4 July 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

10 JULY 2012 at 6:30 PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEE ATTACHED AGENDA


 

Ordinary Meeting - 10 July 2012

 

AGENDA

 

1.               Opening

 

2.               Acknowledgement of Local Indigenous Community

 

3.               Apologies/Request for Leave of Absence

                   

4.               Condolence and Sympathy Motions

 

 

5.               Moment of Private Contemplation

 

 

6.               Disclosures Of Interest

 

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

(10/07/2012)

 

7.               Confirmation of Minutes of Council/Committees

 

Ordinary Meeting - 26/06/2012

Ashfield Youth Committee – 02/07/2012

Aboriginal Consultative Committee – 21/06/2012

Ashfield Access Committee – 18/06/2012

Women’s Committee – 23/08/2011

 

8.               Mayoral Minutes

 

MM19/2012  SWING MOORINGS IN SYDNEY HARBOUR

 

 

9.               Notices of Motion And Rescission

 

NM30/2012  ASHBURY RESIDENT HONOURED IN QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY HONOURS LIST 2012 - PROF TREVOR CAIRNEY

 

NM31/2012  NOTICE OF RESCISSION

BUCKLE BELT SITE, 67-75 SMITH STREET SUMMER HILL

 

10.            Staff Reports

 

10.1     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.080.1
203 LIVERPOOL ROAD ASHFIELD

 

10.2     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.083.1
46 ROSE STREET ASHFIELD

 

10.3     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.059.1
11 WETHERILL STREET CROYDON

 

10.4     COUNCIL NOMINATIONS TO THE SYDNEY EAST JOINT REGIONAL PLANNING PANEL

 

 

11.            General Business

 

 

 

12.            Closed (Public Excluded) Committee

 

 

13.            Close

 

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 10 July 2012 MM19/2012

Sydney Harbour

MAYORAL MINUTE

 

SWING MOORINGS IN SYDNEY HARBOUR

       

 

I am in receipt of a letter from The General Manager Gary Sawyer of City of Canada Bay Council dated 13 June 2012 seeking Council’s support in writing to the Minister for Roads and Maritime requesting a moratorium on swing moorings in Iron Cove as outlined in their Council resolution.

 

As Ashfield Council is home to an established Rowing Club, the rowers using these facilities have been effected.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Letter dated Canada Bay Council dated 13 June

3 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council support the recommendations and write to the Minister for Roads and Maritime, requesting a moratorium on swing moorings in Iron Cove.

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

COUNCILLOR L KENNEDY

Mayor

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Letter dated Canada Bay Council dated 13 June

 



 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 10 July 2012 NM30/2012

Public Relations>Congratulations

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLOR Marc Rerceretnam

 

 

ASHBURY RESIDENT HONOURED IN QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY HONOURS LIST 2012 - PROF TREVOR CAIRNEY

     

 

‘To move Notice of Motion No. NM30/2012

 

Prof Trevor Cairney, a Holden Street, Ashbury resident was recently conferred an Order of Australia Medal (OAM) in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List for services to education as an academic and administrator and to business through leadership roles within professional organisations.

 

Prof Cairney has lived in the Ashfield municipality for at least 13 years with his wife Carmen.  They have 2 daughters and 6 grandchildren.

 

Prof Cairney is Master of New College and is a Honorary Professor, School of Education, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (UNSW). As Master of New College, Prof Cairney oversees a large residential college for both local and international students.

 

Prof Cairney has a strong commitment to his family and is a staunch Christian.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

That council write a letter of congratulations to Prof Trevor Cairney and his family on the conferment of the Order of Australia Medal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marc Rerceretnam

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 10 July 2012 NM31/2012

Development Application

NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLORS Caroline Stott, Monica Wangmann and Marc Rerceretnam

 

 

NOTICE OF RESCISSION

 

BUCKLE BELT SITE, 67-75 SMITH STREET SUMMER HILL

     

 

We the undersigned move that Council rescind the previous resolution in relation to NM28/2012, Minute No. 226/12, Buckle Belt Site, 67-75 Smith Street, Summer Hill, passed at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday 26 June 2012, which reads as follows:

 

“That the General Manager consider engaging  the service of Senior Counsel to defend its refusal of DA 10,2012.051.1, 67-75 Smith Street in the upcoming hearing at the Land & Environment Court.”

 

Should the above rescission motion be adopted by Council we move:

 

That Ashfield Council engages the services of Senior Counsel to defend its refusal of DA 10,2012.051.1, 67 - 75 Smith St in the upcoming hearing at the Land & Environment Court.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, we move:-


That Minute No. 226/12, of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 26 June 2012, be rescinded.

 

 

Caroline Stott

 

 

Monica Wangmann

Marc Rerceretnam  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 10 July 2012        CM10.1

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.080.1
203 LIVERPOOL ROAD ASHFIELD

 

File Ref                            DA 10.2012.080.

 

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 undertake alterations and additions to an existing commercial building and change of use of the first floor and part of the ground floor to a boarding house.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

Although the application is generally consistent with the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, it fails to comply with a number of provisions of Ashfield DCP 2007. The most significant of these include:

·    the requirement for the majority of the ground floor to be allocated to commercial uses; and

·    requirement for accessible facilities to the ground floor boarding house rooms (i.e. kitchen facilities, bathrooms, bedroom, etc).

 

To address these issues, it is recommended that conditions be applied to the consent requiring suitable amendments to the plans. As some of these changes may be relatively complex, the amendments should be returned to Council for review prior to the issue of any consent.

 

Consequently, the development is recommended for deferred commencement approval.

 

Background

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         J F Building Consultants

Owner                                    :         Ms E Hong

Value of work                       :         $20,000

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: 3 DP: 223502


 

Date lodged                          :         17/04/2012

Date of last amendment     :         N/A

Building classification                 :         3

Application Type                           :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

Section 94A Levy                :         Yes

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Liverpool Road, bounded by Brown Street to the west and Murrell Street to the east.  The site area is approximately 209 square metres. An existing boarding house and shop is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises retail and commercial uses.  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

6.1979.78.1

02/05/1979

Shopfront

Approved

6.1987.275.1

18/09/1987

Alterations to shop

Approved

6.1988.133.1

10/05/1988

Alterations to shop

Approved

6.1990.199.1

19/06/1990

Alterations to shop

Approved

10.2003.165

20/01/2004

Change of use of first floor and rear addition

Refused

10.2004.162.1

18/10/2004

Change of use to restaurant/cafe

Withdrawn

10.2005.96.1

09/09/2005

Restaurant fitout

Approved

 

Previous consents are relevant to the current proposal because they do not reflect the current use suggesting that the use has been altered without consent.

 

Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

·    The site is zoned 3(a) - General Business under the provisions of Ashfield LEP 1985.

·    The property is a heritage item.

·    The property is located within the Ashfield Town Centre.

 

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. 1 – Development Standards

 

Not applicable.

 

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 (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

 

BOARDING HOUSES

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING) 2009 - DIVISION 3

CLAUSE

REQUIREMENT

PROPOSED

COMPLIANCE

(* - subject to condition)

Clause

26

Land to which policy applies

Site located in Business- 3(a) Zone

(Land Zone equivalent to Residential Zones)

YES

Clause 27

For purpose of Boarding House

Boarding House proposed

YES

 


 

BOARDING HOUSES

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING) 2009 - DIVISION 3

Clause 28

Development able to be carried out with consent

Consent sought

YES

Clause 29

Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(1) Density or Scale

a) the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land
(ALEP 1985 - permits 2:1 floor space ratio

1.07:1 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

Although residential flat buildings are permitted on the land, the site contains a heritage item.

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

N/A

No height limit.

N/A

(2)(b) - Landscaped Area

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

The front landscape treatment is consistent 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,

Although no space is designated, an area is available and this will be conditioned in the consent.

YES

(by condition)

(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 private open space adjacent manager’s room.

NO

(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:

1 space required

Development located in an accessible area.  No spaces provided.

NO

(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,

None provided.

YES

(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  12 sqm or more

YES

(ii) 16sqm in any other case.

All other rooms  12m2 or more and of those, 1 is 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

No 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)

 Does not completely comply.

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:

 

30(1)(a) - Communal living room

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

One communal room provided.

YES

30(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

30(1)(c) - Occupation

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

All rooms are indicated to be single or dual occupancy.

YES

30(1)(d) - bathroom/kitchen facilities

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

2 common bathrooms are provided.

YES

30(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

30(1)(f)

Repealed

 

 

30(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,

The part of the building that fronts the street is allocated to commercial use.

YES

30(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. 5 rooms – 1 motorcycle and 1 bicycle)

None.

NO

(can be conditioned)

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

 

The proposal fails to address the following matters satisfactorily:

·    Cl 29(2)(d)(i): No private open space has been allocated. Despite this, a suitable area is available at the rear of the site. This will be addressed by a condition in the recommendation.

·    Cl 29(2)(d)(ii): No private open space has been provided adjacent the Manager’s Room. This can be compensated for by provision of adequate general private open space. This will be addressed by a condition in any consent.

·    Cl 29(2)(e)(i): No car parking has been provided (one space is required). It is not possible to provide any car parking on this site due to a constrained frontage, the heritage listing and the lack of rear lane access. Nevertheless, deletion of one boarding room would result in the requirement for less than one car parking space (i.e. none) and this will be conditioned.


 

·    Cl 30(1)(h): No bicycle or motorcycle parking has been provided. There is adequate space for this at the rear of the site and this will be conditioned.

 

Although the proposal fails to adequately address all relevant clauses of the SEPP, this can be rectified by the application of suitable conditions of consent through a deferred commencement approval.

 

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.

 

No draft environmental planning instruments are 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:

 

C1

ACCESS AND MOBILITY

At least one room should be capable of use by a person with a disability. Despite the provision of ramps to access the rear rooms on the site, no ground level sanitary facilities for people with a disability have been provided. This will be required by way of a condition of deferred commencement consent.

 

In addition, the doorways accessing the community room (which contains the kitchen) and the bedrooms do not comply with AS1428.1. Compliance will be required by way of condition of consent.

C2

ADVERTISEMENTS AND ADVERTISING STRUCTURES

 

No advertising proposed as part of this application.

C3

 

ASHFIELD TOWN CENTRE

 

 

The proposal does not allocate the majority of the ground floor to commercial use which fails to comply with Section 6.1. To address this, a deferred commencement condition will be applied to the consent requiring amendment of the proposal to allocate more than 50% of the ground floor area to commercial uses. This will entail the allocation of the following rooms to commercial use:

·    The front shop;

·    The Manager’s room;

·    The bathroom adjacent to the Manager’s room; and

·    The bedroom directly to the south of the stairs.

 

C10

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

The proposal has been referred to Council’s heritage adviser who has raised no objection to the overall form of the proposal.

C11

PARKING

1 parking space is required per staff member. This has not been required. Nevertheless, if the manager’s room is deleted by way of deferred commencement consent, no space would be required. Other parking requirements defer to the SEPP.

C12

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

The application has been notified in accordance with Council policy.

C18

BOARDING HOUSES

No accessible bathroom facilities have been provided at ground floor level. This will be required by deferred commencement condition of consent.

No drying facilities have been shown on the plans. Provision of these will be required by condition of consent.

 

 

The proposal contains a number of deficiencies when assessed against Ashfield DCP 2007. Nevertheless, these issues can be addressed by way of deferred commencement consent along with suitable general conditions of consent.

 

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 27 April until 21 May 2012.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

One submission (Circulated under separate cover) was received during the notification of the development application:

 

Submissions

Dr D. Wong

209 Liverpool Road

Ashfield 2131

 

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

 

Submission Issue

Assessing Officer’s Comment

Properties on Liverpool Road should be used for purely commercial activities.

Ashfield DCP 2007 requires the majority of the ground floor of buildings in this location to be used for commercial purposes; a deferred commencement condition will require the application to be amended accordingly. There is no restriction, however, on use for residential purposes on the upper floor of this building.

The boarding house should be built in a residential area.

Although the proposal would be permitted in a residential area, it is also permissible in the proposed location, subject to the greater provision of commercial uses on the ground floor.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

The proposal assists in the provision of low cost rental accommodation in close proximity to public transport and other amenities and is considered to be in the public interest.

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Department

Support/Objection

(* subject to conditions)

Heritage

No objection to form of building.

Hydraulic Engineer

No objection subject to conditions.

Environmental Health

No objection subject to conditions.

Building surveyor

No objection subject to conditions.

 


 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

Section 94 Contribution Plan

 

A Section 94 contribution is payable - $5,118.72.

 

10.0  Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

Construction Certificate no. Click-here has been lodged with the development application.  Referral to Council’s Construction Assessment Officer revealed no objections to the proposed development subject to the imposition of conditions.

 

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 generally acceptable subject to the recommended changes and is therefore recommended for deferred commencement consent.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

3 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Conditions

15 Pages

 

Attachment 4

Submission - Circulated under separate cover

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) grant deferred commencement consent to Development Application No. 10.2012.80 for alterations and additions to existing commercial building and change of use of the first floor and part of the ground floor to a boarding house on Lot 3 in DP: 223502, known as 203 Liverpool Road, Ashfield, subject to the attached conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 


 

 

 

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 generally meet the aims and objectives of Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

CLAUSE 10

Zoning

Complies. 

The property is zoned 3(a) (General Business Zone) and the proposal is permissible with Council consent.

CLAUSE 10A

Development consent required for change of building use and subdivision

Complies. 

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

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.

Complies.

Site Area              = 209.4m2

Gross Floor Area          = 224m2

Proposed FSR     = 1.07:1

Maximum FSR    = 2:1

 

CLAUSE 17B

Development of Ashfield Business Centre - Zone No. 3(a) floor space ratio

(1) This clause applies to land within Zone No 3(a) that is shown edged with an unbroken (or, if fronting Elizabeth Avenue, a broken) heavy black line on Sheet 2 of the map marked “Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (Amendment No 72)”.

(2) The Council must not grant consent for buildings on land to which this clause applies if the floor space ratio of the building would exceed the base floor space ratio shown for the land on Sheet 2 of the map marked “Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (Amendment No 72)”, except as provided by sub clause (3).

(3) The Council may consent to a building on a site of land to which this clause applies which is also land shown edged with a broken or unbroken heavy black line on Sheet 3 of the map marked “Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (Amendment No 72)” that will result in the gross floor area of the buildings on the site being greater than that allowed by that base floor space ratio by no more than an amount equivalent to the site area, subject to sub clause (4).

(4) The Council may grant consent pursuant to sub clause (3) only if it is satisfied that the additional floor area will be developed as referred to on Sheet 3 of that map in relation to the land concerned and only if the Council is satisfied that the additional development will not result in an adverse impact on any of the following:

(a) the scale and character of the streetscape,

(b) the amenity of any existing or potential residential units on neighbouring land,

sunlight access to surrounding streets, open space and nearby properties,

(d) wind flow pattern to surrounding streets, open space and nearby properties.

Complies.

Site Area              = 209.4m2

Gross Floor Area          = 224m2

Proposed FSR     = 1.07:1

Maximum FSR    = 2:1

 

CLAUSE 29

Provision for public amenities and services

The demand for public amenities and public services is likely to increase as a result of this proposal.  Section 94 contributions will be applicable in accordance with the relevant section 94 contributions plan.

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

The form of the proposed addition is acceptable.

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 


CLAUSE 36

Development of known or potential archaeological sites

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.

Acceptable.

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

Inadequate parking provided. Nevertheless, if the number of rooms is reduced as per the proposed deferred commencement conditions of consent, no car parking would be required.

17 – Residential flat buildings - setbacks

Boarding houses or residential flat buildings shall not be located closer than 9 m to a main or arterial road.

The proposal is located less than 9m (5.5m) from Liverpool Road which is classed as a main road.

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 




Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Conditions

 
















Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 10 July 2012        CM10.2

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.083.1
46 ROSE STREET ASHFIELD

 

File Ref                            DA 10.2012.083.1

 

Prepared by                   Haroula Michael - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter referred to Council for 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 for the demolition of rear part of dwelling, alterations and addition to dwelling including new carport and landscaping works.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The proposed works fail to meet the aims and objectives of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 and the Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 Part C10 Heritage Conservation as the proposal will result in a two-storey addition to the rear which will not be in keeping with the character of the existing building or development in the immediate vicinity of the subject land.

 

The development is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

Background

 

Prior to the lodgement of a Provisional Development Application, the applicant discussed the proposal with Council’s heritage adviser with the initial meeting held on the 30 May 2011. Council’s heritage adviser made the following comment “primary concern with the scale, bulk and form of any addition to the rear of the small single storey cottages in the street, and a number of clauses clearly reference the need to maintain the existing roof form and pursue compatibility within the new areas of work”.

 

A further submission was made by the applicant which addressed the advice from Council’s heritage adviser on the 30 May 2011, however, Council’s heritage adviser concluded by stating that the development in its current form could not be supported as an appropriate heritage solution. A sketch was provided to the applicant by Council’s heritage adviser to assist with a re-design of the proposal.


 

A Provisional Development Application (PDA) was lodged with Council on the 9 March 2012. The plans submitted with the PDA were reviewed by Council’s heritage adviser who stated “The proposed works come to council after discussion and amendment following consideration of alternatives.  The bulk and scale of the proposal have been reduced and its character while different to the existing cottage acceptably relates to it.  The skylight deletion is requested because of the unsympathetic scale and placement of the proposed unit”.

 

The applicant deleted the skylight as per the advice and no further objections were raised by Council’s heritage advisor.

 

In addition to the heritage issues, the following concerns were also raised during the PDA stage “that the proposal may not comply with the minimum landscaped area requirements of Ashfield LEP 1985. Accordingly, a plan that provides calculations of the landscape area in accordance with the requirements of Ashfield LEP 1985 is to be submitted and that shadow diagrams in elevations are to be submitted to assess the impact on the adjoining properties”.

 

The above details were provided and a PDA was formally lodged on the 17 April 2012. A letter was sent to the applicant on the 15 May 2012:

 

1.         “An amended BASIX certificate shall be provided reflecting the correct number of skylights as per the amended plans. Please note that if the amended BASIX alters the commitments these should be reflected on the plans.

2.         An amended landscape plan shall be provided to reflect an accurate 1:100 scale in order to determine the proposed landscaped area on the site to ensure the proposal will meet the minimum requirements of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985.

3.         Section view of the north-south and east-west of the proposed rear addition shall be provided.

4.         Concern is raised with the loss of privacy to the adjoining neighbours from the timber framed windows to the eastern elevation servicing bedroom one. It is acknowledged that the proposal incorporates new trees and landscaping along the rear boundary to prevent overlooking to the neighbours, however, a more permanent solution such as obscure glazing or higher window sills, should be incorporated.

5.         Council is in receipt of two objections and the issues raised in the submission should be addressed. The first concern raised by both objections relates to the loss of privacy from the first floor eastern elevation windows. The submission also stated the following concerns relating the Part C10 of the ADCP 2007:

 

·    The ridge height of the proposed extension is higher than the existing ridge (by1.25m).

·    The bulk of the proposal is out of keeping with the character of the conservation area.


 

Council’s tree technical officer requested an arborist report for the removal of the trees and this request was sent to the applicant via an email on the 18 May 2012. The applicant was made aware that Council officers had concerns with the non-compliance with Part C10 of the ADCP 2007.

 

The applicant and owner requested a further meeting with Council officers which was held on the 08 June. The applicant provided examples of other first floor additions within the Rose Street Conservation Area – note: these first floor additions were approved in 1992 prior to the Heritage Study by Godden Mackay, Robert Irving and Chris Patten commencing in 1993 which resulted in the creation of the current heritage conservation area. Therefore, these proposals were assessed and determined under different controls.

 

The applicant and owner were advised that a report would be put before Council, however, given the non-compliance with Part C10 of the ADCP 2007 the report would not be recommending support for the proposal.

 

Further to the meeting with Council officers the owner of the site then wrote to Council on the 12 June 2012 requesting officers to revise their opinion and support the proposal. The owner has stated that the proposal “will result in a complete restoration of the front of the property, a new roof for the entire existing dwelling and subsequently a raising property rating from a 3/4 to 1”. A copy of this letter is included at Attachment 2

 

3.0     Application Details

 

Applicant                                 :         Mr J Webster

Owner                                     :         Mr K J & Mrs L R Webb

Value of work                         :         $345,000.00

Lot/DP                                    :         LOT: 1 DP: 167969

Date lodged                            :         17/04/2012

Date of last amendment         :         17 April 2012 and 8 June 2012*

Building classification             :         1a and 10a

Application Type                     :         Local

Construction Certificate         :         No

Section 94A Levy                   :         Yes

 

*Amended plans and BASIX certificate were provided.

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Rose Street, bounded by Arthur Street to the North and Park Lane to the south.  The site area is approximately 316.1 square metres.  An existing dwelling-house and carport is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises dwellings.  Refer to Attachment 3 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

6.1958.2650

19/12/1958

Alterations and additions

Approved

6.1971.8185

19/10/1971

Carport

Approved

6.1985.389

4/12/1986

Awning

Approved

 

The previous consents were noted in the assessment of this application. BA 6.1971.8185 is relevant to this subject application, as it indicates the approval of a carport located forward of the building line. The current proposal seeks to construct a new pitched roof carport forward of the building line.

 

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 the Rose Street Conservation Area with a ranking of 3-4.

·    The property is not a heritage item.

·    The property is located within the vicinity of two heritage items identified as 75 and 77 Holden Street.

 

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)

 

32 Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics

 

(5) When determining a development application for land within a heritage conservation area, the Council must make an assessment of:

 

(a) the relationship of the proposed development to the general pattern of development within the conservation area, and


The proposed development is generally consistent with the pattern of development, in particular the site coverage, with the exception of the carport forward of the building line, however, the proposal is for the replacement of the existing carport which is located forward of the front building line. The proposal for the rear addition, which will consist of two levels, is not consistent with the objectives of the Rose Street Conservation Area which has distinctive qualities such as the single storey buildings and therefore the proposed development is not considered in keeping with the conservation area.

 

(b) the pitch and form of the roof, if any, and

 

The proposed rear roof form will have a ridge line higher than the existing ridge line to the existing dwelling-house and is contrary to the objectives of this part and Part C10 of the Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007. This design is not considered appropriate in the context of the conservation area.

 

(c)  the style, size, proportion and position of the openings for windows or doors, if any, and

 

The style, size and proportion of the window openings and doors are considered to meet the objectives of this part.

 

(d) whether the colour, texture, style, size and type of finish of the materials to be used on the exterior of any building or work are compatible with those of the materials used within the heritage conservation area, and

 

The colour, style and size and type of finish of materials are considered to meet the objectives of this part.

 

(e) the style, size, proportion, position and layout of paths, walls, fences, gates, garden beds and plantings.

 

The front fence is consistent with the conservation area.

 

Therefore, having considered the proposal against the provisions of Clause 32(5) of the Ashfield LEP it is considered that the overall built form of the upper level addition is not acceptable and will not be consistent with the objectives for the Rose Street Heritage Conservation Area.

 

It is considered that the proposal does not meet 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

 

Not applicable.

 

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

Refer to comments below.

C11

PARKING

The subject site provides one onsite parking space forward of the building line and there is no vehicular side access to the rear of the premises. The location of the car parking will not be altered as a result of this application.

 

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 further details.

C15

HOUSES & DUAL OCCUPANCIES

Refer to comments below:

 

Part C10 Heritage Conservation:

 

Council’s Heritage Conservation Development Control Plan outlines the following policies to maintain the attributes of the Conservation Area which demonstrates its heritage significance:


 

“Distinctive qualities:

 

d) Single storey buildings of similar shape and style sited close to road with almost

uniform setbacks”.

 

“To achieve Council’s policy it is necessary to keep:

 

e)      The single storey scale of development in the area”

 

The proposed development consists of a rear addition to the existing dwelling-house. The proposed rear portion of the dwelling will consist of two levels to accommodate an additional bedroom, study and bathroom. Therefore, the proposal fails to meet the objectives of this part by creating a two storey built form within the area.

 

“To achieve Council’s policy it is necessary to avoid:

 

g)      Second storey additions above original house which involve alterations of existing roof shape to main body of the house; additions higher than existing ridge”

 

The proposal will result in an addition (i.e. ridgeline) higher than the existing ridge and is therefore contrary to the objectives of the heritage controls for the Rose Street Conservation Area.

 

“The following changes will be considered: (Council’s consent will be necessary)

 

a)      Additions to rear of house where ridge line is visually lower than ridge line on existing or original house, or to the side at the rear where this would not conflict with the design and significance of the building”

 

The proposal will result in a ridgeline of 1.25metres above the height of the existing ridgeline and does not maintain the single storey low profile recommended by this clause.

 

 

Part C15 Houses and Dual Occupancies:

 

Scale and bulk

 

The proposal consists of alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, new carport  and new front fence.

 

Sympathetic building scale requirement

 

“2.2 A proposal must demonstrate that it provides an appropriately sympathetic building scale.

A sympathetic scale is one which takes architectural cues in terms of size, bulk, length, breadth, height and volume of a building or an element, in relation to neighbouring buildings, as well as in relation to the scale and character of the streetscape, which includes the scale of the predominant building styles”.


 

The proposal will consist of alterations to the existing dwelling-house which will result in two levels to the rear of the building. Although the applicant has stepped down the floor level of the rear addition by 300mm from the original existing floor level, the scale to the rear addition will still result in an unsympathetic scale in relation to the neighbouring buildings.

 

The subject site has a maximum FSR requirement of 0.65:1. As a result of the proposed works the floor space ratio is (198.0851sqm) 0.62:1 and therefore consistent with the ADCP 2007.

 

Clause 2.3 of the ADCP 2007 requires two storey residential development to have a maximum wall height of 6 metres as measured from the existing ground level.

 

The rear addition has a wall height of approximately 4.5 metres which meets the numerical requirements of this part and is within the FSR requirements, however, as stated above, it will still result in an unsympathetic scale in relation to the neighbouring buildings and is therefore not supported.

 

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, comprising mainly single storey dwellings. The proposal is not considered to be sympathetic in context of the site and adjoining dwellings.

 

Front Fence: The proposed fence is considered to be in keeping with other similar style fences located within its vicinity.

 

Landscape and Site Layout:

 

The ADCP requires that the site provides a landscaped area of 40% at a minimum and that 70% of the minimum landscaped area be capable of deep soil planting.

 

As the subject site is within a heritage conservation area the definition of ‘Landscaped Area’ is defined under Part 4 Clause 31 of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 which reads “Landscaped area does not include hard surfacing on a site or areas less than 900mm in width”.

 

The subject site requires a landscaped area at ground level of 127.16sqm. The proposal provides a soft soil landscaped area of 127.32sqm (40%), which is compliant with this requirement.

 

The proposal seeks to remove four (4) trees on site. Refer to part 8.1 of this report for details.


 

Amenity for neighbours:

 

The ADCP requires that 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.

 

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.

 

The shadow diagrams provided indicate that the proposal will not result in a loss of solar access to the northern windows of the adjoining property. It is also to be noted that the windows as marked on the plans service a laundry, two bedrooms and a bathroom.

 

The proposal is not considered to adversely impact on the solar access to adjoining properties.

 

Neighbour's Privacy:    The proposal incorporates windows along the eastern elevation of the building which face the rear yards of properties along Holden Street. The applicant has provided amended plans to provide obscure glazing to the first floor eastern windows. The middle set of windows to the first floor are hopper type windows with obscure glazing therefore when in the open or closed position would not impact on the privacy or amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

Ecological Sustainable Development:

 

A BASIX certificate was submitted with the application.

 

It is considered the application does not meet a number of 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 an adverse environmental impact on the

 character of the area

 

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 site is suitable for residential development of this type.


 

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 27 April 2012 until 16 May 2012.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

Two submissions (Circulated under separate cover) were received during the notification of the development application:   

 

Submissions

 

William Blackledge and Elisha Long

77 Holden Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

Miss M. Jones

73 Holden Street

ASHFIELD  NSW  2131

 

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

 

The proposed ridge height is higher than the existing ridge and contravenes the DCP

 

The proposal will result in a ridgeline of 1.25metres above the height of the existing ridgeline which is contrary to the DCP provisions for the Rose Street Conservation Area. This is further discussed in part 7.3 of the report.

 

The bulk of the proposal is out of keeping with the character of the Conservation Area

 

It is agreed that the proposal will result in a bulk that is not consistent with the Rose Street Conservation Area as the development within the vicinity of the site comprises mainly single storey dwellings. The proposal is not considered to be sympathetic to its local context. Refer to part 7.3 of this report for further details.

 

Loss of privacy from first floor windows. The proposed planting is not a sufficient solution and reduces afternoon sun to the affected properties in winter.

 

The applicant was advised of concerns regarding the first floor eastern windows. The applicant provided amended plans to provide obscure glazing to the first floor eastern windows. The middle set of windows to the first floor are hopper type windows with obscure glazing therefore when in the open or closed position would not impact on the privacy or amenity to the adjoining properties.


 

The proposal will cast a shadow to the southern neighbour.

 

The shadow diagrams provided indicate that the proposal will not result in an unreasonable loss of solar access to the adjoining property (48 Rose St). Most of the additional shadows will fall on parts of the northern wall of the adjoining dwelling which do not have any windows. Likewise, the extent of new shadows to areas of open space will be minimal.

 

The proposal is not considered to significantly impact on solar access to adjoining properties.

 

The proposal provides an unwelcome precedent for future development under the current DCP.

 

The above is noted and as a result of the non-compliance with Part C10 and Part C15 of the ADCP the proposal is not supported.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

Matters of the public interest have been taken into consideration in the assessment of this application. The proposal has a number of deficiencies and does not warrant Council approval.

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Heritage Adviser: The applicant has redesigned the proposal to meet the requirements of Council’s Heritage Adviser. Consequently, the Heritage Adviser has raised no further concerns with the application. Comments from Council’s Heritage Adviser are included at Attachment 4.

Building: No objections raised, subject to conditions.

Engineering: No objections raised, subject to conditions.

Tree Management Officer: Council’s tree technical officer requested an arborist’s report for the removal of the trees in the rear yard. The applicant asked that that this request be reviewed. Council’s tree technical officer has subsequently reviewed the trees to be removed and raised no further objections.

 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

Section 94A Contribution Plan

Based on the estimated value-of-works of $345,000.00 a Section 94A Contribution fee of $3450.00 would be payable to Council should the application be approved.


 

Stormwater 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, should the application be approved.

 

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 unacceptable for reasons outlined in the report and is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

17 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Owner's Letter

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 4View

Heritage Advice

7 Pages

 

Attachment 5

Submissions - Circulated under separate cover

2 Pages

 

 


 

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. 10.2012.83.1 for the demolition of rear part of dwelling, alterations and addition to dwelling including new carport and landscaping works on Lot 1 in DP: 167969, known as 46 Rose Street, Ashfield for the following reasons:

 

 

Reasons for Refusal

 

1.   The proposal will detract from the character, distinctive qualities and significance of the Rose Street Conservation Area.

2.   The development fails to comply with the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985.

3.   The development fails to comply with the policy of Part C10-Heritage Conservation in the following terms:

·    the proposal does not keep the general single storey scale of development;

·    the proposal will result in an addition (i.e. ridgeline) higher than the existing ridgeline.

 

4.   The proposal does not keep the general single storey scale of development.

5.   The proposal will result in an addition (i.e. ridgeline) higher than the existing ridgeline.

6.   The development fails to comply with the objectives of Part C15 Houses and Dual Occupancies of the Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 in particular the proposal will not result in a sympathetic building scale.

7.   The proposal is not in the public interest.

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 


 

 

 

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).

Does not Comply. It is considered that the carrying out of the proposed development will not 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.

No. of floors = 2

 

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 17A

Height of residential flat buildings

(1) This clause applies to land within Zone No. 2(b) or 2(c).

(2) In this clause –

“height” in relation to a building, means the greatest vertical distance (expressed I  metres) between any level of the natural surface of the site area on which the building is, or is to be, erected and the ceiling of the topmost habitable floor of the building;

“natural surface”, in relation to a site area, means the level determined by the council to be the natural surface of the site area.

(3) The maximum height to which a residential flat building may be erected on land to which this clause applies shall be-

(a) in the case of a building within Zone No. 2(b) – 6 metres; and

(b) in the case of a building within Zone No. 2(c) – 9 metres.

(4) This clause does not apply to land within Zone No. 2(c) shown edged heavy black and lettered “2(c)” on the map marked “Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (Amendment No. 79)”.

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 17B

Development of Ashfield Business Centre - Zone No. 3(a) floor space ratio

(1) This clause applies to land within Zone No 3(a) that is shown edged with an unbroken (or, if fronting Elizabeth Avenue, a broken) heavy black line on Sheet 2 of the map marked “Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (Amendment No 72)”.

(2) The Council must not grant consent for buildings on land to which this clause applies if the floor space ratio of the building would exceed the base floor space ratio shown for the land on Sheet 2 of the map marked “Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (Amendment No 72)”, except as provided by subclause (3).

(3) The Council may consent to a building on a site of land to which this clause applies which is also land shown edged with a broken or unbroken heavy black line on Sheet 3 of the map marked “Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (Amendment No 72)” that will result in the gross floor area of the buildings on the site being greater than that allowed by that base floor space ratio by no more than an amount equivalent to the site area, subject to subclause (4).

(4) The Council may grant consent pursuant to subclause (3) only if it is satisfied that the additional floor area will be developed as referred to on Sheet 3 of that map in relation to the land concerned and only if the Council is satisfied that the additional development will not result in an adverse impact on any of the following:

(a) the scale and character of the streetscape,

(b) the amenity of any existing or potential residential units on neighbouring land,

sunlight access to surrounding streets, open space and nearby properties,

(d) wind flow pattern to surrounding streets, open space and nearby properties.

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 18

Development for the purpose of advertisements

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 20

Clubs

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 21

Motor showrooms

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 22

Industrial uses 4(b)

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 23

Setbacks 4(b)

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 24

Parking in Zone 4(b)

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 25

Development of land within Zone No. 6(a)

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 27

Acquisition of land

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 28

Suspension of certain laws

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.

Does not comply.  It is considered that the carrying out of the proposed development will not 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

Does not comply.  It is considered that the carrying out of the proposed development will have an adverse impact upon the heritage significance of the Conservation Area

4.

Requirement for conservation plan or heritage impact statement

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.

These matters have been considered in the assessment of the application and are further discussed in part 7.1.1 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

It is considered that the carrying out of the proposal will have an adverse impact upon the heritage significance of heritage items, conservation areas, archaeological sites or potential archaeological sites in its vicinity.

 

CLAUSE 37A

Conservation incentives

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 38

Development of land known as 476 Parramatta Road Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 38A

Multiple dwellings on certain land

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 38B

Development of land known as Lot 1 (adjacent to Brown Street and Markham Avenue Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 39

Development of land known as 4 Parramatta Road, Summer Hill and 47 Dover Street, Summer Hill

Not applicable.  This clause has been superceded by LEP amendment no. 76 that rezones the properties to General Business 3(a).

CLAUSE 39A

Temporary car park–Liverpool Road and Elizabeth Avenue, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 39B

Mixed development in commercial zones – generally

Not applicable.

 


CLAUSE 40

Mixed development on certain land – floor space concessions

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 41

Development of land known as No. 91A Smith Street, Summer Hill

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 42

Development of land adjacent to Liverpool Road and railway line, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 43

Development of community centre at Smith Street, Summer Hill

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 44

Development of land known as No. 60 Dalhousie Street, Haberfield (Haberfield Post Office)

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 45

Development of land adjacent to Liverpool Road and railway line, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 48

Development of land known as the Ashfield Public School Playing Fields Site, 3 Orchard Crescent and 209 Liverpool Road, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 49

Development of land known as 191 Ramsay Street, Haberfield

 

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 51

Development of land known as 93 Milton Street, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 52

Development of land known as 412–416 Liverpool Road, Croydon

 

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 53

Development of land known as 3 Carlton Crescent, Summer Hill

 

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 54

Development at 11–13 Hercules Street, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 55

Development of certain land at Milton Street and Park Avenue, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 56

Development of certain land at Queen Street, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 57

Development of certain land known as 55–75 Smith Street, Summer Hill

 

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.

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 


















Attachment 2

 

Owner's Letter

 


Attachment 3

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 4

 

Heritage Advice

 







Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 10 July 2012        CM10.3

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.059.1
11 WETHERILL STREET CROYDON

 

File Ref                            DA 10.2012.059.1

 

Prepared by                   Daisy Younan - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter referred to Council for 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 for alterations and addition to the existing dwelling house including an upper floor addition above rear portion of existing single storey dwelling. Plans of proposal are included in Attachment 1.

 

1.1    Background

 

Section 3 of Part C10 of Ashfield DCP 2007 requires development in the Wetherill Street Conservation Area to retain the area’s single storey scale of development and to avoid additions higher than existing ridgeline. The two storey form of the proposed rear addition and the roof ridge of the proposed upper floor, which is higher than the roof ridge of the existing building, are not consistent with the above requirement of the DCP. Amended plans have been requested by Council’s letter dated 12/06/2012 addressing the above issues, however, the proposal has not been amended.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The proposed addition is to the rear of property which, being ranked 1, contributes significantly to the character and identity of the Ashfield LGA.

 

The following compliance table demonstrates the proposal’s performance against Council’s FSR, landscaping area and height controls:

 

Items

Required

Proposed

Does proposal comply?

Landscaped area

(all soft soil area being in a heritage conservation area)

 

Minimum required landscaped area

45% of total site area (191.12m˛)

Approximately 48.21%

(204.75m˛)

Yes

 


 

Items

Required

Proposed

Does proposal comply?

Floor Space Ratio

Maximum permitted Floor Space Ratio

60% of total site area

(254.82m˛ of gross floor area)

43.06%

(182.88m˛ of Gross Floor Area)

Yes

Height

Maximum permitted height

2 storeys (6m)

Proposed upper floor addition above rear portion of existing single storey dwelling

(approximately 5.7m)

Yes

 

The proposed development complies with the height, landscaped area and FSR controls as indicated above, however, the proposed development fails to comply with Section 3 of Part C10 of Ashfield DCP 2007 which requires development in the Wetherill Street conservation area to retain single storey scale of development and to avoid additions higher than existing ridgeline.

 

The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s heritage adviser and whilst no issues have been raised in relation to the amended scheme, Council officers are of the opinion that the proposed development cannot be supported in its current form.

 

The proposed development is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

Background

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         Mr C Filmer

Owner                                    :         Mr I Jeremy & Ms E McMullen

Value of work                       :         $220,000

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: 1 DP: 170419

Date lodged                          :         13/03/2012

Date of last amendment     :         N/A

Application Type                           :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

Section 94A Levy                :         Yes

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Wetherill Street, bounded by Liverpool Road to the north and Norton Street to the south. The site area is approximately 424.7 square metres. An existing single storey dwelling house is located on the site. Surrounding development comprises residential developments. Locality map is included in Attachment 2.


 

5.0    Development History

 

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

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

10.2002.345

23/01/2003

Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house

Approved

 

No conditions have been imposed on previous development consents/permits to restrict a development such as that proposed for the subject site.

 

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 the Wetherill Street Conservation Area. The existing dwelling is of the Arts & Crafts Style and is ranked 1 being a building with a high degree of intactness which contributes significantly to the heritage significance and character of the 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)

 

The proposed development fails to comply with the aims of Part 4 of Ashfield LEP 1985 as listed under Clause No. 30 (a) & (d) which aims to:

 

(a) 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

(d) 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.


 

The proposed development fails to retain the following distinctive qualities of the Wetherill Street Conservation Area and hence its identity:

 

Distinctive qualities:

 

b)      The harmony of the residential development:

 

-     all single storey in scale with deep gables on eastern side of street, and hipped and gabled roofs on western side.

-     uniformly set back from the street frontage

-     uniformity of materials - red or brown bricks, some blue-brown, terra cotta tiles or slates.

 

c)      Variety in shape within uniformity of single storey scale - double and single fronted

house and three pairs of semi-detached.

 

Further, Clause 32(3) of Ashfield LEP 1985 requires Council, when determining a development application required by this clause, to assess the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area, and to take into consideration the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area.

 

Council officers are not satisfied, due to the design and scale of rear addition, that the proposed development is compatible with the distinctive qualities of the Wetherill Street Conservation Area. It is considered that the proposed development will set an undesirable precedent for similar approaches to upper level additions in this relatively homogenous conservation area.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposal does not comply 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 (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

 

A certificate in accordance with Clause No. 3(1)(a) of the SEPP (BASIX) 2004 has been submitted as part of this application.

 

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

The proposal is not supported in its current form. Refer to Clause 2.0 and Clause 7.1.1 of this report for further comments.

 

C11

PARKING

The proposed development does not result in any modifications to the existing car parking arrangements on site which allows for off street car parking. Car parking provision complies with the requirements of Part C11 of Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007.

 

C12

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

 

See Clause No. 7.7

C15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOUSES & DUAL OCCUPANCIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed development, in its two storey form, fails to comply with the Clause 2.2 of Section 2 of Part C15 - Ashfield DCP 2007 which requires any proposal to demonstrate that it provides an appropriately sympathetic building scale.

 

“A sympathetic scale is one which takes architectural cues in terms of size, bulk, length, breadth, height and volume of a building or an element, in relation to neighbouring buildings, as well as in relation to the scale and character of the streetscape, which includes the scale of the predominant building styles”.

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed development, in its two storey form, fails to comply with Clause 3.5 of Section 2 of Part C15 - Ashfield DCP 2007 which requires extensions to the upper parts of a house to respect the scale and aesthetics of the local context including the streetscape so that when viewed from the opposite side of the street they are both visually appropriate to scale of the existing house and sympathetic or complementary in architectural style.

 

Overshadowing impacts are acceptable and generally comply with Council’s DCP requirements.

 

The upper floor level is proposed to be used for an additional living area, bathroom and a bedroom. All first floor living room windows are proposed to be screened by timber louvers to be installed in front of the windows and hence no privacy issues are raised. 

 

Refer to the compliance table under clause No. 2.0 of this report for calculations and proposal performance against Council’s FSR, landscaping area and height controls.

 

It is considered that the proposed development does comply with a number Council’s planning control and hence is not supported in this instance.

 

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

 

Fire safety 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.

Council officers are not satisfied, due to the design and scale of rear addition, that the proposed development is compatible with the distinctive qualities of the Wetherill Street Conservation Area. It is considered that the proposed development will set an undesirable precedent for similar approaches to upper level additions in this relatively homogenous conservation area. Refer to Clause 2.0 and Clause 7.1.1 of this report for further comments.

 

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. However, the proposed development is not considered suitable in the context of the locality for the reasons indicated in the report.


 

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 15 March 2012 until 3 April 2012.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

Two submissions (Circulated under separate cover) were received during the notification of the development application:   

 

Submissions

 

Katherine Ruschen

9 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW

Vanessa Nube

13 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW

 

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

 

Issues raised

 

1.   Non-compliance with Councils’ controls for Wetherill Street conservation area as provided by Part C10 of Ashfield DCP 2007;

2.   Non-compliance with Councils’ controls of privacy and solar access for adjoining neighbours;

3.   Further structural damage to subject property and potential structural impact on objector’s property.

4.   Appearance/roof form of proposed addition - preferred roof form is to be continuous and follow the current roof height and not dip down.

 

Officer comments:

 

The issues of non-compliance with parts of Part C10 of Ashfield DCP 2007 are agreed with, however, the privacy measures included in the proposed design will adequately address privacy impacts for neighbours and solar access is considered acceptable.

 

It is unclear how the proposal will have any structural impacts upon neighbouring properties, but officers agree that a lower profile roof form would be preferable to the proposed design.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

Matters of the public interest have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the application. The proposal is not supported for reasons outlined in the report.


 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Heritage Adviser

 

The application has been reviewed by Council’s heritage adviser on a number of occasions. Issues initially raised by Council’s heritage adviser have been addressed and no issues remain with the amended scheme. Heritage comments are included in Attachment 3.

 

Building

 

Council’s building surveyor is satisfied that the technical aspects of compliance with the BCA can be addressed at the CC stage.

 

 

 

Engineering

 

The application was referred to Council's engineering department for consideration. No issues have been raised and relevant conditions have been provided.

 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

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 should the application be granted consent.

 

Financial Implications

 

The proposed development will attract contribution levies under S94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 should the application be approved.

 

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 unacceptable for reasons outlined in the report and is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

3 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Heritage Advice

2 Pages

 

Attachment 4

Submissions - Circulated under separate cover

4 Pages

 

 

 

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. 10.2012.59 for alterations and addition to the existing dwelling house including an upper floor addition above rear portion of existing single storey dwelling on Lot 1 in DP: 170419, known as 11 Wetherill Street, Croydon for the following reasons:

 

 

 

Reasons for Refusal

 

1.   The proposed development fails to comply with Section 3 of Part C10 of Ashfield DCP 2007 which requires development in the Wetherill Street Heritage Conservation Area to retain a single storey scale and to avoid additions higher than existing ridgeline.

 

2.   The proposed development fails to comply with the aims of Part 4 of Ashfield LEP 1985 as listed under Clause No. 30 (a) & 30(d) which aim to retain the identity of Ashfield by conserving its environmental heritage, and 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.

 

3.   The proposed development, in its two storey form, fails to comply with the Clause 2.2 of Section 2 of Part C15 - Ashfield DCP 2007 which requires proposals to demonstrate an appropriately sympathetic building scale.


 

4.   The proposed development, in its two storey form, fails to comply with Clause 3.5 of Section 2 of Part C15 - Ashfield DCP 2007 which requires extensions to the upper parts of a house to respect the scale and aesthetics of the context including the streetscape so that when viewed from the opposite side of the street they are both visually appropriate to scale of the existing house and sympathetic or complementary in architectural style.

 

5.   The proposed development, given the non-compliance with Council’s controls as indicated above, is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 




Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Heritage Advice

 



Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 10 July 2012        CM10.4

Subject                            COUNCIL NOMINATIONS TO THE SYDNEY EAST JOINT REGIONAL PLANNING PANEL

 

File Ref                            Dept of Planning & Infrastructure/Appointments to JRPP

 

Prepared by                   Atalay Bas - Manager Development Services       

 

 

Reasons                          Council’s Determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine whether to extend the appointment of the current Councillors nominated as members of the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel.

 

 

 


Overview of Report

When the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel was initially established, councils were requested to nominate 2 panel members for a period of up to 3 years. In July 2009 Councillors Cassidy and Kennedy commenced their appointment with Councillor Stott being an alternative. The 3 year term concluded on 30 June 2012 so Council needs to confirm nominees for a further term with the Regional Panels Secretariat.

 

 

Background

 

On 12 May 2009 Council resolved the following:-

 

1/3               That Council as a matter of priority determine Ashfield Council Members and Alternate Member of the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) of the Sydney East Region Joint Regional Planning Panel scheduled to commence on 1 July 2009 and that the NSW Department of Planning be notified of Council’s JRPP  Panel Members and Alternate Panel Member.

2/3               That Council appoint Councillors Cassidy and Kennedy as the Ashfield Council representatives for the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) of the Sydney East Region Joint Regional Planning Panel.

3/3               That Councillor Stott be nominated as the alternate representative to attend meetings.

 

The Planning Minister has submitted a letter to the Council, dated 26 June 2012, advising of the re-appointment of all State members and alternatives of the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel for a period of 12 months up to 30 June 2013 as an interim measure, pending the implementation of the NSW planning review. Accordingly, Dr John Roseth, Mr David Furlong and Ms Sue Francis have been re-appointed as state members to the Panel.

 

Given that elections will be held on 8 September 2012 it is recommended that two nominees be put forward to serve for the remaining period of the current term of Council.

 

Financial Implications

 

No financial implications as the current arrangement will continue.


 

Other Staff Comments

 

Not sought.

 

Public Consultation

 

Not applicable.

 

Conclusion

 

Council needs to determine which Councillors it wishes to nominate as members of the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel for the remaining term of the Council.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

INVITATION TO APPOINTMENT - JRPP

3 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council determine which Councillors it wishes to nominate as members of the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel for the remaining term of the Council.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

INVITATION TO APPOINTMENT - JRPP