question) and yet has only one relatively compact separate formal living room at the far end of the building;

·     In contrast, most dwellings of this size would ordinarily have not only a formal living room but also a larger informal family room near the kitchen and also a dining area; these rooms are not present in this building;

·     There appears to be no dining room near the kitchen;

·     The ideal location for an informal living space would be near the kitchen and at the rear of the dwelling with direct access to the rear private open space; the “bedroom” in question is the only part of this dwelling which satisfies these criteria and as such should be considered not only capable of conversion to a living space but also likely to be converted to a living space.

To protect the amenity of an area which is very likely, and appropriately, to be used as a living area in the future, it is considered that it is appropriate to apply the DCP provisions in respect of living and dining rooms to this room which is both capable of use and likely to be used as such a space.

 

Given this, it is considered that the proposed amendment would unacceptably overshadow this room and as such, should not be supported.

 

7.4       Any matters prescribed by the regulations that apply to the land to which the development application relates.

 

These matters have been considered in the assessment of this amended application.

 

7.5       The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts on the locality.

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application.  It is considered that the proposed alterations would result in unacceptable overshadowing of the adjacent dwelling and compromise the ability for this area (which is the only ideally suited to use as a primary living space) to be successfully adapted to that purpose in future. 

 

7.6     The suitability of the site for the development

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application.

 

The negative impacts of the proposed amendment upon the neighbouring property indicate that the site is not suitable for the development.

 

7.7       Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations.

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with the relevant DCP to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants from 12 October 2011 until 9 November 2011.

 

7.7.1 Summary of submissions

 

One (1) submission (Attachment 3) was received during the notification of the development application:   

 

Submissions

P Martich & J Macdonald (Bolin)

2 Oaklands Avenue,

Summer Hill NSW 2130

 

The matters raised in these submissions are detailed below in italics, followed by a response from the assessing officer:

 

Could this have been planned from the beginning?

 

The room proposed was, in fact, part of the original submission.

 

The site is small and lacks adequate amenities for residents.

 

The proposal satisfies the requirements of the SEPP in respect of amenity provision for residents.

The additional unit will exacerbate the lack of parking for residents and consequent impacts upon surrounding streets.

 

The proposal complies with the parking requirements of the SEPP.

 

If approved, this room could better be used as a common room with provision for internet access or for enlarging an existing unit to allow for family accommodation.

 

The primary issue associated with the proposal is the resultant overshadowing. Consequently, it would prove unacceptable whether used for an additional resident, a family or as a common room.

 

7.8     The public interest

 

Matters of the public interest have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the amended application. On balance it is considered that the modified proposal would have adverse impacts upon the amenity of adjacent properties and that the approval of the modifications would not be in the public interest.

 

7.9     The Section 96(2) Assessment

 

The submitted application has been considered against Section 96(2) of the EP&A Act. Section 96(2) of the EP&A Act states:

“A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

(a)        it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

(b)        it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and

(c)        it has notified the application in accordance with:

(i)         the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii)        a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

(d)        it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

 

The proposed modifications are considered to satisfy the requirements for consideration under section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as, although it is substantially the same development as that which was originally approved, it does not fall within the criteria for s96(1) or s96(1A).

 

The modified proposal does not alter compliance with the requirements of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) or any numerical provisions of Ashfield LEP 1985.  Changes to the overall bulk and scale of the development scale are minimal and maintain consistency with the design quality principles under SEPP 65. There will be no streetscape impacts and privacy impacts would not be markedly increased.

 

Nevertheless, the increase height will result in additional overshadowing of the adjoining property to the south-west which is considered unacceptable. 

 

8.0     REFERRALS

 

Not applicable.

 

9.0     OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS

 

Financial Implications

 

Not affected by the proposed modifications

 

Section 94 Contributions would increase if the proposed modifications were approved given that the number of dwellings would increase by one.

 

10.0   BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA (BCA)

 

The proposed changes do not alter compliance with the Building Code of Australia.

 

11.0   CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as amended with all matters specified under Section 79C (1) Clauses (a) to (e) and Section 96(2) have been taken into consideration. The proposal is considered to be unacceptable for reasons outlined in the report and is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

5 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Submissions

2 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) refuse modification of Development Consent No. 10 2010.199 for the construction of a boarding house on Lot 7, Sec 10 in DP 439, known as 59 Liverpool Road, Ashfield for the following reasons:

 

Reasons for Refusal:

 

1.    The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy 65 and the Residential Flat Design Code in respect of:

a.    SEPP 65, cl. 15, Principle 7: Amenity: The proposal does not provide adequate amenity to the adjacent dwelling at 61 Liverpool Road in respect of solar access;

b.    Residential Flat Design Code, Part 01, Local Context, Building Separation: The proposal does not achieve the recommended separation of 12m to control overshadowing of adjacent properties and fails to demonstrate adequate solar access.

 

2.    The proposal is inconsistent with Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 in respect of:

a.    cl. 2(a): The proposal fails to retain and enhance the identity of the Ashfield area derived from its role as an early residential suburb;

b.    cl. 30(d): The proposal fails to ensure that it does not adversely affect the heritage significance of heritage items and their settings as well as landscapes and streetscapes;

c.    cl. 37: The proposal adversely impacts the setting of the heritage items in its vicinity at 18, 20, 22 & 24 Federal Avenue.

 

3.    The proposal is inconsistent with the following provisions of Part C of Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 in respect of:

a.    Objective d): the proposal fails to ensure that new development does not cause loss of residential amenity for neighbours;

b.    Objective f): the proposal fails to ensure new development is ecologically sustainable, and incorporates principles of passive solar design and adequate tree planting;

c.    Cl. 5.6, a): The proposal does not avoid a significant affect on adjoining property or resident amenity by increased overshadowing;

d.    Cl. 5.16, c): The proposal does not maintain existing solar access to at least 40% of the glazed areas of any neighbouring north facing living/dining room windows for a period of at least three hours between 9am and 3pm in midwinter on 21 June. If existing solar access is already less than this standard, it should not be reduced by more than 20% at any one time. In this respect, the bedroom to the north-eastern corner of 61 Liverpool Road is considered to be capable of and desirable for use as, a living room and is treated as such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 






Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Submissions

 



Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011   CM10.6

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.139.1
185 NORTON STREET, ASHFIELD

File Ref                            DA 10.2011.139

 

Prepared by                   Philip North - Specialist Planner       

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0     Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Clause 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council’s consent to the construction of an in-fill residential development consisting of six (6) units at 185 Norton Street, Ashfield.

 

A copy of the previous report is included at Attachment 1.

                                                     

2.0     Background

 

This application was referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday, 8 November for determination with a recommendation for refusal. The applicant, however, requested that the application be deferred so that it could address the reasons for refusal and Council subsequently resolved at this meeting that it defer determination of the application until the Council meeting of 13 December 2011 (refer Attachment 2).

 

A meeting was held with the applicant on 17 November 2011 at which the applicant was advised that any additional information or amendments addressing the issues which have been raised with the application would need to be received by Council no later than 28 November 2011.

 

To date, no amended plans have been received nor representations which alter the original assessment of the application.

 

At the time of writing, no further information or amended plans have been received from the applicant and the original assessment remains unchanged.

 

3.0     Summary Recommendation

 

As no further information or amended plans have been received from the applicant, the application is again referred to Council with the original recommendation for refusal.

 

Officers are still of the view that there is little scope to amend the current proposal, which relies upon use of part of the existing building, to achieve an acceptable and supportable design solution for the subject site.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Previous Council Report

29 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Council Minute

1 Page

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) refuse Development Application No. 10.2011.139.1 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and outbuilding, and the construction of an in-fill residential flat building on Lot 1 in DP 1007091, known as 185 Norton Street, Ashfield, for the following reasons:

 

Reasons for Refusal

 

1.   The proposal does not comply with the provisions of Section 79c(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in that it will have the following unacceptable impacts upon the built environment:

a)   The architectural character and form will have an unacceptable impact upon the streetscape.

b)   The dominance of hard stand parking surfaces in the front setback will be detrimental to the streetscape.

c)   The proposed building design, roof form, detailing and materials are not sympathetic to the streetscape and locality.

d)   The “carriage style” of development will create adverse impacts upon neighbouring properties and the amenity of the occupants of the development.

e)   Solar access to the units and their private open space is inadequate.

f)    The privacy impacts upon 183 Norton are not acceptable.

g)   The proposed privacy screen on the boundary with No. 183 is not acceptable.

h)   The outlook for Units 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 provides unacceptable occupant amenity.

i)    The open space of Units 1 & 2 does not provide adequate privacy.

j)    There is inadequate provision of communal open space.

k)   Provision for stormwater drainage is inadequate due to:

i. Lack of any finalised drainage easement over the neighbouring property (easement has not been approved and/or registered).

ii. Lack of written permission from the RTA allowing the stormwater from the site to connect directly to the kerb inlet pit.

iii.       Lack of detail of the emergency overflow route from the OSD system.

iv.       Lack of detail demonstrating how stormwater overflow from the internal pit and pipe network will reach the OSD basin.

 

2.   The proposal does not comply with the provisions of Section 79c(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in that it is not in the public interest:

a)   The proposal would have unacceptable impacts upon the streetscape.

b)   The proposal would set an undesirable precedent.

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment


Attachment 1

 

Previous Council Report

 






























Attachment 2

 

Council Minute

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011   CM10.7

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.100.1
8 PEMBROKE STREET, ASHFIELD

File Ref                            DA 10.2011.100

 

Prepared by                   Atalay Bas - Manager Development Services        

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 

 


REPORT OVERVIEW

 

1.0     Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Clause 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council’s consent to demolish the existing structures and construct a (3) three storey boarding house. The proposed boarding house comprises of a total of twenty (20) rooms, including nineteen (19) boarding rooms and one (1) room for an onsite manager.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

 

2.0     Executive Summary

 

The proposed scheme provides a maximum of thirty (30) residents, including an onsite manager, to be accommodated on site.

 

One (1) accessible parking space is proposed to be provided for the onsite manager. Parking for (4) four motorcycles and (8) eight bicycles is also proposed on site.

 

The proposal has been submitted pursuant to the boarding house provisions of Division 3 of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) – Affordable Rental Housing 2009 (SEPP(ARH)).

 

The applicant has lodged a Class 1 Appeal in the Land and Environment Court against Council's deemed refusal of the subject development application.

 

The site is zoned 2(c)-Residential under the provisions of Ashfield Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1985. Boarding houses are a permissible use within the 2(c)-Residential zone. Assessment of the development application revealed that the scheme is inappropriate as it does not respond to the scale and pattern of development in the locality. The proposed building is bulky and dominates its context to the detriment of neighbouring residential buildings.

 

The proposal does not meet the objectives of the Built Form or scale Principle of SEPP No. 65 as inadequate setbacks have been provided to the side boundaries.

 

3.0     Recommendation

 

The proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

4.0     Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site comprises of two (2) allotments and is located on the western side of Pembroke Street, bounded by Ormond Street to the north and Liverpool Road to the south. The property has a combined site area of 755.6m2. A two (two) storey dual occupancy (duplex) is currently located on the site.

 

Surrounding development is mixed but generally comprises single storey dwelling houses interspersed with multi-storied residential flat buildings.

 

Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.

 

BACKGROUND

 

5.0     Application Details

 

Applicant                                 :         Mr I McKenzie

Owner                                     :         Pembroke St Holding Company Pty Ltd

Value of work                          :         $1,650,000.00

Lot/DP                                    :         LOT: 1 DP: 303772 and LOT: B DP: 361610

Date lodged                            :         21 April 2011

Date of last amendment         :         Yes*

Building classification             :         3

Application Type                     :         Local

Construction Certificate         :         No

Section 94 Levy                      :         Yes

 

* A local character test response was received on 4 June 2011.

 

6.0     Assessment History

 

On 25 August 2010 a pre-lodgement meeting was held. The applicant was provided with written advice identifying several issues with the proposal.

 

On 21 December 2010 revised plans were submitted in response to the issues raised during the pre-lodgement meeting. On 15 January 2011 further written advice was provided to the applicant in respect to the revised scheme.

 

On 9 March 2011 the applicant submitted further revised plans. In response, Council on 22 March 2011 provided comments in respect to the revised plans in which Council was of the view that the revised plans do not satisfactorily address the requirements of Council’s previous advice.

 

The subject development application was lodged on 21 May 2011. The applicant informed that no further amendments were to be made and requested the application be determined in its current form.

 

On 5 October 2011 Ashfield Council received a Class 1 Appeal in the Land and Environment Court against Council's deemed refusal of the subject development application.

 

The appeal will initially proceed to a preliminary section 34 mediation conference on 7 December 2011. In the event no outcome is reached the matter will proceed to a full hearing.

 

The appeal has been listed for a two day hearing before a Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court on 2 and 3 February 2012 commencing on site at 9.30am.

 

7.0     Development History

 

Previous applications submitted to Council for the subject site include:

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

DA: 10.2007.2.1

04/04/2007

Alterations to the dual occupancy

Approved

 

Previous consents were noted in the assessment of this application.

 

THE ISSUES

 

8.0     Character of the Local Area

 

The proposed development is not compatible with the character of the local area for the following reasons:-

·     The proposed length of the building and its site coverage are excessive and contribute to the overall bulk and scale of the proposal that, even in the context of a street with many existing residential flat buildings, is out of character with the immediate surrounding area and the broader locality context.

 

·     The landscape treatment of the front setback area is not compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.

 

·     The proposed built form fills nearly the entire site and the excessive site coverage with minimal rear and side setbacks is not compatible with surrounding area.

 

·     The overall site coverage is seen to be incompatible with the local area given that other multi-storey buildings have more generous setbacks.

 

9.0     Building Setback

 

Council’s SEPP 65 Consultant has raised issues in respect to insufficient building setbacks from the side boundaries. In this respect a minimum 6.0 metre minimum setback is required from the side boundaries.

 

10.0   Accessibility

 

The proposal provides the required 10% adaptable housing, however, the scheme fails to provide universal accessible rooms in accordance with Council’s DCP requirement.

 

11.0   SEPP 65 Considerations

 

Council’s SEPP 65 consultant has indicated that the proposal does not comply and satisfy all of the ten design quality principles of SEPP No. 65 – Design Qualities of Residential Flat Development (SEPP No 65). Particularly, the proposal does not comply with the principles of good design for built form or for scale and should not be supported.

 

SEPP 65 Comments are included at Attachment 3.

 

12.0   Overshadowing

 

The proposal will overshadow several windows at No. 75 Liverpool Road and the northern yard area of 75 Liverpool Road will be totally overshadowed between 9am and 3pm on 21June.

 

13.0   Aural and Visual Privacy

 

The proposed balconies on the second and third level will result in a loss of aural and visual privacy to neighbouring properties to the north.

 

The proposal does not achieve adequate visual privacy as required by cl.6.3 of Part C5 of ADCP 2007, in that balconies and terraces are not setback a minimum of 12 metres. In addition, the proposed level 2 and 3 balconies overlook adjoining areas of private open space both internal and external to the site.

 

The open access-way will result in unreasonable aural privacy impacts to the boarding rooms.

 

14.0   Access for People with Disabilities

 

The proposed development does not comply with the provisions of cl.3.3 of Part C1 of ADCP 2007 as there is no continuous accessible path of travel for people with disabilities from the car park to the adaptable units.

 

The proposed development does not achieve the objectives and controls contained in cl.2.8 of Part C18 of ADCP 2007.

 

In addition, the proposed development does not comply with Section 2 of Part C1 of ADCP 2007 in that all units must comply with universal accessible design principles as required by “Design Checklist 1” in Section 7 of Part C1 of ADCP.

 

15.0   Size of Boarding Rooms

 

The proposed boarding rooms have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purpose of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 square metres contrary to the requirements of cl.30(1)(b) of SEPP(ARH).

 

16.0   Landscaping

 

The proposed development does not comply with the general and soft landscaping controls of the Multi-Unit Development in Flat Zone Development Control Plan (DCP). In this regard, the proposed scheme proposes a general landscaping percentage of approximately 45% landscaping as opposed to the required minimum 50%, and a deep soil landscaping percentage of only 22% as opposed to the required minimum 35%.

 

17.0   Stormwater

 

The proposal does not meet Council’s design standards and as such the current proposal cannot be supported.

 

ASSESSMENT

 

18.0   Section 79C Assessment

 

The following is an assessment of the application with regard to the heads of consideration under the provisions of Section 79C of the EP&A Act.

 

18.1   Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

The site is zoned 2(c)-Residential under the provisions of Ashfield Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1985.

 

Boarding houses are a permissible use within the 2(c)-Residential zone pursuant to Table 10 of the Ashfield LEP.

 

The proposed building is to comprise twenty purpose-built single and double boarding rooms, each with their own bathroom and kitchen. In addition, communal facilities include a common room (with kitchen), toilet, clotheslines, garbage storage area, rear courtyard and garden areas.

 

The Model Provisions 1980 adopted by the Ashfield LEP outlines that a boarding house “includes a house let in lodgings or a hostel but does not include a motel”. The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP defines a boarding house as a “room or suite of rooms within a boarding house occupied or so constructed or adapted as to be capable of being occupied by one or more lodgers”.

 

Whilst the proposed boarding rooms are essentially self-contained units, there are no restrictions on this and on this basis the proposed development would satisfy each of these definitions. In fact, Clause 29(3) of the SEPP (ARH) outlines that a boarding room “may have private kitchen or bathroom facilities in each boarding room”.

 

The proposal has a floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.08:1 (based on a gross floor area of approximately 822m2). The maximum allowable FSR for the site, pursuant to Clause 17(2) of the Ashfield LEP is 0.75:1. In addition, the SEPP (ARH) allows a further 0.5:1 FSR for development in residential flat zones which results in a maximum allowable FSR of 1.25:1 for the subject site.

 

It is considered that the proposal complies with the provisions of the Ashfield LEP in respect to maximum allowable FSR.

 

18.2   Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

It is considered that the carrying out of the proposed development is generally consistent with the objectives of the Plan.

 

18.1.3         State Environmental Planning Policies

 

18.3   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

 

Clause 30 (1)(b) of the SEPP (ARH) requires that boarding rooms should not have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purpose of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 square metres.

 

Several boarding rooms have been calculated to have more than the maximum allowable gross floor area of 25 square metres. The applicant has not submitted a SEPP No.1 objection in relation to this control.

 

18.4   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 6 – Number of Storeys in a Building

 

The boarding house would be defined as a three-storey building under this Policy.

 

Clause 17A(3)(b) establishes a maximum ceiling height of 9m for residential flat buildings within the 2(c)-Residential zone. Further, Council’s Boarding House Development Control Plan (Part C18 of the Ashfield DCP 2007) makes reference to the Multi-Unit Development DCP (Part C5 of the Ashfield LEP), which in turn sets a ceiling height limit of 9m.

 

The proposed development has a maximum ceiling height of 8.8m and therefore satisfies these controls.

 

A number of multi-storey units, including four (4) storey units at 11-13 Ormond Street, 73 and 75 Liverpool Road, also exist within the vicinity of the subject site. Each of these buildings have wall and ceiling heights greater than the proposed boarding house. In this regard it should be noted that these residential flat buildings have ridge heights 2m to 3.96m higher than the proposed building.

 

The height of the proposed building is therefore considered acceptable when considered within the context of the locality.

 

18.5   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

 

Given its residential history there is no evidence to suggest the site is contaminated. On this basis remediation is not required prior to the carrying out of the proposed development.

 

18.6     State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

SEPP No. 65 applies to development for the purpose of a ‘residential flat building’. Section 3 of this Policy defines a residential flat building as a building that “comprises or includes:

 

(a)        3 or more storeys (not including levels below ground level provided for car parking or storage, or both, that protrude less than 1.2 metres above ground level), and

 

(b)        4 or more self-contained dwellings (whether or not the building includes uses for other purposes, such as shops),

 

but does not include a Class 1a building or a Class 1b building under the Building Code of Australia.

 

The Policy does not define a ‘self-contained dwelling’ although the Model Provisions 1980 adopted by the Ashfield LEP define a dwelling as a “room or suite or suite of rooms occupied or used or so constructed or adapted as to be capable of being occupied or used as a separate domicile”.  With respect to ‘self-contained’ it is understood that this simply means a dwelling with its own kitchen, bathroom and toilet.

 

The proposed boarding rooms are self-contained dwellings in the sense that they have their own kitchens, bathrooms and toilets – they do not rely on shared amenities.

 

Given that the proposed development is also three storeys in height it is considered that that it may be defined as a residential flat building for the purposes of SEPP No. 65. This opinion is supported by the advice received from Council’s solicitors.

 

On this basis the proposal was referred to Council’s Urban Designer for comment. Comments received from the Urban Designer are included at Attachment 3.

 

18.7   State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

Not applicable for the reason that the proposed development is not defined as ‘traffic generating development’ under Section 104 and Schedule 3 of the Infrastructure SEPP.

 

It should also be noted that the traffic noise considerations of Section 102 of this Policy are not relevant to this proposal as Liverpool Road does not have an annual average daily traffic volume of more than 40,000 vehicles. In addition, the subject site does not adjoin Liverpool Road and instead the neighbouring residential flat buildings at 73 and 75 Liverpool Road are expected to act as a buffer.

 

18.8     State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

 

Not applicable for the reason that the proposal would not be defined as ‘exempt’ or ‘complying’ development.

 

18.9   State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

 

Division 3 of the SEPP (ARH) outlines the controls for boarding houses. A compliance table detailing the proposal’s level of compliance with this Policy is included below:

 

SEPP (ARH) - Affordable Rental Housing SEPP

Section 26 – Land to which Division applies

 

SEPPControl

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Zoning

Section 26

The land must be within a specific zone, including the R3-Medium Density Residential zone.

The site has a2(c)-Residential zoning, which is equivalent to R3-Medium Density Residential.

Yes

Section 29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

 

SEPP Control

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Density and scale (FSR)

Clause 29(1)(c)(i)

A maximum FSR of 1.25:1 permitted.

A FSR of 1.08:1 proposed.

Yes

Building height

Clause 29(2)(a)

The building height is not to be more than the maximum permitted for any building on the land. No such control exists for the 2(c)-Residential zone.

Not applicable. The proposal’s ceiling height of 8.9m satisfies Clause 17A(3)(b) of the Ashfield LEP.

Not applicable.

Minimum landscaped area

Clause 29(2)(b)

The landscape treatment of the front setback must be compatible with surrounding area.

The front yard and landscaping is not consistent with surrounding properties.

No

Solar access

Clause 29(2)(c)

A communal room shall receive a minimum of three (3) hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm during midwinter.

The rear communal room has windows facing directly north and northwest. The room will therefore receive a minimum of three hours sunlight.

Yes

Private open space (Lodgers)

Clause 29(2)(d)(i)

An area of at least 20m2, with minimum dimension of 3m, is to be provided.

A communal area of approximately 105m2 is provided. A portion of this area has a width of 3m, however, for the majority of the area there is a minimal width of 5.6m.

Yes

Private open space (Manager)

Clause 29(2)(d)(ii)

An area of at least 8m2, with minimum dimension of 2.5m, is to be provided.

An area of 25m2, with a minimum dimension of 4.5m, is to be provided for the manager (Room 4).

Yes

Parking

Clauses 29(2)(e)(i) and (ii)

One (1) parking space is to be provided for every ten (10) rooms, plus one (1) space for every employee (manager).

Not applicable. See Clause 30(1)(g).

Not applicable

Accommodation size (Single room)

Clause 29(2)(f)(i)

A double boarding room is to have a minimum area of 12m2, exclusive of kitchen or bathroom facilities.

The single boarding rooms have areas ranging from 17.7m2 to 26m2, exclusive of kitchen and bathroom facilities.

Yes

Accommodation size (Double room)

Clause 29(2)(f)(ii)

A double boarding room is to have a minimum area of 16m2, exclusive of kitchen or bathroom facilities.

The double boarding rooms have areas ranging from 18.5m2 to 26.5m2.

Yes

Section 30 – Standards for boarding houses

 

SEPP Control

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Communal living room

Clause 30(1)(a)

A communal living room shall be provided if there are five (5) or more boarding rooms.

A communal living room is to be provided to the rear of the ground floor level.

Yes

Maximum room size

Clause 30(1)(b)

No boarding room is to have an area greater than 25m2, exclusive of kitchen or bathroom facilities.

Several boarding rooms have an area of exceeding 25m2, exclusive of kitchen and bathroom facilities.

No

Occupancy

Clause 30(1)(c)

No more than two (2) lodgers are to occupy a boarding room.

The submitted plans and the plan of management indicate that there will be ten (10) double rooms. The rest of the rooms will cater for single lodgers only.

Yes

Bathroom and kitchen facilities

Clause 30(1)(d)

Adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities are to be provided for each lodger.

As permitted by Clause 29(3) of the Policy, each of the boarding rooms is to be provided with their own kitchen and bathroom. A communal kitchen and toilet is also proposed at ground level.

Yes

Room for onsite manager

Clause 30(1)(e)

A room is to be provided for an onsite manager if there are twenty (20) or more lodgers onsite.

Room 4 has been allocated for an onsite manager.

Yes

Parking

Clause 30(1)(f)

No car parking spaces are to be provided for lodgers if the zoning permits residential flat buildings.

The subject site is zoned 2(c)-Residential and residential flat buildings are permissible. Therefore no onsite parking needs to be provided for lodgers in accordance with the Policy.

Yes

Bicycle and motorcycle parking

Clause 30(1)(h)

One (1) bicycle space is to be provided for every five (5) rooms, plus one (1) motorcycle space for every five (5) rooms. Based on the number of rooms, four (4) bicycle spaces and four (4) motorcycle spaces must be provided.

Space for the parking of eight (8) bicycles is provided on the southern side of the property. Four (4) motorcycle spaces are also to be provided to the front of the property.

Yes

 

The above table indicates that the proposal generally complies with the requirements of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.

 

On the 30 May 2011 the NSW Government implemented revised controls for the SEPP (ARH). For boarding houses, these revisions to the Policy include:

 

·     Boarding houses need to be compatible with the design character of the area in which they are located;

 

·     Boarding houses located within low density residential areas must be located close to public transport; and

 

·     Higher parking standards are required for new boarding houses.

 

With the exception of the first point ‘local character test’, the other 2 amendments to the Policy are transitional (or are not relevant) and therefore have no bearing on the current application which was submitted on 21 April 2011. With respect to the third point, it should be noted that Clause 29(2)(e) of the Policy has been altered to set the following parking requirements for boarding houses:

(i)         in the case of development in an accessible area—at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

 

(ii)        in the case of development not in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

 

(iii)       in the case of any development—not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site.

 

Clause 30(f), which previously prevented the provision of onsite parking for lodgers, has been repealed and as a result onsite parking would now be required. Therefore, if the application was lodged today, a minimum of five (5) parking spaces would be required based on the site being ‘accessible’ (within 400m of a bus stop), the number of rooms and the presence of an onsite manager.

 

19.0     The provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority.

 

Not applicable.

 

20.0     The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

The proposal has been considered against the provisions of the Ashfield Development Control Plan (DCP) 2007:

 

C1

ACCESS AND MOBILITY

Non compliance - The proposed development does not provide adequate access in the following manner:-

 

The proposed development does not comply with the provisions of cl.3.3 of Part C1 of ADCP 2007 as there is no continuous accessible path of travel for people with disabilities from the car park to the adaptable units.

The proposed development does not achieve the objectives and controls contained in cl.2.8 of Part C18 of ADCP 2007.

The proposed development does not comply with Section 2 of Part C1 of ADCP 2007 in that all units must comply with universal accessible design principles as required by “Design Checklist 1” in Section 7 of Part C1 of ADCP.

C3

 

ASHFIELD TOWN CENTRE

 

Not applicable. The subject site is located within the Ashfield Town Centre.

C5

 

MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL FLAT ZONES

The proposal generally satisfies Section 13 and the relevant sections of the Multi-Unit Development DCP that relate to building appearance, height and site facility requirements.

 

The proposal does not satisfy the communal open space or landscaping requirements of the Multi-Unit Development DCP. In this regard the scheme proposes a general landscaping percentage of approximately 45% landscaping as opposed to the required minimum 50%, and a deep soil landscaping percentage of only 22% as opposed to the required minimum 35%.

 

The provisions of this Plan are referred to in the Boarding House DCP and have been used in the assessment of amenity impacts (overshadowing, privacy and noise).

C10

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Not applicable. The subject property is not heritage-listed, located within a heritage conservation area or located within the general vicinity of such items/areas.

C11

PARKING

The SEPP (ARH) overrides the numerical car, motorcycle and bicycle parking requirements of the Parking DCP (Part C11 of the Ashfield DCP).

 

Table 3 of the Parking DCP outlines that one (1) space must be provided for any staff member and additional parking must be considered on the merits of the application. Therefore no specific parking numbers are established, however, given that the boarding rooms are essentially self-contained units it is considered that a significant number of the lodgers would own a car. On this basis it is unlikely that the proposal would comply with the Parking DCP if it was applicable.

 

With respect to bicycle parking, Table 2 of the Plan outlines a rate of one (1) space per four (4) boarding rooms and a visitor rate of one (1) space per sixteen (16) rooms. On this basis there would need to be a minimum of six (6) bicycle spaces if this control was applicable. With the provision of eight bicycles spaces the Parking DCP would be satisfied.

 

Section 4.2 of the Parking DCP requires the provision of motorcycle spaces if the site is to contain twenty-five (25) or more car spaces. As the subject site will not require this number of car spaces, there would be no requirement for motorcycle parking under the Plan.

 

C12

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS AND ALL ASPECTS OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The proposal was notified as a ‘major development’ under the Public Notification DCP (Part C12 of the Ashfield DCP). See Section 7.7 of this report for further information on this notification, including details of the submissions received.

C15

HOUSES & DUAL OCCUPANCIES

Not applicable.

C18

BOARDING HOUSES

See comments below.

 

Ashfield DCP 2007 – Part C18 – Boarding Houses

 

Boarding Houses DCP

 

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Location criteria

The land must be located within specific zones and located with good access to public transport, employment, services, etc.

The proposed boarding house is located within a medium-density residential area/zone and has good access to public transport, employment, services and recreation opportunities.

Yes

Site planning

A site analysis must be submitted.

A site analysis has been submitted with the application. However, the scale of the proposed building results in a scheme that is too large for the site as the typology selected is inappropriate.

No

Building form and appearance

Boarding houses must be consistent with the character of the area. They must not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbours.

The general appearance of the building is considered acceptable within the context, however, the form is inappropriate as adequate setbacks are not provided.

Part complies

Sustainability, energy efficiency and solar access

Boarding houses in excess of 300m2 must encompass sustainable development principles.

The subject building has an area of approximately 822m2 and would be subject to the energy efficiency requirements of Section J of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), although BASIX Certificates have been submitted. A rainwater tank is to be provided.

Generally complies

Room sizes

Bedrooms must have a minimum size of 14m2 (single) or 19.5m2 (double).

Four (4) of the double rooms fail to meet the minimum bedroom size requirement of the Boarding House DCP. However, the requirements of the Affordable Housing SEPP override this control.

No

 

Maximum number of lodgers

No more than two (2) lodgers are to be accommodated in the individual boarding rooms.

Single and double boarding rooms are proposed. The maximum numbers for each of the rooms are detailed within the submitted plan of management.

Yes

Ensuite bathrooms

An additional area 2.9m2 of floor area must be provided to each boarding room if an ensuite bathroom is to be provided.

Each of the boarding rooms is to be provided with bathrooms with a size in excess of 2.9m2. This area is not included the minimum room size requirements as detailed in Section 7.1.3 of this report.

Yes

Ensuite and laundry

An additional area of 4m2 must be provided to each boarding room if laundry facilities (washing machine) are to be provided.

A number of the double rooms have a washing machine within the main (sleeping) room. With the requirement to provide an extra 4m2 for the laundry and 5.5m2 for an extra person, the minimum size (including all areas except the bathroom) for double rooms would be 23.5m2. Each of the double rooms complies with this requirement.

 

Single rooms would need a minimum area of 18m2, which the proposal satisfies. 

Yes

Storage space and furnishings

– A minimum storage area of 1m2 is required per person.

– Storage space in double rooms is to be lockable.

– Specified room furnishings are to be provided.

– Natural light is to be provided to boarding room (habitable room).

– Minimal ceiling heights to be provided.

– Fire separation and sound insulation must be provided in accordance with the BCA.

The architectural plans and the plan of management demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

 

It should be noted that a Schedule of Furnishings and Fittings is included with the plan of management.

Yes

Communal kitchen and dining areas

Shared kitchen and dining facilities must be provided if kitchenettes are not provided within individual boarding rooms. This room must have a minimum size of 22m2.

Each of the boarding rooms has their own kitchenette and as such there is no requirement for a communal kitchen or dining room.

 

A communal kitchen and dining room is proposed, however, and this satisfies the minimum size requirements.

Yes

Kitchenette requirements

Kitchenettes with boarding rooms are to be provided with minimum facilities and furnishings.

The architectural plans and the plan of management demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

 

It should be noted that a Schedule of Furnishings and Fittings is included with the plan of management.

Yes

Shared laundry requirements

Shared laundry facilities must be provided if kitchenettes are not provided within individual boarding rooms.

Each of the boarding rooms has their own laundry facilities and as such there is no requirement for a shared laundry.

 

Yes

Location of drying areas

Communal drying areas must be located in an accessible area and face north.

The communal drying area is accessible from the communal room and is located on the northern side of the rear yard.

Yes

Energy rating

Laundry appliances are to achieve minimum energy and water ratings with submission of construction certificate.

Compliance with this requirement may be conditioned should the application be approved.

Yes

(subject to imposition of condition)

Indoor communal areas

An indoor communal room must be provided. This room must have a minimal area of 30m2 and a minimal width of 3.5m.

A communal room is provided at ground floor level that satisfies the applicable size and dimensional requirements.

 

This doubles with the communal kitchen room (which was not required under the Plan).

 

The requirements of the Affordable Housing SEPP override this control.

Yes

Location of indoor communal areas

Indoor communal living areas should be located at ground floor level near commonly used spaces.

The proposed communal area is at ground floor level and is located in close proximity to the shared toilet, communal open space and drying area. It includes a shared kitchen.

Yes

Communal open space – Size

An outdoor communal open space is to be provided with a minimum area of 35m2 and minimum width of 3m.

Communal open space is to be provided with an area of approximately 105m2 with a general width of 6m.

 

This area also includes a secluded seating area.

 

The requirements of the Affordable Housing SEPP override this control.

Yes

Communal open space – Location

Communal open space must be north-facing and receive a minimum of two (2) hours sunlight.

The communal open space is to be located to the rear and is north-facing. Whilst the submitted shadow diagrams do not show the shadows cast by adjoining buildings, it is expected that 50% of the area will receive a minimum of two hours sunlight in the afternoon.

Yes

Private open space provision

– 30% of all boarding rooms are to be provided with private open space

– Private open space is to have a minimal area of 4m2.

Six (6) of the twenty boarding houses ((30%) are to be provided with private open space.

 

Two (2) ground floor boarding rooms (Rooms 4 and 5) are to have courtyards with areas of over 20m2.

 

The balconies servicing four (4) upper floor boarding rooms (Rooms 7, 9, 14 and 16) have areas of 3m2 and fail to satisfy the minimum private open space size requirements.

No

(minimal size requirement for private open space)

Open space – Amenity impacts

– Plantings should be used for the privacy of adjoining properties.

– The control of communal space should be addressed in the plan of management.

Landscaping is proposed near the boundaries to minimise views from the rear communal courtyard and the private ground floor courtyards.

 

House rules are included in the plan of management to cover amenity impacts for neighbours. Should the application be approved it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring compliance with this plan of management.

Yes

Acoustic impacts

The submission of an Acoustic Report is required to cover amenity impacts for residents and neighbours.

An Acoustic Report has been submitted covering noise impacts for internal residents.

 

The report is deficient in that it does not outline any measures for the protection of neighbours, nor does the report state that the use of the site as a boarding house will not unreasonably impact upon the amenity of neighbours with respect to noise.

No

Disabled access

– The ground level of boarding houses must incorporate ‘universal accessible design’ principles.

– An accessible path of travel must be provided into the building from the street and any disabled car park.

– Disabled access must be provided to all common areas and facilities.

The ground floor level does not demonstrate compliance with the universal accessible design controls of the Boarding House DCP. However, two (2) accessible boarding rooms (10% of the total boarding rooms) are to be provided.

 

A common accessible toilet is to be provided and it appears disabled access can be provided to the entrance, the parking space and common facilities (communal room, communal open space, mailboxes, garbage bins and drying area, etc).

No

Parking

Car parking rates are specified in the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.

Not applicable.

Not applicable

Operational plan of management

An operational plan of management must be provided.

A plan of management has been provided. It details:

 

–   The total number of residents.

–  The requirement for an on-site manager.

–   Rules for the management of the boarding house.

–   Complaints handling, etc.

 

The submitted plan of management has been reviewed by the assessing officer and the Environmental Health Team Leader and is considered acceptable.

Yes

 

21.0     Any matters prescribed by the regulations that apply to the land to which the development application relates.

 

Clause 7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 requires the consent authority to consider the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. Conditions of consent can be imposed in this regard, if the application is approved.

 

Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 requires the consent authority to consider relevant Australian Standards relating to the demolition of structures. Appropriate conditions can be imposed in the event the application is approved.

 

22.0     The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts on the locality.

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application.

 

It is considered that the proposal will not positively integrate with the character of the area.

 

23.0     The suitability of the site for the development

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application. There are no natural hazards or other site constraints that are likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the proposed development.

 

The proposed development is not considered to be suitable in the context of the locality when considering setback, landscape, bulk, scale, contribution to the streetscape and access.

 

24.0     Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

 

The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants, and Councillors from 2 May 2011 to 27 May 2011.

 

24.1   Summary of submissions

 

Twenty-three (23) submissions and a petition containing forty-eight (48) signatures (Attachment 5) were received during the notification of the development application.

 

Submissions

 

Ms J Zubrinic

1/1 Pembroke Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Ms S Loveday

Fitbodz

Basement Level

Burwood Plaza

BURWOOD  NSW  2134

(Owner of 7 Pembroke Street)

Ms K Curtis

3/7 Pembroke Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Ms A Rathbone

4/7 Pembroke Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Mr A De Nigris

6/12-14 Pembroke Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Mr A and Mrs L Yam

20 Pembroke Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Mr  A Martinez

22 Pembroke Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Mr V and Mrs T Nguyen, Ms T Boonchim

5/26 Pembroke Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Mr S Wong

6/26 Pembroke Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Mr M Vespa

7/26 Pembroke Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Mr P Trute

8/26 Pembroke Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Mrs M and Ms K Searle

7/28 Pembroke Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Mr A Brown

9/28 Pembroke Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Mr J and Mrs S Carrabott

32 Pembroke Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Mr R Presland

48 Pembroke Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Mrs P Qua

6 Ormond Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Mr J Odell

3/11-13 Ormond Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

(Head Petitioner)

Mr L Byrne

39 Hilda Street

FORBES  NSW  2871

(Owner of 4/11-13 Ormond Street)

Mr Y Lin and Mrs Y Chu

12/11-13 Ormond Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Mr  A Bukowski

Maybrad Pty Ltd

1 Natalie Close

CASULA  NSW  2170

(Owner of 1 and 2/15 Ormond Street)

Mr P and Mrs J Whitfield

39 Ormond Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Ms C Georgiou

12 Bruce Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Mr R Williams

18/77 Liverpool Road

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

 

The matters raised in these submissions are listed below:-

 

·     The NSW Government has discontinued the ‘Affordable Housing Scheme’.

·     The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site.

·     The proposed building is excessive in bulk, scale, height and site coverage.

·     The proposal is uncharacteristic of the area as the majority of buildings within Pembroke and Ormond Streets are single occupancies.

·     The appearance of the proposed building would be uncharacteristic of the ‘heritage streetscape’.

·     The proposal fails to comply with Council’s planning controls, such as FSR, landscaping, setbacks, access to private open space, etc.

·     The subject site is located within the proximity of a number of heritage items and proposed conservation areas.

·     Ashfield is already densely populated.

·     The development will negatively impact on the privacy of neighbours.

·     The provision of balconies will create unreasonable noise impacts for neighbours.

·     The submitted acoustic report is deficient in that it only deals with aircraft and traffic noise; it does not deal with noise impacts to adjoining properties.

·     The use of fence screening will do little to alleviate noise impacts given that the proposed building is to be three-storeys high.

·     A distance of less than 8m is provided from the proposed boarding house to Unit 4/11-13 Ormond Street.

·     Minimal side setbacks are provided and the development will be an overbearing visual presence for neighbours.

·     The boarding rooms have their orientation to side boundaries and this carriage-style form of development is not supported by Council.

·     Anti-social behaviour is likely to occur within boarding houses.

·     The combination of this development and the McDonald’s development will negatively impact on Ashfield Park.

 

·     The use of a live-in manager is no guarantee of quality of management, continuity of management or enforcement of regulations at the premises.

·     The proposal fails to satisfy the security requirements of Council in that the entrance will service more than eight (8) dwellings.

·     The submitted documentation indicates that CCTV cameras will be installed to the front of the property. Residents of the area are entitled to know whether these cameras will film the footpath and street beyond the boundaries of the site.

·     There are no guarantees that only long-term residents will be permitted within the boarding house.

·     The development will result in further traffic congestion around Ashfield Park and increase the risk of accidents.

·     Insufficient parking is provided onsite and there is limited parking available within the streets surrounding Ashfield Park.

·     Residents of boarding houses are likely to own a car. Research indicates that over 50% of boarders own or have access to a car.

·     The development fails to comply with the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP in that one parking space is required for every ten boarding rooms and one space for every person employed onsite.

·     The disabled parking space is of an insufficient width.

·     One of the aims of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP is to facilitate the development of housing for the homeless and aged, who may require support services. It is likely that elderly disadvantaged people will be excluded form this development as lift access is not available within the building. Single storey boarding houses are more appropriate.

·     Insufficient communal open space and outdoor amenities are provided for the development.

·     The development will involve the removal of several significant trees.

·     The removal of mature trees from the site will reduce habitat for local bird and animal life.

·     Minimal landscaping is provided for the site.

·     The demolition of the existing building is a wasteful use of resources.

·     Should the building cease being used as boarding house in the future it would fail comply with the controls for other forms of residential development.

·     The need for affordable housing is understood, however, Ashfield is already meeting its requirements. Perhaps it is time for other areas within the municipality such as Haberfield and Summer Hill to share the load.

·     Documentation provided with the application indicates that the developer discussed the proposal with council staff prior to the lodgement of this application. It appears that Council officers were involved in advising this developer how to modify the application in order for it to receive a more favourable outcome.

·     Council has provided little information as to who will reside within this development. There appears to be an effort by council to pass this as soon as possible without any community feedback.

·     The proposal is not in the public interest.

·     The approval of this development will have a negative impact on house prices within the locality.

 

24.2   Response to submissions

 

Issues relating to character of the area, urban design, aural & visual privacy, access for people with disabilities, landscape, setback, overshadowing bulk and scale are discussed in detail in this report and these issues warrant refusal of the application.

 

Traffic and car parking

 

It is considered that boarding houses generate minimal traffic and car parking demand, due to low levels of car ownership among residents. The proposal complies with the required parking provision pursuant to the SEPP (ARH).

 

Property values

 

The proposal is for an affordable housing scheme. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposal will detrimentally affect property values. This is in any case not a valid planning ground for refusal of the application.

 

Public housing

 

The proposal is not for a public housing scheme. The proposal is for affordable housing, as provided for under the SEPP (ARH) which is likely to be occupied by low to medium-income earners.

 

Tree removal

 

Appropriateness of proposed tree removal has been assessed by an arborist and deemed acceptable. The proposal proposes to retention a mature tree (Lagerstroemia indica) (8m high with 6m spread).

 

Applicability of local planning controls

 

The scheme is generally compliant with numerical planning controls governing height, floor space set out under the SEPP (ARH). With the exception of ‘character test’ the scheme complies with Affordable Rental Housing SEPP amendments introduced in 2011.

 

Heritage

 

Council’s heritage adviser has provided the following comments:-

 

“The proposal involves the demolition of the building at No 8 Pembroke St, Ashfield.  The property is not currently identified as a heritage item or a draft or proposed heritage item.  It is not located within a heritage conservation area or a draft or proposed conservation area.

 

As the property has not been identified in any of Council’s heritage studies as demonstrating significance, the demolition of the building will not have an impact on the cultural heritage assets in the municipality.”

 

25.0   The public interest

 

Matters of the public interest have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the application. The proposed development is not considered to be suitable in the context of the locality and is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

REFERRALS

 

26.0   Council’s SEPP No. 65 Consultant

 

Council’s SEPP 65 consultant has indicated that the proposal does not comply and satisfy all of the ten design quality principles of SEPP No. 65 – Design Qualities of Residential Flat Development (SEPP No 65). Particularly, the proposal does not comply with the principles of good design for built Form or for scale and should not be supported.

 

SEPP 65 Comments are included at Attachment 3.

 

27.0   Heritage Adviser

 

Refer to previous comments. Heritage comments are included at Attachment 4.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Council’s Contributions Plan (Section 94) are payable in accordance with the Plan in the event the application is approved.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the EP&A Act 1979 with all matters specified under Section 79C (1) Clauses (a) to (e) having been taken into consideration. The application in its current form is not sympathetic to the local heritage setting.

 

The proposal does not meet the objectives of the scale, built form, density and landscape Principles of SEPP No. 65.

 

In conclusion, the proposed development is inappropriate as it does not respond to the scale and pattern of development in the locality. The proposed building dominates the local context to the detriment of neighbouring residential buildings.

 

In this regard the proposal is unacceptable and is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

9 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

SEPP 65 comments

8 Pages

 

Attachment 4View

Heritage Advice

1 Page

 

Attachment 5View

Submissions

68 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Ashfield Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) refuse Development Application No. 10.2011.100.1 on Lot 1 in DP 303772 and Lot B DP 361610, known as 8 Pembroke Street, Ashfield for the following reasons:

 

Character of the Local Area

 

1.         The proposed development is not compatible with the character of the local area.

 

Particulars

a.   The proposed length of the building and its site coverage are excessive and contribute to the overall bulk and scale of the proposal that, even in the context of a street with many existing residential flat buildings, is out of character with the immediate surrounding area and the broader locality context.

b.   The landscape treatment of the front setback area is not compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.

c.   The proposed built form fills nearly the entire site and the excessive site coverage with minimal rear and side setbacks is not compatible with surrounding area.

d.   The overall site coverage is seen to be incompatible with the local area given that other multi-storey buildings have more generous setbacks.

 

Urban Design

 

2.         The proposed development does satisfy the Design Quality Principles set out in Part 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.

 

Particulars

 

a.   Principle 2: Scale - The scale of the proposed building results in a scheme that is too large for the site as the typology selected is inappropriate for the site.

b.   Principle 3: Built Form - The form of the proposed development fills nearly the entire site. Minimal rear and side setbacks have been provided. The impact of the proximity of the building to the site boundaries severely impacts the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

c.   Principle 4: Density - The proposed density is too high for the site resulting in an inappropriate built form and unacceptable impacts on the neighbouring properties.

d.   Principle 6: Landscape - The footprint of the building is such that there is little landscaped area left.

 

Overshadowing

 

3.         The proposed development should be refused as it will result in unacceptable overshadowing of neighbouring buildings.

 

Particulars

 

a.    The proposal will overshadow several windows at No. 75 Liverpool Road and the northern yard area of 75 Liverpool Road will be totally overshadowed between 9am and 3pm on 21June.

 

Aural and Visual Privacy

 

4.         The proposed development should be refused as it will result in unacceptable aural and visual privacy impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

Particulars

 

a.    The proposed balconies on the second and third level will result in a loss of aural and visual privacy to neighbouring properties to the north.

b.    The proposal does not achieve adequate visual privacy as required by cl.6.3 of Part C5 of ADCP 2007, in that balconies and terraces are not setback a minimum of 12 metres. In addition the proposed level 2 and 3 balconies overlook adjoining areas of private open space both internal and external to the site.

c.    The open access-way will result in unreasonable aural privacy impacts to the boarding rooms.

d.    No details have been provided as to how privacy will be achieved to the bathroom windows along the open access-way.

 

Access for People with Disabilities

 

5.         The proposed development should be refused as adequate disabled access has not been provided.

 

Particulars

a.    The proposed development does not comply with the provisions of cl.3.3 of Part C1 of ADCP 2007 as there is no continuous accessible path of travel for people with disabilities from the car park to the adaptable units.

b.    The proposed development does not achieve the objectives and controls contained in cl.2.8 of Part C18 of ADCP 2007.

c.    The proposed development does not comply with Section 2 of Part C1 of ADCP 2007 in that all units must comply with universal accessible design principles as required by “Design Checklist 1” in Section 7 of Part C1 of ADCP.

 

Size of Boarding Rooms

 

6.         The proposed development should be refused as boarding rooms have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purpose of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 square metres contrary to the requirements of cl.30(1)(b) of SEPP(ARH).

 

Landscaping

 

7.         The proposed development should be refused as adequate landscaping and deep soil area has not been provided.

 

Particulars

a.    The proposed development does not comply with the general and soft landscaping controls of the Multi-Unit Development in Flat Zone Development Control Plan (DCP). In this regard that the proposed scheme proposes a general landscaping percentage of approximately 45% landscaping as opposed to the required minimum 50%, and a deep soil landscaping percentage of only 22% as opposed to the required minimum 35%.

 

Public interest

 

8.         The proposed development should be refused as it is not in the public interest.

 

Particulars

b.    The proposal will create an undesirable precedent in the determination of future applications.

c.    The proposed development should be refused having regard to the submissions that have been received by Council on the notification of the proposal to the extent that these submissions are consistent with the contentions set out above.

 

Insufficient Information

 

9.         The application should be refused as insufficient information has been submitted preventing a full assessment of the proposal.

 

Particulars

a.    The submitted stormwater concept plan does not meet Council’s design standards particularly in respect to section 4.9 of Council’s Stormwater Code.

b.    The submitted acoustic report is deficient in that it does not refer to impacts to adjoining properties; it only relates to internal residents of the boarding house. See Section 2.7(b) of the Boarding Houses Development Control Plan (Part C18 of the Ashfield DCP 2007).

c.    The front balconies at first and second levels fail to satisfy the minimum size requirements of Table 2.6(c) of the Boarding Houses DCP.

d.    A complete Operational Plan of Management has not been submitted with the application as required by cl.2.10 of Part C18 of ADCP 2007.

e.    The proposal does not provide details of minimum room furnishings as required pursuant to cl.2.5 of Part C18 of ADCP 2007.The proposed development includes two adaptable units at ground floor however no specific details are provided of internal fixtures and fittings.

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 










Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

SEPP 65 comments

 









Attachment 4

 

Heritage Advice

 


Attachment 5

 

Submissions

 


































































 



Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011   CM10.8

Subject                            ASHFIELD COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN – ASHFIELD 2022 – OUR PLACE, OUR FUTURE

 

File Ref                            Community Strategic Plan

 

Prepared by                   Nellette Kettle - Director Corporate & Community Services       

 

Reasons                          To seek Council to adopt the draft Community Strategic Plan for exhibition

 

 


Overview of Report
This report seeks Council to adopt the draft Community Strategic Plan for exhibition.

 

 

Background

In 2009, the State Government passed legislation requiring each council in NSW to implement a new Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) framework, incorporating the following elements:

 

·    a Community Strategic Plan, with a minimum 10 year outlook;

·    a Resourcing Strategy, incorporating a Long Term Financial Plan (minimum 10 years), Workforce Management Plan (minimum 4 years), and Asset Management Plan/s (minimum 10 years);

·    a 4 year Delivery Program; and

·    a 1 year Operational Plan.

 

The Community Strategic Plan is the cornerstone of the framework.

 

Requirements for the Community Strategic Plan

The legislation and Division of Local Government Guidelines for IPR, prescribe the following requirements for community strategic plans (CSP):

 

·    a Community Engagement Strategy based on social justice principles for developing the CSP;

·    the CSP must identify the main priorities and aspirations for the future of the area;

·    the CSP must have a minimum duration of 10 years;

·    (from 2012) the CSP must be endorsed by 30 June in the year following each local government election.  CSP reviewed every four years and rolled forward to retain 10 year outlook;

·    the draft CSP must be exhibited for at least 28 days;

·    a copy must be provided to the Division of Local Government within 28 days of adoption;

·    the CSP must address social, environmental, economic and civic leadership issues in an integrated manner;

·    the CSP must be based on the social justice principles of equity, access, participation and rights; and

·    the CSP must give due regard to relevant State and regional plans.

 

Key timeframes

The legislation provides transitional provisions for phasing in the new IPR requirements.  Ashfield Council is amongst the ‘Group 3’ councils for implementation, requiring the Community Strategic Plan and other IPR framework components outlined above to be adopted and in place by 30 June 2012. 

 

Report

Council’s community engagement strategy for the development of the CSP has centred around Ashfield’s Biggest Conversation, an extensive community engagement process commenced in 2009.

 

Ashfield’s Biggest Conversation involved over 1000 residents, businesses, Council staff, Councillors, schools and community groups, and comprised meetings, workshops, group conversations, surveys, competitions as well as an online forum.

 

To inform the development of the CSP, Ashfield’s Biggest Conversation explored a series of key questions, including people’s likes and dislikes about Ashfield, and ideas for what could be changed and improved over the next 10 years.

 

In response to the outcomes of the community engagement, as well as discussions with Councillors and staff, the draft Community Strategic Plan is structured around 7 key themes.  These are:

 

·    a creative and inclusive community;

·    unique and distinctive neighbourhoods;

·    safe, connected and accessible places;

·    living sustainably;

·    a thriving local economy;

·    an attractive and lively Town Centre; and

·    engaging and innovative local democracy.

 

The main aspirations and priorities for these 7 key themes are contained in the draft CSP.

 

The draft CSP has been developed in a reader friendly magazine style designed to be read online and only to be printed in small quantities.  It has been written specifically with our community audience in mind, with lots of pictures and dot point text, and not in the formal style of a more traditional bureaucratic plan.

 

Financial Implications

The development of the CSP and the community engagement has been assisted by grant funding from the NSW Government through its Environmental Trust.

 

Community engagement around the draft CSP can be undertaken within existing budgets.

 

The financial implications of the CSP will be modelled as part of the preparation of Council’s Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP), with work on the LTFP already underway.

 

Other Staff Comments

Numerous staff from across the Council have been involved in the community engagement activities that have informed the development of the draft CSP and in development of the draft CSP itself.

 

Council also has an IPR Project Team involving the Executive Management Group, Chief Financial Officer, Manager Governance, Manager Community Services and Manager Workplace Relations to oversee the implementation of the IPR framework.

 

Public Consultation

The legislation requires that the draft CSP be exhibited for at least 28 days.  It is proposed to exhibit the draft CSP from mid December 2011 until early February 2012.

 

The consultation/exhibition program is currently being finalised and will include:

 

·    public notices

·    community displays

·    online exhibition/forum

·    direct provision to community groups and local organisations

·    leveraging off routine community services and activities planned throughout the exhibition period, such as school holiday programs, library activities etc.

 

Conclusion

The preparation of the draft CSP is a major milestone in Council’s implementation of the IPR framework.  The draft document is based on extensive community engagement and defines the long term aspirations and strategic directions for the Ashfield community.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Draft Strategic Plan is provided under separate attachment to Councillors and is widely available to the community

31 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the draft Community Strategic Plan for exhibition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011   CM10.9

Subject                            DRAFT PRINCIPAL LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012 AND ASHFIELD DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2007

 

File Ref                            P&E>PRINCIPAL LEP

 

Prepared by                   Ron Sim - Manager Strategic Planning & Projects       

 

Reasons                          Council resolution required

 

Objective                         Progress exhibition of Draft Local Environmental

             Plan 2012 and interim updated Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007

 


1.0        Purpose/report structure

 

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with feedback from the Department of Planning & Infrastructure (DOPI) relating to the “Working Draft” Ashfield LEP 2012 recently submitted by Council to the Department. A subsidiary objective is to reach agreement (or if agreement cannot be reached – to “agree to disagree”) and  to formally authorise Council officers to prepare a formal Section 64 Submission under the Act to DOPI so that a certificate can be issued by the Department which will enable public exhibition of the Draft Plan to commence in due course.

 

The report is structured logically to facilitate this objective. Part 2 provides contextual background data, Part 3 is a summary of key decisions relating to formulation of the Working Draft LEP and Part 4 details the next steps in the plan-making process. Part 5 is a tabulated officer analysis/response to issues of substance raised by the Department. Part 6 provides data on the format of the Section 64 report for the information of councillors (note that this report format is prescribed by DOPI).

 

Part 7 of the report is essentially a recap of the advantages of proceeding expeditiously with Draft LEP 2012, not the least of which is to progress draft heritage listings, establish the Enterprise Zone along Parramatta Road and “lock-in” Council’s agreed housing and employment targets as soon as possible. A subsidiary but nevertheless important objective is to enable Ashfield Council to maximise external funding from the LEP Acceleration Fund established by DOPI (this dedicated funding source ($126k) will expire in June).

 

Part 8 of the report discusses miscellaneous matters such as the Allied Mills site’s future zoning and the requirement to update Development Control Plan documents. Finally,

Part 9 discusses anticipated timelines revolving around key issues relating to plan preparation and future exhibition/gazettal.

 

2.0    Background

 

The preparation  of  the  Draft  Ashfield  Local  Environmental  Plan   (Draft  ALEP  2012)  has been under  way  for some time.  Considerable work  was undertaken  to  inform the  preparation  of  the  Draft  Plan,  in  particular  the  Ashfield  Urban Planning  Strategy  (AUPS)  2010 prepared by JBA Planning and endorsed by Council set a vision and basic direction for the new Draft ALEP. Previous deferral of the Ashfield Urban Planning Strategy was required by Council to ensure the outcomes of the extensive ‘Ashfield Biggest Conversation’ consultative processes (which included stakeholder workshops focussed on town planning issues) were incorporated into the Strategy and ultimately reflected in its outcomes. Previous heritage precinct reviews carried out by Council’s former heritage consultant Mr Robert Irving OAM were also used to inform both the Strategy and LEP content. The Draft Urban Planning Strategy document and the subsequent Draft LEP was the subject of numerous targeted workshops, Committee meetings and frequent regular reports to Council so that councillors were kept fully in the loop. The documents were also extensively exhibited in both print and electronic media. The result was a document that was an accurate reflection of contemporary community opinion.

 

3.0    Council’s consideration of “Working Draft” LEP

 

A copy of the “Working Draft” LEP instrument and maps was presented to councillors at an SPEC briefing session on 31 May 2011. Council endorsed the Draft LEP document but required further changes at the CM held in June 2011. These amendments were implemented and details circulated to councillors by memorandum. Further consideration of the plan was then deferred for some months due to probity issues that needed to be addressed.

 

Council subsequently resolved at its meeting held on 8 November 2011 to endorse the “Working Draft” Ashfield Principal LEP with some minor additional amendments for submission to the DOPI for feedback - i.e. to commence a ‘pre Section 64 review’ process. The Working Draft LEP/Maps previously endorsed by Council + a schedule of amendments also recently agreed by Council are all contained in the separate attachment distributed to Councillors.  

 

Pre Section 64 review consultation with the Department is a mandatory step in the plan making process to allow Council to consider DOPI’s response to the Draft Plan. The objective is to reach a mutually agreed position concerning the content of the document so that a formal submission can be made under Section 64 of the Act to facilitate the issue of a Certificate under Section 65 of the Act which will then allow public exhibition of the Draft Plan to commence.

 

4.0    Next Steps – Suggested Council Response to DOPI

 

Following Council’s decision of 8 November 2011 Council officers met with DOPI officers to review the content of the currently approved Draft Plan. Council subsequently received detailed written comments from the Department - see Attachment 1.

 

The advice deals with a range of policy issues, legal drafting matters and technical mapping issues. A review of all of issues raised by DOPI has been undertaken – see Table1. Many comments (primarily dealing with minor legal drafting issues are administrative in nature i.e. they do not affect the intent/purpose of the plan and can be implemented forthwith). For those more important policy issues that may be in contention Council should note (positively) that the Department has verbally stated that it wishes to pursue a co-operative approach with Council. This approach was conveyed at a previous routine quarterly meeting when officers were advised that provided there were no inherent conflicts with the Standard Instrument template the Department would seek to accommodate Council’s wishes wherever possible.

 

5.0    Tabulated Officer Responses to DOPI comments

 

Table 1 below outlines issues raised by DOPI (see letter/table at Attachment 1) which are of a more substantive nature and/or comprise policy matters of that need to be reviewed by Council. Officer recommendations are also provided. The recommendation in this report mirrors these comments. Note that irrespective of DOPI’s final decision, if differences remain  Council will be able to express its final policy position as part of the exhibition process by providing details of its (alternative) preferred content and exhibiting this information as an adjunct to the public consultation process.

 

DOP&I Comments – Key Issues

Officer Response

Metropolitan Strategy and Draft Inner West Subregional Strategy

 

The section 64 submission should articulate how the housing and employment targets will be met in the draft LEP as well as how the draft plan satisfies the objectives of the Metropolitan Strategy and the draft Inner West Subregional Strategy.

 

 

 

 

Detailed supporting data has been assembled to demonstrate compliance with housing and employment targets including compliance with the relevant strategies.

Heritage

 

The Heritage Office is generally supportive of the provisions in the DLEP relating to heritage conservation and finds the heritage studies and heritage review documentation submitted by Council to be very comprehensive.

In addition, the heritage studies provided in support of proposed new conservation areas within the DLEP include an assessment of heritage significance of each area undertaken in accordance with the NSW Heritage Criteria adopted by the NSW Heritage Council.

 

The Department has concerns regarding a potential conflict with proposed new conservation areas and Council’s ability to meet its housing targets. Council will need to provide the Department with supporting information to demonstrate that its targets can be met.

 

 

 

 

Supporting Information will be provided to substantiate that housing targets can be met notwithstanding of the proposed expansion of heritage items/heritage conservation areas.

 

 

New light rail stations- dwelling density

 

In relation to the light rail extension from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill, Council will need to consider the issue of proposed conservation areas and increasing densities around the new light rail stations. As noted by the Heritage Office, opportunities for increased densities could be achieved on a council-wide basis through ‘sensitive infill’ development such as allowing development that would be higher at the rear of a site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Areas of Summer Hill near the station are already densely populated.  The Allied Mills Site and Lewisham site in Marrickville will substantially increase dwelling densities in the area.

 

No additional action is required.

Zone B6 Enterprise Corridor - Take-away food and drink premises

 

If Council seeks to prohibit 'Take-away food & drink premises' it is suggested that this use is inserted in item 4 of the land use table. Alternatively, Council may also wish to prohibit 'Retail premises', however, permit 'Shops' and 'Kiosks'.

 

This comment is welcome and agreed with - The reference to ‘commercial premises’ should be removed and only desired uses listed as being permissible with consent (see additional drafting comments provided by DOP&I in the attachment to their correspondence). The result of redrafting will be a prohibition on 'Take-away food & drink premises' within the Enterprise Zone whilst appropriate retail uses will remain permissible.

 

The Draft LEP should be amended accordingly.

 

Special Purpose Zones

 

The draft LEP proposes to zone all school sites in the council area SP2 Infrastructure zone to school sites.  It is the Department’s policy that Special Purpose Zones should be zoned the same as an adjoining zone as long as a proposed use is permissible in the adjoining zone. Practice Note PN 10-001 (14 December 2010) provides more detailed advice.

 

Council’s s.64 submission will need to address this issue and provide justification for the proposed zoning of school sites.

 

 

 

 

Properties such as schools should be zoned special uses to reflect land use planning objectives and the important community role that they perform. An SP2 special purpose zoning also assists mapping identification of sites and provides more certainty in relation to the future use of the land. The loss of the Special Use zone for infrastructure such as schools has raised significant concern in the community. The zoning of the land should logically reflect the current use of the land i.e. as a basic principle zoning should signify land use. A special use zoning does so and effectively protects a community asset. Zoning the land as per surrounding land only facilitates its disposal. The special use zonings identified in the Plan should remain.

 

Zone RE1 Public Recreation

 

 Appropriate land uses in the RE1 zone should be those intended for public land and are publicly accessible.  Private commercial development such as restaurants, registered clubs, function centres and information and education facilities are inappropriate uses for this zone and should be deleted or included in the RE2 zone. Alternatively, they could be included in Schedule 1 Additional Uses and identified by Lot and DP however a maximum area should not be applied. Note: The Department has advised that it now supports restaurants and cafes in all public recreation zones.

 

 

 

 

 

The aim was to allow additional uses compatible with the RE1 zone only with development consent.  Council is the landowner so uses within this zone can be precisely controlled. Note that facilities such as restaurants can co-exist happily with recreational uses – e.g. a café in a park – Example: The Botanical Gardens in Sydney has a restaurant/café facility which significantly enhances user experience. Another example - Canada Bay City Council has restaurant facilities in waterfront parks e.g. “Angelos on the Bay” at Cabarita Park. Any application for a compatible use would require extensive

community engagement.  Note that because alienation of parkland is unacceptable in a real world scenario it is likely that only the use of an existing building for a particular use would be permitted.

 

It is agreed that registered clubs and function centres should not be permitted in this zone for the reasons stated by the Department even though there are examples of such uses happily co-existing with public open space use e.g. Ashfield Bowling Club operates in Ashfield Park. Function centres such as wedding reception facilities can also operate successfully within a park setting. Uses can be controlled because Council is the landowner.

 

Existing registered clubs such as the Ashfield Bowling Club may continue to operate under ‘existing use rights’.

 

Unfortunately ‘information and educational facilities’ are not defined in the Standard LEP dictionary and therefore also need to be deleted (the intention was to permit low key uses only such as community information/sustainability displays that would not affect the functioning of a reserve).

 

It is not appropriate to apply an RE2 (Private Recreation Zone) to public open space.

 

The Draft LEP should be amended in accordance with the above comments.

 

 

 

Additional uses in Zone SP2 Infrastructure

Council has included additional uses such as ‘Markets’, ‘Kiosks’, and ‘Recreational areas” in the SP2 zone in recognition of the Greenway project and its future recreational value.  Council considers these additional uses to be compatible with the Greenway project which will utilise the light rail corridor.

 

The department is of the view that the additional land uses proposed in item 3 of the SP2 land use table are acceptable for the purposes described.

 

 

 

Agreed – No action required. The range of land uses proposed recognises the important function of the future Greenway.

 

 

 

Additional Aim of the Plan

A new aim is included in clause 1.2 referring ‘to the identity of the Ashfield area derived from its role as an early residential suburb …containing the first garden suburb of Haberfield.

 

Council is encouraged to consider alternative wording so the intent of this clause is clear.

The clause can be redrafted to provide further clarity if necessary. However, because the comment from the Department is not specific it is considered the preamble wording should remain as is for the time being.

Minimum subdivision lot size

 As agreed at the pre-section 64 meeting, clause 4.1(5) requires redrafting. A replacement clause is included in the Clause by Clause Review at DOP&I Attachment 2 for Council’s consideration. In addition, it was agreed to delete clause 4.1(6) as clause 4.6 replaces State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 Development Standards (SEPP) and can be relied on as the appropriate tool to vary the Minimum Lot Size when it is mapped as the maximum area…. also indicate what land overlaps Area 1 and the Heritage Conservation Area.

 

 

The wording of the replacement Clause is acceptable/meets Council’s objectives and should be agreed to. It is intended to allow semi-detached dwellings in areas close to transport that are not heritage conservation areas. However, the minimum frontage width should be 7 (not 2) metres and the amended clause should say so. Finally the maps accompanying the LEP will clearly define the area where this will apply including heritage conservation areas.

The Draft LEP should be amended in accordance with the above comments.

 

Clause 6.1 Ashfield town centre – floorspace ratio and height incentive

Council has resolved to amend clause 6.1 to require a general community benefit to be demonstrated where any increase in height of buildings in the Town Centre (Area 1 of Height of Buildings Map) above 23 metres is proposed. An additional height of up to 7 metres would be allowed.

 

This clause is legally unenforceable and should be reviewed. Contributions, whether they be open space, community facilities or monies can only be received through a contributions scheme (s94) or through a Voluntary Planning Agreement.

 

However, if council wishes to pursue this outcome, the clause could be redrafted as a heads of consideration clause which specifies, in general terms, the matters that council will consider. An example of a clause used by Waverley Council is included in the Clause by Clause Review at Attachment 2 for council’s consideration.

 

 

 

The ‘insurmountable legal problems’ issue cited by the Department are regrettable. Voluntary planning agreements are not a preferred solution, as they have to be set up on a case- by - case basis for individual sites. The intention was to provide an upfront incentive for all qualified sites in return for a significant community benefit.

 

Providing an incentive for affordable housing is worthwhile and reflects the Metro Strategy 2036 document objective. The Clause can possibly be redrafted to mirror the Waverly clause as suggested by DOP&I (but reworded to refer to a height variation rather than floorspace ratio). The redrafting process can also explore the option of whether it is possible to somehow retain the community benefit component of the Clause on the basis that this be equal in value to any affordable housing contribution. A redrafted clause will be prepared and Council advised of a possible solution/ outcome prior to Plan exhibition proceeding.

Clause 6.2 Development in the Haberfield Conservation Area

It is suggested that this clause be deleted as the heritage conservation matters are already covered by Clause 5.10 and the Exempt and Complying Development Codes SEPP. For details please refer to the Clause by Clause Review at DOP&I Attachment 2.

However, if council still wishes to include this clause then it should be redrafted as a heads of consideration clause, which specifies, in general terms, the matters that council will consider. Further development assessment requirements can be provided in council’s DCP.

 

 

 

 

Firstly, Haberfield is a special heritage conservation area and has been proposed by Council as an item on the State Heritage Register.

 

Existing LEP controls – particularly those relating to maintaining a single storey building scale and requiring all new upper floor accommodation  to be within the roof space  are critical and specifically designed to protect the heritage significance of the Haberfield heritage conservation area.

 

They are therefore reiterated in the new Plan. The general heritage clause in the Standard LEP Template (Clause 5.10 in the draft LEP) does not provide the same degree of protection/certainty.  It is recommended the clause be retained generally as is except where the provisions are overridden by the Codes SEPP (e.g. attic conversions are

permitted by the SEPP and the limitation of such a conversion to 2 rooms is also removed by the Codes SEPP. The skylights provision in the current LEP is also overridden by the SEPP provided certain criteria are met).

 

Council should note that design specific controls such as visibility of doors and windows in any subfloor area, associated references to the setting of buildings, landscape area requirements, ventilation requirements for attics and references to commercial building design issues are proposed to be retained in the new LEP but are all matters that DOP&I may justifiably insist be transferred to the Haberfield Development Control Plan. This is because the Standard LEP template only allows for critical development standards such as floorspace ratio and height (as opposed to design matters) to be mapped as part of the new LEP document.

 

Any changes to controls required by DOP&I will be notified to Council.

 

Clause 6.3 Development within areas affected by aircraft noise

 

Council should replace this draft clause with the most recent model clauses which are included in the Clause by Clause Review at DOP&I Attachment 2.

 

 

 

 

The new Clauses are acceptable/ comprehensive and should be agreed to.

 

Clause 6.4 Serviced apartments

Council should replace this draft clause with the most recent model clauses which are included in the Clause by Clause Review at DOP&I Attachment 2.

 

 

The Model Clauses are acceptable/comprehensive and should be agreed to.

Clause 6.5 Sex services premises

Council should replace these draft clauses with the most recent model clauses which are included in the Clause by Clause Review at DOP&I Attachment 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The standard clause proposed by the Department simply mandates that councils must consider the impact of these uses where they adjoin residentially zoned land or are only separated only by a road. This standard Clause also requires all councils to consider the potential impact of sex services premises on places frequented by children.

 

Notwithstanding the Standard Clause in the Land Use Table it is now proposed the Draft Ashfield LEP take a more prescriptive yet practical approach. The proposal is to permit sex service premises with consent only within a part of the proposed B4 Mixed use Zone within Ashfield Town Centre as explained below.

 

The proposed B4 Mixed Use zone extends for a considerable distance along Liverpool Road adjacent to residential zones. Sex service premises should therefore be restricted to a small area of the Ashfield Town Centre commercial core more distant from residential zones where they will have minimal impact (refer to Map LNZ 001 for Area 1).

 

DOP&I should also be asked to agree to the insertion of additional Clauses in the LEP that restricts sex service premises to the upper floors of premises only and subject to the proposed use not abutting a property used for residential purposes.

 

Note that Council must permit sex services premises somewhere in the Ashfield Council area. Prohibiting sex service premises everywhere is not an option DOP&I will agree to.

 

An appropriate Clause will be drafted to achieve the above objectives, which are regarded as critical to protect the Ashfield community.

 

Clause 6.11 Maintenance, protection and enhancement of views

Clause 6.11 proposes to require developments to consider view sharing principles. Council is encouraged to consider redrafting this clause as a heads of consideration clause.

 

 

This advice means the Clause will need to be redrafted so the matter appears is listed as a head of consideration only – i.e. redrafted to be a general matter for consideration/less specific. This approach has the advantage of minimising potential view loss litigation whilst retaining Council’s wish to have the matter included in the Draft Plan as an important matter for consideration in the development assessment process.

 

The Clause should be redrafted as suggested by DOP&I.

Flood Prone land

 

If any of the land under the LEP is flood prone land, Council should consider inserting the Department's latest model clause relating to Flood Planning. The model clause can be amended to reflect Council's mapping capabilities if Council does not have a Flood Planning Map. This clause would afford Council some protection as it would be able to rely on a good faith defence under section 733 of the Local Government Act (Exemption from liability - flood liable land). This model clause is included at DOP&I Attachment 2.

 

 

 

 

The wording of the Clause is acceptable and should be agreed to in order to minimise potential liability issues. Council does not currently have flood maps so the wording of the Clause will reflect this.

Earthworks

 

Replace with the most recent model clause relating to Earthworks. This clause does not necessarily have to be moved to Part 6.

 

 

 

The wording of the Clause is acceptable/meets Council’s objectives and should be agreed to.

Active street frontages zone B1, B2 B4 Council should consider deleting Objective 2 and inserting the model clause below in Part 6 of the LEP.

Active street frontages

(1) The objective of this clause is to promote uses that attract pedestrian traffic along certain ground floor street frontages in Zone B3 Commercial Core and Zone B4 Mixed Use.

(2) This clause applies to land identified as ‘Active street frontage’ on the Active Street Frontages Map.

(3) Development consent must not be granted to the erection of a building, or a change of use of a building, on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the building will have an active street frontage after its erection or change of use.

(4) Despite subclause (3), an active street frontage is not required for any part of a building that is used for any of the following:

a) entrances and lobbies (including as part of mixed use development),

b) access for fire services,

c) vehicle access.

(5) In this clause, a building has an active street frontage if all premises on the ground floor of the building facing the street are used for the purposes of business premises or retail premises.

 

 

 

There is no need to add this Clause as it is overly prescriptive. The issue of promoting active street frontages in the core area of Ashfield Town Centre is already dealt with in the Ashfield Town Centre DCP and has proved effective. In any case it is highly unlikely that developers will wish to place residential accommodation at ground floor level in commercial/retail areas of the Town Centre.

 

 

 

Certain office and business uses in Zone IN2

Delete clause 6.6 as it creates a subzone which seeks to restrict the type of office/business premises that are permitted in the IN2 zone.

Council should consider redrafting clause 6.6 as a heads of consideration clause, with an appropriate objective.

 

 

 

 

This Clause should be removed for legal reasons. The types of office and business uses permitted in the zone can be assessed on merit and in retrospect this is preferable.

 

6.0    Next steps - Submission of Section 64 report to DOPI

 

If Council agrees with the officer responses in the Table the next step is for officers to prepare a report to DOPI under Section 64 of the Act. This is a technical report that shows how the draft plan complies with the provisions of state policies (SEPPS) and Ministerial planning directions. The report will also detail how the plan meets the objectives of the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036, the Draft Inner West Subregional Strategy and DOPI practice notes and Circulars.  Justification for any variations to State policies and for local clauses that are non-standard will also need to be provided. A template of the standard report format is included at Attachment 2 for information. If DOPI is satisfied that the Section 64 Report addresses all relevant issues including compliance with relevant housing and employment targets they will issue a certificate under Section 65 of the Act to allow its public exhibition. The certificate may be ‘conditioned’ by DOPI – refer to the conclusion section of this report.

 

7.0    Advantages of proceeding expeditiously with Draft LEP 2012

 

The advantages of progressing the Draft LEP to exhibition stage in a timely fashion are numerous. A synopsis of the more important matters follows: Note that plan content is subject to final DOPI approval.

 

i)              Draft heritage items and heritage conservation areas will be recognised and protected

 

Proposed heritage items and heritage conservation areas identified by Council previously as part of a Council wide heritage review including Ashfield Town centre will be identified in the Plan. DOPI and the NSW Heritage Office have accepted that the heritage inventory proposed in the Draft Plan is robust in terms of the quality of the research and assessment methodology. Council’s heritage adviser also strongly supports early resolution of the current hiatus/lack of protection for these areas. When exhibition of the Draft Plan commences the new heritage items/heritage conservation areas will be excluded from application of most of the provisions of the NSW Housing (Exempt and Complying) Codes. Their new draft heritage status will also become a statutory matter for consideration in the assessment of a development application – including requiring development consent for demolition and alterations/additions.

 

ii)             Development Standards will provide more certainty

 

Development Standards such a floor space ratio and building height will be in the new LEP rather than appearing in development control plans. This has some advantages. It will provide greater certainty for applicants and a better theoretical ability by Council to withstand legal challenges to the agreed standards.  This will mean that desired future outcomes for specific areas in terms of built form are more likely to be met. For example height controls for Ashfield Town Centre are currently in the relevant part of the Ashfield DCP. Additionally, there are presently no controls relating to height in the current business and other zones along Parramatta Road.  Appropriate height/floor space ratio controls for this area will now be included in the new LEP which will also create an Enterprise Zone. There will also be the added advantage of a new complementary DCP Part for Parramatta Road (currently under preparation utilising Planning reform Funding). These documents will provide much greater certainty for development outcomes in the new Enterprise Zone and importantly, will better protect adjacent heritage conservation areas such as Haberfield. In summary, the controls in the new LEP supplemented by new DCP measures will ensure that the amenity of residential areas adjoining Parramatta Road is better protected into the future.

 

iii)            A user friendly document that will assist ‘understanding’

 

The new plan will certainly be much more ‘user friendly’ than the current Ashfield LEP 1985. There are also detailed objectives for each zone (there are none at present) and development standards will be mapped graphically as well as being in written form. The language used in the new plan is much less legalistic than the old plan and correspondingly easier to interpret/navigate.

 

iv)            Development incentives available in return for community benefit

 

The plan contains incentives (allowing additional height in the Town Centre) to promote provision of affordable housing and/or a significant community benefit. These are worthwhile initiatives.

 

v)             Improving access for people with disabilities

 

The Draft LEP requires applicants to consider and respond to Council’s Universal Accessible Design requirements when designing buildings. The inclusion of the clause in the Draft Plan is positive because it will give additional legal status to the provisions. If implemented, it will mean that Ashfield Council will be an acknowledged leader in implementing planning controls to require developers to actively design dwellings to cater for people with access and mobility difficulties. It will also allow more people to age in place, potentially giving them more independence and choices by providing accommodation that can more easily be adapted in the future to address mobility issues.

 

Note: This objective (improving access) also appears in Action 2.2 (page no 118) in the State Government’s Metropolitan Strategy 2036.

 

vi)            Drive-in take way food restaurants prohibited

 

The plan aims to prohibit these types of restaurants in the proposed Enterprise Zone. This will avoid adverse amenity impacts from this type of intensive land use and promote diverse alternative employment generating uses along Parramatta Road in line with Council’s vision of the road functioning as a future employment hub.

 

vii)           Dwelling targets will be ‘Locked-in’

 

Council’s dwelling targets (set in the Metropolitan Strategy) are 2000 dwellings to be provided by 2036. This is a relatively modest figure in comparison with nearby councils such as Canada Bay (7,700) and Burwood (10,000) and recognises Ashfield’s existing dense dwelling densities in localities that are outside important heritage conservation areas such as Haberfield. In a sense the new plan will ‘lock-in’ agreed housing targets for the foreseeable future because the controls in the plan are specifically tailored to achieve the targets. On the other hand, delays may (potentially) allow DOPI to request future changes to the Draft LEP to respond to what may be revised (increased) housing targets.

 

viii)          Access to funding

 

Text Box: Maximising access to external funding is important because the importance of the LEP project means that it needs to be complemented by a rigorous and extensive community engagement process. Funds can also be used to update Council’s Development Control Plan 2007 so that it will align in planning terms and legislatively with the Draft LEP.Proceeding with the Draft LEP expeditiously will allow Council to access more funding from DOPI under the ‘LEP acceleration fund’ and thereby use less of its own resources for community consultation and other supplementary work. This substantial funding resource will terminate at the end of June 2012 so in essence, the more work that can be completed prior to this date the greater the amount of funding that can be accessed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This engagement strategy could include a dedicated web page/facilitating on line submissions/flyers/open house sessions and ensuring a professional approach is achieved by engaging an expert community facilitator and heritage adviser on a temporary basis. This will ensure Council communicates effectively and obtains comprehensive feedback from the community. An indicative program will be submitted to Council in February 2012.

 

8.0 Miscellaneous matters associated with Draft LEP implementation

 

i) Allied Mills site - future zoning

 

This site is shown in the Draft Plan as industrial zoning as resolved by Council. However, surrounding properties are proposed to be rezoned for mixed use. In the event DOPI issues a Part 3A approval for a mixed use proposal Council may need to revisit the issue of an appropriate zoning including specific development standards.

 

ii) Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 - Updates are necessary to align legislatively with Draft LEP

 

The indicative work  program (see Attachment 3)  anticipates  that  necessary  DCP updates  will  be  finalised  while  the  Draft  LEP  is  being evaluated  by  the  Department  of  Planning  for  the  Section  65  certificate.  It is anticipated that Draft DCP updates will be submitted to Council as a package for adoption as a draft for exhibition in April 2012. This would enable the documents be exhibited concurrently with the Draft LEP.

 

This task is primarily an interim measure to ensure that all DCP Parts are aligned legislatively with the new LEP. For example, floor space ratios and height controls in the Ashfield Town centre DCP need to migrate to the LEP as required by the Standard Instrument. Additionally, other controls in DCP’s need to be updated to reflect recent changes to legislation – e.g. changes to child care regulations and recent implementation of exempt and complying housing codes. In the longer term, a comprehensive review/restructuring of the existing Development Control Plan is necessary.

 

9.0  Draft LEP/DCP indicative exhibition timelines

 

The work program (separate Attachment 3) has been updated from that last reported to Council in May 2011. The main changes are that the project timeframe has been extended to October 2012.

 

The October 2012 gazettal estimate for the LEP is based on the alignment of a number of factors. These primarily relate to DOPI processing times, in particular for the issuing of a Section 65 certificate to exhibit the Draft Plan and the associated Council decision-making processes. The timing of the issue of the Section 65 Certificate will determine the duration and extent of the public exhibition process. At this stage, assuming there is agreement between Council and DOPI on the content of the Plan in late February 2012 , it  is  anticipated  that  a Section 65  certificate  will  be  received  in  March  2012.  This will mean that the Draft Plan can commence exhibition in May /June 2012.

 

The project work program anticipates an exhibition period extending for a minimum of 2 months in the period between May and June 2012 (refer again to Work Program at separate Attachment 3).The Work Program also assumes that the Draft LEP will only be exhibited once, meaning that the DOPI and/or Council will only be able to make minor changes to the exhibited plan prior to its adoption. Should more substantial changes be necessary it is mandatory to re-exhibit the Draft Plan which of course would mean that the project timeframe would extend well beyond October 2012.

 

10.0  Conclusion

 

The good news is that DOPI have acceded to most of Council’s requests. This includes agreeing the heritage inventory and prohibiting drive-in-take away restaurants in the Enterprise Zone. Funding will also be able to be accessed until the end of June 2012 to defray the cost of a comprehensive community engagement program when public exhibition of the plan commences. This funding will also assist a necessary review of Council’s Development Control Plan. It is therefore recommended that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be provided with a response in the form of a formal submission under Section 64 of the Act incorporating the officer comments in Table 1 of this report.  Note that it is possible if certain matters remain in contention and cannot be mutually resolved then DOPI may choose to issue a Section 65 certificate authorising exhibition of the Draft Plan to commence contingent upon their policy preferences. In layman’s terms this means that DOPI may direct that certain clauses Council wishes to retain must be deleted and/or modified.

 

Details of any changes mandated by DOPI will be reported to Council early next year so that Council’s preferred position in terms of Plan content can be clarified/highlighted in conjunction with and as an adjunct to formal exhibition of the Draft Plan. There is nothing to be gained by delaying the plan making process/exhibition because a decision to exhibit the document and embark on a community engagement process is not a final outcome in terms of plan content. Further changes to the Plan may need to be made to respond to public feedback. Council will also be able to make additional representations at the Section 68 stage (submission of Draft Plan following exhibition) to DOPI and to the Minister following the community engagement process.

 

The plan making process has already been subject to lengthy deferral to align with Council’s community engagement priorities. It is important to now proceed expeditiously for the reasons detailed in Part 6 of this report.

 

The Plan will enhance Council’s strategic land use decision-making and development assessment processes and is a long overdue replacement for the current antiquated/convoluted 1985 LEP. It will be a ‘state of the art’ document which will also realise the aspirations of the community as expressed in ‘Ashfield’s Biggest Conversation’.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

DOP&I "Pre Section 64 feedback"

27 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Draft Section 64 Report Format (information document)

2 Pages

 

Attachment 3View

Indicative Work Program (distributed separately in electronic format)

1 Page

 

Attachment 4

Working Draft LEP/Maps + Schedule of Amendments resolved by Council (distributed separately)

131 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/6         Council authorise a Section 64 Report to be prepared and submitted to               the Department of Planning and Infrastructure with a request that a               Section 65 Certificate be issued to enable public exhibition of Draft               Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

2/6         The Section 64 technical document referred to in ‘Recommendation 1’               above incorporate the officer recommendations detailed in Section 5 of               this report and a copy of the Section 64 submission be circulated to               Councillors for information prior to its submission to the Department of               Planning & Infrastructure.

 

3/6         A further report be provided to Council detailing the future response of               Department of Planning and Infrastructure to Council’s Section 64               submission including details of any conditions attached to the issue of               a Section 65 Certificate by the Department prior to exhibition of the               Plan.

 

4/6         The additional report referred to in ‘Recommendation 3’ above outline               an appropriate Council response to any conditions applied by the               Department of Planning and Infrastructure to the Section 65 certificate               including (where there are clear differences of opinion which Council               considers the Ashfield community needs to be aware of) publicising               Council’s preferred policy stance in conjunction with public exhibition               of Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

5/6         An interim updated version of Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007               be prepared as soon as possible to align legislatively with the Draft LEP               and a report be submitted to Council providing a synopsis of               recommended changes as soon as practicable.

 

6/6         A report be submitted to Council in February 2012 detailing a proposed               comprehensive community engagement strategy to effectively promote               and manage consultation processes for the Draft Local Environmental               Plan and interim updated Draft Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 


Attachment 1

 

DOP&I "Pre Section 64 feedback"

 




























Attachment 2

 

Draft Section 64 Report Format (information document)

 



Attachment 3

 

Indicative Work Program (distributed separately in electronic format)

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011 CM10.10

Subject                            PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ASHFIELD DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN (DCP) 2007 PART C02 (ADVERTISEMENTS AND ADVERTISING STRUCTURES)

 

File Ref                            P&B>DCP

 

Prepared by                   Ron Sim - Manager Strategic Planning & Projects       

 

 

Reasons                          Council resolution/public exhibition concluded

 

Objective                         For Council to approve draft amendments that will improve policy/operational aspects of Part C02 of Ashfield DCP 2007 and so achieve better development outcomes for signage

 

 


1.0    Background

 

Council previously 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.

 

A comprehensive review of Part C02 of Ashfield DCP 2007 was undertaken including an internal peer review process – see Attachment 1. The document was updated and controls inserted to discourage potentially obtrusive pole/pylon signs in favour of other types of (fixed) signage. Enhanced development submission requirements were also included to ensure that the significant heritage/visual impacts of larger pole/pylon signs were properly addressed. Discussion follows below.

 

2.0    Proposed amended Part C02 - (Advertisements and Advertising Structures) Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007  

 

Synopsis of proposed amendments

 

(a) General updating of document completed including definitions and references to current legislation. For example, Table 1 now includes references to ‘Change of message/replacement of an existing building/business identification sign’ now permitted under State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.

 

(b) Content in Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of the existing DCP Part which give special consideration to and in effect sanctions larger signs for service stations/motels, etc along Parramatta Road has been removed. The policy context for this decision is that the proposed enterprise zoning will gradually change the nature of land uses in this area to achieve a wider employment base. Council will also be encouraging diversified land uses such as retail activity and commercial premises in addition to traditional car yards/motels/service - a process which should significantly strengthen the economic base of the area and that of the Ashfield Council LGA generally.

 

(c)  It follows therefore that there is no imperative, nor indeed is it desirable to have a special signage regime for particular land uses such as car yards/fast food outlets* along Parramatta Road which in effect endorses obtrusive large signs for these types of land uses. The controls in the amended DCP Part will also simplify the development assessment process because they will work uniformly to control signage across a wide spectrum of land uses. (* Council is seeking to prohibit these types of restaurants).

 

(d) Particular attention has been paid to pole/pylon signs. These types of signs can be obtrusive are strongly discouraged - the preference is for signs fixed to buildings wherever possible. Maximum permitted height is 6 metres for pole/pylon signs and complementary controls are also included to help achieve better design outcomes (see Table 2 of the draft exhibited document).

 

(e) Projecting wall signs are discouraged - these can create advertising clutter and have an unfortunate tendency to multiply in different facade locations as business owners leapfrog each other to ensure that their particular sign remains visible (is not obscured by another projecting sign on the same or an adjoining building).

 

(f)   A requirement for a 3DS (software animation and modelling file) to demonstrate that pole/pylon signs will have no adverse impacts on heritage conservation areas or disrupt skyline views has also been included. These criteria reflect the outdoor advertising guidelines released with SEPP 64 (see extract at Attachment 2).   Both SEPP 64 and Council’s amended DCP have broadly consistent aims and policy objectives in relation to reducing the adverse impacts of large signs. These include addressing streetscape, skyline protrusion and visual catchment criteria as well as a need to position/design pole/pylon signs in order not to adversely affect the heritage significance of conservation areas.

 

(g) Lastly, in order to achieve maximum environmental benefit and consistency in approach/application, it is logical that the amended controls apply to all business zones, including the mixed use business zones and not simply confined to the Enterprise Zone along Parramatta Road.

 

3.0    Proposed extension of Complying Development Codes to allow more types of signs as exempt development – Department of Planning & Infrastructure (DOPI)

 

The Department of Planning & Infrastructure (DOP&I) is currently exhibiting a revised amendment to the SEPP Exempt and Complying Codes which in part proposes to permit certain types of signage including pole signs of up to 6 metres in height and maximum 8m2 in area as exempt development within industrial zones (hopefully if adopted this will not be extended to Enterprise Zones). It is also proposed by DOP&I that smaller projecting wall signs above awning level (up to 1.5m2 in area) should be “exempt development” if not in a heritage conservation area. Various other types of signs would also be exempt development if the proposed changes are enacted.

 

3.1       Officer Comment

 

The logic for DOP&I’s proposal is difficult to understand other than the regulatory reform aspect but one needs to question if this in fact really worthwhile reform. The “Codes SEPP” track record so far is not encouraging.

 

Pole/pylon signs of up to 6 metres in height and projecting wall signs above awning level of any size should arguably not be exempt development in any zone as they are large, obtrusive structures which if inappropriately sited/designed can have significant adverse visual impacts. It is implied by DOP&I that scale is the determinant of environmental impact but using this criterion to determine what can be exempt development is a somewhat simplistic approach.

 

Projecting wall signs can also cumulatively degrade the appearance of shopping centres areas as ever increasing numbers of these signs compete for attention. Built form context, the presence of adjacent signs and potential impact on adjacent heritage items/conservation areas and adjacent residential areas are all important issues which imply that a merit assessment is necessary for these types of signs as opposed to tick the box processes.

 

Inner city areas such as Ashfield where a fine grain zoning mix occurs are also inherently much more environmentally sensitive than outer areas of Sydney where there are larger sites often separated/some distance from residential properties.  The Codes SEPP does not recognise this distinction and in this (inner city) context is arguably a flawed methodology.

 

A copy of a previous officer response to DOP&I expressing concern about some of the Department’s original proposals (which previously proposed to allow pylon signs as exempt development in all business and industrial zones and projecting wall signs in certain circumstances) was previously provided to Councillors. Unfortunately, if the current (amended) reforms are adopted (even though an improvement over previous proposals) they will override Council controls.

 

4.0    Exhibition

 

The draft document was extensively notified in the press (Ashfield Council column) and made available for viewing/download on council’s web site. Advertisements were also placed in the local press. Sign companies, including the Outdoor Advertising Association, resident groups active along Parramatta Road, the RTA, “Ashbiz” and various owners of commercial properties were also contacted separately by letter. Resident groups such as the Ashfield & District Historical Society and the Haberfield Association were also advised.

 

No submissions were received.

 

5.0    Conclusion

 

Existing controls for pole/pylon signs in Draft Amended Part C02 - (Advertisements and Advertising Structures) Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 have been updated to achieve more effective control over these types of signs and to discourage them where signs fixed directly to buildings are possible alternatives. In addition, projecting wall signs are discouraged if other less obtrusive alternative forms of signage such as flush wall signs will suffice.

 

Development submission requirements have also been reviewed so that the potentially significant heritage/visual impacts of taller pole/pylon signs can properly considered. Legislative references/ requirements are also updated.

 

The regulations to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act require that the amended document be formally approved by Council and notification of this approval be published in the local press. When this happens the amended DCP Part will commence operation.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Draft Amended Part C02- (Advertisements and Advertising Structures) Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007.

25 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3    That Draft Amended Part C02 - (Advertisements and Advertising Structures) Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 be approved

         and notice of approval of the document be published in a local newspaper as required under the regulations to the Act.

 

2/3    That a copy of Draft Amended Part C02 - (Advertisements and Advertising Structures) Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007

         as approved be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure as required under the regulations to the Act.

 

3/3    That the Department of Planning and Infrastructure be provided with a copy of this report as contextual supporting data to augment officer responses to current proposals by the Department to expand exempt development categories for pole/pylon signs and projecting wall signs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Draft Amended Part C02- (Advertisements and  Advertising Structures) Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007.

 


























Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011 CM10.11

Subject                            LEASE FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE  - CIVIC CENTRE BUILDING

 

File Ref                            Leases>Civic Centre

 

Prepared by                   Nellette Kettle - Director Corporate & Community Services       

 

Reasons                          To seek Council approval to enter into lease negotiations

 

 


Overview of Report
This report seeks Council approval for officers to enter into lease negotiations with the Metro Migrant Resource Centre for the commercial space at the entrance to the Civic Centre Building.

 

Background

Stage 1 of the Civic Centre redevelopment project delivered a commercial tenancy space at the entrance to the Civic Centre Building on 260 Liverpool Road Ashfield. 

 

The area of the commercial space is 108 square metres.  Officers have had a market appraisal of the space and have been advised on the expected market rent for the premises. 

 

In November 2010 a brief was prepared for the engagement of an agency to assist the Council in finding a suitable tenant for the space. The brief included details of the area to be leased, arrangements for the agreement and marketing campaign requirements. Expressions of Interest were sought from five local agencies that provide commercial leasing services and work in the inner west.


In March 2011 Raine & Horne were appointed to conduct a campaign over a three to five month period to find a suitable tenant.  This campaign included use of agency commercial client base contacts, use of international client data bases, specified direct marketing, commercial internet website, print media releases and targeting of existing Ashfield CBD tenants wishing to relocate.  This campaign was not successful in finding a suitable tenant.


In July 2011 another agency was approached to commence a new marketing campaign which included internet marketing (including an e-brochure), signage, direct mail brochures, and data base research. This campaign was not commenced as at around the same time Council officers became aware that the Metro Migrant Resource Centre (MMRC) was seeking office space/shopfront in the Ashfield area.

 

The Metro Migrant Resource Centre has shown interest in this space and is seeking to commence negotiations with Council on a lease.

 

Report

 

The Metro Migrant Resource Centre is a not for profit organisation that provides a range of community development services to its clients and it is of great benefit to the residents of the Ashfield LGA that MMRC is seeking to establish a presence in the Ashfield Town Centre.  The work and objectives of the MMRC are highly consistent with, and complementary to, Council’s own objectives and work in the areas of community development and capacity building.  As a prospective tenant, MMRC is highly complementary to Council’s mission and objectives and to Council’s vision for the redeveloped Civic Centre precinct to be an active community hub.

 

MMRC is aware that it would need to undertake a fit out of the space and has indicated a willingness to pay a commercial market rent.  MMRC is actively seeking opportunities (grants and other partners) to make the space affordable, including through the structure of the lease (e.g. 6 month rent holiday period).

 

MMRC is committed to establishing a long term presence in Ashfield Town Centre and is seeking an initial 5 year lease, with an option for a further 5 years.

 

Financial Implications

The commercial tenancy space has been vacant since it was completed in June 2011 and attempts to date to find suitable interested tenants have not been successful.  The MMRC is interested in leasing the space for a commercial rent and also offers the added benefit of providing complementary community services to Council’s residents.  In this respect, MMRC is an ideal tenant for the space and a presence within Council’s Civic Centre precinct.

 

Other Staff Comments

The following Council officers have been involved in the attempts to locate a suitable tenant for the commercial space and/or in considering the MMRC proposal:

 

·    Director Planning and Environment

·    Director Corporate Services

·    Chief Financial Officer

·    Strategic Procurement Officer

·    Manager Governance

·    Manager Community Services

·    Civic Centre Project Officer

 

These officers support the recommendations contained in this report.

 

Public Consultation

This report outlines the unsuccessful search for a tenant undertaken by the commercial agent.

 

Council is not required to undertake a tender process for these premises as they are not designated ‘community land’ and the MMRC is a not for profit organisation.

 

Conclusion

To date, Council’s commercial agent has not been able to deliver a tenant for the commercial premises at the entrance to the Civic Centre building.  The premises currently stand vacant.  Council officers have become aware of the MMRCs genuine interest in renting the facility, providing the benefit of complimentary community services; high suitability to the Civic Centre precinct; as well as the added benefit of saving Council the management fee that would need to be paid to the commercial agent for an agent secured tenant.  MMRC is seeking to enter into formal lease negotiations with Council and is considered an ideal tenant for the facility.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2      That Council note the contents of this report.

 

2/2       That Council authorise the General Manager to negotiate and execute a suitable lease with MMRC for the commercial premises at the entrance to the Civic Centre building.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011 CM10.12

Subject                            CENTENARY PARK LEASE FOR SIX (6) A SIDE SOCCER COMPETITION

 

File Ref                            Park and Reserves > Leases

 

Prepared by                   Peter Kapocius - Coordinator Parks and Trees       

 

Reasons                          To advise Council on the current contractual position and work being undertaken to activate a Tendering Process including a project timeline.

 

Objective                         To obtain Councils approval to proceed with a Tender for a lease agreement to use Centenary Park for a six (6) a side soccer competition once necessary documentation is prepared.

 

 


Overview of Report

 

Council has resolved to call for local organisations to lodge tender documents for the use of Centenary Park for six (6) a side soccer competition. The competition is to be for one night a week for five hours during Summer and four hours in Winter.

 

It is intended that the term of the lease be for 3 years so that in addition to yearly fee

a capital contribution is provided to improve the park in line with the Plan of Management.

 

 

Background

 

At Council’s ordinary meeting of 8 February 2011, Council resolved the following:

 

2/2  That the Plan of Management for Centenary Park include:-

 

a)   the provision for small sided soccer one night a week for five hours during Summer and four hours in Winter

 

b)   call for local organisations to lodge tender documents

 

c)   the specifications for the tender indicate as a minimum that in addition to a yearly fee, Ashfield Council is looking for a capital contribution that will be used to improve the park in line with the POM. Council will also require organisations to outline ways of running the summer soccer in ways that minimise the damage to the playing surface”

 

 

Currently hiring of the field is undertaken through Council’s park booking process. This is undertaken by sending out invitations to existing users and local sporting groups for them to register their interest so that the booking can be made accordingly. This process for small sided soccer is carried out twice yearly. One prior to the Summer season and the other prior to the Winter Season.

 

The proposed lease agreement is to offer a more secure arrangement for both Council and the sporting organisation by offering a 3 year lease. In turn, in addition to an annual fee, Council will be seeking a capital contribution that will be used to improve the park facilities.

 

 

Tender Development Process & Projected Time line

 

To ensure that the proposed Tender is progressed in a timely manner the following projected time line has been developed:-

 

Action

Anticipated completion

Complete development of Tender documents

End February 2012

Advertise for request for Tenderers.

Mid March 2012

Closing of tender period.

End April 2012

Complete evaluation of contract offers.

Mid May 2012

Successful respondent(s) notified.

Mid June 2012

 

Financial Implications

 

The request for tender will indicate as a minimum that in addition to a yearly fee, a capital contribution is provided to improve the park in line with the Plan of Management.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

Not required.

 

Public Consultation

 

Not required.

 

Conclusion

 

Currently hiring of the field is undertaken through Council’s park booking process. This is undertaken by sending out invitations to existing users and local sporting groups for them to register their interest so that the booking can be made accordingly. The proposed “Request for Tender” will comply with the The Plan of Management for Centenary Park. It is intended that the term of the lease be established for a 3 year period.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

1/4    That Council note the current operational position and work being undertaken to activate a Tendering Process including a project timeline.

 

2/4    That the contractual arrangement be for a period of three (3) years.

 

3/4    That the lease arrangement be for one night a week for five hours during           Summer and four hours in Winter.

 

4/4    That Council staff be authorised to proceed to a tender process to           establish a lease arrangement with a commercial organisation for the   use of Centenary Park for a six a side soccer competition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tony Giunta

Acting Director Works & Infrastructure Services


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011 CM10.13

Subject                            COUNCIL BOUNDARY CHANGE REQUEST - CROYDON

 

File Ref                            PLC

 

Prepared by                   Phil Sarin - Director Planning and Environment       

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council consideration

 

Objective                         For Council to consider the request from PLC

 

 


Overview of Report


This report outlines details of a request by the Presbyterian Ladies College (PLC) for the Council to consider a boundary change in Croydon which would have the effect of annexing a portion of the Ashfield LGA to Burwood Council to include PLC wholly within the Burwood LGA. At present, the school straddles both Council areas.

 

1.0    Background

 

Representatives from PLC met with the former Mayor, Councillor Cassidy and senior council officers in August 2011 to discuss a possible boundary change which would include all of the major land holdings of PLC within the Burwood LGA. At present, a small section of the eastern portion of the school is located within the Ashfield LGA. This section of the school includes the indoor aquatic facility, performing arts centre and tennis courts and part of the junior school. The school also owns and uses a number of properties in College Street, Hennessy Street and Edwin Street North (refer to locality map in Attachment 1).

 

The request put to the Mayor and council officers at this meeting was for all properties on the western side of College Street and the existing holdings that include the pool and performing arts centre to be included within the Burwood LGA in a boundary adjustment between the two councils. The rationale for this request was to have the school under one LGA and set of development controls. In the past there have been situations arise where it has been necessary for the school to lodge development applications with both Ashfield and Burwood Councils at the same time where development has occurred in the vicinity of the council boundary (most recently this was the case for the development application for the indoor pool and performing arts centre approved in 2003). The school argues that in some cases the two councils have not had a consistent approach when dealing with the same applications.

 

Following the discussions, PLC was requested to prepare a submission along the lines of one that would be put to the Local Government Boundaries Commission (LGBC) to the Council for consideration.

 

2.0    Proposal

 

The proposal that PLC has been put forward is much broader than that which was discussed at the August meeting and includes all properties west of Edwin Street North between Hennessy Street and Anthony Street (refer to submission and map contained in Attachment 2).

 

The main points raised in the submission in support of the proposal are as follows:

 

1.   It allows for sensible and sustainable planning measures in the future.

2.   It allows for buildings currently in two councils to come under one jurisdiction.

3.   It would mean that the boundary could be set for the future.

4.   It would not reduce the revenue for one council.

5.   It would benefit the safety of the students.

 

The above points are discussed in more detail in the submission (Attachment 2).

 

3.0    Officer Comments

 

From the perspective of the school, it is acknowledged that dealing with one rather than two councils with respect to development matters would be preferable. However, Ashfield has generally been supportive of applications that have been submitted in the past, notwithstanding concerns that have been raised by the community in relation to impacts arising from the provision of new and expanded school facilities.

 

As for ‘setting a boundary for the future’, there is no certainty as to what this boundary could be as there is no prohibition on the school continuing to acquire more properties in adjacent residential areas for its future plans.

 

In terms of rate income, land used for educational purposes does not attract rates so most of the properties owned by PLC outlined in Attachment 1 do not generate rate income for the Council. Were a boundary adjustment to occur, as proposed, Council’s rate income would be adjusted over its remaining rateable properties so the impacts arising from the boundary adjustment would be negligible across the whole LGA. In addition, when boundary changes occur, financial adjustments are considered by the LGBC to compensate councils for the transfer and management of assets.

 

The statement in the school’s submission that ‘Burwood Council have agreed to terms that would minimise any loss’ is unclear as council officers are not aware of any recent approaches by Burwood Council regarding this matter.

 

The safety of children in and around schools is of paramount importance to all councils. Should issues of concern be brought to a council for consideration, Ashfield, like any other council, would have no hesitation in looking at what it could do to improve pedestrian safety. In fact the Council’s recent streetscape works in the Croydon village included the creation of new and safer pedestrian crossings. Consequently, the school’s argument that having all of its exits and entries within one council area would somehow allow broader safety issues to be addressed more effectively is not supported.

 

The boundary adjustment suggested by PLC running along Edwin Street North could have unintended consequences in relation to the Croydon village. At present, the village on the northern side of the railway line is wholly within the Ashfield LGA. This has benefits in ensuring that its future development and upgrading can be managed in a consistent and integrated way. Splitting this portion of what is a relatively small village of homogenous character between two councils does not appear to make much sense in relation to the management of infrastructure and assets and the consideration of future development. Over time, we could have a scenario where each council goes down a different strategic development path which compromises its qualities and character.

 

4.0    Financial Implications

 

Refer to comments in Section 3.0.

 

5.0    Public Consultation

 

Not sought at this stage. A public consultation process would be part of any formal submission and consideration of a boundary adjustment by the Local Government Boundaries Commission.

 

6.0    Conclusion

 

Council needs to consider if the proposal has merit and advise PLC of its view accordingly. An approach to the previous Minister for Local Government on this issue Council was made in 2007 by Burwood Council but was not successful, so without the support of both Councils the matter may be difficult to progress further.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Property Ownership Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 2View

PLC Submission

3 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Submitted to Council for consideration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 


Attachment 1

 

Property Ownership Map

 


Attachment 2

 

PLC Submission

 




Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011 CM10.14

Subject                            REVIEW OF EXISTING MANAGEMENT OF ABANDONED OR UNATTENDED SHOPPING TROLLEYS POLICY

 

File Ref                            Policy

 

Prepared by                   Maurice Morsanuto - Manager Regulatory Services       

 

Reasons                          To reduce the number of shopping trolleys abandoned on our streets

 

Objective                         To negotiate with trolley owners to achieve desirable outcomes of having all trolley owners implementing containment strategies

 

 


Overview of Report


The attached draft policy and proposed actions listed in the report have been prepared at the request of Council’s Shopping Trolley Working Party in response to ongoing resident and councillor dissatisfaction with the current situation concerning abandoned shopping trolleys.

 

The report recommends a number of initial strategies prior to the implementation of an amended ‘strengthened’ policy to encourage trolley owners to modify their trolleys to prevent them from being removed from the premises from which they originate.

 

Background

 

At Council’s Shopping Trolley Working Party meeting on the 15th November this year it was agreed to proceed with a number of steps and actions to reduce the current number of trolleys abandoned on our streets. Given that the existing undesirable abandonment of trolleys has continued for a number of years a broad approach including a policy change is to be undertaken.

 

Matters arising from Working Party meeting of 15th November

 

The working party explored a very wide approach to resolving this issue, including:

 

1.   Approaching and meeting with the owners of the trolleys and Ashfield Mall to discuss the implementation of containment strategies in relation to abandoned shopping trolleys (this has been attempted in the past with limited success and cooperation).

 

2.   Seeking legal advice on a number of issues such as:

                   - possible liability to Council for tacitly permitting trolleys to remain without      

                     impounding or removing them.

                   - full consideration of appropriate measures in any major impounding process

                     that may occur to minimise costs and litigation against Council as has                       occurred with several other Councils in similar circumstances.

 

3.   Consideration of positive and rewarding approaches to cooperative trolley owners directly and through general communication channels such as Council’s web site, the media and through general newsletters and forums. For example, publicly acknowledging trolley owners that fully cooperate with Council’s objectives as being responsible, working with the local community, avoiding problems associated with unattended trolleys, etc.

 

4.   Consideration of negative and punitive approaches in reverse to the point above for store owners that Council believes continue to act irresponsibly and not in accordance with the amended policy requirements (i.e. ‘name and shame’ approach).

 

5.   Encouraging resident campaigns to assist in achieving an improvement by residents directly making their concerns known e.g. to local store or to their corporate offices.

 

6.   Consideration of including in a welcome kit information that has advice to residents regarding shopping trolleys.

 

7.   Consideration of trolley bays in specific locations including in public areas such as Hercules Street or at the Railway Station / Bus Stops.

 

8.   The sale, distribution and encouragement of private trolleys and eco trolleys.

 

9.   Writing to the Premier to seek improved and specific legislation to assist councils in regulating the matter more effectively.

 

10. Amending the current Council policy to provide stricter requirements that will enable trolleys to be immediately impounded.

 

Comment:

 

Council’s first priority should be to write to all trolley owners including their corporate offices and major stakeholders like the Ashfield Mall inviting them to meet with Council representatives with a view to forming an agreement on timelines and processes to introduce management of shopping trolley containment systems. The issue of the likely introduction of a strengthened policy needs to be raised at this meeting so that all companies and organisations are aware of the consequences should a satisfactory agreement not be reached.

 

It would also be desirable to seek legal advice in relation to the revised policy and strategy to impound and potentially dispose of trolleys so that the Council’s intended actions are defendable in the event that the trolley owners take action regarding this approach.

 

Many of the other ideas also have merit but should wait on the outcome of the initial discussions and the general attitude of the trolley owners to the introduction of containment devices.

 

A further report could be prepared on these alternative communication strategies and campaigns in the event that Council formally resolves to introduce the strengthened policy.

Revised Policy

 

The attached draft policy has been strengthened in two main ways.

 

Firstly, if adopted Council will no longer need to identify each and every trolley, to notify the owners and to allow 24 hours for the trolley to be picked up. Currently this approach requires staff to return to the site and again confirm the same trolley is still present. Only then can staff contact other officers to impound the trolley.

 

The draft policy will allow staff to impound, on the spot, all trolleys that do not have a containment device.

 

Secondly, where an abandoned trolley has an installed containment measure Council will contact the owner of the trolley and allow up to 24 hours for collection. In the case of trolleys that may be in a hazardous location Council will temporarily make them safe, contact the owners and allow one hour for them to be picked up.

 

The purpose of not immediately impounding trolleys with containment measures is to provide incentive and reasonableness to responsible trolley owners. Not only does it demonstrate that Council is genuine in its endeavours to improve this situation it also acknowledges that there are no current practical systems that will guarantee a 100% success rate. Presumably this will also strengthen Council’s position should the process be challenged in the courts as it demonstrates a reasonable attitude on Council’s behalf.

 

Financial Implications

 

The obtaining of legal advice on a number of related issues and the preparation of media information will incur some costs.

 

Apart from the possibility of having to defend Council’s position in Court if and when wholesale impounding of trolleys occurs there is also the ongoing cost of the actual impounding, processing and disposal of trolleys. The expected costs of impounding vary greatly at this stage as the actual number of trolleys and resources required will be subject to the success of the program. Simplistically, the more resources that are spent in successfully enforcing the policy the less the need and the less the long term costs.

 

Should Council determine to proceed with actively impounding trolleys costs of labour, a vehicle, a trolley trailer, storage and administration costs will be incurred. These costs may be reduced by payment of any impounding fees paid by the trolley owners. Again, this will depend on the extent of cooperation / litigation that trolley owners and in particular the major stores choose to act on.

 

Once legal advice has been obtained and Council has had the opportunity to directly communicate its intentions with the store owners specific estimates will be provided.

 

Public Consultation

 

Public consultation is not recommended at this stage as the first stage of this program is to meet with the trolley owners and shopping centre managers to obtain their cooperation.

 

Should some or all of the trolley owners still refuse to implement containment measures then a broad spectrum of measures are proposed as outlined in this report. The amendment of the policy and immediate impounding of all trolleys may ultimately be necessary but should be seen as a last resort given the expected high costs of implementation.

 

Conclusion

 

It appears that the broader community shares Council dissatisfaction in relation to the current arrangements by trolley owners.

 

Council typically wishes to work in a supportive way with businesses generally and it is presumed that this extends to trolley owners.

 

The implementation of a combative policy whereby all trolleys without containment devices are impounded on the spot is certainly not the preferred approach. Negative impacts including legal costs, staff resources and possible litigation with the trolley owners are at this stage highly probable.

 

To maximise the likelihood of success it is recommended that Council indicate to the trolley owners in no uncertain terms the negative impacts and concerns that trolleys are causing. As part of this communication process Council should also advise of its reluctant but steadfast determination to force trolley owners to work with Council to implement containment strategies. Failure to do so will result in Council amending it current policy to implement immediate impounding of unattended or abandoned trolleys.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Shopping Trolley Draft Policy

6 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/4    That Council write to all trolley owners including their corporate offices           and Ashfield Mall inviting them to meet with Council representatives with a           view to forming an agreement on timelines and processes to introduce           management of shopping trolley containment systems. This meeting to be           held before the end of February 2012.

 

2/4    That Council representatives advise trolley owners of its intended course           of action should a satisfactory agreement not be reached.

         

3/4    That Council obtain general legal advice on matters raised in the report.

 

4/4    That a further report be prepared for Council by the end of March 2012           which details the outcome of the meeting held with trolley owners and           other stakeholders and appropriate follow up actions.

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment  


Attachment 1

 

Shopping Trolley Draft Policy

 







Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011 CM10.15

Subject                            CIVIC CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT INQUIRY - REPORT AND ACTION PLAN 2011

 

File Ref                            Civic Centre Redevelopment Project

 

Prepared by                   Vanessa Chan - General Manager       

 

Reasons                          To update Council on the outcomes of the Civic Centre Redevelopment Inquiry and the response from Management with respect to the findings.

 

Objective                         To promote accountability and transparency in the management of Council activities and to ensure that the organisation is continually learning and improving.

 

 


Overview of Report

In April 2011 Council resolved to commission an Inquiry into the Civic Centre Redevelopment Project. The preliminary findings of the Inquiry were reported to a workshop of councillors and the Internal Audit Committee in September 2011. This report presents the final Inquiry Report and response to each finding from Management.

 

 

Background

 

Ashfield Council is committed to open and transparent government. Construction work commenced on Council’s Civic Centre Redevelopment project in July 2009.  This is the largest capital project undertaken by Council in over 30 years and is delivering a new library; new public plaza; community rooms; children, youth and families facilities and upgraded Town Hall and staff accommodation.

 

We have encountered a number of significant challenges during the project including a formal dispute with the builder and termination of the services of both the consultant project manager and architect. Council has experienced significant loss and delay. 

 

As problems emerged we affirmed our commitment to examining the reasons why and to ensuring that our systems and processes are improved for the future.

 

In April 2011 Council resolved to commission an Inquiry into the Civic Centre Redevelopment under the oversight of Council’s Internal Audit Committee.

 

The scope was to review:

a)    Council’s internal project management capability and performance

b)   Governance issues, including testing that:

§ Full and reliable information was exchanged between the Council administration and councillors

§ Decisions were made at the right levels of the organisation

§ Statutory and other third party obligations to inform and advise were met e.g. DLG and grant bodies

§ Council kept the community informed as appropriate

 

Ernst and Young were commissioned by Council to undertake the Inquiry. They conducted an exhaustive series of interview and documentation reviews. Their preliminary findings were presented to a joint Councillor and Internal Audit Committee workshop held 28 September 2011. A final draft report, including a detailed management response to each of the findings was considered at the Internal Audit Committee held 14 November 2011.

 

The Internal Audit Committee will remain responsible for overseeing the implementation of the management actions through regular progress reports.

 

Financial Implications

NIL

 

Other Staff Comments

NIL

 

Public Consultation

 

The community has been kept appraised of progress and issues associated with the Civic Centre Redevelopment. The attached Inquiry Report is published and available for interested residents and/or others.

 

Conclusion

 

This Inquiry and the learning from it, places Council in a strong position both with respect to public accountability and transparency and also with respect to the improvement of our systems and processes.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Civic Centre Redevelopment Inquiry - Ernst & Young

47 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2    That the Report be received and noted

 

2/2    That a copy of the Report be sent to the NSW Division of Local           Government, for their information and consideration.

 

 

 

 

Vanessa Chan

General Manager

 


Attachment 1

 

Civic Centre Redevelopment Inquiry - Ernst & Young

 







Attachment 1

 

Civic Centre Redevelopment Inquiry - Ernst & Young

 















Attachment 1

 

Civic Centre Redevelopment Inquiry - Ernst & Young

 






Attachment 1

 

Civic Centre Redevelopment Inquiry - Ernst & Young

 


Attachment 1

 

Civic Centre Redevelopment Inquiry - Ernst & Young

 


Attachment 1

 

Civic Centre Redevelopment Inquiry - Ernst & Young

 


Attachment 1

 

Civic Centre Redevelopment Inquiry - Ernst & Young

 


Attachment 1

 

Civic Centre Redevelopment Inquiry - Ernst & Young

 





Attachment 1

 

Civic Centre Redevelopment Inquiry - Ernst & Young

 











Attachment 1

 

Civic Centre Redevelopment Inquiry - Ernst & Young

 



Attachment 1

 

Civic Centre Redevelopment Inquiry - Ernst & Young

 



Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 13 December 2011 CM10.16

Subject                            AUSTRALIA DAY AWARDS 2012

 

File Ref                            Public Relations>Awards

 

Prepared by                   Nicola Feltis - Communications Officer       

 

Reasons                          Council is required to determine the recipients of Ashfield Council’s Australia Day Awards for 2012.

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the recipients of Ashfield Council’s Australia Day Awards 2012, including Citizen of the Year, Young Citizen of the Year, Young Artist / Sportsperson of the Year.

 

 


Overview of Report
Each year Ashfield Council runs an Australia Day Awards Program for its Citizen of the Year, Young Citizen of the Year and Young Artist/Sportsperson of the Year.  Ashfield Council has received 14 nominations for the 2012 awards.  These awards have been initially assessed by Council staff according to the selection criteria advertised for the 2012 Awards (provided by the Australia Day Council of NSW).  Council must determine the winners in each category.  The Awards will be presented on Australia Day – Thursday 26 January 2012 at a special ceremony to be held in the Ashfield Civic Centre.

 

 

Background

 

Each year Ashfield Council participates in the local NSW Citizen of the Year Awards, run by the Australia Day Council of NSW, a subsidiary of the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet.  The Awards recognise outstanding personal achievement or contribution to the community by an individual and are an integral part of the national Australia Day celebrations.

 

Ashfield Council conducts awards in the following categories:

 

-     Citizen of the Year - Recognising an outstanding contribution to the community by an Ashfield citizen.  To be eligible, the person must be 26 years or older on 26 January 2012

-     Young Citizen of the Year - Recognising outstanding achievement or contribution to the community by a young Ashfield citizen. To be eligible, the person must be under 26 years of age on 26 January 2012

-     Young Artist/Sportsperson of the Year - Presented for contribution to the Arts/Sport in the local area.  The nominee’s approach and efforts to advance their chosen activity and their performance over the past year will be considered.

To be eligible, the person must be under 26 years of age on 26 January 2012

 

As per previous years, Ashfield Council may present Australia Day Achievement Awards to those nominees who did not win in their nominated category, but are worthy of recognition for their efforts. 

 

Call for Nominations

 

Award nominations opened on 24 October 2011.  Nominations for the awards closed on Friday 25 November 2011. 

 

Promotion of Awards

 

The call for nominations, encouraging our community to nominate was promoted via the following means:

§ Media release sent to local print and electronic media

§ Regular advertising in Council’s weekly ad in the “Inner-West Courier”

§ Posters on Council’s Community Noticeboards, Ashfield Library and Haberfield Library

§ Link from the home page of Council’s website at www.ashfield.nsw.gov.au

§ Editorial coverage in the “Inner West Weekly”

§ Council’s homepage news item.

§ Mayor’s column in Council’s weekly ad.

 

Distribution of Nomination Packs

 

Nomination packs were revised in line with the most recent information and branding provided by the Australia Day Council of NSW.  Nomination packs were distributed in October to groups including:

 

§ Local community groups and organisations

§ Local high schools

§ Local community leaders

§ Business organisations

§ Major clubs and sporting organisations

§ Council staff, including Community Services and Library

 

Nomination packs were also made available on Council’s website, at Council’s Customer Service Centre, Ashfield Library, Haberfield Library and the Ashfield Aquatic Centre.

 

Award Criteria

 

In assessing a nomination, the judging panel may consider:

§ Whether the nominee is a resident of the Ashfield Council area.  (Particularly outstanding and significant contributions to the municipality by a non-resident will be considered if received)

§ The number of hours of work over and above normal employment duties

§ The benefit to the Ashfield community from the nominee’s service or contribution

§ Other outstanding achievements by the nominee

§ Other recognition of the nominee’s contribution or work, including publicity

§ Whether the nominee worked as part of a team and their role within the team

§ Whether the nominee has had assistance from Council, government or other grants.

§ Whether the nominee has had to overcome any particular difficulties or hurdles

§ Who has benefited most from the work of the nominee

§ Whether the work was voluntary (i.e. no direct or indirect monetary or material gain)

 

In the event of two or more nominees equally satisfying the above criteria, the Judging Panel has the option of giving preference to the nominee who has received less public recognition.

 

2012 Nominees

 

Ashfield Council received 14 nominations for its Australia Day Awards 2012. Please refer to attached spreadsheet for a synopsis and initial analysis of these applications.  The submissions are included as Attachments.

 

Initial Nomination Review

 

The initial review of applications was collated by the Communications Officer.

 

 

Financial Implications

Nil

 

 

Other Staff Comments

Gerard Howard – Manager Community Services

 

Nominees this year represent a broad sweep of voluntary endeavours within the local community. It is fitting that Council should recognise and celebrate these contributions and make them known in the wider community. 

 

 

Public Consultation

Community participation was encouraged with an extensive advertising process. In addition to this nomination forms were made available at Council’s Customer Service Counters, over 50 packs were distributed to community groups and local schools, a dedicated column in Council’s weekly ad calling for nominations and details of the awards run on the front page of Council’s website.

 

 

Conclusion

Ashfield Council's Australia Day Awards program has attracted a wide range of worthy nominees who are all "local heroes" in their own way, contributing their skills and time to the local community, or inspiring others through their outstanding personal achievements.  It is envisaged each nominee will be acknowledged with a Certificate of Achievement at Ashfield Council's Australia Day Awards 2012.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Citizen of the Year 2012 -  - CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT - Confidential - It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

2 Pages

 

Attachment 2

Young Citizen of the Year -  - CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT - Confidential - It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

1 Page

 

Attachment 3

Applications for Australia Day Awards -  - CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT - Confidential - It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with th