18 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  24 JULY 2012 at 6:30 PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEE ATTACHED AGENDA


 

Ordinary Meeting - 24 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.

(24/07/2012)

 

7.               Confirmation of Minutes of Council/Committees

 

Ordinary Meeting - 10/07/2012

Access Committee – 09/07/2012

Local Indigenous, Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Committee – 23/05/2012

 

8.               Mayoral Minutes

 

 

9.               Notices of Motion

 

NM32/2012  DEATH OF COLIN GRINHAM

 

 

10.            Staff Reports

 

10.1     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.079.1
110 RAMSAY STREET HABERFIELD

 

10.2     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2010.018.3
59 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ASHFIELD

 

10.3     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.117.1
99 SMITH STREET, SUMMER HILL

 

10.4     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.059.1
11 WETHERILL STREET CROYDON

 

10.5     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.106.1
260A LIVERPOOL ROAD ASHFIELD

 

10.6     INVESTMENT REPORT JUNE 2012

 

10.7     ASHFIELD TRAFFIC COMMITTEE-MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 1 JUNE 2012.

 

10.8     LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION 2012 CONFERENCE SUBMISSIONS.

 

10.9     SYDNEY HARBOUR CATCHMENT STORMWATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

 

10.10   URBAN ACTIVATION PROGRAM

 

10.11   Community Satisfaction Survey 2012

 

10.12   CODE OF CONDUCT REVIEW - Report from Reviewer

 

10.13   LANDFILL TENDER for WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES

 

10.14   TENDER FOR THE PROVISION OF LAWN MOWING & ASSOCIATED SERVICES

 

 

11.            General Business

 

 

 

12.            Closed (Public Excluded) Committee

 

 

13.            Close

 

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 24 July 2012 NM32/2012

Public Relations>Condolence

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLOR Edward Cassidy

 

 

DEATH OF COLIN GRINHAM

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM32/2012

 

It is with deepest regret that I advise Councillors of the passing of Colin Grinham on Tuesday 10 July. He was a long term Alderman of Ashfield Council in the 1980’s.

 

Mr Grinham has been very ill with cancer for a number of months.

 

His funeral was held on Tuesday 17 July at Woronora.

He will be sadly missed by his family and friends.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

That a letter of condolence be sent to his wife Val Grinham expressing Councils

sympathy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edward Cassidy

 

 

 

 

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 24 July 2012        CM10.1

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.079.1
110 RAMSAY STREET HABERFIELD

 

File Ref                            10.2012.079.1

 

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 & additions to the existing building for use as a child care centre for 41 children.

 

The proposal involves the following:

·    Additions to the building:

o A new covered terrace to the north-west side;

o A new rear room to accommodate 25 children aged 3-5;

 

·    Internal alterations providing:

o Children’s WC facilities:

o Nappy change areas;

o Room to accommodate 16 children aged 2-3;

o Staff kitchen;

o Staff bathroom;

o Laundry/cleaner;

o Office;

o Foyer;

 

·    External alterations including:

o Car parking for 6 cars including one disabled space;

o Storage shed;

o Garbage bin storage; and

o Landscaping including children’s play areas.

 

·    No. Of Children:

o 16 x 2-3 years

o 25 x 3-5 years

o TOTAL: 41

 


 

·    Staff:

o 16 x 2-3 age group - 2 staff (1 per 8 children)

o 25 x 3-5 age group - 3 staff (1 per 10 children)

 

·    Hours of Operation:

o Monday – Friday: 7am – 6pm

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The proposed child care centre is consistent with the provisions of Ashfield LEP 1985 and, except for two minor non-compliances, it generally satisfies the requirements of Part C19, Child Care Centres, of Ashfield DCP 2007. In addition, partly by virtue of its location between Federation Place Park and a commercial building in the Haberfield Town Centre, it has minimal impacts upon residential properties and, as such, has generated no submissions of objection (although it has generated 14 submissions in support).

 

The application also previously went through the Pre-DA process and has responded to the issues raised.

 

It fails, however, to provide the minimum parking requirement of Part C11 of Ashfield DCP with a shortfall of four parking spaces. Despite this, an assessment by Council’s traffic engineer has concluded that there is sufficient capacity on-street to cater for this deficit, also bearing in mind the town centre location and proximity of public transport.

 

Given these considerations, the development is considered acceptable and is recommended for conditional approval.

 

Background

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         My Stepping Stones ELC 2 PTY LTD

Owner                                    :         Mrs N Blancato

Value of work                       :         $350,000

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: 1 DP: 588626

Date lodged                          :         13/04/2012

Building classification        :         9b

Application Type                  :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

Section 94A Levy                :         Yes


 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the south-western side of Ramsay Street, bounded by Gillies Avenue to the north-west and Dalhousie Street to the south-east. The site area is approximately 836.22 square metres.  An existing single storey dwelling house is located on the site.

 

The site is located adjacent to Federation Place park and also directly adjacent to Haberfield’s primary retail and commercial centre. Low density residential development adjoins the site to the rear.

 

5.0    Development History

 

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

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

10.2005.282.1

22.03.2006

Home occupation, signage and painting

Approved

10.2009.52.1

25.05.2009

Alterations & additions for use as restaurant

Approved

 

Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

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

·    The property is located within the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area.

·    The property is located within the vicinity of a heritage item/heritage conservation area.

 

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

 

7.0    Section 79C Assessment

 

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

 

7.1    The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

7.1.1 Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

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


 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

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

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

 

Not applicable. No variation of development standards proposed.

 

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

 

Clause 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Model Provisions 1980 defines floor as follows:

 

floor means that space within a building which is situated between one floor level and the floor level next above or if there is no floor above, the ceiling or roof above.’

 

Clause 2.3 of section 2- Part C19, Ashfield DCP 2007 requires a Child Care Centres to be single storey in scale within low-density zones and a maximum two storey scale within medium/high density residential zones. The property is located in a 3(a) General Business zone and hence this requirement does not apply.

 

Nevertheless, the proposed Child Care Centre is only single storey in scale and provides a modest scale in the streetscape.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

The long standing residential use of the site indicates that remediation of the site is not required prior to the carrying out of the proposed development.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

 

No advertising or signage is proposed in this application. If any signage is sought, a further development application must be lodged.

 

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.

 

Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Draft ALEP 2012) was placed on public exhibition on 27 June 2012 and is a matter for consideration.


 

Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

Principal Development Data Table

Clause No.

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Compliance

2.2

Zoning

Zone B2 Local Centre

Child Care Centre

Yes

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

No provisions.

836.22m2

N/A

4.3

Height of buildings

10m

6.8m

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

1:1

0.26:1

Yes

5.10

Heritage Conservation

Located in:

·  Haberfield Conservation Area C42

5.10(4)

Effect on heritage significance

The consent authority may, before granting consent to any development:

(a) on land on which a heritage item is located, or

(b) on land that is within a heritage conservation area, or

(c)   on land that is within the vicinity of land referred to in paragraph (a) or (b),

require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area concerned.

Satisfactory assessment by Council’s Heritage Adviser.

Yes

 

As indicated by the above table, the proposal generally complies with the provisions of Draft ALEP 2012.


 

7.3       The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

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

 

C1

ACCESS AND MOBILITY

The proposed development has been accompanied by an accessibility report prepared by Mark Relph. The report has been reviewed by Council’s building surveyor who has raised no objection to the accessibility of the proposed development.

C7

HABERFIELD HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREA

 

The proposal is located within the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area. The application has been reviewed by Council’s heritage adviser who is satisfied that it is acceptable.

C10

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

The proposal is located within the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area. The application has been reviewed by Council’s heritage adviser who is satisfied that it is acceptable.

C11

PARKING

Refer to comments below from Council’s traffic engineer.

C12

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

The proposal was notified in accordance with the requirements of this part.

C19

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Refer to compliance table below.

 

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

 

7.3.2 Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007: Part C11: Parking

 

The application has been assessed by Council’s traffic engineer in respect of Part C11 – Parking, of Ashfield DEP 2007. His comments follow:

 

1. There is a short fall of 4 spaces to the development. In this particular situation and location the traffic consultant has demonstrated via survey that there is sufficient capacity on-street to cater for deficit parking to the child care, even in the immediate vicinity. Being in the town centre (with transport option) and whether a discount(credit) can apply over the previous approved land use, this shortfall could be either reduced or acceptably accommodated in the environment.

 

2.  The traffic generation of the development is considered acceptable with minimal impact to the street environment. Traffic would primarily be travelling along Ramsay Street in desire to park along the frontage and entrance to the child care or dispersed evenly around the side street network.


 

3. The rear car park be made only for the use of staff parking and should not direct general parent/carers to use this rear carpark off a low volume access lane. The only exception is with parent/carers with mobility parking permits eligible to park in the under management direction.

 

4. The car park layout design is to adhere to AS 2890.1:2004, AS2890.6:2009 and AS2890.2:2002. The car park is to be marked out and signposted to designate staff parking, disabled parking and loading bay. The shared area zone should also be marked out. No vehicles should be made to stand or park in the shared zone as this area is required for safe and proper access into the child care centre from the rear carpark. The area is also required for the turning manoeuvre of vehicles, as all vehicles must enter and exit the carpark in a forward direction.

 

5. Service vehicles should only be limited to small vans given the tight geometry of the carpark. The service vehicle should be parked in the designated marked location so as not to interfere with the through passage and turning manoeuvre of the vehicle in the accessible parking zone. It would be preferred that the service-delivery operation be done after hours to avoid interfering with staff parking.  

 

6.  It would be recommended that the two northern spaces of the carpark be allocated to the last remaining staff parkers. These vehicles can utilise to turn from the vacant staff parking bays, rather than reverse back into the shared area.   

 

The DA in this particular situation is considered acceptable under traffic and parking conditions.

 

7.3.3 Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007: Part C19: Child Care Centres

 

The following table summarises the relevant clauses of Part C19 – Child Care Centres, of Ashfield DEP 2007 and the performance of the proposal against them.


 

Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007

Part C19: Child Care Centres

Compliance Table

Clause No.

Requirements

Proposed

Compliance

Section 2: Planning and Design Guidelines

2.1 Location Criteria

Controls

(a)

Locate Child Care Centres in areas where -

·    there is a demand for these facilities and where there is good access to public transport services and recreation opportunities.

The site is located in Haberfield town centre which is a central location where sufficient demand exists and is well serviced by local buses.

 

Yes

·    in areas which have good vehicular access without unduly affecting traffic flow or parking provision in surrounding streets. Where a new child care centre is to be established in a cul-de-sac or other no-through road, the applicant must clearly demonstrate that there will be no significant impact to residential amenity or vehicular manoeuvrability.

The subject site has good vehicular access off Perri Lane. Access and manoeuvring has been assessed as satisfactory by Council’s traffic engineer.

 

Yes

(b)

New Child Care Centres proposed on sites adjoining a classified road are not to have vehicular access from that road unless it can be demonstrated that alternative vehicular access to that development is neither practicable nor can be provided by another road.

Access is from the rear laneway.

N/A

(b)

The location of a Child Care Centre is to take into consideration any environmental health hazard or risk relevant to the site and/or existing buildings within the site or in the surrounding area, having regard to the following:

·    proximity to Dangerous Goods - new Child Care Centres must not be located within 100m of a dangerous good of a quantity requiring a license to be held under the Dangerous Goods Act 1975 and Regulation as measured from the location of the dangerous good to the nearest point of the subject site.

The Dangerous Goods Act 1975 has been repealed. Despite this, properties located within 100m of the site are generally commercial and low density residential where any industrial storage of dangerous goods does not take place.

Yes

·    existing and potential on and off-site electromagnetic fields (50Hz and radio frequency fields 3KHz – 300GHz); refer to requirement for report at Appendix 2.

The site is not located within 500m of a mobile phone tower or the like.

Yes

·    potentially contaminated land – a preliminary investigation report is required- refer Appendix 2.

The site has a long history of residential use and there is no reason to suspect that it may be contaminated.

Yes

·    lead in painted surfaces, carpets, furnishings and roof void in existing buildings; & asbestos in existing buildings – refer to requirement for report at Appendix 2.

The applicant proposes to refurbish internal elements of the existing building to ensure no lead or asbestos products are present. A Hazardous Materials Report was submitted separately with the application.

Yes

·    proximity to noise sources, odour (and other air pollutants) generating uses and sources; and any other identified environmental health hazard or risk relevant to the site and/or existing buildings within the site - refer Appendix 2.

The part of Ramsay Street adjacent the site in not identified as a Classified Road. The Acoustic Report submitted with the application concludes that the proposal is acceptable subject to recommendations.

Yes

·    do not locate Child Care Centres in close proximity to brothels.

No approved brothels are operating in close proximity to the site.

Yes

 

 

 

2.2 Site Planning

Controls

(a)

A Site Analysis is to be submitted with the application and is to examine and define the development context of the site and its surrounds, in terms of both its local and broader context and how the proposed development will “fit” within this context.

A suitable site analysis has been provided.

Yes

2.3 Building Form and Appearance

Objectives

(a)

Developments including alterations and additions are to maintain consistency with the character of the locality and design objectives contained in the relevant parts of Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007.

The proposal retains the existing Federation dwelling with discrete additions located to the rear only and consequently retains the local streetscape character.

Yes

Controls

(i)

Child Care Centres must comply with the general requirements of Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 and of Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007.

See assessment under Ashfield DCP 2007 above. Generally complies except for parking which has been assessed as satisfactory under the circumstances by Council’s traffic engineer.

Yes*

2.4 Sustainability, Energy Efficiency & Solar Access

Objectives

 

The design of any new building or substantial additions to Child Care Centres should aim to reduce embedded energy in materials, avoid rainforest timbers, maximize natural airflow and minimise reliance on mechanical heating and cooling. Recycling and composting facilities should be provided on site. The design should reflect the site analysis drawings having regard to optimal orientation for both indoor and outdoor play areas.

The proposal has a generally northern orientation for the internal and external play areas with large areas of north facing glazing introduced in the rear addition. Ample openable windows are provided to allow for good cross ventilation. Standard conditions will be imposed to ensure compliance with general ESD requirements.

Yes

Controls

 

Refer to Part J of the Building code of Australia- Energy Efficiency applicable to sustainable design of Class 9B buildings and advisory data in Part D2 of Ashfield DCP 2007.

To be conditioned in any consent. Will be required prior to issue of any CC.

Yes

2.5 Room sizes, Indoor Recreation Areas and facilities/Outdoor recreational areas and facilities

The Children’s Services Regulation 2004 provides all of the requirements for Child Care Centres that must be satisfied prior to the issuing of a license by DoCS. These requirements include staff-to-children ratios, minimum areas for indoor and outdoor open space and internal amenities. In addition to the requirements of this Part applicants must refer to the Regulations in order to ensure that their proposal fully complies.

Controls – IndoorAreas

(i)

The Child Care Centre must comply with or preferably exceed the indoor space/facility provisions as prescribed by the Children’s Services Regulation 2004 – as below and the provisions of the Building Code of Australia applicable to design of Class 9B buildings.

 

Indoor areas

A minimum of 3.25m˛ of unencumbered indoor play space* per child that is exclusively for the use of children is to be provided.

(* Unencumbered indoor space does not include items such as any passage-way or thoroughfare, door swing areas, kitchen, cot rooms, toilet or shower areas located within the building or any other facility such as cupboards and areas set aside for sleeping, staff and administration (Children’s Services Regulation))

Required: 133.25m2.

 

Provided: 135m2 of unencumbered indoor play space

Yes

 

Indoor facilities

The Children’s Services Regulation 2004 requires that indoor space is to include the following facilities within all child care centres:

 

·    a room or area that is used only for administration and for private consultation between staff and parents;

This is provided in the form of an office space located centrally on the south-eastern side of the building.

 

Yes

 

·    a room or an area, located away from the areas used by children, that is used for respite of staff;

Staff room is located adjacent to the kitchen.

Yes

 

·    a room or an area that is used only for sleeping for children under 2 years of age;

The centre will only cater for children over 2 years old.

N/A

 

·    where children under the age of 3 years are being cared for, the child care centre must have laundry facilities, that include at least a laundry tub connected to both hot and cold water;

Laundry facilities are provided adjacent to the staff amenities.

 

Yes

 

·    a separate craft preparation facility, including sink, bench top and lockable cupboard. This area must not be located next to a food preparation area or nappy change area. This area is not included in any indoor or outdoor play area;

A craft preparation area is provided within each playroom isolated from the food preparation and nappy rooms.

Yes

 

·    a designated area that is both safe and hygienic for food preparation and storage. It should be designed, located and maintained to prevent children gaining access to harmful substances or equipment and includes a stove or microwave, sink, refrigerator, suitable disposal facilities and hot water supply (Food preparation areas are to be constructed and provided in accordance with the relevant sections of the Australian/New Zealand Food Standards Code. Guidance may be obtained from the National Code and for the Construction and Fit out of Food Premises published by the Australian Institute of Environmental Health and relevant Australian Standards. In the case of any inconsistency between these documents, the Australian/New Zealand Food Standards Code shall prevail.);

Food preparation provided in the kitchen which is isolated from children’s areas.

Conditions of consent to ensure compliance with applicable Australian Standards.

 

Yes

 

·    where a separate kitchen is provided, the kitchen must have a door, half gate or other barrier to prevent unsupervised entry by children into the kitchen;

The proposed kitchen contains a door.

 

Yes

 

·    a designated area that is safe and hygienic for the preparation of bottles for children under the age of two years which must be separated from any nappy-changing areas;

The centre will cater for children from 2 years of age only.

N/A

 

·    safe toilets, hand washing and bathing facilities that are appropriate to the ages of children and are consistent with the Building Code of Australia;

Suitable toilets provided.

Yes

 

·    nappy change facilities, with adult hand washing facilities in the immediate vicinity and sanitary storage facilities to cater for children under the age of three years or any child in nappies;

Nappy change facilities provided between kids WC and Children 2-3 Play Area.

Yes

 

·    sleeping areas, with cots, beds, stretchers, mattresses and other bedding to be arranged so as to be in areas that have natural light and allow easy access to and exit of any child;

Adequate space allocated in play areas for sleeping.

Yes

 

·    storage facilities for indoor and outdoor equipment that are secure and inaccessible to the children;

Provided within each room and outdoor storage shed contains outdoor equipment.

Yes

 

·    storage facilities for children’s personal belongings;

Provided.

Yes

 

·    and garbage storage & recycling facilities.

Provided within a separate area at the southern corner of the building.

Yes

 

The design of indoor space is also to have particular regard to the following:

 

·    safety and security within the Child Care Centre in relation to occupational health and safety for children, staff and visitors, and external security to ensure that access into the centre is monitored, which may require the installation of camera surveillance, and installation of a security system with access only permitted to authorised persons;

Secure single access point to the centre clearly defined by fences and gates with good visibility.

Yes

 

·    easy accessibility between different areas within the Child Care Centre;

All areas in the centre are interconnected and have appropriate and convenient functional relationships.

Yes

 

·    the convenient location of children’s toilets, nappy change areas and storage cupboards and ensuring clear and unobstructed lines of sight of staff and children. The installation of convex mirrors and non recording camera surveillance may be required;

The children’s amenities and storage areas are located in an accessible area off the two playrooms with clear lines of sight.

Yes

 

·    windows of indoor play areas are to be located with a northern orientation and must receive at least three hours of sunlight between the hours of 9am and 3pm on June 21;

All indoor play areas are provided with plentiful north facing windows.

Yes

 

·    appropriate external shading of windows;

Appropriate shading provided by the proposed awning.

Yes

 

·    access to natural cross ventilation through the appropriate placement of openings;

Good cross ventilation provided.

Yes

 

·    use of safety glass and safety markers at child and adult height is required;

To be conditioned.

Yes

 

·    the use of energy efficient appliances and hot water systems;

To be conditioned.

Yes

 

·    adequate storage areas including storage areas for prams and construction of garbage and recycling areas;

Sufficient storage exists within each playroom for internal storage. The garbage and recycling area is provided at the rear of the site adjacent to the south-western property boundary.

Yes

 

·    mechanical ventilation of nappy change areas and toilets;

To be conditioned.

Yes

 

·    children’s toilets located so they are directly accessible to children’s indoor and outdoor play spaces;.

Toilets directly accessible from play areas and outdoor areas as appropriate.

Yes

 

·    the structural fittings and fixtures for all internal rooms selected to enhance non-chemical pest management of the premises with all cracks and crevices being sealed. and insect screening provided to windows;

To be conditioned.

Yes

 

·    Locks provided to all adult only areas such as storerooms, craft rooms, staff rooms etc;

To be conditioned.

Yes

 

·    Reception area large enough to cater for groups of people;

The foyer area is sufficient in size to accommodate a number of people at any one time.

Yes

 

·    Adult toilets should be accessible from the reception area so that they can be used by parents and visitors as well as staff;

Adult toilet located off reception area.

Yes

 

·    Staff room and separate staff work areas provided including storage space for personal items;

Provided.

Yes

Controls – OutdoorAreas

(ii)

The outdoor play spaces are to be:

 

·    positioned (where practicable) to the northern or north-eastern end of the site and not to the south of the building;

Play areas are to the north and east of the site.

Yes

 

·    sited away from and separated from the main entrance of the child care centre, car parking area or vehicle circulation areas;

Main entrance and car parking are fenced off and separated clearly from the play areas.

Yes

 

·    be aesthetically pleasing, be functional, interesting and safe (soft fall areas provided);

Landscape areas provide a variety of activities and stimulating materials and surfaces with soft fall areas provided.

Yes

 

·    provide a combination of built and natural shade (winter warmth and light is also desirable);

Existing trees in the adjoining Federation Place to the north-west as well as the proposed awning and timber pergola provide sufficient shade.

Yes

 

·    covers to be provided for facilities such as sand pits;

To be conditioned.

Yes

 

·    trees/shrubs to be child safe (not scalable) and not to allow egress from the outdoor area;

Planting is of suitable scale.

Yes

 

·    fences/gates not to be scalable and minimum 1.2m high. Fencing must be of a design that a child cannot get parts of their body ‘stuck’ , including fingers;

All fences have vertical slats and are a minimum of 1.5m in height.

Yes

 

·    Gates must be self-locking.

To be conditioned.

Yes

 

·    verandas/transition areas are to be provided for adequate shade during summer shade and for protection from the rain. A width of four metres or more will provide an alternative play area in extreme heat or inclement weather;

The proposed covered terrace provides suitable shade and rain protection. 

 

Yes

 

·    The transition area must be designed to allow indoor and outdoor activities to be conducted undercover.

The transition area is of adequate size to permit this.

Yes

 

·    the transition area must adjoin the child care centre’s main building.

Adjoins the main building.

Yes

 

·    the transition area must be located between the indoor and outdoor play spaces.

Provided.

Yes

 

·    the roof coverage of the transition area must be a minimum of 4m in width.

The roof coverage is slightly under 4m in width but provides adequate overall area and a suitable functional space.

No but adequate

 

·    the transition area must have direct frontage to the outdoor play spaces.

Yes

Yes

 

·    access to the transition area must not rely solely on stairs.

A ramp provides access to the transition area.

Yes

 

·    the transition area must be designed in a manner that offers protection from unfavourable weather conditions, including strong winds and rainfall.

Adequate protection provided.

Yes

 

·    the transition area must be designed in a manner that utilises natural temperature controlling measures, including cross ventilation.

The transition area is open on three sides allowing sufficient air flow.

Yes

 

·    roofing materials used in the transition area must not allow excessive heat to build up during summer months.

The steel roofing material is not a high thermal mass material and would not retain or amplify heat.

Yes

 

·    the transition area must be designed in a manner that does not inhibit supervision between indoor and outdoor play spaces.

The open plan design of the transition area provided clear sight lines.

Yes

 

·    of a design and layout that maximises clear sight lines to all areas from other areas of the child care centre;

The outdoor space has clear sight lines from the play areas of the child care centre.

Yes

 

·    All play equipment to comply with Australian Standards including soft fall areas must be separated visually from the living/bedroom windows of surrounding dwellings e.g. by position/placement and using solid screen fencing and landscaping as noise/privacy control measures.

Compliance of play areas to be conditioned.

No dwellings located adjacent play areas.

Yes

 

·    be adequately fenced on all sides. All gates are to be self-closing and child proof with child proof locks. While all fencing to adjoining public spaces is to be a minimum height of 1800mm.

Site adequately fences. Front fence must be no more than 1.5m to protect heritage values of streetscape but this should provide adequate enclosure.

No but satisfactory

 

·    a physical division, in the form of a low level fence (600mm high) or a similar structure, to be maintained between the play spaces provided for children under the age of two years, and children over the age of two years to ensure that younger children have access to adequate spaces.

No children under the age of 2 will be on the premises.

 

N/A

 

·    a rainwater tank (minimum capacity of 2,000 litres) must be installed on site. The rainwater tank must be plumbed for toilet flushing, laundry and irrigation purposes.

Provided.

Yes

 

·    outdoor play spaces are to be adequately shaded in accordance with Shade for Child Care Services published by the NSW Cancer Council and NSW Health Department. Physical or natural shading devices are to provide sun protection to children and be integrated into the design of the building and the outdoor area.

Adequate shade provided.

 

Yes

 

·    plantings should be used to screen communal outdoor areas or private balconies from adjoining properties or the public way, with trellis, screens with climbing vines or the like used to complement deciduous tree planting (refer to section 2.8).

The north and west property boundaries contain sufficient vegetation screening from the adjoining public open spaces.

Yes

 

·    storage facilities for outdoor play equipment must be provided. This storage may be part of the main building or a separate structure sited in the outdoor play space.

Sufficient outdoor storage is provided.

 

 

Yes

 

·    Outdoor storage areas must not be accessible to unsupervised children

To be conditioned.

Yes

 

Children’s Services Regulations 2004

 

·    A minimum of 7m˛ of useable outdoor play space* per child that is exclusively for the use of children is to be provided.

Required: 287m2.

 

Provided: 317m2 of unencumbered outdoor play space

Yes

 

·    The outdoor play spaces are to be adequately shaded in accordance with Shade for Child Care Services published by the NSW Cancer Council and NSW Health Department. Physical shading devices are to provide sun protection to children and be integrated into the design of the building and the outdoor areas.

Adequate shade provided.

Yes

2.6 Acoustic Impacts

Controls

 

Design to minimise noise and loss of privacy by:

(i)

locating windows offset or in different positions relative to the location of windows in neighbouring properties;

Windows are located away from the neighbouring residential property.

Yes

(ii)

positioning outdoor play areas away from main living area or bedroom windows of any adjoining dwelling;

The outdoor play area is located to the north-west, north, and north-east of the site and is separated from the adjoining residential and commercial properties by the building existing.

Yes

(iii)

using solid screen fencing and landscaping as noise/privacy control measures;

Solid fencing is required on the south-western and north-western property boundary as per the recommendations of the Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff.

Yes

(vi)

erecting acoustic barriers as a noise buffer to external noise sources from surrounding land uses and incorporating passive design considerations within the building to minimise noise intrusion;

See above.

Yes

(v)

installing double glazing or use of glass blocks/obscure fixed glazing/highlight windows (for light penetration and to maintain privacy – (not suitable where natural ventilation is also required);

Not necessary under the circumstances – noise impacts adequately managed by site planning.

N/A

(vii)

an Acoustic Report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustical consultant must be submitted with development application, describing and assessing the impact of likely noise emissions from the proposal. The investigation shall include but not be limited to

the following:

·    identification of sensitive noise receivers potentially impacted by the proposal;

·    quantification of the existing acoustic environment at the receiver locations (measurement techniques and assessment period should be fully justified and

·    in accordance with relevant Australian Standards and NSW EPA requirements);

·    formulation of suitable assessment criteria;

·    details of any acoustic control measures that will be incorporated into the proposal;

·    identification of noise that is likely to emanate from the Child Care Centre and the subsequent prediction of resultant noise at the identified sensitive receiver locations from the operation of the premises;

·    a statement certifying that the development is capable of operating without causing a nuisance;

·    a statement that noise arising from within the premises shall not result in an ‘offensive noise’ (as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997) at any adjoining residential premises.

A Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff has been submitted which addresses these criteria.

 

Yes

2.7 Accessibility

Controls

(a)

All new Child Care Centres (or building conversions or additions to existing premises) shall comply with the minimum access requirements contained specified in Part C1 of Ashfield DCP 2007 – Access Adaptability and Mobility, the Building Code of Australia & Australian Standard (AS) 1428 – Design for Access and Mobility.

 

This requires a continuous path of travel to and within the building. All key areas of the site must be linked by pathways that are accessible to prams, wheelchairs and the like.

The proposal ensures a continuous path of travel to all aspects of the site. An Access Report has been provided which adequately addresses this issue. 

 

Yes

(b)

Child care centres must be located on the ground floor of the building that they occupy.

The proposal is single storey only.

Yes

2.8 Landscaping

Controls

(a)

Landscaping of new child care centres shall be designed to minimise the visual impact of the building on the streetscape, minimise run-off, provide shade for children and maximise privacy for neighbours.

Suitable landscaping provided.

Yes

(b)

The landscape design of the child care centre shall reflect the prevailing landscape character of the area and should relate to existing streetscapes in terms of scale and planting style.

The landscaping is respectful of the heritage values of the conservation area.

Yes

(c)

No area within the child care centre may contain plant species that are characteristic of the following:

·    plants known to be poisonous or that produce toxins;

·    plants with high allergen properties;

·    plants with thorns, or spiky or prickly foliage; or

·    any plant species that Council considers may place the health, safety and welfare of the centres users at risk.

Plans suitably selected.

Yes

(d)

Notwithstanding any other control contained within this Part, significant existing landscaping features, such as canopy trees, are to be retained.

All significant trees are to be retained.

Yes

2.9 Traffic, Parking and Access

Controls

(a)

The number and design of on-site car spaces and access ways shall be in accordance with Part C11. A temporary pick-up and drop-off area incorporating a passing bay is to be provided on site so that vehicles can enter or leave the site moving in a forward direction without conflicting with other traffic/parking   movements. 

Note:  The basic off-street parking requirement at the time of adoption of this Part was 1 space per 4 children - this figure includes staff parking. A Traffic and Parking Assessment Report, which also addresses traffic safety issues, is req

See assessment by Council’s traffic engineer.

Satisfactory

(b)

The centre, pedestrian access and children’s play areas are to be separated by safety fencing and minimum 2 self-locking gates/barriers from the road and from parking and vehicle access areas.

Satisfactory separation provided.

Yes

(c)

Long stay staff parking must be separate from short stay, visitor parking. Both must be provided in a convenient location, allowing safe movement of children to and from the centre. 

See assessment by Council’s traffic engineer.

 

(d)

Children with parents/carers should not walk and be exposed to interact with movement of vehicles within a car park. Separate pedestrian paths (minimum 1.2 metres in width) should be provided, identified and located  to allow safe movement of children with parent/carers to and from vehicles within the short stay visitor parking areas. These pedestrian paths  should not form  part of any vehicle aisle movement areas or car parking spaces. 

No vehicle interaction necessary.

Yes

(e)

Ramps and lifts should be provided where necessary along pedestrian paths and in any basement car parks where required to allow access to the centre  by mothers with prams and for people with disabilities. 

Ramps provided where necessary.

Yes

(f)

Parking spaces for people with disabilities must be provided near the entrance to the Centre.

One accessible parking space is provided at the rear.

Yes

(g)

Access should be provided for goods deliveries separated from areas used by staff and parents

A loading bay is provided at the rear of the site.

Yes

2.10 Operational Aspects

Controls

 

A Centre Plan of Management is to be submitted with each development application for a Child Care Centre (including new and existing Child Care Centres) to ensure that the proposed premises will operate in a manner that maintains a high level of amenity. An appropriate form of centre management with responsibility for the operation, administration, cleanliness and fire safety of the premises, including compliance with the Centre Plan of Management and an Emergency. Management and Evacuation Plan must be provided for the premises.

 

The Centre Plan of Management shall address the following as a minimum:

 

·    Maintenance and fire safety in the building;

Addressed.

Yes

 

·    A schedule indicating compliance with the accommodation standards and outdoor play area requirements of the Children’s Services Regulation.

Addressed.

Yes

 

·    Measures to minimise unreasonable impact to the habitable areas of adjoining premises;

Addressed.

Yes

 

·    Proposed staffing arrangements, including location and contact details of the centre manager;

Addressed.

Yes

 

·    Prominent display of appropriate rules re. visitor policy, operating hours of outdoor play areas;

Addressed.

Yes

 

·    Waste minimisation and recycling;

Addressed.

Yes

 

·    Professional cleaning details (as a minimum facilities such as kitchens and toilet areas must be cleaned to a professional standard at daily.

Addressed.

Yes

 

·    Provision of safety and security measures - this may include but not be limited to such things as: internal signage indicating the centre manager and contact number, emergency contact numbers for essential services such as fire, ambulance, police, and utilities such as gas, electricity, plumbing, installation of perimeter lighting, appropriate fencing and security gates, keys for security entrance doors be made available to essential services such as fire brigade in case of emergency.

Addressed.

Yes

2.11 Waste

Controls

 

Waste and recycling facilities on the premises shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of Part D1 of Ashfield DCP 2007 - Waste Minimisation, and the specific requirements of any other Part of this DCP applicable to the development.

A separate bin enclosure to the rear of the site has been provided in accordance with this part.

Yes

2.12 Fire Safety

Controls

(a)

A copy of the annual fire safety statement and current fire safety schedule for the premises must be prominently displayed in the Child Care Centre entry/reception area.

To be conditioned.

 

(b)

A floor plan must be permanently fixed to the inside of the door of each room to indicate the available emergency egress routes from the respective rooms.

To be conditioned.

 

(c)

Prior to releasing an occupation certificate for the building, an Emergency Management and Evacuation Plan must be prepared for the building and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority. Staff shall be trained in relation to the operation of the approved Emergency Management and Evacuation Plan.

To be conditioned.

 

(d)

Premises must provide annual certification for the following:

·    Essential fire safety measures to comply with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

·    Compliance with the Centre Plan of Management approved for the premises; and,

·    Compliance with Emergency Management and Evacuation Plans required by the Building Code of Australia.

To be conditioned.

 

 

As indicated by the above table, the proposal generally complies with the provisions of Part C19: Child Care Centres with the exception of two elements of cl. 2.5(ii) as follows:

·    The width of the transitional area:

The minimum required width of the transitional area is 4m whereas the proposal provides 3.3m.

 

Despite this shortfall, the area is of generous length and provides an adequate area overall to accommodate the activities envisaged. In addition, it expands into the outdoor play space which provides in excess of the minimum required area.

·    The height of the front fence:

The preferred minimum enclosing fence height is 1.8m to prevent climbing by children. Council’s heritage adviser, however, has stipulated that a height of no more than 1.5m would be appropriate in the streetscape of the conservation area. Given this, it is considered that a 1.5m high fence is similarly capable of preventing scaling by children of the ages accommodated by the centre.

 

Given the above, it is considered that the application generally performs satisfactorily against Part C19 – Child Care Centres, of Ashfield DEP 2007.

 

 

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, the Haberfield Association and Councillors from 27 April 2012 until 24 May 2012.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

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


 

Submissions

 

Musimeli

105 Ramsay Street, Haberfield

Haberfield Dry Cleaners

107 Ramsay Street, Haberfield

G. Ngu

71 Dalhousie Street, Haberfield

C. Muril

18 Louden Avenue, Haberfield

G. Grasso

139 Ramsay Street, Haberfield

H. Almuhamed

99 Ramsay Street, Haberfield

M. Dimauro

117 Ramsay Street, Haberfield

D. Gojak

177 Ramsay Street, Haberfield

Haberfield Hardware

163 Ramsay Street, Haberfield

R. Bizys

105 Ramsay Street, Haberfield

Musimeli

PO Box 104, Haberfield

Amok boutique

169 Ramsay Street, Haberfield

Viet Van To

113 Ramsay Street, Haberfield

H. Neng

86 Ramsay Street, Haberfield

La Pasteria

171 Ramsay Street, Haberfield

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above submissions all expressed support for the proposal with no qualification.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

Given its general compliance with the requirements of Council’s controls, the ongoing need in the community for child care facilities and the receipt of only submissions in support, it is considered that the proposal is in the public interest.


 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Department

Support/Objection

(* subject to conditions)

Heritage

Support subject to conditions

Hydraulic Engineer

Support subject to conditions

Traffic Engineer

Support subject to conditions

Environmental Health

Support subject to conditions

Construction

Support subject to conditions

Tree officer

Support subject to conditions

 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

9.1 Section 94A Contribution Plan

 

Section 94A contributions of $3,500 are payable.

 

9.2 Service Approval

 

The proposed child care centre must obtain service approval from the Australian Children’s Education and Care Authority (ACECQA) prior to commencing operation.

 

10.0  Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

A Construction Certificate will be required by condition of consent.

 

Financial Implications

 

Section 94A Contributions are payable.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

See Section 8.1 of this report.

 

Public Consultation


See Section 7.7 of this report.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

The proposal is acceptable and is recommended for conditional approval.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

3 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Heritage Advice

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Conditions

16 Pages

 

Attachment 4

Submissions – Circulated under separate cover

14 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) approve Development Application No. 10.2012.79.1 for alterations and additions to an existing building for use as a child care centre on Lot 1 in DP: 588626, known as 110 Ramsay Street, Haberfield, 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 meet the aims and objectives of Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

CLAUSE 10

Zoning

Complies.  The property is zoned 3(a) General Business 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               = 836.22m2

Gross Floor Area   = 248m2

Proposed FSR                = 1:1

Maximum FSR                = 0.3:1

 

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

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

1.

Requirement for development consent

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

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 Conservation Area

4.

Requirement for conservation plan or heritage impact statement

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

CLAUSE 35

Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area

 

(1) The Council must not grant a consent required by clause 32 for land within the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area unless:

(d) where the application applies to a shop or a commercial building, the Council is satisfied that such development:

(i) is sympathetic to, and does not detract from, the form and character of the building and its setting; and

(ii) retains the original features of facade, including all details above and below the awning level; and

Complies.  The proposal retains the original features of the facade and will not detract from the form or character of the existing building or its setting.

 

 

(1) The Council must not grant a consent required by clause 32 for land within the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area unless:

(e) the Council has made an assessment of whether the building or work constitutes a danger to its users or occupiers, or to the public.

Complies.  It is considered that the proposed work does not constitute a danger to any person.

 

 

(2) The Council shall not grant consent to the alteration, extension or erection of a dwelling-house within the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area where:

(c) the landscaped areas located at the front, side and rear of the house are not compatible with the character of the garden setting of the site and of other properties within its vicinity; or

Complies. The landscaped areas are compatible with the garden setting of Haberfield.

 


CLAUSE 37

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

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

MODEL PROVISIONS

 

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

Aesthetic appearance is considered 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

 

13 – Off street loading, facilities, etc.

Satisfactory loading facilities provided.

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 




Attachment 2

 

Heritage Advice

 


Attachment 3

 

Conditions

 















 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 24 July 2012        CM10.2

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2010.018.3
59 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ASHFIELD

 

File Ref                            10.2010.018.3

 

Prepared by                   William Daskalopoulos - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 

 

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0    DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

 

An application pursuant to Section 96 (1a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, seeks Council's approval to the modification of the development consent for the  a boarding house development  in the following way:

 

Delete condition A(7) which reads as follows:

 

(7)     Affordable Housing - 10 years

 

The proposal must be used for Affordable Housing for 10 years, compliant with the following requirements: -

 

(a)  for 10 years from the date of the issue of the occupation certificate:

 

(i)  at least 50 per cent of the accommodation to which the development application relates will be used for the purposes of affordable housing, and

 

(ii)  all the accommodation that is used for affordable housing will be managed by a registered community housing provider, and

 

(b)  a restriction will be registered, before the date of the issue of the occupation certificate, against the title of the property on which development is to be carried out, in accordance with section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, that will ensure that for 10 years from the date of the issue of the occupation certificate:

 

(i)  at least 50 per cent of the accommodation to which the development application relates will be used for the purposes of affordable housing, and

 

(ii)  all the accommodation that is used for affordable housing will be managed by a registered community housing provider.

 

Nb. The definition of ‘Affordable Housing’ in State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 is to be adopted for the purposes of this condition.


 

See Part 7.1.3 for discussion on Affordable Rental Housing

 

2.0       SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

 

The development is recommended for approval. It is considered that the proposed amendment does not substantially alter the nature of the original proposal and that the proposal complies with the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended) the applicable development control plans and State Environmental Planning Policy Affordable Rental Housing 2009 SEPP(ARH).

 

The applicant claims he was unaware of the provisions of the SEPP(ARH) when he lodged the Development Application and now that he has become aware he is requesting that condition A(7) be deleted as it is not relevant to a Boarding House development.

 

See Report under 7.1.3 below for discussion of SEPP(ARH).

 

The recommendation of this report is for approval to delete the condition.

 

Background

 

3.0    APPLICATION DETAILS

 

Applicant                               :         Prasino Pty Ltd

Address                                 :         6A Nicholson Street BURWOOD  NSW  2134

Owner                                    :         Mr J Galatis &  Prasino Pty Ltd

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

Date lodged                          :         20 June 2012

Date of last amendment     :         10 April 2012

Building classification        :         3

Application Type                  :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

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

 

Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.

 

5.0    Development History

 

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


 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

10.2010.18.2

10 April 2012

Increase the number of boarding rooms from 31 to 32

Approved by Land and Environment Court

10.2010.18.1

11 May 2010

Construction of a three storey boarding house

Approved

10.2004.106

10/09/2004

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

Approved

10.1997.112

19/08/1997

Replacement of Sign on front pole

Approved

6.1992.384

24/12/1992

Alterations to Squash Court

Approved

6.1989.373

23/11/1989

Verandah Enclosure

Withdrawn

6.1989.278

03/08/1989

Carport

Approved

6.1957.2323

26/11/1957

Unknown

Unknown

6.1957.2102

19/02/1957

Unknown

Unknown

 

Section 96 modification  10.2010.18.2  to increase the number of boarding rooms from 31 to 32 was refused by Council on 13 December 2011, however, was subsequently approved by the Land and Environment Court on 10 April 2012. 

 

6.0    ZONING/PERMISSIBILITY/HERITAGE

 

Not altered by proposal.

 

7.0    Section 96(1a) ASSESSMENT

 

·    Is the proposed modification of minimal environmental impact?

 

The proposed modification to delete condition A(7) will not adversely affect the site or the neighbouring properties as there is no change in use or intensification of the use of the property and is therefore considered to have no further environmental impact.

 

·    Is Council satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified(if at all)?

 

The modification to delete the condition  A(7) does not substantially alter the development and it is considered that the modification will result in substantially the same development.

 

·    Has the application been notified in accordance with the regulations or the DCP is so required?

 

The application was not required to be notified under Part C12 of ADCP.

 

·    Has council considered any submissions made concerning the modification?

 

No submissions have been received.


 

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

 

7.1    The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

7.1.1 Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with the LEP.

 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Not applicable.

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy Affordable Rental Housing 2009 SEPP(ARH)

 

SEPP(ARH) 2009, Clause 6 provides the following definition to ‘Affordable Housing’:

“affordable housing means housing for very low income households, low income households or moderate income households, being such households as are prescribed by the regulations or as are provided for in an environmental planning instrument.

(1)  In this Policy, a household is taken to be a very low income household, low income household or moderate income household if the household:

 

(a)  has a gross income that is less than 120 per cent of the median household income for the time being for the Sydney Statistical Division (according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics) and pays no more than 30 per cent of that gross income in rent, or

 

(b)  is eligible to occupy rental accommodation under the National Rental Affordability Scheme and pays no more rent than that which would be charged if the household were to occupy rental accommodation under that scheme.

 

(2)  In this Policy, residential development is taken to be for the purposes of affordable housing if the development is on land owned by the Land and Housing Corporation.”

 

This definition applies to ‘In-Fill Affordable Housing’ under Part 2, Division 1 of the SEPP(ARH). The definition does not apply to Part 2, Division 3 - Boarding Houses. There is no provision under the SEPP(ARH) requiring a restriction to the eligibility of lodgers to rent a room in a Boarding House. There is no restriction under Part 2 Division 3 – Boarding Houses under the SEPP(ARH) that a boarding house be managed by a  Registered Community Housing Provider. Council controls also do not require such a restriction.

Consequently, the condition is recommended for deletion.

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with the SEPP(ARH).


 

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 as the application has been assessed under the SEPP(ARH).

 

7.3       The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with relevant DCPs.

 

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

 

Not applicable.

 

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

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application.  It is considered that the proposed alterations will have no adverse environmental 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.

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

 

The proposal was not notified in accordance with the relevant DCP.

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

The application was not required to be notified.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

The public interest would not be served by refusal of this proposal.

 

8.0    REFERRALS

 

Not applicable.

 

9.0    OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS

 

Not applicable.


 

10.0  BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA (BCA)

 

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

 

11.0  CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as amended with all matters specified under Section 79C (1) Clauses (a) to (e) and Section 96(1a) have been taken into consideration.

 

There is no provision under the SEPP requiring a restriction as to the eligibility of lodgers to rent a room in a Boarding House and there is no restriction that the Boarding House be managed by a Registered Community Housing Provider. Council controls also do not require such  restrictions.

 

The proposal is considered to be acceptable and is therefore recommended for approval.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Development Application No. 2010.18 for construction of a boarding house at 59 Liverpool Road Ashfield be modified in accordance with section 96(1a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by deleting Condition A(7)

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment


Attachment 1

 

Locality Map

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 24 July 2012        CM10.3

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.117.1
99 SMITH STREET, SUMMER HILL

 

File Ref                            DA 10.2012.117.1

 

Prepared by                   Daisy Younan - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

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 for alterations to the existing mixed use development and the construction of an attached and linked two storey mixed use development comprising two additional commercial units on the ground floor and one additional residential unit on first floor.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

1.1    Background

 

A title search, dated 22/06/2012 for Lot A- DP437936 (the subject site), indicates that the right of carriageway and the right of footway (dealing No. AF425346 showing on the superseded title dated 31/08/2004) are no longer registered on the title (Attachment 4). This has further been confirmed by the “cancellation of easement” records obtained on 28/06/2012 from NSW Land and Property Information (Attachment 5). This confirms that rights of way have been extinguished and subject site can be developed.

 

The proposed development fails to comply with a number of Council’s controls and policies which have been raised by Council in letters dated 31st August 2011 (pre-lodgement advice), 06th March 2012 (previous Provisional DA) and 29th June 2102 (refer to Attachment 6) and hence cannot be supported in its current form.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The proposed development is not considered sustainable having an adverse impact on the built environment providing poor amenity for future occupants of the proposed building, no access for people with disabilities to the ground floor commercial area and increasing the density and use of the site to an unacceptable level.


 

The proposed development fails to comply with the following provisions of Ashfield DCP 2007 - height controls of Clause 2.4 of section 2, roof form controls of Clause 2.10 section 2, facade controls of Clause 2.15 and Clause 2.16 of section 2 of Part C14, access and mobility and universal accessible design requirements of Part C1 and car-parking requirements of Part C11. In addition, it also fails to comply with floor space ratio (FSR) controls of Clause 17 and of Clause 40(2) of Ashfield LEP 1985 and Council’s stormwater management policy.

 

Given the above, the development is recommended for refusal.

 

Background

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         Filmer Architects Pty Ltd

Owner                                    :         Mr W & Mrs W Murr

Value of work                       :         $530,000

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: A DP: 437936

Date lodged                          :         08/06/2012

Date of last amendment     :         06th July 2012

Building classification        :         0

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 Smith Street, bounded by Fleet Street to the east and Lackey Street to the West.  The site area is approximately 271.9m2. An existing two storey mixed use development is located on the site. Surrounding development comprises commercial and residential development. Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.

 

5.0    Development History

 

Previous building and development applications submitted to Council since 2000 for the subject site include:

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

10.2004.59.1

03/05/2004

Change of use of ground floor of existing mixed use development to a delicatessen

Approved

10.2003.242

12/02/2004

Alterations and additions to existing mixed use development

Approved

 

The previous consents indicate that no approval has been given to the current restaurant use. This matter will be referred to Council’s compliance officer for appropriate action.


 

Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

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

·    The property is located within a draft heritage conservation area, however, the Draft LEP 106 no longer exists as per the directions of the Department of Planning.

·    The property is located within the vicinity of a number of heritage items located at 108-124 Smith Street (even numbers only) and 128 Smith Street.

·    The property is located within the Summer Hill Urban Village 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)

 

Clause No 17 specifies a maximum Floor Space Ratio for the zone as being 1:1.

 

In addition to the above, Clause No 40(2) provides that:

 

“Council may grant consent for a mixed development building (being a building used for residential and commercial purposes) having a floor space ratio greater than the maximum allowed by clause 17 (Floor space ratios), if:

 

(a) the floor space ratio does not exceed that maximum by more than 0.5:1, and

 

(b) the Council is satisfied that the additional floor area (being the floor area that would not be allowed by that maximum) is only used for residential purposes.”

 

The proposed development fails to comply with the development standards under Clause No. 17 and Clause No. 40(2), refer to the following FSR and Gross Floor Area (GFA) calculations:

 

Site area = 271.9m˛

Maximum GFA allowed by Clause 17 = 271.9 m˛ (1:1)

Existing GFA = 193.56m˛


 

Additional gross floor area allowed by Clause 17 = 271.9 – 193.56 = 78.34 m˛

This additional gross floor area can be allocated to the commercial component since there is no control as to the proportion of commercial to residential for the purposes of Clause No. 17.

 

However, the additional maximum FSR allowed by Clause 40(2) being 0.5:1 must only be allocated for residential purposes.

 

The proposed total GFA = 432.2 m˛ which does not comply with the maximum GFA allowed for the subject site being 407.85 m˛. A variation of 24.35 m˛ (8.96%) is sought for the total GFA.

 

Maximum additional GFA allowed for the commercial component under Clause No 17 is as follows:

= 271.9 – 193.56

= 78.34 m˛

 

The GFA proposed for the commercial component is 125.43 m˛ resulting in a variation of approximately 47.09 m˛ or (17.32%) allocated for commercial and not for residential purposes which is contrary to the provisions of Clause 40(2).  

 

It is considered that the proposal does not comply with the provisions of the Ashfield LEP 1985 as indicated above and an objection in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 has not been submitted which demonstrates why the proposal’s non-compliance with the FSR requirement is acceptable in this instance. The applicant’s view is that the proposal essentially complies with FSR requirements.

 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

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

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

 

The proposed development does not comply with the FSR controls of Clause No. 17 and of Clause No. 40(2) of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 and an objection in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 has not been submitted to justify the above non-compliance as the applicant believes the proposal is compliant. Further comments are provided under section No. 7.1.1 of this report.


 

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

 

Two Basix certificates 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.

 

Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone as listed under Clause No 1 of the development control table under zone B2 and is permissible under Clause No. 3 of the same table under the same zone.

 

Clause 1.2(2)(f) provides that the aims of this Plan is to “protect the urban character of the Haberfield, Croydon and Summer Hill urban village centres whilst providing opportunities for small scale, infill development that enhances the amenity and vitality of the centres”.

 

The proposed development will result in an adverse impact on the amenity of the occupants of the existing first floor residence - further details are provided in section 7.8 of this report.

 

The proposed development is not consistent with the provisions of Clause No. 4.4(1)(c)(i) which aims to protect the use or enjoyment of adjoining properties and the public domain or with the provisions of Clause 4.4(2) which restrict the maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land to the maximum floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor space Ratio Map being 1.5:1 - further comments are provided under section 7.1.1 of this report.

 

The proposed development, in not providing access for people with disabilities, is inconsistent with the provisions of Clause No. 6.6(1)(a) of Part 6 of the Draft Ashfield LEP 2012 (Accessibility and universal accessible design) which aims to provide equitable access within all new development, and ensure that substantial alterations to existing development, or an intensification of an existing land use, provides for an improved level of access for all people.

 

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:


 

C14

SUMMER HILL URBAN VILLAGE

The proposed development, having a height of approximately 7.9m  at proposed first floor bedroom 2 and existing first floor bedroom1, fails to comply with the height controls of Clause 2.4 of section 2- Part C14 of Ashfield DCP 2007 (Summer Hill Urban Village) which allows a maximum height of 7m.

 

In employing a roof form that is not sympathetic to the existing roof form, the proposal fails to comply with controls under Clause No. 2.10 and Clause No. 2.9 of Part C14. Clause 2.10(b) allows a variation to the existing pattern of roof forms only where the parapet line is not disrupted and where the new roof is not visible from the street below or adjacent public areas. However, given the eastern setback of the adjoining property located at 52-54 Lackey Street the new roof will be visible from Smith Street.

 

The first floor bay window does not match or sympathetically relate to the design characteristics of the existing first floor bay window of the existing building, which is contrary to Clause 2.15 and Clause 2.16 of Part C14.

C11

PARKING

Part C11 requires no additional car-parking spaces to be provided on site for development that involves no change to existing gross floor area or a change of use to the existing gross floor area. The proposed development involves the construction of a new mixed use development attached and linked to the existing building site and hence would need to satisfy car parking requirements for the additional floor space.

 

As no car-parking spaces are proposed to be provided on site, the proposal does not comply with the car-parking 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

 

It is considered that the proposed development does not comply with the parts as indicated above or achieve the aims or objectives of the Ashfield DCP 2007.


 

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. Council’s building surveyor is not satisfied that the submitted plans provide adequate information as to the proposed fire separation between the two different classifications of building. This matter could be addressed through the construction certificate phase, however, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

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 impact on the built environment.

 

Access, transport and traffic

 

The proposed development, in providing two additional commercial components and an additional residential unit with no car-parking on site, will increase the burden on the locality in relation to the demand for on street car parking exacerbating existing car parking problems.

 

Site design and internal design

 

1.   The first floor outdoor patio area for the new residence is adjacent to a bedroom window of the existing residence thereby creating unacceptable amenity impacts on that residence;

 

2.   The existing window for the first floor bedroom indicated above has been replaced by what appears to be fixed glazing area/glass blocks resulting in no natural ventilation to that room;

 

3.   The proposed glazing area for the existing first floor bedroom 2 can be easily blocked by a planter box or other element preventing natural light to that room which is not a sustainable living environment for the occupant of the residence;

 

4.   The existing stove hood installed on the western wall of the existing ground floor kitchen, which has been shown on the ground floor plan but not on the first floor plan where the outdoor patio is proposed, will result in further reduction to the width of that outdoor patio providing poor separation between different uses within the building.

 

7.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application. The proposed development is not considered suitable in the context of the locality for reasons outlined 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 June 2012 until 11 July 2012.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

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

 

Submissions

 

Kit & Edmond Chung

95 Smith Street, Summer Hill

Ashfield & District Historical Society Inc

Thirning Villa, Pratten Park

Arthur Street, Ashfield

 

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

 

Issues raised

 

1.   Loss of Access to and from the rear of the objector’s property, reference to the Deposited Plan No. 437936 has been provided.

2.   Building over Sydney water sewerage line.

3.   The construction of an additional terrace will destroy the paired rhythm of 93 with 99 and 95 with 97 Smith Street, will not match the condition of the external materials/finish of this existing terrace at first floor level and will not have its 80 year plus patina.

4.   The proposed development diminishes the heritage value of the terrace and is not a desirable addition to the Summer Hill urban village construction area.

 

Officer’s comments

 

Refer to previous comments in section 1.1 of the report which confirm that the rights of way have been extinguished.

 

Buildings can be constructed over sewer/water pipes with Sydney Water consent. However, in this instance, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

The proposed development has been reviewed by Council’s heritage adviser and no ‘heritage’ issues have been raised in relation to the proposed development. However, the proposed development is recommended for refusal in this instance for the reasons included in the report.


 

7.8    The public interest

 

The proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest for the reasons outlined in this report.

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Heritage Adviser

 

The application was reviewed by Council’s heritage adviser and no issues have been raised in relation to the proposed development. Heritage comments are included in Attachment 3.

 

Building

 

The application was referred to Council's building surveyor and issues have been raised relating to the technical aspects of compliance with the BCA. These issues could be dealt with in the construction certificate stage.

 

Engineering

 

The application was referred to Council's engineering department for consideration. Concerns have been raised in respect of the non-compliance with the car-parking requirements of Part C11 of Ashfield DCP 2007 and Council’s stormwater management policy.

 

9.0    Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

A Construction Certificate would be required to be applied for should the application be approved.

 

Financial Implications

 

The proposed development will attract contribution levies under S94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 should it 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

2 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Heritage Advice

2 Pages

 

Attachment 4View

Title Search

4 Pages

 

Attachment 5View

Cancellation of Easement records

3 Pages

 

Attachment 6View

Previous letters from Council

6 Pages

 

Attachment 7

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. 10.2012.117 for alterations to the existing mixed use development and the construction of an attached and linked two storey mixed use development comprising two additional commercial units on ground floor and one additional residential unit on first floor on Lot A in DP: 437936, known as 99 Smith Street, Summer Hill, for the following reasons:

 

 

 

 

Reasons for Refusal

 

1.   The proposed development fails to comply with Council’s Floor Space Ratio (FSR) controls of Clause 17 and of Clause 40(2) of Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

2.   No objection under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 has been provided justifying the non compliance with the FSR controls of clause No. 17 and Clause No. 40(2) of Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

3.   The proposed development fails to demonstrate compliance with the Access and Mobility and Universal Accessible Design requirements and Part C1 of Ashfield DCP 2007.  

 

4.   The proposed development fails to comply with Council’s Stormwater Management Code.

 

5.   The proposed development does not comply with the car parking requirements of Part C11 of Council’s DCP 2007.

 

6.   The proposed development, having a height of approximately 7.9m at the proposed first floor bedroom 2 and existing first floor bedroom 1, fails to comply with the height controls of Clause 2.4 of section 2- Part C14 of Ashfield DCP 2007 (Summer Hill Urban Village) which allows a maximum height of 7m.

 

7.   In employing a roof form that is not sympathetic to the existing roof form, the proposed development fails to comply with Clause No. 2.10 and Clause No. 2.9 of section 2 - Part C14 of Ashfield DCP 2007.

 

8.   The proposed first floor bay window does not match or sympathetically relate to the design characteristics of the first floor bay window of the existing building located on site which is contrary to the controls of Clause 2.15 and Clause 2.16 of section 2- Part C14 of Ashfield DCP 2007.

 

9.   The proposed first floor outdoor patio, given its proportion and depth into the building, does not provide adequate outdoor area for the proposed first floor residence which is not a sustainable living environment for the occupant;

 

10. The location of the proposed first floor outdoor patio will adversely impact upon the amenity of the occupants of the existing first floor residence;

 

11. The proposed development provides inadequate separation between the existing and proposed first floor residential units.

 

12. The proposed development is not in the public interest.

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 



Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Heritage Advice

 



Attachment 4

 

Title Search

 

 




Attachment 5

 

Cancellation of Easement records

 

temp


 

temp


 

temp


 

temp

 


Attachment 6

 

Previous letters from Council

 







Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 24 July 2012        CM10.4

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 requires Council determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 

 

 


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 additions to dwelling including first floor addition

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

1.1    Background

 

The original application being 10.2012.59.1 was discussed by Council in its last meeting held on 10/07/2012 and the following was resolved:

 

That 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 be deferred for a period of 2 weeks to allow for the following issue to be explored:

 

a) Council officers to examine the shadow diagrams over 9 Wetherill Street, Croydon

 

Additional details, in respect of shadows cast by the proposed development, have been submitted to Council using 3D MAX software which is used to generate 3D models of buildings for the production of shadows.

 

A survey plan has also been submitted by a qualified surveyor which identifies relative levels (RLs) which have been used in the 3D modeling software to generate the shadow impacts.

 

The shadows cast by the proposed development as shown by 3D model diagrams (Attachment 3) confirms that the proposed development will not result in an unacceptable overshadowing impact to the adjoining property located at 9 Wetherill Street and that the north facing windows of that adjoining property will receive sunlight to 100% of the window areas for at least three hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June with the exception of the rearmost north facing window which will receive at least three hours of sunlight to at least 40% of its area between 9am and 3pm on the same day. This is consistent with Council’s DCP requirements.


 

Further, the shadows cast by the proposed development as shown by 3D model diagrams confirm that the rear yard of the same adjoining property will receive at least 3 hours of solar access to at least 35m˛ of this yard area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. This is also consistent with Council’s DCP requirements.

 

2.0    Conclusion

 

Whilst the impact of the proposed development on solar access to the adjoining property is considered acceptable, the development is recommended for refusal for the reasons detailed in the original report (included in Attachment 4).

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

3 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

3D Model Diagrams

4 Pages

 

Attachment 4View

Original Report

9 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 for 10.2012.59.1 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

 

3D Model Diagrams

 





Attachment 4

 

Original Report

 










Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 24 July 2012        CM10.5

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.106.1
260A LIVERPOOL ROAD ASHFIELD

 

File Ref                            DA 10.2012.106.1

 

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 for the installation of boom gates and parking control equipment in the existing car park of the Ashfield Mall and its change of use to a public (paid) car park (except for level 5). To achieve this it is proposed to install a Parking Management and Control System.

 

The Parking Management and Control System includes the installation of boom gates and islands for the accommodation of ticket machines and other minor changes to infrastructure as follows:

 

§ Pay stations located at each of the shopping centre’s pedestrian entry locations to/from the car park.

§ 13 boom gates, including six ingress and five egress gates, with two internal boom gates to accommodate staff parking. The proposed remodelled access locations will result in an overall reduction of approx. 10 car parking spaces.

The proposed car park management system is intended to operate as follows:

§ Tickets to be issued at the boom gates and validated at the end of each stay at designated pay stations located at the shopping centre pedestrian exit locations.

The proposed car park management system is proposed to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.


2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The proposal involves relatively minor physical work but results in the loss of ten car parking spaces reducing total capacity from 1070 to 1060 spaces. Although this is a slight reduction in car parking provision for the shopping centre, it would significantly reduce current abuse of the car park by non-genuine shoppers making approximately 31% more parking available to genuine shoppers. This is consistent with the intent of Council’s controls.

 

Council’s traffic engineer has reviewed the application and is satisfied that it will not have any adverse impacts upon local traffic flows.

 

The application has also been configured to ensure continued free access to the Council operated car park on level 5, Council staff parking on levels 2 and 5, as well as staff and service vehicle parking on level 2.

 

The car park presently provides a maximum of only two hours of parking which is currently free and would remain so under the proposal. It is proposed, however, to provide the option to remain longer than two hours but at a fee.  The proposal thus provides an option for parking over longer time periods than presently permitted (it should, however, be noted that the proposed fees and their application are not a matter for which development consent is required and could be varied by the applicant at any time without application to Council).

 

The development is recommended for conditional approval.

 

Background

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         Abacus Property Services Pty Ltd

Owner                                    :         Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd

Value of work                       :         $366,815

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: 1 DP: 736779

Date lodged                          :         25/05/2012

Building classification        :         Multiple/5/6/7a

Application Type                  :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         Yes

Section 94 Levy                   :         Yes

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Liverpool Road, bounded by Norton Street to the south and Holden Street to the east and Knox Street to the west.  The site area is approximately 21,890 square metres.  An existing shopping centre and car park is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises residential development to the south and commercial development to the north.  The site is also adjacent Ashfield Council’s Civic Centre which contains the town hall, offices and library. 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

6.1982.110

1982

Retail development

Approved

6.1982.193

1982

Retail development

Approved

6.1983.90

1983

Retail development

Approved

1983.7

1983

Shopping centre & car park

Approved

 

Previous consents are relevant to the current proposal because they establish the conditions under which the existing car park operates.

 

Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

·    The site is zoned 3(a) - General Business / PART 5(a) Special Uses-Civic Purposes under the provisions of Ashfield LEP 1985.

·    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. 55 – Remediation of land

 

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

 

Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Draft ALEP 2012) was placed on public exhibition on 27 June 2012 and is a matter for consideration.

 

Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

Principal Development Data Table

Clause No.

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Compliance

2.2

Zoning

Zone B4 Mixed Use

Car Park

Yes

 

As indicated by the above table, the proposal complies with the provisions of Draft ALEP 2012.

 

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

The proposal will not impact upon present access to the car park or shopping centre.

C3

 

ASHFIELD TOWN CENTRE

 

Refer also to the ASHFIELD TOWN CENTRE STRATEGY that supplements Part C3.

 

The proposal will not impact upon the compliance of the car park with this part.

C11

PARKING

The overall provision of parking spaces to the shopping centre would be reduced by only 1% due to the loss of 10 car parking spaces for the installation of the required equipment.

C12

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

The proposal has been notified in accordance with this part.

 


 

PART C11: PARKING

 

Under the original consent for the shopping centre, the applicant was required to provide parking at the following rates:

·    330 spaces: Council’s public car park to be managed by Council;

·    40 spaces: Council staff parking; and

·    1 space per 35m2 GFA of shopping centre as calculated under the Ashfield Planning Scheme Ordinance.

 

The applicant advises that the GFA of the shopping centre is 29,019m2. This would require the following car parking under the original consent:

·    330 spaces: Council’s public car park to be managed by Council;

·    40 spaces: Council staff parking; and

·    829 spaces: shopping centre.

·    TOTAL: 1,199 spaces

 

Under the current provisions of Ashfield DCP 2007, Part C11, 1 space per 40m2 of GFA is required, resulting in a requirement of 725 spaces for the shopping centre which would result in a total requirement as follows:

·    330 spaces: Council’s public car park to be managed by Council;

·    40 spaces: Council staff parking; and

·    725 spaces: shopping centre.

·    TOTAL: 1,095 spaces

 

The car park currently provides a total of 1070 spaces which is less than the total required above under both methods of calculation. The parking provision is thus deficient by 129 under the terms of the original consent and 25 spaces under ADCP 2007.

 

To enable the installation of the parking control equipment, the application further reduces the number of car parking spaces by 10.

 

The applicant’s traffic report, however, demonstrates that the application of the traffic management system, to eliminate abuse of the parking facilities (by long stay parkers who are not bona fide shoppers), would effectively increase the availability of parking to the users of the shopping centre by approximately 31% (i.e. 332 car parking spaces that are currently regularly used by long stayers would become available to genuine shoppers).

 

It is considered that this outcome is beneficial to the operation of the shopping centre car park and is supported notwithstanding the numerical non-compliance.

 

Nevertheless, to address the further deficit of 10 car parking spaces, Council may apply the provisions of Section 4.3 of its S94 Development Contributions Plan. At current rates, this would result in a levy of $310,956.52. (Note: that if this levy were to be applied, no s94A contribution would be applicable – in this case $3,668.15). Council must consider which avenue is most appropriate under the circumstances and whether or not the s94A contribution is reasonable under the circumstances.


 

Summary:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants, and Councillors from 6 June 2012 until 29 June 2012.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

12 submissions and one petition (Circulated under separate cover) were received during the notification of the development application:

 

Submissions

 

J & T Buxey

29 Hugh Street, Ashfield 2131

K. Reztsov

 

J & T Buxey

29 Hugh Street, Ashfield 2131

K. Francisco

 

K. Yick

70 Norton Street, Ashfield 2131

N. McFarlane

Summer Hill 2130

A. Missiris

P. Lechlein

19 Rose Street, Ashfield 2131

G. Torry

8 Carlisle Street, Ashfield 2131

H. & J. Adamiec

A’Beckett Avenue, Ashfield 2131

L. De Rosa

The Owners

23 A’Beckett Avenue, Ashfield 2131

Petition: 33 signatures

Head Petitioner: J. & W. Vandermeer

15 Joseph Street, Ashfield 2131

 

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

 

Public Submissions

Issue Raised

Assessment Officer Response

24 hour a day operation will create more noise and traffic.

The car park currently operates 24 hours per day.

Level 5 which remains free will be too congested to occupy.

If no free parking is available within suitable time limits, then the use paid parking remains a choice. Council currently applies a 3 hour limit to its public car parking area which is enforced. This currently generates a reasonable level of turnover of spaces.

Parking on nearby streets will become difficult due to diversion of those wishing to avoid parking fees onto surrounding streets.

 

This is outside the scope of this particular application and outside the control of the applicant. It should be noted, however, that on-street car parking in surrounding streets is already well utilised by current residents given that many properties do not have any or adequate on-site car parking. The issue of longer term arrangements to deal with long stay and commuter car parking near major public transport hubs is one which is being investigated through the Traffic & Parking Study of the LGA.

Shopping trolleys will end up on streets due to shoppers parking away from mall.

It should be noted that the application would provide two hours of free parking which is adequate to allow most shoppers to shop and park in the car park. This is identical to the current situation.

No resident parking scheme proposed.

This is outside the scope of this particular application and outside the responsibility of the applicant. Ultimately, it will be Council’s decision whether or not to introduce such schemes in the LGA.

Parking on nearby streets should be limited to residents only.

This is outside the scope of this particular application and outside the responsibility of the applicant. Refer to previous comments.

Increased traffic to Ashfield Mall creating a disturbance for residents.

It is unlikely that the application would result in increased traffic to the Mall and in fact may encourage less traffic.

Increase in noise from operation of boom gates.

It is unlikely that noise from the operation of boom gates would impact on local residents, particularly as use at night time will be reduced.

Devaluation of nearby properties.

This is not a matter for consideration under the Act.

Inadequate parking for shopping centre staff.

Provision of free parking for shopping centre staff is an independent commercial arrangement between the car park management and its tenants. It should be noted that two modes of public transport are located in close proximity to the Mall. In addition, the applicant proposes to retain free staff parking though this arrangement could be altered at any time without consent.

Boom gates will slow traffic and cause congestion.

The application has been reviewed by Council’s traffic engineer and is considered acceptable in this respect.

Charging for parking will discourage car use, and help to reduce traffic.

This is a possible cumulative impact of the proposal.

Charging for parking is unreasonable.

It should be noted that the car park presently provides a maximum of only two hours of parking. This is currently free and will remain so under the proposal. Car owners will, however, now be given the option to remain longer than two hours but this would be at a fee.  The proposal thus provides an option for parking over longer time periods than presently permitted.

Arrangement of boom gates will result in congestion at Holden Street .

The application has been reviewed by Council’s traffic engineer and is considered acceptable in this respect.

3 hour limit may be reduced to 2 hours by operator.

This is a commercial decision of the operator and outside Council’s jurisdiction.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

Matters of the public interest have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the application. In overall terms it is considered that regulating the turnover of car parking spaces in the Ashfield Mall more effectively and efficiently is in the public interest.

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Internal Referrals

Officer

Comments

Building Surveyor

No Comments.

Traffic Engineer

Supported.

Property Officer

No Comments.

 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The proposal is subject to section 94 contributions of $310,956.52 a reduction of 10 car parking spaces for the shopping centre.

 

OR

 

Section 94A Contribution Plan

 

If Council determines not to levy section 94 contributions, the proposal would be subject to section 94A contributions of $3,668.15.

 

10.0  Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

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

 

Financial Implications

 

Refer to comments in section 9.0.

 

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 proposes relatively minor physical work and results in the loss of ten car parking spaces reducing total capacity from 1070 to 1060 spaces. This is considered an extremely minor variation to parking provision for the centre.

 

The application has been configured to ensure continued free access to the Council operated car park on level 5, as well as staff and service vehicle parking on level 2.

 

Furthermore, the application has been reviewed by Council’s traffic engineer who is satisfied that it will not have any adverse impacts upon local traffic flows.

 

It should be noted that the car park presently provides a maximum of only two hours of parking. This is currently free and will remain so under the proposal. The proposal, however, allows car owners the option to remain longer than two hours but at a fee.  The proposal thus provides an option for parking over longer time periods than presently permitted.

 

Despite the above, there would be a net loss of 10 car parking spaces from the parking allocated to the shopping centre. Given that the amount of parking allocated to this use is already less than required under either the original consent or current car parking requirements under ADCP 2007, the proposed reduction in car parking spaces may, if Council considers appropriate, be addressed by the application of a section 94 levy of $310,956.52 (a levy of $31,095.65 per car in accordance with Council’s S94 Development Contributions Plan).

 

Given these considerations, the proposal is considered acceptable and is recommended for conditional approval.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

6 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Conditions

11 Pages

 

Attachment 4View

Statement of Environmental Effects

30 Pages

 

Attachment 5

Submissions - Circulated under separate cover

15 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

A       That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) approve Development Application No. 10.2012.106.1 for the change of use of levels 1 and 2 of the existing car park to a public (paid) car park and the installation of boom gates and parking control equipment on Lot 1 in DP: 736779, known as 260A Liverpool Road, Ashfield, subject to the attached conditions.

 

B       Council determine which developer contribution levy (S94 or S94A) condition, if any, it wishes to include in the attached conditions of consent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPLIANCE TABLE - ASHFIELD LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1985

 

CLAUSE 2

Aims, objectives etc.

This plan aims to:

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

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

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

 

 

CLAUSE 10

Zoning

Complies.  The property is zoned zoned 3(a) - General Business / PART 5(a) Special Uses-Civic Purposes and the proposal is permissible with Council consent.

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.

 

MODEL PROVISIONS

 

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

The proposal will not materially alter the existing facilities except in respect of cost.

13 – Off street loading, facilities, etc.

There is no change to existing loading facilities.

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 







Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Conditions

 












Attachment 4

 

Statement of Environmental Effects

 






 


 























Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 24 July 2012        CM10.6

Subject                            INVESTMENT REPORT JUNE 2012

 

File Ref                            Financial Management/Reports/Investment Report

 

Prepared by                   Myooran Vinayagamoorthy - Chief Financial Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Legislative Requirement

 

 

Objective                         To report the balance of investments as at 30 June 2012

 

 

 

 


Overview of Report
In accordance with the requirements of Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council is provided with a listing of all investments made pursuant to Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 and held as at 30 June 2012.

 

Background

Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that a report be presented to Council each month listing all investments with certification from the Responsible Accounting Officer.

 

Investment Balances

Council’s cash at bank and investments as at 30 June 2012 amounted to $17,533,331.82. It should be noted that the amount currently invested represents all of Council’s external and internal restrictions (i.e. grants, section 94 funds, loans, etc) as well as cash flow requirements.

 

The movement of cash and investments during the month of June 2012 is as follows:

 

Cash at Bank and Investments as at 31May 2012                                             $16,251,538.99

Increase/(Decrease) during the month of Jun 2012                                         $  1,281,792.83

Cash at Bank and Investments as at 30 Jun 2012                                            $17,533,331.82

                                                                                              

Represented By:

Book Value          of Investments                                                                               $16,799,261.15

Cash at Bank                                                                                                      $     734,070.67 

                                                                                                                            $17,533,331.82

 

Receipts for the month of June exceeded payments because Council received the proceeds of $2.1m in loan funding.

 

Return on Investment

The following tables show the return on investment of Council’s funds over a range of periods. Fluctuations in monthly returns occur due to the quarterly receipt of CDO income and the annual adjustment of the fair value of CDO’s.


 

Date

Monthly Return*

Quarterly Return*

Annual Return*

Two Years Return*

Three Years Return*

30/06/2011

11.97%

8.96%

5.76%

5.92%

4.82%

31/07/2011

3.79%

7.55%

6.22%

5.98%

4.76%

31/08/2011

4.25%

6.60%

6.32%

6.06%

4.73%

30/09/2011

6.24%

4.835

6.17%

6.13%

4.72%

31/10/2011

4.20%

4.91%

6.24%

6.19%

4.67%

30/11/2011

4.29%

4.92%

6.25%

6.21%

4.80%

31/12/2011

6.31%

4.90%

6.07%

6.27%

4.76%

31/01/2012

5.02%

5.16%

5.98%

6.29%

4.83%

29/02/2012

5.75%

5.72%

6.20%

6.33%

4.85%

30/04/2012

4.04%

5.21%

5.66%

6.38%

4.78%

30/06/2012

7.18%

5.59%

5.21%

5.50%

5.69%

* Returns are calculated based on the closing monthly balance of cash & investments.

 

The average yield on the short term portfolio for June 2012 was 5.15% whilst the comparative benchmark yield for 90 days bank swap rates was 3.49%.

 

Interest earned for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 is $773,327 compared to the budget amount of $607,588. The favourable variance was mainly due to the higher investment balance as a result of the delay of the Civic Centre redevelopment project. (See Attachment 3)

 

The market value of Aphex Pacific Capital CDO as at 30 June 2012 as per the reports provided by Australia and New Zealand Group Limited is $40,235.

 

Other Staff Comments

Nil

 

Public Consultation

Nil

 

Conclusion

I certify that the investments have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 (as amended), the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and the Council’s Investment Policy adopted 23/8/2011 at the Budget and Operations Review Committee meeting.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Investment Graph June2012

1 Page

 

Attachment 2View

Interest Income Graph June2012

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Investment Portfolio June 2012

2 Pages

 

Attachment 4View

ANZ CDO Report June2012

10 Pages

 

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the investment report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Investment Graph June2012

 


Attachment 2

 

Interest Income Graph June2012

 


Attachment 3

 

Investment Portfolio June 2012

 



Attachment 4

 

ANZ CDO Report June2012

 











Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 24 July 2012        CM10.7

Subject                            ASHFIELD TRAFFIC COMMITTEE-MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 1 JUNE 2012.

 

File Ref                            Traffic and Parking > Traffic Committee

 

Prepared by                   Boris Muha - Engineer Traffic and Projects       

 

 

Reasons                          To Provide the Council with Minutes of the Ashfield Traffic Committee held on 1 June 2012. 

 

Objective                         That Council note and adopt the minutes of the meeting and the recommendation in the minutes.

 

 

 


Overview of Report

To present the Minutes of the Ashfield Traffic Committee Meeting held on 1 June 2012 and detail Committee recommendations requiring determination by Council.

 

 

Report

 

Attached are the minutes of the Ashfield Traffic Committee Meeting held on 1 June 2012.

 

The following Committee recommendation/advice are submitted to Council for determination.         

 

ITEM NO.  001:   Ashfield Council’s Food Festival events 2012

 

COMMITTEE ADVICE:

 

No objection is raised for Council to carry out lane or full road closures in association with various food festivals during October 2012 in Ashfield, Summer Hill and Haberfield, on the provision that Council applies for road occupancy licensing on the closing of the roads through the RMS.  

         

 

ITEM NO.  002:  Central median island in Miller Avenue, Ashfield

 

COMMITTEE ADVICE:

 

The Committee raises no objection, subject to community notification, on the construction of the central median island in Miller Avenue, Ashfield, at the intersection with Norton Street, Ashfield.


 

ITEM NO.  003     Modified speed hump devices in Dalhousie Street, Haberfield – LTC Meeting 4/2011

 

COMMITTEE ADVICE:     

 

No objection is raised for Council, to redesign the modification of the speed humps in Dalhousie Street as per Option 2, to include a minimum laneway width of 3.0m and safe passage for bicyclists.

 

 

ITEM NO. 004:     Request for disabled parking zone at 5 Lion Street, Croydon

 

COMMITTEE ADVICE:

 

That a full-time disabled parking space be allocated at the front of 5 Lion Street, Croydon, subject to:

               

1)   The notification of residents within the affected area prior to the signposting of the disabled parking space.

2)   The matter be reviewed in 12 months to assess the continued need of the Disabled Person’s parking space as required under RMS Guidelines to Traffic Facilities.

3)   The applicant being advised that the Disabled Person’s parking space is not for his exclusive use, and that other motorists having a Disabled Parking Authority are entitles to park in that space.

 

 

ITEM NO.  005:    Revised No Parking restrictions in Holwood Avenue, Ashfield

 

COMMITTEE ADVICE:

 

                           That the “No Parking, 8.10am – 4pm, School Days Only” restrictions on the southern side of Holwood Avenue, Ashfield, be removed to provide for unrestricted and increased parking opportunity in the street, following resident notification.

 

 

ITEM NO.  006:   Request upgrade (speed hump) to crossing in Ramsay Street at Alt Street, Haberfield.

                                  

COMMITTEE ADVICE:

 

                           That Council proceed with implementing kerb extensions in modification to the pedestrian crossing in Ramsay Street at the corner of Alt Street, Haberfield, following resident notification, as per the previous traffic committee advice.

 

 

ITEM NO.   010:    Stage 2 Streetscape improvements for Croydon –intersection of Edwin Street North and Elizabeth Street.

 

COMMITTEE ADVICE:     

 

                           That Council proceed with community consultation regarding the Stage 2 Streetscape improvements for Croydon, at the intersection of Edwin Street North and Elizabeth Street.

 

 

Financial Implications

 

N/A

 

Other Staff Comments

 

N/A

 

Public Consultation

N/A

 

Conclusion

 

The recommendations in this report which have been extracted from the Ashfield’s Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes were discussed by the Committee and those requiring Council’s determination have been listed for Council’s adoption.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Ashfield Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes held on 1 June 2012. 

13 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the minutes of the Ashfield Traffic Committee Meeting held on 1 June 2012, and that Council adopt the recommendations contained in the minutes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tony Giunta

Acting Director Works & Infrastructure Services

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Ashfield Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes held on 1 June 2012.

 














Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 24 July 2012        CM10.8

Subject                            LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION 2012 CONFERENCE SUBMISSIONS.

 

File Ref                            Governance>Conference

 

Prepared by                   Carolyn Walker - Executive Assistant       

 

 

Reasons                          Request from Local Government Association NSW

 

Objective                         To seek Council’s response for conference motions.

 

 


Overview of Report
The Local Government Association of NSW has advised the deadline for the Council to submit motions for the consideration of the Local Government Conference is 15 August 2012. Late motions will not be accepted unless considered both urgent and emergent.

 

 

Background

 

The 2012 Local Government Conference will be held from 28-30 October 2012 in Dubbo Regional Theatre and Convention Centre. The Local Government Association of NSW has advised that the deadline for submissions is 15 August 2012.

 

There is an opportunity for six Ashfield Councillors to attend with three voting delegates to be determined after the Council election on 8 September.

 

Motions will be determined to be either Category 1 or Category 2.

Category 1 - motions must seek to establish a new policy or position or amend existing policy AND it must be of regional, state or national significance.

Category 2 - motions are motions which are already covered by existing policy or subject to ongoing lobbying and/or representation. Category 2 motions will be dealt with by the Executive and not by the Conference.

 

Where councils submit similar motions on related topics, these motions may be grouped and the strategic issue debated at Conference to arrive at a ‘Local Government Industry’ position.

 

 2012 Motions will be considered under one of four subject headings:

1.   Services - (human services, environmental services, library services, cultural programs, recreation programs, health protection and promotion, development approvals, environmental regulatory activity etc)

2.    Infrastructure - (issues relating to transport, roads, bridges, footpaths, open space, water & sewerage facilities, waste facilities & services, recreation facilities, arts facilities, civic buildings etc)

3.    Finance - (revenue raising, government funding, cost shifting, emergency services levy, waste levy, carbon tax, economic development etc)


 

4.   General - (land use planning, development approvals, environmental regulatory activity, workforce planning & development, industrial issues, etc)

 

The list of recommended motions contained in this report were drawn from the motions Council submitted to the National General Assembly 2012.

 

Financial Implications

 

The cost of Councillors attendance at the annual Local Government Association Conference is already provided for in the 2012/13 budget.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council consider adopting the following motions to be submitted to the  2012 Local Government Association Conference prior to the closing date on 15  August 2012.

 

1/11           That the Local Government Association calls on the Federal Government to initiate a transport policy that:

-     Promotes the staged introduction of congestion taxes with concurrent investment in public transport networks to improve mobility near and within the business districts of major population centres;

-     Encourages all States to adopt a national parking policy that if appropriate will constrain parking availability within CBD areas of our major cities in order to reduce traffic congestion;

 

2/11           That the Local Government Association calls on the Federal Government and State Government to establish a sport and recreational facilities, including public aquatic centres infrastructure funding program for local councils.

 

3/11           That the Local Government Association calls on the Federal Government to implement a national strategy towards integrated transport to improve the productivity, liveability and sustainability of major cities.

 

4/11           That the Local Government Association calls upon the Australian Government to develop a policy dealing with development assessment that requires States to:

-             To develop policy guidelines to promote "best practice" development assessment models which provide for an appropriate balance between "tick the box" simple complying development types and merit based assessments for proposals that will have more substantial environmental impacts.

-             Review the type of development applications that are dealt with at State level with the aim of restoring accountability and transparency to the planning assessment process, to maximise public involvement at the grass roots level and to ensure the perception of probity.

-             Provide federal funding to implement a single on-line computerised development application lodgement and tracking and determination system (similar to that adopted in

              the United Kingdom).

-             Prepare model planning legislation which can be adopted by all States so that the regulatory environment is standardised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/11           That the Local Government Association calls upon the Australian Government to develop a sustainable population policy that is supported by:

-             Investment in key physical and social infrastructure needs identified as part of thorough analysis for regions that are likely to experience high population growth;

-             An emphasis on balanced migration program with humanitarian, family reunion and a ethical skilled migration program and an employment policy that promotes "knowledge centres" aimed at increasing Australia's proportion of high technology industries;

-             Increasing use of renewable energy and reviewing the Building Code of Australia to achieve "greener" buildings;

-             Protecting valuable agricultural land; and

-             Long term funding for the establishment of satellite cities and continued regional development to reduce development pressures within existing urban areas.

 

6/11           That the Local Government Association calls upon the Australian Government to develop a policy to promote more sustainable development and local planning incentives that will encourage the construction of "smart" energy efficient buildings including ongoing review of the Building Code of Australia so that it is "cutting edge" in terms of encouraging energy efficient construction and minimising ongoing energy consumption.

 

7/11           That the Local Government Association calls for:

-             The Commonwealth to institute a national program for new migrants, delivered in cooperation with Local Government, on understanding Australian workplace culture, rights and responsibilities.

-             The Commonwealth to institute a national program aimed at assisting Family Stream migrants who wish to optimise their existing skills and re-enter the workforce.

 

8/11           That the Local Government Association calls upon the Australian Government to develop an employment policy that:

-        Promotes flexible zoning policies that will encourage additional business investment in areas such as enterprise zones where a range of different yet environmentally compatible development types are permissible

-        Establishes "knowledge centres" at universities who will work with industry to foster technical innovation

 

9/11           That the Local Government Association calls on the Council of Australian Governments to ensure that Local Government is realistically compensated by State Health Authorities for the provision of Early Childhood Health Services within Council Facilities.

 

 

 

 

10/11         That the Local Government Association calls on the Australian Government to adequately fund local government and other public sector aged care providers to ensure that aged care workers including nurses are paid equally to those working in Public Hospitals.

 

 

11/11         That the Local Government Association calls upon the Australian Government to take meaningful steps to reverse the trend to casualisation of the Australian workforce particularly for youth, and work collaboratively with local government to develop local and regional strategies to address this issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vanessa Chan

General Manager

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 24 July 2012        CM10.9

Subject                            SYDNEY HARBOUR CATCHMENT STORMWATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

 

File Ref                            Sydney Harbour

 

Prepared by                   Janene Harris - Team Leader Sustainability       

 

 

Reasons                          To inform Council on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan

 

Objective                         To seek endorsement for Ashfield Council to join the Sydney Harbour Catchment Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan

 

 

 


Overview of Report


The Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority (SMCMA) is seeking to address the ongoing health of the Sydney Harbour and its catchment. The authority has requested Ashfield Council join a regional partnership to develop the Sydney Harbour Catchment Water Quality Improvement Plan.

 

Council’s involvement in this high profile project will demonstrate our commitment and leadership in improving the ecological health of our waterways and will acknowledge the community’s desire to see improved water quality.

 

This report outlines the benefits to Ashfield Council in participating in this program and recommends that Council agree to the SMCMA’s request and become a partner of the Sydney Harbour Water Quality Improvement Plan.

 

 

Background

 

Council has been approached by the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority (SMCMA) to participate in a regional program to develop a Sydney Harbour Catchment Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP).

 

The objective of this regional program and the Water Quality Improvement Plan is to improve the ecological health of the Sydney Harbour, Parramatta and Lane Cove Rivers by reducing the levels of pollutants entering the waterways.

 

The Sydney Harbour Catchment WQIP will provide a coordinated management framework for the 25 local councils, State and Commonwealth agencies that have a role in improving the health of these waterways. It will provide an opportunity to implement critical aspects of the “Our Harbour” Agreement to which Ashfield Council is a signatory. Councils involved in the WQIP will be able to share information and agree on the criteria for improved water quality in the catchment.

 

The development of the Sydney Harbour Catchment WQIP will require a number of studies and will require partnership support from the local councils and government agencies which manage land within the Sydney Harbour Catchment, including Ashfield Council. The key studies and tasks to develop the WQIP are outlined in the project business case (Attachment 1).

 

There are many reasons for Ashfield Council to become a partner in the WQIP. The final Plan as well as the models, tools and data used to construct the Plan, will assist to actively meet the water objectives contained within our recently adopted Community Strategic Plan Ashfield 2022 Our Place: Our Future, including;

 

-     Actively reducing stormwater pollution and promoting stormwater awareness in the community;

-     Reducing Council’s water consumption through implementing Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD), upgrading facilities and monitoring and reporting on water use; and

-     Encouraging the community to be water-wise.  

 

Participating in this regional program will also assist Council in achieving the Objectives and Goals of our Integrated Water Management Plan, particularly:

 

-     Goal 1: Improving the catchment stormwater quality discharging into the Parramatta  River and the Cooks River;

-     Goal 2: Reducing the amount of wastewater leaving the catchment (stormwater quantity runoff) that may cause pollution in other locations;

-     Goal 4: Reducing the impact of stormwater on waterways, and

-     Goal 5: Ensuring the drainage infrastructure reduces the impacts of local inundation.

 

 

As outlined by the SMCMA in Attachment 1, project outcomes and benefits for Councils and staff include:

 

-     Access to a single hydrologic model for water quality, flooding and climate change  predictions, which extends across the whole of the Sydney Harbour Catchment; 

-     Access to the Pollutant Export Model to provide estimates of total annual pollutant loads of sediments and nutrients;

-     Access to an Ecological Response Model to describe the overall impact on receiving waters and assist Council to influence and improve water quality; 

-     Access to a Water Quality Decision Support System to describe sub-catchment and Council based pollutant loads, climate change and land use change impacts, catchment management impacts and the potential changes to receiving waters;

-     Information to assist grant submissions for water quality improvement works or as part of s94 plans or similar contributory plans;

-     A means to verify actions identified in Stormwater Management Plans;

-     The WQIP will be a valuable reference in planning policies, budget proposals and external funding applications; and

-     Economies of scale offered through coordinated activities - the SMCMA will provide coordination and facilitation services.

 

 

 

 

Governance Matters

 

The SHCWQIP will be managed by the SMCMA with funding and in-kind contributions from local councils and State and Commonwealth government agencies.  The proposed governance structure and each partner’s obligations are set out in a Memorandum of Understanding between the SMCMA and Councils within the catchment of Sydney Harbour (also included in Attachment 1). In summary, Council’s obligations are to:

 

-     Provide financial support (see Financial Considerations);

-     Nominate an officer as point of contact for the project;

-     Appoint a nominated representative to attend the SHCWQIP Partnership Committee meetings;

-     Allocate technical staff and supporting resources to provide project advice and guidance;

-     Provide resources and material which is considered to be relevant to the SHCWQIP; and

-     Nominate council staff to undertake training in the Decision Support System.

 

Potential funding arrangements for the development of the SCHWQIP have been assessed. The preferred option is a mix of funding from the SMCMA, local councils and State and Commonwealth Government agencies. 

 

The SMCMA is contributing $75,000 per year to the SCHWQIP for four years (2010-11 to 2013-14). The proposed funding from councils is based on population size/catchment size and ranges from $7,500 to $15,000 per year for three years. The SMCMA is seeking $7,500 per year for three years from Ashfield Council. The proposed annual contribution from each Council is set out in the project business plan (Attachment 1). In addition to the SMCMA funding, the following funds are already secured toward the SHCWQIP:

 

-     Office of Environment and Heritage $100,000

-     Parramatta City Council $20,000

-     Parramatta River Estuary Management Committee $20,000

-     City of Sydney $15,000

-     City of Ryde $15,000

-     Auburn Council $10,000

-     City of Canada Bay $10,000

-     Holroyd City Council $10,000

-     Blacktown City Council $7,500

-     Burwood Council $7,500

-     Ku-ring-gai Council $7,500;

-     Manly Council $7,500

-     Strathfield Council $7,500

 

It is important to note that the models, tools and data developed through the SCHWQIP project could not be developed cost effectively on an individual Council basis.

 

Financial Implications

 

Ashfield Council would be required to contribute $7,500 per year for 3 years to be a partner in this program.

 

Council has existing funds to cover the first two years of this program through unspent grant funds. The funds for the final year will be allocated in the 2013/14 Environmental Levy Program.

 

Conclusion

The Sydney Harbour Catchment Water Quality Improvement Plan will be of great benefit to Council and for a small financial contribution Council will be able to access a great range of research, expertise and technical data that we could not resource as an individual Council. Participating in this program will assist Council to deliver the goals and objectives of both our Integrated Water Management Plan and our Community Strategic Plan. The Plan and its implementation will also provide an excellent framework to improve the ecological health of the Sydney Harbour, Parramatta River and their surrounding waterways.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Business Case for the Sydney Harbour Catchment Water Quality Improvement Plan

18 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3    That Council agree to join the Sydney Harbour Water Quality Improvement           Project.

2/3    That Council allocates $7,500/year for the next three years to the Sydney           Harbour WQIP and that these funds be derived from the sources outlined           in this report.

3/3    That the General Manager be delegated to sign the Sydney Harbour WQIP           Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of Council.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Business Case for the Sydney Harbour Catchment Water Quality Improvement Plan

 



















Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 24 July 2012      CM10.10

Subject                            URBAN ACTIVATION PROGRAM

 

File Ref                            Urban Activation Program

 

Prepared by                   Ron Sim - Manager Strategic Planning & Projects       

 

 

Reasons                          Advise Council of an important State Government Planning Initiative

 

 

Objective                         Provide an appropriate corporate policy response to a request from the State Government to nominate sites for inclusion in the program prior to 31 July 2012.

 

 

 

 


Overview of Report


Provide background detail and constructive comment on the proposed “Urban Activation Program” together with a suggested response to the State Government asking Council to nominate sites for inclusion in the program.

 

 

Background

On June 13 2012, the Department of Planning & Infrastructure (DOP&I) announced an Urban Activation Precincts Program (UAPP) together with the Draft NSW Urban Activation Precincts Guideline (see Attachment 1).

The program is a State government led rezoning process that replaces the former State significant sites program as the main vehicle to deliver changes to land use for State and regionally significant sites. It is intended to support the adequate supply of land for housing and employment in urban and regional areas that are of strategic importance to the State and/or provide an opportunity for redevelopment to occur at a scale that is important to implementing State planning objectives.

Nominations for potential precincts may come from DOP&I, local councils, State agencies and/or the private sector. The following criteria have been established to ensure that the selection of Urban Activation Precincts represents the best opportunity to deliver on the State’s planning aims:

·    Is the precinct consistent with State, regional and/or local strategies, particularly relating to housing and employment?  or

·    Does the precinct support or maximise the use of existing and planned infrastructure, especially transport?  or

·    Is the precinct important to more than one local government area and/or has support from the local council?  or

·    Is the precinct environmentally, socially and economically sustainable and viable? and

·    Is the development of the precinct financially viable and consistent with market demand?

It is intended by the State Government that the planning process undertaken for Urban Activation Precincts place considerable emphasis on community engagement and collaboration with key stakeholders, particularly local government. Before a recommendation is made to investigate a precinct, the DOP&I will consult with the local council(s) and State agencies via an interagency committee. If a Precinct proceeds to the investigation stage, working groups will be established involving representatives from relevant local councils, the DOP&I and State agencies (in particular Transport for NSW).

 

Meeting regularly throughout the process, the working groups will be responsible for establishing overall objectives and targets for Precincts in terms of housing, employment, land use mix, economic feasibility, accessibility and infrastructure connections, urban design and the public domain.

 

Working groups will be established to investigate and discuss potential Urban Activation Precincts. Representatives from relevant local councils, Department and State agencies (in particular Transport for NSW), where relevant, will be invited to participate. The working groups will be responsible for input into the outcomes brief and planning study requirements for the Urban Activation Precinct. The outcomes brief will establish overall objectives and targets for the precinct in terms of housing, employment, land use mix, economic, accessibility and infrastructure connections, urban design and the public domain.

 

The study requirements will identify the relevant planning studies to be completed and further requirements for stakeholder engagement and public consultation. It is expected working groups will meet regularly during the detailed investigation process. Detailed planning studies and investigations will generally be required to support investigations into the rezoning of Urban Activation Precincts. The preparation of the studies will be led by DOP&I in consultation with the interagency working groups, and publicly exhibited for a minimum of 30 days.

 

In addition, stakeholder information sessions will be held and, if the DOP&I considers it appropriate, community reference groups may also be established. As part of the process of assessment and consideration of a Precinct, the Minister may seek advice from the Planning Assessment Commission including a public hearing or independent assessment of any aspect of the proposal.

 

If the State government decides to proceed with rezoning an Urban Activation Precinct, key outcomes will be:

 

·    Gazettal of a SEPP or LEP that contains the planning framework, zonings and controls for the “activated” Precinct.

 

·    Preparation of a Growth Infrastructure Plan (GIP) identifying the capacity within the existing infrastructure network and outlining the infrastructure required to support the planned growth. The GIPs will be used to coordinate the delivery of State infrastructure, and also to align identified infrastructure needs with forthcoming agency asset management plans and the NSW Government’s budget allocation processes.

 

·    Establishment of a Precinct Support Scheme that will draw on $50 million in funding assistance announced in the 2012-13 budget to provide those councils that partner in Urban Activation Precincts with financial assistance to address local infrastructure needs for the Precinct.

 

A fundamental component of the UAPP is an improved integration of traditional strategic planning with consideration of financial viability of development and market demand. Analysis of market conditions and financial feasibility will be a key consideration in both the selection of Precincts, the determination of planning controls, and decision making around infrastructure delivery. Significantly, planning for Precincts will also seek to establish a code based assessment framework for the relevant area to provide greater certainty, enable more streamlined assessment of development within the precinct, and remove unnecessary delays in project approvals.

Department of Planning and Infrastructure - Letter requesting nomination of potential Precincts

Concurrently with the Department’s advice concerning the above initiative the following (self-explanatory) letter was received from the Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure on 26 June 2012:

 

 

 

 

Letter follows

Officer Comment

Depending on one’s point of view, the UAPP initiative has both positive and negative aspects.

A.  “Positives”:

On the “plus” side the process theoretically has the potential to “kick start” the urban renewal process in areas of poor environmental quality that need regeneration. The program will mean that comprehensive strategic land use plans will be prepared for these areas much earlier than otherwise would have been the case. In theory these plans will also be more inclusive, probably covering a substantial geographical area and therefore arguably leading to better planning outcomes than otherwise would occur with a traditional small block fragmented approach. Assessing infrastructure needs as part of the planning process and identifying infrastructure requirements with forthcoming agency asset management plans and the NSW Government’s budget allocation processes as part of an integrated planning approach is also commendable.

 

B “Negatives”:

DOP&I says local Councils will be intimately involved in the process - but what if there are disagreements down the track between Council and the Department? It is not too difficult to imagine a scenario where finally proposed planning outcomes are in dispute. For example - DOP&I may prefer higher densities and building heights than a Council might have anticipated or considers acceptable in order to encourage property amalgamations and therefore development to proceed more quickly. The State Government will always have the final say on both the process and outcomes - not Council.

Another concern is the proposal to use a “code based assessment system” to approve development within the precinct quickly - Is a “tick the box system” really the best way to assess the built form/urban design qualities (or lack thereof ) of a substantial proposal such as a large residential apartment building rather than opting for  a more thorough merit based approach which looks carefully at  design of a proposal within both a local and wider environmental context as opposed to a code based compliance methodology.  A codes based assessment system applications (an undefined process) to assess/approve will also mean local community opinion may be restricted in a manner similar to current complying development processes. Another concern is the amount of funding specifically allocated for infrastructure - $50m is inadequate – more resources will be required and developers will need to contribute their share as part of a transparent process. The document is silent on how the intricacies of funding and responsibilities will be addressed. 

Should Ashfield nominate an “Urban Activation Precinct”?

Within an Ashfield LGA context, the only area that could conceivably qualify for inclusion within an Urban Activation Precinct would be Parramatta Road. The “Road Credentials” are obvious - a poor environment and a need for quality development to assist the area jettison its ‘car yard’ status and meet the Council’s aim of reinvigorating the road as an employment hub of the inner west. There are also some larger land holdings along Parramatta Road that make development more feasible in the short to medium term.

Nominating Parramatta Road may arguably make it less likely that the current push by developer lobby groups to transfer planning controls for the Road between Parramatta and the City to an external approvals body would eventuate for the Ashfield sector of the highway.

However, on the other hand, reasons for not nominating the Road are equally compelling. Council has been pro-active in identifying this area as an enterprise zone in the currently exhibited Draft LEP for Ashfield and has also recently been successful in obtaining funding to prepare a new Development Control Plan Part which will provide Council, the community and developers with upfront information concerning development rules for the area.

The Plan is being carefully prepared and will balance development potential with the need to protect the amenity and heritage conservation attributes of residential properties in the vicinity of the highway. The document is intended to ensure applications meet required standards and expedite the approval process. The other important issue to note is that Council has mandated that no new residential development take place along the Parramatta Road.

The only other area that might qualify for inclusion in the program is the Ashfield Town Centre. However, this area already has adequate controls in place together with new more flexible mixed use zoning provisions to encourage development.  Residential areas of Ashfield outside proposed or existing heritage listed properties are already relatively densely developed and/or have modest development potential and are therefore unsuitable for “urban activation status” (refer to Maps at Attachment 2).

 

Financial Implications  

 

Not applicable if projects are not nominated.

 

Public Consultation  

 

Being carried out by State Government.

 

Conclusion

 

The UAPP replaces the “State Significant Sites” program and the associated (discredited) Part 3A process and is similar in some respects from a governance perspective. One of the most significant changes is that the process is not site specific. Precincts may be nominated by a Council or the Department (although it is possible private landowners may attempt to nominate precincts to the Department or to a Council to achieve their own site specific agendas).

The process (commendably), also differs from the Part 3A process in that an important requirement is to ensure communities have more say upfront in the formulation of planning controls for that precinct by including community representatives in Working Groups that will determine an outcome brief – see Attachment 1. Integrated planning processes affecting a larger precinct rather than a specific site will mean that precinct plans will theoretically achieve better overall planning outcomes because a more holistic approach will ensure a wider range of planning issues is considered.

However, the reality is that the potential for application of the Urban Activation Precincts Program (UAPP) to Ashfield LGA is limited. Additionally, and without wishing to denigrate what is a commendable initiative that may rejuvenate areas of poor environmental quality (so called “Brownfield” sites in Metropolitan Sydney), there remain some reservations about the process itself. For example, how much influence will Councils and Working Groups have on final planning outcomes, and will sufficient funding actually be made available for infrastructure?

Additionally, will a “tick the box” code based assessment system engineered to quickly process development applications be capable of guaranteeing high quality urban design outcomes? In other words, will the Urban Activation Precincts Program and related development assessment methodology meet community aspirations and deliver buildings and places where people really want to live. Perhaps a more design focused strategic planning approach to “raise the bar” with the emphasis on good urban design and merit assessment of applications is needed to achieve this.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Draft NSW Urban Activation Precincts Guideline

12 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Maps 1 & 2 showing dwelling density and heritage conservation

2 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.      That Council receive and note this report and a copy be forwarded to The Department of Planning and Infrastructure as Council’s policy response to the proposed Urban Activation Precincts Program.

2.      The Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (or nominee) be advised that in Ashfield Council’s opinion there are no suitable areas in the Ashfield LGA that would meet the requirements for inclusion in the Urban Activation Program for the reasons detailed in this report.

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Draft NSW Urban Activation Precincts Guideline

 













Attachment 2

 

Maps 1 & 2 showing dwelling density and heritage conservation

 



Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 24 July 2012      CM10.11

Subject                            COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY 2012

 

File Ref                            Community Survey

 

Prepared by                   Vanessa Chan - General Manager       

 

 

Reasons                          To report the 2012 findings of Council’s Community Satisfaction Survey

 

Objective                         To inform Council of areas of strength and opportunities for improvement in the delivery of services to the community

 

 


Overview of Report

The 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey has been completed. The survey is conducted by external consultants and was run in 2007 and 2008 enabling Council to measure improvement and/or decline in the satisfaction of residents with a broad range of Council activities and services.  Performance at 2012 has improved markedly from previous years across almost all areas of Council service delivery.

 

Background

 

The 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey has been completed. The survey sought opinions on a range of topics to assist Council to understand community views about (a) the levels of importance of services offered by Council and (b) the degree of satisfaction with how those services are being delivered. The same study was conducted by Council in 2007 and 2008, and the findings in the attached report are matched against those earlier results.

 

Telephone interviewing was used to gather feedback from a random sample of 200 residents drawn from across the LGA. A further 51 web-based survey were collected from Council’s website. This sample size and method delivers a statistical confidence rating in excess of 95%, a very high rate. On completion of the survey the sample group was broadly tested for representativeness against age ranges from 18-39 years to 56+ years; ward constituency; cultural and linguistic background; household type; and gender to ensure no particular part of the community was underrepresented. The sample group achieved broad representation, however, with 30% of respondents born overseas compared to approx 40% of Ashfield residents there is room for further study and perhaps method improvements with this group over coming years. Having said this, the consultants have assessed the level of representation as, still, statistically strong.

 

Key areas of inquiry in the survey are:

 

·    Customer Service

·    Communications

·    Recreation and Leisure

·    The Environment

·    Waste and Recycling


 

·    Community Services

·    Public amenity

·    Overall performance

 

 

The consultant’s executive summary notes:

 

 “What can clearly be stated is that major strides forward have been made and the level of

satisfaction with Council's performance has risen across just about all areas of

investigation. Council is better regarded now as competent managers of services to the

community than at any time in the past 5 years.”

 

This finding is supported by the community score of ”overall performance of Council as a professional organisation” at 6.95 against a 2008 target of 7 with improved performance evident in all 4 wards.

 

The results will be further analysed by Council officers to determine opportunities for service and program improvements. They will be considered in conjunction with more detailed user satisfaction surveys recently completed including the library user survey; parks user survey and the development assessment survey, which is currently underway. 

 

 

Financial Implications

NIL

 

Other Staff Comments

NIL

 

Public Consultation

NIL

 

Conclusion

 

The results of the survey have been communicated to the full staff at Council and initial work has commenced in examining opportunities for service and program improvement.

 

I commend the efforts of our staff in improving, so significantly, the quality and timeliness of our services to the community and look forward to our continued improvement.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

2012 Community Satisfaction Survey Results

69 Pages

 

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the results of the 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey be noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vanessa Chan

General Manager

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

2012 Community Satisfaction Survey Results

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 24 July 2012      CM10.12

Subject                            CODE OF CONDUCT REVIEW - REPORT FROM REVIEWER

 

File Ref                            Code of Conduct 2012

 

Prepared by                   Vanessa Chan - General Manager       

 

 

Reasons                          To report the findings of an investigation into an alleged breach of the Ashfield Code of Conduct.

 

Objective                         To provide Council with the information needed to make a determination in relation to this matter.

 

 

 


Overview of Report

 

The attached report outlines the findings of a conduct review into allegations of a breach of the Ashfield Code of Conduct by the Mayor, Councillor Lyall Kennedy with respect to alleged conduct at a public meeting to discuss Haberfield McDonald’s trial monitoring held 29 February 2012.

 

Background

 

On 20 April I received a letter of complaint alleging that the Mayor, Councillor Kennedy, had breached the Ashfield Code of Conduct at a public meeting to discuss Haberfield McDonald’s trial monitoring held 29 February 2012. The complainant alleged that he said to the meeting that he would do ‘everything possible’ during the trial period to ensure that McDonalds did not continue to trade 24 hours 7 days per week. It is alleged that in saying this he breached:

 

·    Council Charter, Section 8 of Local Government Act 1993, specifically:

 

“A Council has the following charter ...

o to ensure that, in the exercise of its regulatory functions, it acts consistently and without bias, particularly where an activity of the council is affected”

 

·    Council’s Code of Conduct, Part 2 Sections 6.5 and 6.9

 

“Fairness and equity - 6.5 You must consider issues consistently, promptly and fairly. You must deal with matters in accordance with established procedures, in a non-discriminatory manner.”

“Development decisions - 6.9 In determining development applications, you must ensure that no action, statement or communication between yourself and applicants or objectors conveys any suggestion of willingness to provide improper concessions or preferential treatment.”


 

In accordance with the Code of Conduct I undertook a preliminary assessment of the complaint and determined to refer it to a Conduct Reviewer, Ms Kathy Thane, from the SSROC panel.

 

Ms Thane has completed her report and has been advised that it will be published as part of the business paper for this meeting.

 

This report is attached.

 

 

Financial Implications

 

The cost of this review are covered in Council’s legal budget.

 

Other Staff Comments

N/A

 

 

Public Consultation

N/A

 

Conclusion

 

Council, on consideration of this report, will need to determine if a breach has occurred and, where appropriate, impose sanctions.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Code of Conduct Reviewer's Report - June 2012

0 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be noted and the recommendation of the Conduct Reviewer be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Code of Conduct Reviewer's Report - June 2012

 





















Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 24 July 2012      CM10.13

Subject                            LANDFILL TENDER FOR WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES

 

File Ref                            Landfill Tender

 

Prepared by                   Michael Harrington - Manager Waste & Recycling Contracts       

 

 

Reasons                          To advise Council of the results of the tender process in accordance with Council’s Purchasing and Tendering Guidelines and Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993 for a Landfill Contract for Waste Disposal Services.

 

Objective                         That the selected Tenderer be approved by Council.

 

 


Overview of Report

This report outlines the tender process undertaken, by the Southern Sydney Region Of Councils (SSROC) on behalf of its member Councils, in relation to securing a waste disposal landfill contract.  A report on the results of assessment of the tender responses by the Tender Review Panel can be found in CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 1.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council move into closed session to deal with this matter as information contained in CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 1 of the Report is classified as confidential under the provisions of Section 10A (2) (c) and (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 for the following reasons:

a)      the information within this report, if disclosed, could confer a commercial advantage on persons with whom the Council proposes to or may conduct business; and

b)      it is not in the public interest to reveal all details of these tender submissions or the assessment process.  Companies have provided sensitive information about their operations in the confidence that their details will not be made public by Council.  The practice of publication of sensitive information provided by companies could result in the withholding of such information by companies and reduction in the provision of information relevant to Council’s decision.

 

And in accordance with Sections 10A (4) of the Local government Act 1993, that the Chairperson allow members of the public to make representations as to whether this part of the meeting should be closed.


 

OR WHERE THE MEETING IS NOT CLOSED:

 

1A.       the Council resolve that CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 1 to the report be treated as confidential in accordance with Section 11(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, as it relates to a matter specified in Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 and as such is to be treated as confidential;

2.   the Report be received and noted; and

3.   Council adopt the recommendation contained in the CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 1

 

Background

 

SSROC being an association of sixteen (16) local Councils, as the forum through which our regional Councils work, have come together to achieve solutions to the waste management challenges facing the Southern Sydney region.

 

The participating Councils in this tender were Ashfield; Burwood; Kogarah; Leichhardt; Marrickville; Rockdale; Waverley and Woollahra.

 

The SSROC Regional Waste Disposal Tender was advertised on 14th June 2011 and closed on 25th July 2011.  This contract is for the disposal of Class 1 (or putrescibles) waste product for the next three (3) years with a further two (2) year option.

 

Tender submissions were received from the following companies:-

          Veolia Environmental Services

          SITA

 

Discussion

 

A Tender Review Panel was established, under the auspices of SSROC, which comprised:-

 

          Tony Reed – Co-Chair (General Manager, Waverley Council)

          Peter Head – Co-Chair (General Manager, Leichhardt Council)

          Representatives of the participating Councils:-

                   Michael Harrington – Senior Infrastructure Project Officer, Ashfield Council

                   Harry Gavrilis – Manager, Environment and Health, Burwood Council

                   Fiona Stock – Manager, Sustainability & Waste Services, Kogarah Council

                   Allan Willding – Manager, Works & Waste, Leichhardt Council

                   Jan Orton – Environmental Services Manager, Marrickville Council

                   John Arvanitidis – Waste & Education Contracts Supervisor, Rockdale Council

                   Mark Ramsay – Manager, Depot & Waste Services, Woollahra Council

                   Mark Wood, Director Public Works & Services, Waverley Council

          Emily Scott, Waverley Council, Environmental Advocate

          Helen Sloan, SSROC Program Manager, and supported by:-

                   Bert van den Broek – Hyder Consulting, Strategic Advisors to SSROC

                   Don Murphy – Probity Advisor

                   David Howes – SSROC Contracts and Procurement Manager


 

Tender Assessment Criteria

The following criteria were used in evaluating the Tender:-

 

(a) Mandatory Criteria

i)               Conformity and compliance with Tender submission requirements and demonstrated ability to meet the requirements specified.

ii)              Financial capacity and insurances.

iii)             Occupational Health and Safety requirements.

iv)             Quality management system.

v)              Environmental management system.

 

(b) Qualitative Criteria

i)          Overall technical experience

ii)         Past experience and performance

iii)        Quality of references

iv)        Capability and capacity to provide the services within the region, taking into account current and future workload.

v)         Proposed methodology.

vi)        Response times.

vii)       Appropriate consideration of sustainability issues.

viii)      Value for money; schedule of rates.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

Janene Harris - Sustainability Team Leader

 

As discussed in this report Council's current waste disposal contract is about to expire.  Therefore it is necessary for Council to enter into a new contact for the disposal of our residual residential waste (red lid bins).  Entering into a medium term disposal contract allows Council the flexibility to be able to respond to new and emerging technologies as they come about.  Participating in joint tender processes such as this one, presents Council with a great way to share resources whilst meeting the needs of our community and achieving good outcomes.

 

Financial Implications

 

The adoption of the tender proposal will not have a material effect on Council’s budget.

 

Public Consultation

 

None required

 

Conclusion

 

That Ashfield Council agree to enter into contract with the provider recommended by the SSROC TEP due to the fact that the pricing offered provides the best available value for service to benefit the residents of the Ashfield LGA.

 


 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

SSROC Landfill Tender -  - CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT - Confidential - It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:
(i)   prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or
(ii)  confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or
(iii) reveal a trade secret.

8 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.   That the SSROC Evaluation of Findings report attached to Council’s file be treated as confidential in accordance with section 11(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, as it relates to a matter specified in section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

2.   That in relation to the joint SSROC tender for waste disposal services, Ashfield Council accepts the tenderer recommended by the SSROC TEP subject to CPI and any carbon price adjustments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tony Giunta

Acting Director Works & Infrastructure Services

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 24 July 2012      CM10.14

Subject                            TENDER FOR THE PROVISION OF LAWN MOWING & ASSOCIATED SERVICES

 

File Ref                            15/11

 

Prepared by                   Peter Kapocius - Coordinator Parks and Trees       

 

 

 Reasons                              To advise Council of the results of the tender process in accordance with Council’s Purchasing and Tendering Guidelines and Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993 for a Lawn Mowing & Associated Services Contract and recommend a contractor to undertake the contracted work.

 

Objective                    That the selected Tenderer be approved by Council.

 

 


Overview of Report

 

This report presents the basis for recommendation of the selected Tenderer.

 

 

Background

 

Council sought submissions for the provision of mowing and associated services throughout the Ashfield Local Government Area (LGA).  The tender was offered on the basis that Council would grant the successful Tenderer(s) a contract for a period of three (3) years with possible extensions.

 

It was necessary for Council to go to tender for these services for the following reasons:-

 

·    Council’s previous formal arrangement has lapsed and operationally Council is working on the basis of extensions to that agreement with the incumbent service providers.

·    The operational cost to Council of providing and maintaining the existing service(s) is significant.  It is necessary to use the marketplace to minimise cost to rate-payers through the provision of quality mowing; whipper snippering; edging; and associated services.

·    Value of the tender over its life and the limited number of operators in this specialist industry.

 

There are about 58 parks and 666 verges which have been maintained, under the lapsed agreement, in the Ashfield LGA.  The parks have been defined in 3 specific areas, they being North (11 parks); Central (23 parks); and South (24 parks).  Verges have been defined in 3 specific areas and within them 16 Zones; they being Zones South = Zones 1-7; Zones Central = Zones 8-12; and Zones North = Zones 13-16.

 

The mowing of these areas is under a monthly agreement.


 

Those contractors currently providing the requisite services are;

·    Zones North – Starline Pty Ltd

·    Zones Central - Urban Maintenance Services (UMS) Pty Ltd

·    Zones South – Horticultural Services Australia (HAS) Pty Ltd

 

The Tendering Process

 

Selection of a suitably qualified contractor was effected through an Open Tendering process in accord with Council’s Purchasing & Tendering Guidelines.

 

The following tasks were undertaken as part of the tendering process:

 

·    The technical specification and tender contract documentation were reviewed and updated.

·    Verge Mowing Tender Number 15/11 was offered on 12th March 2012.

·    Nine companies responded to the Tender by acquiring copies and they were:-

o Snippers Lawn Mowing

o Starline Contractors

o Marsupial Landscape Management Pty Ltd

o Citywide

o ISS Facility Services Pty Ltd

o GJS Landscapes

o Horticultural Services Australia – HSA Landscapes

o Trim and Proper Property Services – Spectrum Community Focus Ltd

o Creating Links Cooperative Ltd

·    The tender period closed at 2.00pm Sydney time on Tuesday, 3rd April 2012.

·    At 2.05pm on Tuesday, 3rd April 2012 the Tender Box was opened by Council’s Strategic Procurement Officer; Council’s Records Officer and A/ Tree Overseer.

·    A Tender Review Panel (TRP) was appointed and consisted of:-

o Peter Kapocius, A/ Manager Operations, Works and Infrastructure Services

o Harry Diversi, A/ Tree Overseer

o Paul Kammerer, Parks & Gardens Overseer

·    Of the nine companies who acquired copies of the Tender Document all nine responded.

 

Tender Assessment Criteria

 

The assessment criteria as stated in Clause 10 of Council’s tender are as follows:-

 

Tenders will be examined and evaluated according to the following criteria:

 

(i)    Presentation of the Tender/Quotation, particularly the ease of understanding;

(ii)   Competitive pricing and basis for charging;

(iii)  Conformity with the request for Tender;

(iv)  Relevant experience and local government performance record;


 

(v)   Demonstrated capacity and technical ability to provide the services under the Contract;

(vi)  Demonstrated managerial capability, qualifications, experience and number of personnel;

(vii) Demonstrated capacity to fulfill the Environmental and Work Health & Safety & reporting requirements of the Service;

(viii)     Service performance standards offered;

(ix)  Level of quality assurance (including quality policy and accreditation); and

(x)   Reporting.

 

 “The above criteria are not in order of priority and were not given equal weight in evaluation.”

 

Each tender offer was also weighted scored in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria.  A financial risk and a reference check of the recommended tenderers was also conducted.  Based on this detailed analysis and discussion of the submitted tenders two options are proposed by the TRP.

 

Financial Implications

 

The request for tender is consistent with the existing financial arrangements of the approved 2012/2013 budget.  A number of the tender offers substantially exceeded the existing budget allocated for the lawn mowing of the minor parks and verges.

 

Use of two (2) contractors appointed under a medium term contract of three (3) years, with the option for two (2) additional one (1) year extensions under the contract for defined sections of the LGA will ensure cost effective customer service delivery and compliance with Councils Plans of Management.

 

Respondents have submitted their responses as strictly “Commercial in Confidence” and requested that commercially sensitive aspects of their respective offers be discussed by Council officers, Councillors and others in closed sessions only and not to be made public.  The respondents consider disclosure to the public, and therefore to their competitors, of information that is commercially sensitive damaging to their business.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

N.A.

 

Public Consultation

 

N.A.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The procurement process has complied with the relevant legislative requirements for tendering and with Council’s Purchasing and Tendering Guidelines.


 

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, Section 10A subsection’s (c) and (d), it is advised that all attachments herewith be considered in closed committee because they may confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is proposing to conduct business and reveal commercial in-confidence information.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Closed Meeting Report -  - CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT - Confidential - It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:
(i)   prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or
(ii)  confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or
(iii) reveal a trade secret.

10 Pages

 

Attachment 2

Tender Assessment Summary -  - CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT - Confidential - It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:
(i)   prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or
(ii)  confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or
(iii) reveal a trade secret.

4 Pages

 

Attachment 3

Financial Risk Report for Horticultural Services Australia Pty Ltd -  - CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT - Confidential - It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:
(i)   prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or
(ii)  confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or
(iii) reveal a trade secret.

5 Pages

 

Attachment 4

Financial Risk Report for Starline Contractors Pty Ltd -  - CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT - Confidential - It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:
(i)   prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or
(ii)  confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or
(iii) reveal a trade secret.

4 Pages

 

Attachment 5

Reference Check -  - CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT - Confidential - It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:
(i)   prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or
(ii)  confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or
(iii) reveal a trade secret.

6 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3       That, under Section 178 (1) (a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council support and accept the tender(s) that having regard to all the circumstances which appear to be the most advantageous in terms of the provision of Lawn Mowing and Associated Services within the Ashfield Local Government Area for a term of three (3) years including options for two (2) individual one year extensions subject to satisfactory performance.

 

2/3       That the General Manager have authority to further negotiate and execute the contract, (during the contract term), with the successful contractor(s) as soon as possible.

 

3/3       That Council inform the unsuccessful tenderers of the decision once the contract(s) have been signed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tony Giunta

Acting Director Works & Infrastructure Services