7 August 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 14 AUGUST 2012 at 6:30 PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEE ATTACHED AGENDA


 

Ordinary Meeting - 14 August 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.

(14/08/2012)

 

7.               Confirmation of Minutes of Council/Committees

 

Ordinary Meeting - 24/07/2012

Budget & Operations Review Committee – 17/07/2012

Environmental Committee – 17/07/2012

Strategic Planning & Economic Development Committee – 17/07/2012

Civic Centre Redevelopment Steering Committee – 17/07/2012

Ashfield Youth Committee – 16/07/2012

Pratten Park Advisory Committee – 07/06/2012

 

8.               Mayoral Minutes

 

MM20/2012  CAMPAIGN TO IMPROVE FUNDING FOR PALLIATIVE CARE IN NSW

 

MM21/2012  RESIDENT PARKING SCHEME IN ASHFIELD TOWN CENTRE

 

9.               Notices of Motion

 

NM33/2012  LEWISHAM ESTATE PROPOSAL CONCEPT APPROVAL MP08_0195    78-80 OLD CANTERBURY ROAD LEWISHAM

 

NM34/2012  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND COMMUNITIES INTENDING TO RESTRICT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ARTS UNIT

 

NM35/2012  ASHFIELD SKATE PARK EXPANSION

 

NM36/2012  INDUCTION OF REVEREND ALAN LUKABYO

 

10.            Staff Reports

 

10.1     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.019.1
4 BLACKWOOD AVENUE, ASHFIELD

 

10.2     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.132.1
202 HOLDEN STREET, ASHFIELD

 

10.3     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.134.1
4/95 EDWIN STREET NORTH, CROYDON

 

10.4     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2010.301.3
2A Brown Street, Ashfield

 

10.5     YASMAR - DRAFT PLAN OF MANAGEMENT

 

10.6     COMMUNITY GARDENING POLICY

 

10.7     AMENDMENTS TO COUNCILLOR EXPENSES AND FACILITIES POLICY

 

10.8     SECTION 449 RETURNS - PECUNIARY INTEREST RETURNS FOR PERIOD 1 JULY 2011 - 30 JUNE 2012

 

10.9     SPONSORSHIP PROPOSAL - Westfield Burwood

 

10.10   PROPOSED CHANGES TO COMMITTEE STRUCTURE

 

10.11   ASHFIELD RESPONSE TO THE INDEPENDENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW PANEL CONSULTATION PAPER

 

 

11.            General Business

 

 

 

12.            Closed (Public Excluded) Committee

 

 

13.            Close

 

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012 MM20/2012

Health Services

MAYORAL MINUTE

 

CAMPAIGN TO IMPROVE FUNDING FOR PALLIATIVE CARE IN NSW

       

 

I am in receipt of  an email from  Dr Yvonne McMaster a retired palliative care doctor who is seeking support for the campaign to improve NSW government funding for palliative care services in northern Sydney.

 

The support includes signing a petition by 24 October 2012, asking for the return of the funds and also to improve palliative care throughout NSW.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Email dated 24 July 2012 from  Dr Yvonne McMaster

2 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Petition

1 Page

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council assist the campaign by placing petitions in our libraries and at the Customer Service Counter.

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

COUNCILLOR L KENNEDY

Mayor

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Email dated 24 July 2012 from  Dr Yvonne McMaster

 



Attachment 2

 

Petition

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012 MM21/2012

Town Centre

MAYORAL MINUTE

 

RESIDENT PARKING SCHEME IN ASHFIELD TOWN CENTRE

       

 

 

At the last Council meeting, 24 July 2012, Council considered an application by Ashfield Mall to introduce controlled parking in the shopping centre car park.

A number of residents from surrounding streets attended the meeting and expressed their concerns that if the proposal was approved there would be increased pressure on surrounding streets for long term (commuter) parking.

Both the residents and Councillors expressed frustration at the slow progress of Council’s traffic and parking study. It is encouraging that Council has engaged consultants to progress the study. However, there is a need to move quickly on measures around Ashfield Mall to alleviate the expected negative impacts on the amenity of local resident.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the General Manager, as a matter of urgency, provide a report to Council on the options for managing parking in residential streets around Ashfield Mall

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

COUNCILLOR L KENNEDY

Mayor

 

 

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012 NM33/2012

Development Applications

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

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

 

 

LEWISHAM ESTATE PROPOSAL CONCEPT APPROVAL MP08_0195

78-80 OLD CANTERBURY ROAD LEWISHAM

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM33/2012

 

Councillors will have noted that The Department of Planning and Infrastructure has approved a modified concept proposal for the Lewisham Estate, at 78-90 Old Canterbury Road, Lewisham.

 

Council has supported notices of motions, on a number of occasions, establishing Council and community concerns related to the combined impact of the Lewisham Estate and Summer Hill Flour Mill proposals. These developments are the largest and most significant proposals in this area for decades. While the community does seem to accept that some development on these sites is inevitable, the process of approval has been muddled and, in combination, may lead to very poor planning outcomes, for both the surrounding suburbs and future residents and tenants of these sites.

 

Council’s concerns, amongst other issues, have focused on:

 

·    The overall density of these proposals.

·    Lack of adequate transport studies.

·    The lack of any workable solutions to traffic issues regarding the surrounding road network, which is already at capacity in peak periods.

·    Lack of any genuine active open space.

·    Inadequate open space in general.

·    Lack of affordable housing.

·    Inadequate consideration of the impact on the facilities of surrounding communities.

·    Lack of parking and drop off provisions around the proposed light rail stop

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, we move:-

 

1/3    That Council draws Minister Hazzard’s attention to our continuing concerns           regarding the Lewisham Estate and Summer Hill Flour Mill proposals, as listed and above and gained through amendment.

 

 

2/3    That we call on the Minister to engage agencies such as Roads and Maritime Services, City  Rail and Sydney buses, to ensure that transport and infrastructure needs, particular to these sites and on a more regional basis, are properly planned for and implemented.

3/3    That correspondence regarding the above be sent to The Hon Brad Hazzard MP, Minister for Planning and infrastructure, The Honourable Linda Burney MP, Shadow Minister for Planning, the Honourable Carmel Tebbutt MP Member For Marrickville and David Shoebridge MLC .

 

 

 

 

 

Alex Lofts

 

 

 

Lucille McKenna

 

 

 

Mark Drury

 

 

 

Jeanette Wang

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012 NM34/2012

Education

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLOR Lucille McKenna

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND COMMUNITIES INTENDING TO RESTRICT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ARTS UNIT

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM34/2012

 

It has recently become apparent that the Department of Education and Communities is intending to restrict the activities of the Arts Unit.

 

This unit has provided unique opportunities for public school students who excel at: music, debating, drama, dance, public speaking, and the visual arts to join with others of similar talent to produce exceptional work and performances. There are very few offerings of this kind for public school students. The Unit is located close to our council area and many children from the local area attend.

 

The Arts Unit is a key resource within the public school system that equals and surpasses equivalent endeavours in the independent schools sector. Without such a unit, the attractiveness of the public school system to parents of talented students will be seriously diminished. This is a program that has exposed countless students to extraordinary works of art and offered them the incredible opportunity to participate in their production and performance.

 

This unit has provided public school students with the chance to hone their skills, to experience excellence in their chosen field, and has significantly impacted on the lives of those current and former students who now occupy leading positions in the Arts throughout NSW, Australia and internationally. This is particularly the case for students in our area who would have no equivalent opportunities to join such a talented programme with a wide range of students. For example, these students have been able to participate in the annual State Music Camp, as well as student tours in NSW, within Australia, and across the globe. We understand that these programs and programs of a similar nature are under threat.

 

Restricting activities of the Arts Unit will diminish the focus on the Arts and Arts education throughout NSW for a seemingly short-term gain in cost savings.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.


 

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

That the Mayor writer to the Premier and the Minister For Education Mr Piccoli, requesting that they reverse the decision for the sake of current and future students throughout the NSW public school system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lucille McKenna

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012 NM35/2012

Parks & Reserves

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLOR Patrick Kelso

 

 

ASHFIELD SKATE PARK EXPANSION

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM35/2012

 

After representations from the community, and discussion with the Ashfield Youth Committee, I feel that it is time Ashfield Council expanded the skate park in Darrell Jackson Gardens.

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Email

1 Page

 

 

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

1/2    That Council forms a committee of interested Councillors, representatives from Ashfield Police & Ashfield Youth Committee, to investigate community interest in expanding the skate park and potential partnerships with local businesses.

 

2/2    That local sporting clubs, including all Netball clubs, and local schools be invited to participate to ensure that any unbooked use of the Netball courts is captured.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Patrick Kelso

  


Attachment 1

 

Email

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012 NM36/2012

Public Relation Congratulations

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLOR Lucille McKenna

 

 

INDUCTION OF REVEREND ALAN LUKABYO

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM36/2012

 

Last Thursday 26th July I was a guest of the Church Wardens and Parish Council of the Anglican parish of Croydon for the induction of Rev Alan Lukabyo as the senior minister to St James Croydon.

 

Rev Alan Lukabyo was introduced to the congregation and many friends and visitors by Rev Dr Hugh Cox, Assistant to the Bishop of South Sydney.

 

Alan comes to St James with his wife Ruth and children Hayley, Lucy and Calvin, following eight years as a minister at Dundas Telopea parish.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

That the Mayor send a letter of welcome to Rev Alan Lukabyo and his family.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lucille McKenna

 

 

 

 

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012  CM10.1

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.019.1
4 BLACKWOOD AVENUE, ASHFIELD

 

File Ref                            10.2012..019.1

 

Prepared by                   Philip North - Specialist Planner       

 

 

Reasons                          Council determination

 

Objective                         Determine Application

 

 

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0    Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Clause 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council’s consent for alterations and additions to an existing boarding house and its change of use to a residential flat building comprising 9 dwellings, car parking and strata subdivision.

 

Plans of the proposal are included as Attachment 1.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The proposal, being a conversion of a heritage item to a residential flat building, is significantly constrained by elements of the built form which cannot be altered without negatively impacting upon the heritage significance of the built form. As a consequence, the proposal contains a number of non-compliances with Council’s Development Control Plan 2007. These include the following:

·    Excess FSR (all associated with the existing building);

·    A lack of 2 visitor car parking spaces;

·    Inadequate landscaped area (due to an existing non-compliance); and

·    Undersized private open space.

 

In respect of the first two non-compliances, the applicant has invoked clause 37A of Ashfield LEP 1985 which allows them to be disregarded in the interest of the conservation of the heritage item. Despite this, these, as well as the other non-compliances, are relatively minor and do not hinder the adequate functional performance of the proposal or its impact on neighbour amenity. In particular, the parking provision allows for an increase of the parking available on site from 4 to 9 with a commensurate drop in bedroom numbers (and theoretically residents and their vehicles) from 20 to 10. As a result, the parking impacts in the immediate vicinity should be improved over the current situation.

 

The applicant, however, has not fully resolved stormwater issues and as a result Council’s engineer requires that these be addressed prior to finalisation of any consent by way of a deferred commencement condition.


 

Given these considerations, the development is recommended for deferred commencement conditional approval.

 

Background

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         Mr M Wohlfiel

Owner                                    :         Mr M J Wohlfiel

Value of work                       :         $650,339.42

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: 8A DP: 444835

Date lodged                          :         19/01/2012

Date of last amendment     :         06/07/2012

Building classification                 :         2 and 10b

Application Type                           :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

Section 94 Levy                            :         Yes

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Blackwood Avenue, bounded by Milton Street to the west and Liverpool Road to the west.  The site area is approximately 856 square metres.  An existing boarding house and detached outbuilding(Heritage Item) is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises residential flat buildings to the east, west and north with Cecil Herman reserve to the south .  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

B/A 1979/218

25/6/1979

Fire Stairs

Approved

 

The previous building approval is relevant  to the current application  to the extent that it shows that a fire stair was approved to the existing building on the site.

 

On the 13 December 2011 a letter was sent to the applicant advising that there were a number of issues which needed to be addressed prior to the lodgement of a  development application.

 

On 19 January 2012 Council officer advised the applicant verbally that there were outstanding issues that needed to be addressed prior to the development application being lodged. The applicant  said he would address the issues after the Development application is lodged. The development application was lodged on 19 January 2012.


 

On the 5 March 2012 a letter was sent to the applicant requesting him to submit stormwater drainage plans. The applicant advised that the owner did not want to submit stormwater drainage plans to Council. See Attachment 4 for Council’s Stormwater Drainage Engineer’s comments.

 

Although the Heritage Item on the property is proposed to be restored by the development and Council’s Heritage Advisor is satisfied with the development on heritage grounds there were numerous issues which were of concern regarding non compliance with Council’s development controls.

 

The main issues of concern with the proposed development are as follows:

·    Insufficient car parking spaces on the property.

·    Lack of car washing bays on the property.

·    Insufficient private open space.

·    Insufficient landscaping.

·    Inadequate and poorly located communal open space.

·    Loss of privacy.

·    Inadequate solar access to living rooms of the units.

·    Loss of 20 affordable rental boarding house rooms.

·    Eviction of low income boarders.

·    Inadequate clothes drying area.

·    Inadequate stormwater drainage.

·    Loss of amenity to surrounding properties

·  The proposed ground floor units except for the adaptable unit do not comply with the Universal  Accessible   Design requirements as required Part C1 of ADCP.

 

The application was duly referred to the Council meeting of 8 May 2012 with a recommendation for refusal. At this meeting Council resolved as follows:

 

1.   That Development Applicaiton No. 2012.19 for alterations and additions to a boarding house to convert it to a residential flat building on Lot 8A in DP 444835, known as 4 Blackwood Avenue, Ashfield, be deferred for 2 weeks to allow the applicant an opportunity to address heritage and other matters as addressed by Council officers.

2.   The matter is to be reported back to Council first meeting in June 2012.

 

The applicant subsequently engaged in further discussions with Council officers and, although no amended plans were submitted to enable reporting to Council by the first week in June, amendments followed on 6 July 2012 which included:

·    A reduction in the number of units from 10 to 9;

·    An increase in the parking provision from 5 to a total of 9 resident parking spaces;

·    Improvements to private open space provision including balconies and courtyards;

·    Disabled access improvements;

·    Amendments to improve privacy; and

·    Other minor design refinements.

 

It is this scheme which is the subject of this report.


 

Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

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

·    The property is not located within a Conservation Area.

·    The property is a heritage item.

·    The property is located within the vicinity of  heritage item at Brunswick Parade  and the Park Avenue Heritage Conservation Area.

·    The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

 

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

 

7.0    Section 79C Assessment

 

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

 

7.1    The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

7.1.1 Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

The proposed use as a residential flat building is permissible in the zone with consent.

 

The proposal seeks to rely on the provisions of Clause 37A conservation Incentives of ALEP 1985 as follows:

 

(2)  When considering an application for consent to erect a building on land on which a heritage item is located or on land within a heritage conservation area, the consent authority may, for the purpose of determining:

(a)  the floor space ratio, and

(b)  the number of parking spaces to be provided on the site,

exclude the floor space of the building from its calculation of the floor space of the buildings erected on the land but only if the consent authority is satisfied that the conservation of the building depends on it making the exclusion.

 

FSR and car parking controls applicable to the development are contained in ADCP 2007.

 

The proposal fails to comply with the FSR controls (only because the existing building already exceeds the FSR for the site). If the FSR were required to comply, demolition of some of the significant historical fabric would be required. It is thus considered that proper conservation of the building requires the exclusion of the FSR from the calculation of the FSR for the site.


 

The proposal also fails to comply with the parking controls of ADCP 2007 (8 viable spaces are proposed while 12 are required – 9 resident + 2 visitor + 1 car washing). Given that it is not possible to provide the required amount of car parking without compromising the historical fabric of the item (ie demolition of the significant fabric associated with the outbuilding at the rear or some rooms of the building), it is considered that the proper conservation of the building is dependant upon the exclusion of the full number of car parking spaces required on the site.

 

Given these considerations, in this and in all other respects, the proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of the Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

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

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

 

The proposal does not seek to vary any development standards applicable to the site.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

The property has a history of residential use therefore remediation of the site is not required prior to the carrying out of the proposed development.

 

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

 

The proposal is not defined as a residential flat building under the provisions of the SEPP and as such is not subject to its provisions.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

 

The existing building operates as a 20 room boarding house which is defined by the SEPP as a low-rental residential building. As such, it is subject to the provisions of the SEPP.


 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Assessment Table

Clause No.

Provisions of clause

Proposed

Comment

50

Reduction of availability of affordable housing

(1)

A person must not do any of the following in relation to a building to which this Part applies except with development consent:

(1) (a)

demolish the building

No demolition proposed

N/A

(1) (b)

alter or add to the structure or fabric of the inside or outside of the building

The application proposes alterations and additons

Development consent required.

(1) (c)

change the use of the building to another use (including, in particular, a change of use to backpackers accommodation)

Change of use to a residential flat building is proposed

Development consent required.

(1) (d)

 if the building is a residential flat building, strata subdivide the building.

The building will be subdivided.

Development consent required.

(2)

In determining a development application referred to in subclause (1), the consent authority is to take into account the guidelines and each of the following:

(2)(a)

whether there is likely to be a reduction in affordable housing on the land to which the application relates,

The proposal will result in the loss of a 20 room boarding house and its replacement with a 9 unit/10 bedroom residential flat building.

Given that the number of bedrooms is reduced, there would be a reduction in the availability of affordable housing of at least 10 bedrooms.

(2)(b)

whether there is available sufficient comparable accommodation to satisfy the demand for such accommodation,

The vacancy rate is 1.4% in Sydney for private residential accommodation. For the purposes of subclause (2) (b), sufficient comparable accommodation is conclusively taken to be not available if the average vacancy rate in private rental accommodation less than 3%.

There is insufficient comparable accommodation to satisfy the demand.

(2)(c)

whether the development is likely to cause adverse social and economic effects on the general community

 

Unlikely.

(2)(d)

whether adequate arrangements have been made to assist the residents (if any) of the building likely to be displaced to find alternative comparable accommodation

There are no arrangements made to assist the current residents find alternative comparable accommodation.

 

(2)(e)

the extent to which the development contributes to any cumulative loss of affordable housing in the local government area

The proposed change of use and strata subdivision of the units will result in the loss of 20 boarding rooms.

 

(2)(f)

the structural soundness of the building, the extent to which the building complies with any relevant fire safety requirements and the estimated cost of carrying out work necessary to ensure the structural soundness of the building and the compliance of the building with the fire safety requirements

The applicant has not submitted any information on the structural soundness of the building or information on the costs to comply with fire safety requirements.

It is considered likely that there would be significant costs to upgrade the fire safety of the building.

(2)(g)

whether the imposition of a condition requiring the payment of a monetary contribution for the purposes of affordable housing would adequately mitigate the reduction of affordable housing resulting from the development

It is considered that a monetary contribution could adequately mitigate the reduction of affordable housing resulting from the development.

 

(2)(h)

in the case of a boarding house, the financial viability of the continued use of the boarding house

The applicant has provided information  that the annual income from rent is $165,844 and  that the annual expenses are $184,390, resulting in a loss of $18,546 and a current negative rental yield of minus 1.25%.

 

The continued use as a boarding house is financial viability if the rent yield determined under clause 51(5) is not less than 6 percent. As the rent yield is under 6 per cent the boarding house is not financially viable.

The applicant has not given a breakdown or provided documentation detailing the extremely high expenses used  to justify the negative rental yield. It is also not clear if this is a one-off anomaly due to a particular item of expenditure or a regular operating loss. Further details and documentation would be required before confirmation of any lack of financial viability.

51

Contributions for affordable housing

(1)

For the purposes of section 94F (1) of the Act, this Policy identifies a need for affordable housing on land within the Sydney region and on land within the local government area of Newcastle or Wollongong City.

(2)

For the purposes of section 94F (3) (b) of the Act, this Policy authorises a condition to be imposed under section 94F of the Act if:

(2)(a)

the consent authority, when determining a development application referred to in clause 50 (1), is satisfied that the proposed development will or is likely to reduce the availability of affordable housing within the area, and

The proposed development would result in a loss of the availability of affordable housing units.

A condition may be imposed.

(2)(b)

the condition is imposed in accordance with the scheme for dedications or contributions set out in subclauses (3) and (4).

 

The contribution has been calculated in accordance with the scheme for dedications or contributions set out in subclauses (3) and (4)

(3)

If a condition is to be imposed under this clause, the amount of the contribution is to be calculated in accordance with the following formula:


where:

C is the contribution payable.

L is the total number of bedrooms in a low-rental dwelling and boarding rooms that will be lost by the proposed development.

R is the replacement cost calculated as the average value of the first quartile of sales of strata properties in the local government area in which the development is to take place, as specified in the 4 most recent editions of the Rent and Sales Report.

The Department of Planning online calculator has been applied to the figures provided by the applicant.

The resultant contribution figure is:

$198,660.

(4)

Despite subclause (3), where the development application relates to a boarding house that the consent authority has assessed as not being financially viable:

(4)(a)

if the rental yield is 3 per cent or less, no contribution can be sought

The applicant has provided information  that the annual income from rent is $165,844 and  that the annual expenses are $184,390, resulting in a loss of $18,546 and a current negative rental yield of minus 1.25%.

The applicant has not given a breakdown or provided documentation detailing the extremely high expenses used  to justify the negative rental yield. It is also not clear if this is a one-off anomaly due to a particular item of expenditure or a regular operating loss. Further details and documentation would be required before confirmation of any lack of financial viability.

(4)(b)

if the rental yield is more than 3 per cent and less than 6 per cent, the contribution payable is to be reduced by being calculated in accordance with the following formula:


where:

C is the contribution payable.

X is the contribution that would be payable under subclause (3).

RY is the rental yield.

N/A

N/A

 

Given the lack of documentary information provided to facilitate a conclusion that the existing boarding house is not financially viable, a condition will be applied should the application be approved requiring a monetary contribution of $198,660 for the purposes of affordable housing to adequately mitigate the reduction of affordable housing resulting from the 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. The following table summarises the compliance of the application.

 

Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

Summary Compliance Table

Clause No.

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Compliance

2.2

Zoning

Zone B3 Medium Density Residential

Residential Flat Building

Yes

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

500m2

856m2

Yes

4.3

Height of buildings

12.5m

10.85m

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

0.7:1

0.63:1

Yes

5.10

Heritage Conservation

Listed as:

·  Heritage Item no. I32 under Schedule 5, Part 1

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.

Heritage management document has been submitted.

Assessed as satisfactory by Council’s Heritage Advisor.

Yes

 

It is considered that 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

Generally complies.

See discussion below.

C5

 

MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL FLAT ZONES

Generally complies.

See discussion below.

C10

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Satisfactory (see heritage advisor’s comments).

C11

PARKING

Does not comply.

See discussion below.

C12

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

Notified in accordance with the DCP provisions.

 

Part C1 Summary:

One adaptable unit for every 10 units is required and this has been provided by Unit 5.

 

In addition, all the ground floor units must comply with Universal Accessible Design requirements. All ground floor units are accessible in compliance with this.

 

The proposed development consequently complies with this Part.

 

Part C10:

Council’s Heritage Advisor supports the proposed development from a heritage conservation perspective. See Attachment 3 for his report.

 

Part C11 Summary:

Part C11 requires one onsite car space per unit and one visitor’s car space per 5 units. One carwash bay is also required per 5 units. One car parking space is required for the adaptable unit.

 

The proposed development contains 9 units therefore a total of 12 car spaces are required (9 resident spaces, 2 visitor spaces and 1 car wash bay).

 

The proposed development has allowed for 9 onsite car parking spaces (one is not viable and will be conditioned for bicycles and motorbikes only while another, proposed as a wash bay, will be conditioned for allocation as resident parking).

 

There is thus a shortfall of 2 visitor spaces and one carwash bay.

 

It is noted that the applicant has invoked the provisions of Clause 37A conservation Incentives of ALEP 1985 as follows:

 

(2)  When considering an application for consent to erect a building on land on which a heritage item is located or on land within a heritage conservation area, the consent authority may, for the purpose of determining:

(a)  the floor space ratio, and

(b)  the number of parking spaces to be provided on the site,

exclude the floor space of the building from its calculation of the floor space of the buildings erected on the land but only if the consent authority is satisfied that the conservation of the building depends on it making the exclusion.


 

Given that it is not possible to provide the required amount of car parking without compromising the historical fabric of the item (ie demolition of the significant fabric associated with the outbuilding at the rear or some rooms of the building), it is considered that the proper conservation of the building is dependent upon the exclusion of the full number of car parking spaces required on the site and that the proposed provision of parking is satisfactory under the circumstances.

 

Notwithstanding this, the application increases the number of parking spaces on site from 4 to 9 while reducing the overall occupancy of the building from 20 units to 9. As a result, the overall potential demand for parking on the street should be significantly reduced.

 

ADCP 2007 Compliance Summary:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants, and Councillors from 24 January 2012 until 17 February 2012.


 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

Two submissions (Attachment 5) were received during the notification of the development application:

 

Submissions

 

Katherine Rowe 

2 Blackwood Avenue

Ashfield

(submission of support sent following amendments to the plans)

Ron Morris 

3 Blackwood Avenue,

Ashfield

 

Another submission was received from one of the original objectors (Katherine Rowe) subsequent to amendments made to the application by the applicant. She is now supportive of the application.

 

Public Submissions

Issue Raised

Assessment Officer Response

Insufficient parking

The amended development will result in 8 studio/one bedroom units and one two bedroom unit.

 

The application will result in one car parking space for each unit but will be deficient by two visitor spaces.

 

Notwithstanding this, the application increases the number of parking spaces on site from 4 to 9 while reducing the overall occupancy of the building from 20 units to 9. As a result, the overall potential demand for parking on the street should be reduced.

Potential for inappropriate residents

The potential for “inappropriate” residents by the proposed development  would be lesser than that of the current boarding house use.

Loss of housing for current low income residents

There is currently a 20 bedroom boarding house on the site and the proposal is to convert the boarding house into a 9 unit Residential Flat Building consisting of 8 studio/1 bed units and 1 two bedroom unit. The development will result in a reduction in the number of bedrooms from 20 to 10.The proposed strata subdivision will allow the units to be sold individually.

 All the current boarders will need to move out  and find other accommodation. At present there is a shortage of similar available accommodation in Sydney.

To address this, a monetary Affordable Housing contribution under State Environmental Housing Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 will be payable to contribute to the provision of affordable housing in other locations.

Noise

The objector is concerned about noise from both building work and noise from the proposed use of the property.

A condition could be imposed should the application be approved to minimise building noise.

It is unlikely, however, that there would be any greater level of noise from the proposed development, particularly given that the number of units is significantly less than existing (9 rather than 20) and the no of persons resident could drop from 20 to as few as 9.

Privacy

 

The proposed development will result in four new bedroom windows on the western side which have sill heights of 1m. These windows are about 1.2m from the side boundary and face the balcony and windows of the units at 5 Blackwood Avenue. These proposed windows are proposed to be fitted with translucent glass to their bottom panes and as such should adequately protect the privacy of the adjacent residents.

 

The objector is concerned about loss of privacy from windows on the eastern side particularly the windows at first floor level. There are existing windows on the eastern side at first floor level and the proposed development does not involve any addition to the glazed area of the existing windows on this level of the building. There is an external stairway that is proposed to be removed  from the eastern side which  will improve privacy. 

 

 

7.7.2 Mediation

 

Not applicable.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

The proposal is not inconsistent with the public interest.


 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Internal Referrals

Officer

Comments

Building Surveyor

Support subject to conditions.

Stormwater Engineer

The proposed submission does not meet Council’s Storm water design standards, for the following reasons:

1.     Section 4.9 “Site Discharge & Connection to Council’s System”. The site’s storm water discharge does not comply with Council’s Storm water Code for this type of  development.

2.     Section 4.7 “Storm water Drainage Concept Plans”: No stormwater concept plan has been submitted to Council that meets the requirements as outlined in Section 4.7 of Council’s Stormwater Management Code.

Note: Council’s Stormwater Engineer subsequently consented to the application of a deferred commencement condition of consent to address these issues.

Traffic Engineer

Support subject to conditions.

Normally small vehicle car spaces are provided in public car parks rather than unit developments, and would prefer nominal size vehicle length parking spaces (i.e min 5.4 long). In this particular situation car spaces 4 and 5 would be acceptable for small vehicle use in near conformity to AS standards for a small car length (i.e. 5 metres). However I cannot concede to the smaller space of vehicle 4.2 metres (car space 6) which is well below the AS standard for a small vehicle, limiting use only to the very small vehicle spectrum (e.g. Yaris -3.8 metres long with 0.2 clearance between wall and roller door). Any larger vehicle will be jammed up against the wall or roller door or extrude out into the roadway, which is not acceptable.

 

Accordingly no objection is made to the car park layout in providing car parking spaces 1-5 and 7 to 9 with the turntable arrangement in the car park on condition that:

 

1. The car park space 6 (being well below acceptable AS standards for a small vehicle) be used for other needs as deemed more appropriate (e.g. motorbike or bicycle parking).

2. A parking space be assigned to the car wash bay area, and under this particular situation, to do away with the car wash bay.

3. The turntable be made to handle manually in the case of a mechanical breakdown.

4. That appropriate measures be undertaken (e.g. mirrors, signs, traffic lights) at the entry to give way to vehicles entering and exiting the site. No vehicle should be made to park or stand for longer than necessary on the turntable. 

5. The door opening out to the entry from car space 4 should be made to see through to avoid obstructing any passing vehicle or person passing through the entry. Alternatively a slide door arrangement should be considered.

Environmental Health

Support subject to conditions.

Heritage Architect

Support.

 


 

8.2    External

 

N/A

 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

N/A

 

10.0  Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

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

 

Financial Implications

 

Section 94 Contributions of $87,160.35 are applicable should the application be approved by council.

 

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 deferred commencement consent to allow the applicant to address stormwater drainage issues.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of the Proposal

4 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment View3

Heritage Advisor Comments

1 Page

 

Attachment View4

Conditions

17 Pages

         

Attachment 5

Submissions (Circulated under separate cover)

6 Pages

 

 


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) grant deferred commencement consent to Development Application No. 10.2012.19 for alterations and additions to an existing boarding house and its change of use to a residential flat building comprising 9 dwellings, car parking and strata subdivision on Lot 8A in DP 444835, known as 4 Blackwood Avenue, Ashfield, subject to the attached conditions

 

 

 

COMPLIANCE TABLE - ASHFIELD LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1985

 

CLAUSE 2

Aims, objectives etc.

This plan aims to:

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

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

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

 

 

CLAUSE 10

Zoning

Complies.  The property is zoned 2(C)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 17A

Height of residential flat buildings

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

(2) In this clause –

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complies.

 

Proposed Height   = 8.5m

Allowable Height    = 9m

.

CLAUSE 29

Provision for public amenities and services

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

CLAUSE 30

Heritage provisions – aims

The aims of this Part are:

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

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

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

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

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

 

.

CLAUSE 32

Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics

 

 

 

 

1.

Requirement for development consent

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

2.

Development consent not required

Not applicable.

3.

Assessment of impact on heritage significance

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

4.

Requirement for conservation plan or heritage impact statement

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

5.

Assessment criteria for development of land within heritage conservation areas.

Not applicable.

 

 


CLAUSE 36

Development of known or potential archaeological sites

Not applicable.

 

.


CLAUSE 37

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

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

CLAUSE 37A

Conservation incentives

See  Clause 37A Report at 7.1.1 above

.

MODEL PROVISIONS

 

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

Complies. The proposed development will not have a negative visual appearance when viewed from any public place.

 

COMPLIANCE TABLE – ADCP PART C5 – MULT-UNIT DEVELOPMENT

 

PART 1

Objectives

Complies.

PART 2

Residential Design Process

Complies.

PART 3

Preferred development

Ashfield’s Housing Character

Complies.  It is considered that the carrying out of the proposal will be in keeping with the existing residential character of Ashfield Municipality.

 

Streetscape and Landscape

Complies.  Although an assessment of the streetscape has not been provided with the development application, it is considered that the proposal has given appropriate regard to the provisions of this part.

 

Building Appearance and Character

Complies

 

Fences and Walls

Complies.  It is considered that the proposed front fence/wall is compatible with the streetscape and in keeping with directly adjoining neighbouring properties.

 

Heritage Conservation

Complies.

Council’s Heritage reports that he is satisfied with the proposed development in regards to heritage conservation.

 

PART 4

Housing Density

Floor Space Ratio

 

Does not comply.       Site Area                                         = 856m2

  Gross Floor Area                                       = 548m2

                                  FSR                                             = 0.63:1

Clause 37A of ALEP 1985 has been invoked and this FSR has been discounted on the basis of conservation of the heritage item.

 

Subdivision

Complies.               Allotment Size                         = 856m2

Subdivision is considered on merit.

 

Maximum dwelling size

Complies.               Gross Floor Area allowed                  = 125m2

All proposed dwellings are less than 125m2

PART 5

Building Envelope, siting and solar access

Front Setback

Complies.  The front setback of the proposal is consistent with the setbacks of the buildings on the adjoining properties.

 

Orientation and Siting

Complies.

 

Building Height

Complies.                   Number of levels proposed         = 2                                  Maximum height                         =8.5m

                                  Height of first floor level             = 3.7m

 

Solar Access

 

Complies.

More than 80% of the units proposed would have a living room window with a northerly aspect.

 

Complies.

Sunlight will reach 50% of the private open spaces (incl winter gardens) on the site for 3 hours between 9am – 3pm on 21 June.

 

Complies. Existing solar access is maintained to at least 40% of the glazed area of north facing windows of the dwellings on adjoining sites.

 

PART 6

Privacy, views & outlook

Visual privacy

Complies.

Windows fitted with translucent glass where facing other properties to the side

 

Screening is required, as openings are non-translucent below 1.7m.  This will be a condition of development consent should the application be approved.

 

Acoustic privacy

 It is considered that the level of acoustic privacy within the development generally satisfies the provisions of this part.

 

Views and Outlook

Complies. The principles of view sharing have been adhered to in the design of the development. All dwellings within the new residential development have an open outlook to an area of landscaping or open space.

PART 7

Car-parking

Numerical requirements

Does not comply.

Number of proposed dwellings                              =        9

Minimum number of car-parking spaces                   =        12

Proposed number of car-parking spaces                  =        9

 

The applicant has invoked the provisions of cl. 37A of ALEP 1985 and as such, the deficiency in car parking is considered negated by the requirement to conserve the heritage item.

 

Notwithstanding this, the application reduces the number of units from 20 to 9 and increases the parking available on site from 4 spaces to 9 resident spaces (ie an increase of 1 space per 5 units to 1 space per unit (with no visitor spaces). As such, it is considered that the application significantly  improves the parking situation and is satisfactory despite the minor numerical non-compliance.

 

Design and location

Complies.

Council’s traffic engineer has reviewed the design and is satisfied that the that design and layout would perform satisfactorily.

 

PART 8

Open Space and Landscaping

Private and Communal Open Space

Does not comply.

The private open areas proposed do not meet the minimum requirements outlined in this clause.

The proposed development has not provided at least 35m2 of private open space per ground floor dwelling and 10m2 of balcony for first floor dwellings as required by this part.

The communal open space provided is at the front of the property, lacks privacy and does not meet the minimum dimensions of 10x 12m required by this part.

 

Notwithstanding the non-compliance of the private open space areas with the minimum requirements of this Part, this is entirely due to the constraints presented by the existing heritage item fabric and, despite this, the spaces are considered functional for resident purposes, notwithstanding that some do not accord with current standards.

 

Landscaping

Does not comply.

Site Area                                  =     856m2

Proposed landscaping             =     363.5m2  (42% of the site)

Proposed soft landscaping      =     244.9m2  (28.3% of the site)

Proposed deep planting           =      180m2   ( 20.8% of the site)

The ADCP requires 50% of the site be landscaped with 35% being soft landscaping and 29.75% being deep soil planting. The proposed development falls short of all of the above minimum requirements.

 

Nevertheless, this is due to an existing non-compliance and cannot be altered without interfering with the significant fabric of the existing heritage item.

 

Tree Preservation

Complies.

The proposal development does not involve the removal of any trees covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

PART 9

Safety and Security

Complies.  

It is considered that the proposed development satisfies the provisions of this part.

PART 10

Design for climate

Energy Conservation

An external clothes line is proposed.

 

Does not comply.

Less than 80% of units have a living area with windows with a northerly aspect and 3 hours solar access to at least 40% of their area.

The remaining 20% have a habitable room with 2 hours solar access between 9 am – 3pm on 21 June.

 

This is a result of the existing conditions relating to the existing heritage item and cannot be changed without impacting the heritage significance of the heritage item.

 

Water conservation

A Basix Certificate has been submitted for the proposed development however the Basix commitments are not shown on the plans as required by the Basix Certificate..

 

Air movement

Complies.

 

Services, lighting and appliances

Complies.

Noise on traffic routes

Generally complies.

PART 11

Stormwater drainage

Does not comply. 

A plan shows stormwater discharging to Park Lane

Council’s Stormwater Engineer requires stormwater to drain to Blackwood Avenue. A stormwater drainage concept plan is required to be submitted. This will be required by way of a deferred commencement consent.

PART 12

Site Facilities

Waste management

Complies.  The proposed location of the garbage collection storage area  satisfies the provisions of this part.

No. of bins proposed      = 10 x 120 litre bins for general wastes         

No. of bins required        =5 x  240 litre bins for recycling

 

Contaminants

The property has a history of residential use.

There is no evidence to suggest that the site contains contaminates.  Remediation of the site is not required prior to the carrying out of the proposed development.

 

Storage

Complies.

Suitable storage is provided in each unit

 

Mailboxes

Complies.

Details of the location and number of mail boxes have been shown on the plans.

 

Clothes Drying

Does not comply.

Part 12.11 requires 1.5m2 of clothes drying area per dwelling x 10 dwellings = 15m2 . The proposed development has only provided 12m2.

Television aerials

No details of television aerial/s have been submitted with the application.

Only one television reception device will be permitted as part of the strata title development.  This will be a condition of development consent should the application be approved.

 

Car wash bays

Satisfactory:

Given that resident parking spaces are at grade above ground, these can be satisfactorily used for car washing purposes..

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 


Attachment 1

 

Attachment 1 - Plans of the Proposal

 





Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Heritage Advisor Comments

 


Attachment 4

 

Conditions

 


















Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012  CM10.2

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.132.1
202 HOLDEN STREET, ASHFIELD

 

File Ref                            10.2012.132.1

 

Prepared by                   Luma Araim - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Called up by Councillor

 

Objective                         Determine Application

 

 

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0    Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Clause 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council’s consent to undertake the construction of a first floor extension to accommodate a bathroom.

 

Plans of the proposal are included as Attachment 1.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The proposal involves the construction of a bathroom to serve existing two upstairs bedrooms. The proposed extension is a minor addition extending the southern slope of the first floor roof. The extension does not excessively add to the visual intrusion of the first floor extension and complies with the requirements of Clause 3.5 of Part C15 of the Ashfield DCP which requires extensions to the upper parts of a house to respect the scale and aesthetics of the existing context including the streetscape. The proposed development in this instance is considered to be acceptable and as such is recommended for Conditional Approval.

 

Background

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         Ms L Brichta

Owner                                    :         Dr A M Brichta

Value of work                       :         $50,000.00

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: 3 SEC: 2 DP: 529

Date lodged                          :         05/07/2012

Date of last amendment     :         23 July 2012

Building classification                 :         0

Application Type                           :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

Section 94A Levy                :         No


 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Holden Street, bounded by Ashford Street to the north and Hanks Street to the south.  The site area is approximately 501 square metres.  An existing two storey dwelling house is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises residential development.  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

6.1986.401.1

11/11/1986

Amendments to Ba 187/86

Approved

6.1986.187.1

01/07/1986

First floor addition

Approved

6.1975.22.1

09/01/1976

New front windows

Approved

6.1939.8848.1

25/07/1939

Garage

Approved

 

Previous consents have been noted in the assessment of this application.

 

Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

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

·    The property is not located within a Conservation Area.

·    The property is not a heritage item.

·    The property is not located within the vicinity of a heritage item or a 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.

 

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

 

Noted.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

Given the residential history of the site remediation is not required prior to the carrying out of the proposed development.

 

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

 

Not applicable.

 

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 R2 Low Density Residential

First floor addition to accommodate a bathroom.

Yes

4.3

Height of buildings

8.5m

6.52m the wall height of the proposed extension.

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

0.7:1

0.38:1

Yes

5.10

Heritage Conservation

The property is not located in a proposed conservation area

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.

N/A

N/A

 

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.

 

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

 

C1

ACCESS AND MOBILITY

Not applicable to single dwelling houses and dual occupancy development.

C11

PARKING

The proposal does not alter parking arrangements on site.

C12

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

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy. See Part 7.7 of this report.

C15

HOUSES & DUAL OCCUPANCIES

See comments below.

 

Ashfield DCP 2007 – Part C15 – Houses and Dual Occupancies

 

Compliance Table

Standard

Required

Proposed

Does proposal comply?

F S R

0.55:1

 

0.38:1

Based on an area of 189m2

Yes

Landscaped area

50%

 

Not altered by the proposal

N/A

Height

Maximum permitted height

2 storeys (6m)

Approximately 6.52m the wall height of the proposed extension.

No. A minor variation can be considered and is further discussed below, under the heading of scale and bulk.

Setbacks

Side setback 900mm for houses

660mm

 

Side setback will not be altered by the proposal.

 

 

Carparking

one space per dwelling

preferably two

An existing garage

Yes

Solar access

-At least 50% ( or 35m2 with minimum dimension 2.5m, whichever is the lesser area)  of the “principal private area” of ground level open space of adjacent properties is not reduced to less than three hours between 9am and 3 pm on 21 June.

 

-40% of glazed area shall be maintained

There will be no additional over shadowing impacts on Number 204 Holden on 21 June at 9am, 12 noon and 3pm. However the proposal expects to cast minor additional shadows in March and September.

Yes

 

 

Scale and Bulk:

 

As outlined in the compliance table above, the proposal complies with the FSR control providing 0.38:1 FSR (based on a gross floor area of approximately 189m2) which is below the maximum permissible FSR of 0.55:1.

 

The resulting bulk and scale is considered acceptable as it is not visually intrusive.

 

The maximum allowable wall height in Council’s DCP for dwelling houses is 6 metres measured from the existing ground level. The proposed wall height of the extension is 6.52 metres which exceeds the maximum height limits. However, Clause 2.3 of Council’s DCP states that a minor variation to the 6.0 metres wall height can be considered where additions are being made to existing houses, where, dwellings have traditional elevated floors off the ground and high existing ceilings, providing the design/ streetscape objectives of Part C15 are met . In this instance the existing dwelling house is elevated and the proposal does not adversely affect the streetscape.

 

Aesthetics:

 

Clause 3.5 of the Houses and Dual Occupancies DCP requires extensions to the upper parts of a house to respect the scale and aesthetics of the context including the streetscape. In this regard the proposed bathroom is set within an extended sloping roofline of an existing first floor addition of the dwelling house. Being a minor extension to an existing first floor and owing to its location to the rear, the proposed extension is visually appropriate to the scale of the existing house and sympathetic to the architectural style of the dwelling house. Materials and colours have been selected to match existing.

 

Landscaped area

 

The proposal will not alter existing landscaped area of the site.


 

Amenity for neighbours:

 

The proposed minor extension is within the existing wall edge and does not protrude beyond the existing walls of the dwelling. Due to the orientation of the proposed extension there will be no increase in overshadowing in mid winter and minor additional overshadowing around equinox in late afternoon on number 204 Holden Street.

 

The proposal does not include additional windows to south elevation. The proposed skylight will face neighbour’s roof. The window which is proposed to the west will be facing Holden Street. It is not expected that the proposal will have privacy impact on adjoining neighbour to the south being No 204 Holden Street.

 

Ecologically Sustainable Development:

 

A BASIX Certificate, detailing thermal and energy conserving requirements, has been submitted with the application. BASIX commitments have been indicated on the plans.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants and Councillors from 09 July 2012 until 25 July 2012.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

No submissions were received during the notification of the development application.


 

7.7.2 Mediation

 

Mediation is not required for this application.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

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

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Building

 

No objections subject to conditions.

 

Engineering

 

No objections subject to conditions.

 

8.2    External

 

Not applicable.

 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

Stormwater Pipes

 

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

 

10.0  Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

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

 

Financial Implications

 

Section 94A Contributions is not applicable due to the estimated cost of work being under $100,000

 

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

Attachment 1 - Plans of the Proposal

15 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Attachment 2 - Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Attachment 3 - Conditions

8 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.10.2012.123.1 for the construction of a first floor extension to accommodate a bathroom on Lot 3 in DP: 529, known as 202 Holden Street, Ashfield, subject to the attached conditions.

 

 

 

 

 


 

COMPLIANCE TABLE - ASHFIELD LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1985

 

CLAUSE 2

Aims, objectives etc.

This plan aims to:

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

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

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

 

 

CLAUSE 10

Zoning

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

CLAUSE 10A

Development consent required for change of building use and subdivision

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 11

Dwelling houses – residential allotment size

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

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

(b) in any other case –

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

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

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

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

The allotment was in existence on the appointed day.

 

 

CLAUSE 12:

Number of floors in dwelling-houses

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

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

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

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

Complies.  

No. of floors                   =Two (2) storeys

 

 

CLAUSE 13

Dwelling houses – dual occupancy

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 17

Floor space ratios

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

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

Not applicable.


 

CLAUSE 17A

Height of residential flat buildings

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

(2) In this clause –

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 17B

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

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

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

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

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

(a) the scale and character of the streetscape,

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

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

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

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 18

Development for the purpose of advertisements

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 20

Clubs

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 21

Motor showrooms

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 22

Industrial uses 4(b)

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 23

Setbacks 4(b)

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 24

Parking in Zone 4(b)

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 25

Development of land within Zone No. 6(a)

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 27

Acquisition of land

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 28

Suspension of certain laws

Noted.

CLAUSE 29

Provision for public amenities and services

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

 

 

CLAUSE 29A

Classification and reclassification of public land as operational

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 30

Heritage provisions – aims

The aims of this Part are:

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

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

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

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

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 32

Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics

Not applicable.

 

 

 

1.

Requirement for development consent

 

2.

Development consent not required

 

3.

Assessment of impact on heritage significance

 

4.

Requirement for conservation plan or heritage impact statement

 

5.

Assessment criteria for development of land within heritage conservation areas.

 

CLAUSE 34

Notice to Heritage Council

Not applicable.

 

 

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:

(a)where the application proposes to add accommodation to a dwelling, the Council is satisfied that, in addition to the other requirements of this Part, such accommodation will be:

(i) if in a level above the main floor, contained wholly within the existing roof form of the dwelling; and

(ii) if arranged as an attic room within part of an extension to an existing dwelling, contained wholly within the roof form of the extension, and

Not applicable.

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

(b) where it is proposed to use the natural slope of the land to add habitable accommodation in a level below that of an existing house, the Council us satisfied that such basement accommodation:

(i) does not require major excavation of the site to achieve the accommodation or access; and

(ii) does not change the setting of the existing house; and

(iii) does not have doors and windows visible from a public place, whether or not alternative means are used to screen the accommodation; and

Not applicable.

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

(c) the Council is satisfied that in all respects the existing house retains the appearance of a single storey dwelling when seen from any public place; and

Not applicable.

(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

Not applicable.

(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.

Not applicable.

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

(a) the floor space ratio exceeds 0.5:1; or

Not applicable.

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

(b) the landscaped area of the site of the dwelling house is less than 50% of the total area of the allotment on which it is situated; or

Not applicable.

(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

Not applicable.

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

(d) the dwelling house is not visually compatible in height to other houses; or

Not applicable.

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

(e) the development proposed would create a new room partly above a room in the dwelling house that existed when this paragraph commenced, unless:

(i) the development consists of no more than two habitable rooms; and

(ii) the development is contained within the existing roof form and the existing eaves line is retained; and

(iii) in the case of alterations and additions, the construction of any attic room is contained within the roof form of the addition which in all respects complies with the aims and objectives of this Part; and

(iv) all requirements for health, daylight and ventilation for any attic room involved can be provided by in-plane roof lights facing the rear of the property; and

(v) all requirements for health, daylight and ventilation do not entail the use of more than one in-plane roof light per roof face; or

Not applicable.

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

(f) the application includes dormer or gablet windows.

Not applicable.


CLAUSE 36

Development of known or potential archaeological sites

Not applicable.

 

 


CLAUSE 37

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

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 37A

Conservation incentives

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 38

Development of land known as 476 Parramatta Road Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 38A

Multiple dwellings on certain land

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 38B

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 39

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

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

CLAUSE 39A

Temporary car park–Liverpool Road and Elizabeth Avenue, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 39B

Mixed development in commercial zones – generally

Not applicable.

 


CLAUSE 40

Mixed development on certain land – floor space concessions

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 41

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 42

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 43

Development of community centre at Smith Street, Summer Hill

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 44

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 45

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 48

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 49

Development of land known as 191 Ramsay Street, Haberfield

 

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 51

Development of land known as 93 Milton Street, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 52

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

 

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 53

Development of land known as 3 Carlton Crescent, Summer Hill

 

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 54

Development at 11–13 Hercules Street, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 55

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 56

Development of certain land at Queen Street, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 57

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

Not applicable.

 

MODEL PROVISIONS

 

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

The appearance of the dwelling house is satisfactory in the context of the streetscape.

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 


Attachment 1

 

Attachment 1 - Plans of the Proposal

 
















Attachment 2

 

Attachment 2 - Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Attachment 3 - Conditions

 









Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012  CM10.3

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.134.1
4/95 EDWIN STREET NORTH, CROYDON

 

File Ref                            10.2012.134.1

 

Prepared by                   Daisy Younan - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Council determination

 

Objective                         Determine Application

 

 

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0    Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Clause 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council’s consent for the change of use of the ground floor front tenancy to a therapeutic massage clinic and replacing existing curtains screening treatment areas with stud walls.

 

(Plans of proposal are included in Attachment 1)

 

1.1    Background

 

1.   On 14/06/2011, a deferred commencement consent, being 10.2011.63, has been granted for the use of the ground floor front tenancy as a remedial massage clinic with the following deferred commencement condition:

 

1.   The applicant shall submit to Council written confirmation from Australian College of Massage that all the required subjects to obtain the qualification to practice therapeutic massage have been completed successfully.

 

Upon Council's written approval of satisfactory compliance with the deferred commencement matter listed in Part A above, the development consent will become operative, subject to the conditions in Part B below and including the conditions recommended in the Ashfield Police Report.

 

The requirement stated in 1 above shall be completed within 6 months of the date the deferred commencement being issued.

 

2.   A site inspection carried out on 26/07/2012 has revealed that the proposed use has already commenced. Council records indicate that, up to date, the deferred commencement consent has not been activated by the stipulated time frame and hence has lapsed on 13/12/2011 which makes the current use in breach of the deferred commencement condition and also unauthorised (no valid consent is currently in place).


 

3.   An order, dated 03/04/2012, has been issued to the applicant requiring the unauthorised use of the subject tenancy as a remedial massage to cease.

4.   The current application is seeking Council’s consent for the permanent use of the ground floor front tenancy as a therapeutic massage clinic. A certificate from Discover Massage Australian has been submitted as part of the application.

 

On 30/07/2012, Council Officer has checked the applicant’s qualifications with the Discover Massage Australian. It was revealed that the applicant has to undertake further advanced course to be qualified to provide the proposed service.

 

5.   The proposal also involves the construction of new internal walls which can facilitate the use of those rooms for other unlawful purposes. The proposed construction of the internal walls is not supported given the unauthorised use of the subject tenancy in breach of previous consent.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The proposed development is permissible in accordance with the provisions of Clause 10 of Ashfield LEP 1985 however is recommended for refusal for the reasons included in the report.

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         Mr R He

Owner                                    :         Owners Of Strata Plan 74482

Value of work                       :         $1,500

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: 0 SP: 74482

Date lodged                          :         06/07/2012

Date of last amendment     :         N/A

Application Type                  :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

Section 94A Levy                :         No

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Edwin Street, bounded by Edwin Street to the north and Hennessy Street to the south.  The site area is approximately 164.5 square metres.  An existing two storey mixed use development is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises commercial and residential establishments.  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

10.2011.63

14/06/2011

Use of ground floor front tenancy as a remedial massage clinic.

Deferred commencement consent

10.2004.202

15/10/2004

Strata Subdivisions of existing mixed use development

Approved

10.2001.327

08/05/2002

Alterations and additions to existing building

Approved

 

The previous deferred commencement consent granted on 14/06/2011 providing an opportunity to applicant to submit to Council the necessary qualifications required to provide remedial massage services. The applicant has failed to submit the required proof of qualifications to activate the deferred commencement consent within the stipulated time frame and operated the premises in breach of the deferred commencement conditions and despite lapsing of consent all without the necessary qualifications.

 

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 proposed Heritage Conservation Area.

·    The property is located within the vicinity of a number of heritage items located at 105, 107 & 109 Edwin Street North.

 

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

 

Under Ashfield Draft LEP 2012, the subject site will have its zone changed to B2 zone, its heritage status changed to a heritage conservation area with the subject site located in the vicinity of four heritage items being 105, 107, 109 & 111 Edwin Street North.

 

The proposed development will classify the premises as “commercial premises” which is  permissible with Council consent under the Ashfield Draft LEP 2012, refer to compliance table under Clause 7.2 of this report.

 

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. 37 of Ashfield LEP 1985 requires Council to assess and take into consideration the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of a heritage item, heritage conservation area, archaeological site or potential archaeological site, and on its setting, when determining an application for consent to carry out development on land in its vicinity.

 

The proposed development involves minor alterations to the shop front which is located in the vicinity of a number of heritage items located at 105, 107 & 109 Edwin Street North. No details have been provided as to the type or colours of the new tile proposed to be installed on the front walls on either side of the shop front window/door. No further details are required as the proposed development is recommended for refusal in this instance.

 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

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

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

 

The proposed signs are considered compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of the area, Council is satisfied that the proposed signs are consistent with the objectives of this Policy as set out in clause 3 (1) (a), and satisfies the assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1. However, the proposed development is not supported in this instance for the reasons indicated in the report.

 

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.


 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Table 3

Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

Summary Compliance Table

Clause No.

Subject

Standard

Proposed

Compliance

1.2

Aims of Plan

(1) This Plan aims to make local environmental planning provisions for land in Ashfield in accordance with the relevant standard environmental planning instrument under section 33A of the Act.

(2) The particular aims of this Plan are as follows:

(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,

(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,

(c) to identify and conserve the environmental and cultural heritage of Ashfield,

(d) to provide increased housing choice in locations that have good access to public transport, community facilities and services, retail and commercial services and employment opportunities,

(e) to strengthen the viability and vitality of the Ashfield Town Centre as a primary centre for investment, employment, cultural and civic activity, and to encourage a majority of future housing opportunities to be located within and around the centre,

(f) 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,

(g) to encourage the revitalisation of the Parramatta Road corridor in a manner that generates new local employment opportunities, improves the quality and amenity of the streetscape, and does not adversely impact upon adjacent residential areas,

(h) to ensure that development has proper regard to environmental constraints and minimises any off and on site impacts on biodiversity, water resources and natural landforms,

(i) to require that new development incorporates the principles of ecologically sustainable development and water sensitive urban design.

The use of the ground floor front tenancy as a therapeutic massage clinic.

 

The proposed development  is not considered contrary to the aims or objectives of the Draft Ashfield LEP 2012 however is not supported in this instance for the reasons included in the report.

2.2

Zoning

Zone B2 Local Centre

No changes to the zone is proposed.

Massage Clinic classify the premises as  “Commercial premises” which is defined as being any of the following:

(a) business premises,

(b) office premises,

(c) retail premises.

 

Refer to comments below table 3 for further details.

Heritage Conservation

5.10 (2)

Requirement for consent

 

Development consent is required for any of the following:

(a) demolishing or moving any of the following or altering the exterior of any of

the following (including, in the case of a building, making changes to its detail, fabric, finish or appearance):

(ii) a heritage item,

(iii) an Aboriginal object,

(iv) a building, work, relic or tree within a heritage conservation area,

The subject site is located in a proposed heritage conservation area under Ashfield LEP 1985 which will become a heritage conservation area if an when Ashfield LEP 2012 is gazetted. The proposed development involve minor modifications to the shop front.

Refer to comments under Clause 7.1.1 of this report for further details.

5.10(4)

Effect on heritage significance

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause in respect of a heritage item or heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned. This subclause applies regardless of whether a heritage management document is prepared under subclause (5) or a heritage conservation management plan is submitted under subclause (6).

Refer to comments on Clause 5.10(2) of this table for further details.

Refer to comments under Clause 7.1.1 of this report for further details.

6.6(1)

Accessibility and universal accessible design

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) 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,

(b) to protect existing accessible features within the public domain, residential

development, and non-residential development, and

(c) to raise awareness and understanding of access issues for people with a

disability through investigation and promotion of best-practise through the

design, construction and operation of development.

No improvement to the accessibility level is proposed as part of this application.

As the proposed change of use does not involve substantial alterations to existing building, or an intensification of an existing land use, improvement to the accessibility level is not required in this instance.

 

However, the proposed development is recommended for refusal in this instance for the reasons included in the report.

 

 

The proposed massage clinic does not fall under the definition of office or retail premises, however, it is believed to fall under the definition of “Business Premises” which is defined as follows:

 

Business Premises” means a building or place at or on which:

 

(a) an occupation, profession or trade (other than an industry) is carried on for the provision of services directly to members of the public on a regular basis, or

 

(b) a service is provided directly to members of the public on a regular basis, and includes a funeral home and, without limitation, premises such as banks, post offices, hairdressers, dry cleaners, travel agencies, internet access facilities, betting agencies and the like, but does not include an entertainment facility, home business, home occupation, home occupation (sex services), medical centre, restricted premises, sex services premises or veterinary hospital.

 

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 proposed development does not involve the construction of new development, substantial alterations to existing building or an intensification of an existing land use and hence is not required to improve the accessibility level. However, the proposed development is recommended for refusal in this instance for the reasons included in the report.

C2

ADVERTISEMENTS

The proposal incorporates a facia sign reading “Croydon Remedial Massage”, which is to be painted onto the existing facia above the front entry door, and two window sticker signs, which are to be attached to the fixed glazing panels on either side of front entry door.

 

Table2 of Part C2 of Ashfield DCP 2007 requires that window/glass door signs require Council approval if they are to be placed externally on the window/glass door or coverage exceeds 30% of window/glass door area.

 

The two window signs are proposed to be attached externally to the fixed glazing panels located on either side of the front entry door which will not result in any adverse impact on the heritage significance of the heritage items in the vicinity or on neighbour’s amenity. They cover approximately 3m² (approximately 22%) of the glazing area of the shop front which is approximately 13.54m² and hence comply with the above requirements.

C11

PARKING

On 08/05/2002, a development consent being 10.2001.327 was granted for alterations and additions of existing building to create a new two-bedroom unit above existing retail shop and new addition to rear comprising a one-bedroom unit and a two-bedroom unit with split level basement carpark.

 

As part of the previous consent, a condition has been imposed requiring the payment of car-parking contributions of $1,400  under S94 of the EPA Act 1979 for a development the subject of the previous application. 

 

The proposed development does not involve any additional floor area or intensification of the subject site.

 

Being in the Croydon Urban Village Business Area, it does not require any additional car-parking space to be provided on site in accordance with the controls of Part C11 of Ashfield DCP 2007 which provide that “no additional parking is required within the Croydon Urban Village for development that involves existing gross floor area or comprises a change of use of existing gross floor area”. This applies irrespective of the type of use proposed and appendix 5 of this part shows the Croydon Urban Village as one of the areas where this concession applies.

 

As such, no additional car parking spaces are required.


 

C12

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

See Clause No. 7.7

 

It is considered the proposed change of use complies with Ashfield DCP requirements as indicated above. However, the proposed development is not supported in this instance for the reasons included in the report.

 

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.

 

The proposed hours of operation are from 10.00am to 8.30pm seven (7) days per week. It is also proposed that there will be a total of two (2) employees on site at any one time.

 

The applicant has indicated that the proposal is for therapeutic massage services, a certificate from Discover Massage Australian has been submitted as part of the application.

 

On 30/07/2012, Council Officer has checked the applicant’s qualifications with the Discover Massage Australian. It was revealed that the applicant has to undertake further advanced course/s to be qualified to provide the proposed service.

 

The previous deferred commencement consent granted on 14/06/2011 providing an opportunity to applicant to submit to Council the necessary qualifications required to provide remedial massage services. The applicant has failed to submit the required proof of qualifications to activate the deferred commencement consent within the stipulated time frame and operated the premises in breach of the deferred commencement conditions and despite lapsing of consent all without the necessary qualifications.

 

Further, as part of this application, it is proposed to replaced the existing curtains screening the two treatment areas with stud walls resulting in two treatment rooms which may facilitate intensification of an unapproved use.

 

The applicant does not have the required qualifications to provide therapeutic massage services and Council officers are not satisfied that the required qualifications will be obtained hence cannot support the proposed use.


 

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 however is not supported in this instance for the reasons included 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 10 July 2012 until 26 July 2012.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

No submissions were received during the notification of the development application   

 

7.7.2 Mediation

 

Not required

 

7.8    The public interest

 

The proposal, given the reasons included in the report, is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Environmental Health

 

The proposed development has been referred to Council’s health and environment officer, no issues have been raised to the proposed development subject to conditions of consent.

 

8.2    External

 

Not required

 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

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

 

10.0  Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

A Construction Certificate will not be required in this instance as the proposed development is recommended for refusal.


 

Financial Implications

 

The proposed development will not attract contribution levies under S94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the estimated work value is below $100,000 (Part A of Ashfield Section 94A Contributions Policy) and the proposed development is recommended for refusal.

 

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 and is recommended for refusal.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Attachment 1 - Plans of the Proposal

5 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Attachment 2 - Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Attachment 3 - Certificate of Qualification

1 Page

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) refuse Development Application No. 10.2012.134 for the change of use of the ground floor front tenancy to a therapeutic massage clinic and replacing existing curtains screening treatment areas with stud walls on Lot 0 in DP: 74482, known as 4/95 Edwin Street, Croydon, for the reasons given in the report.

 

Reasons for Refusal

 

1.   Certificate submitted does not qualify applicant to provide therapeutic massage services;

2.   Insufficient information submitted which does not enable proper assessment of development application;

3.   The change of use, proposed to be carried out without required qualifications being available to operate is not in the public interest.

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment  


Attachment 1

 

Attachment 1 - Plans of the Proposal

 






Attachment 2

 

Attachment 2 - Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Attachment 3 - Certificate of Qualification

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012  CM10.4

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2010.301.3
2A BROWN STREET, ASHFIELD

 

File Ref                            DA.10.2010.301

 

Prepared by                   Atalay Bas - Manager Development Services       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         Council to determine the application

 

 

 


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 delete the lowest approved basement car parking level and to amend the remaining basement levels so as to provide the required number of car parking spaces. The original approval Incorporated a total of five (5) basement car parking levels where as the proposed modification will have a total of four (4) car parking levels. The proposed break down of the basement levels are:-

 

·    Basement level B1 – Retail, providing a total of 57 car spaces;

·    Basement level B2 – Public, providing a total of 84 car spaces;

·    Basement level B3 – Residential, providing a total of 79 car spaces; and

·    Basement level B4 – Residential, providing a total of 76 car spaces;

 

2.0    BACKGROUND

 

On 1 July 2011 the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel granted approval for demolition of existing commercial building, tree removal and construction of two (2) x 8 storey mixed use buildings comprising of:-

 

·    Building “A” 8 storey predominantly fronting Brown Street;

·    Building “B” 8 storey located behind building A and predominantly fronting Drakes lane;

·    Three (3) retail & one (1) supermarket tenancy at the ground floor;

·    Five (5) basement parking levels accommodating 282 vehicles inclusive of two levels of public car parking spaces on basement levels B2 and  B3 that will be dedicated to Council for sole use by the general public;

·    Loading/unloading & waste room on ground level;

·    One hundred twenty (120) residential apartments comprising of 26 x 1 bed, 79 x 2 bedroom, 4 x 2 bedroom + mezzanine, 6 x 3 bedroom and 5x 2 bedroom self office/home office apartments;

·    A public through-site link from Brown Street to Drakes Lane via a lift and stairway access; and

·    Colonnade along Brown Street elevation.


 

On 29 November 2011 the applicant filed a Class 1 appeal with the Land and Environment Court of NSW. The applicant contended that condition C(11) requiring the payment of a Section 94 contribution was unreasonable in the particular circumstances of the case and should be deleted to offset the cost of providing the public car park.

 

In the alternative, the applicant contended that the amount of monetary contribution required to be paid pursuant to condition C(11) was not in accordance with the S94 plan and should be reduced. This was because the applicant claimed that no allowance was made for the existing commercial floor space on the subject site.

 

On 28 March 2012 Commissioner Morris of the Land and Environment Court gave her written decision in this matter. The appeal was upheld in part. The Commissioner refused the applicant’s appeal to delete condition C(11) in its entirety, however, granted a reduction of $555,000.00 in the total quantum of the Section 94 contribution with the contribution being reduced to a total of $1,555,504.96.

 

On 30 March 2012 the applicant lodged a Section 96 application seeking approval to stage the phasing of the construction certificate approvals into three (3) specific stages and deferring the payment of the Section 94 contribution payment. Council approved this Section 96 application on 24 April 2012.

 

3.0    SUMMARY OF MODIFICATION

 

The applicant has stated that the deletion of the fifth basement car park level is being sought in an effort to reduce the costs of construction and to reduce the environmental impacts of the development.

 

The original approved scheme incorporated the following breakdown in respect to car parking spaces:-

 

·    Basement B1 - Retail level providing a total of 38 car parking spaces;

·    Basement B2 - Residential and public level providing a total of 9 residential and 48 public car parking spaces;

·    Basement B3 – Residential and public level providing a total of 8 residential and 51 public car parking spaces;

·    Basement B4 - Residential level providing a total of 62 car parking spaces; and

·    Basement B5 - Residential level providing a total of 67 car parking spaces.

 

A total of 283 car parking spaces was proposed throughout basement levels B1 to B5 in the original approval. The proposed modifications will have a total of 299 car parking spaces throughout basement levels B1 to B4.

 

The proposed modification, despite being one basement level less, provides more car parking spaces overall. The reason for this is that the modified basement car parking levels incorporate a more efficient layout and removes unnecessary ramps thus freeing up more usable area to be utilised for car parking spaces.


 

The original approved scheme incorporated one (1) lift and a travelator from the supermarket level to the car parking level. The proposed modification deletes the travelator however replaces it with an extra lift thus now providing a total of two lifts servicing the future supermarket.

 

The original scheme provided a total of 99 public car parking spaces over levels B2 and B3. A total of 84 public car parking spaces was required, however the applicant provided an extra 15 public car spaces. The reason being that, the design of the original basement could not accommodate the entire 84 public spaces on one level rather the applicant provided these spaces over 2 basement levels. Therefore the additional spaces was provided as public car parking as it was difficult to physically separate these spaces from the public level and incorporate them into the retail level. The proposed modifications to the basement car parking now enables the entire 84 public car parking spaces to be accommodated on one level.

 

During the Land and Environment Court appeal held in March 2012 the applicant sought credit from Council in respect to the 15 extra public car parking spaces. During the appeal Council indicated that the extra 15 spaces was not requested or conditioned by Council rather the applicant provided these spaces. During the appeal Council informed the court that only 84 public car parking spaces is required and that the applicant could allocate the additional 15 spaces to the retail component if they wish to.

 

The proposed modified basement level B1 does not provide the required 18 bicycle storage spaces as approved in the original scheme, in this regard a condition will be imposed requiring the provision of 18 bicycle storage space on the retail level.

 

In addition the proposed modified basement level B3 and B4 does not provide the required 5 motorcycle parking and 20 bicycle storage spaces, in this regard a condition will be imposed requiring the provision of 5 motorcycle parking and an additional 5 bicycle storage space on the residential levels.

 

The proposed modification only relates to the basement car parking levels and will therefore not create any visible external changes to the building as originally approved. From an ESD point of view the removal of the fifth basement level will have benefits in that there will be reduced excavation and truck movement.

 

The modification will not alter the external appearance of the approved building and as such considered that the proposed amendment does not substantially alter the nature of the original proposal. In addition the proposal complies with the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended) and the applicable development control plans.


 

4.0    APPLICATION DETAILS

 

Applicant

Mr F Nassif

Owner

Mercland Ashfield Pty Ltd

Lot/DP

Lot 2  DP 1111574

Date lodged

04 July 2012

Application Type

Local

Construction Certificate

Not submitted as part of the DA

Section 94 Levy

Applies

 

5.0    SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

 

The subject site with a site area of 3,687m2 is located within the street block bounded by Brown Street, Hercules Street and Liverpool Road and is located diagonally opposite Ashfield Railway Station.

 

The subject site is also located within the core of the Ashfield Town Centre. The site has its main frontage to the western side of Brown Street and secondary frontage to Drakes Lane. The land falls towards the northern end of Brown Street, where it levels off opposite the Ashfield Railway Station.

 

The site abuts a 7 storey commercial building to the south east and an existing electricity substation to the south. To the east of the site is an 8 storey mixed use development. To the west of the site is Hercules Street commercial strip, with those shops fronting Hercules Street.

 

Refer to Attachment 1 for a locality map.

 

6.0    ZONING/PERMISSIBILITY/HERITAGE

 

The development site is zoned 3(a) - General Business under the provisions of ALEP 1985, which permits the proposed development.

 

7.0    SECTION 79C and 96(2) ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

7.1    The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

7.1.1        Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with the LEP.


 

7.1.2        Regional Environmental Plans

 

Not applicable.

 

7.1.3        State Environmental Planning Policies

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with the relevant SEPPs.

 

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

 

The subject site is proposed to be zoned B4 Mixed Use pursuant to Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposed modification is permissible with consent.

 

The proposed modification to the basement levels is compliant with the provisions of the Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

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 significant adverse environmental impacts in 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.

 

Clause 2.26 (c) of Council’s notification policy exempts notification of applications where the proposed works will not be visible externally and there will be little or no impact on the amenity of the locality and/or traffic safety.


 

7.8    The public interest

 

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

 

8.0    REFERRALS

 

Council’s traffic engineer has not raised any issues with the proposed modification to the basement levels.

 

9.0    FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There is no negative financial implications for Council in approving this application.

 

10.0  BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA (BCA)

 

The proposed changes do not alter compliance with the Building Code of Australia. The applicant is required to lodge a Construction Certificate.

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 2View

Plans of Proposal

8 Pages

 

Attachment 3View

Conditions

42 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Development application No. 10.2010.301.3 be approved subject to the attached conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment


Attachment 1

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 2

 

Plans of Proposal

 









Attachment 3

 

Conditions

 











































Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012  CM10.5

Subject                            YASMAR - DRAFT PLAN OF MANAGEMENT

 

File Ref                            Yasmar

 

Prepared by                   Ron Sim - Manager Strategic Planning & Projects       

 

 

Reasons                          Council Resolution – The objective is to provide a corporate (Council) response to the currently exhibited Draft Plan of Management (POM) and Draft Conservation Management Plan (CMP)

 

Objective                         Provide corporate Council response and recommend participation in a proposed Reserve Trust to be set up to administer the property/consider future land use development options.

 

 

 


 

 

 

Overview of Report

Provides a synopsis of the recently exhibited Draft Plan of Management for Yasmar and suggests key issues that need to be considered when determining future development /land use options for the site. It is also recommended that Council participate in the Reserve Trust to be formed to administer the site and assess future expressions of interest for use of the property.

 

 

 

1.0    Background

 

The POM and “constraints and opportunities” findings of the CMP for the historic Yasmar site are on public exhibition concluding 24 August 2012.  See Attachment 1 for details.

 

Yasmar

 

Key recommendations in both Plans are as follows (italicised)


 

“Summary

 

This Plan of Management for Yasmar Reserve aims to ensure the historic site retains its environmental, scenic, cultural, and social values. The plan will also help ensure that the interactions and relationships between the adjoining uses on the Reserve are managed in a holistic way.

 

Yasmar Reserve is unique in terms of its historic, aesthetic, scientific and social significance. The Reserve contains three portions:

 

·    The original homestead, known as Yasmar House, which dates to the 1850s and is the only villa house estate remaining along Parramatta

Road, which is the oldest roadway in Australia. The house exterior is a fine, rare and largely intact example of a Greek Style Villa, complete with its original configuration and rear courtyard, service wings and outbuildings. The garden that fronts the house is a rare example of the Gardenesque style surviving close to the city and retaining connection with its original residence. The house is currently vacant.

 

·    The eastern and western wings of the homestead which, until fairly recently, were used to house juvenile offenders. The eastern wing is

currently vacant, while the western wing is occupied by the Yasmar Training Facility (operated by the NSW Juvenile Justice).

 

Conservation

 

Conservation policies are based on the Yasmar Reserve Conservation Management Plan (CMP) (Godden Mackay Logan, 2011).

 

The recommendations of the 2012 POM/CMP are:

 

·    Retain Yasmar Reserve in public ownership as a single lot. While the tripartite character of the site has significance and should be retained and interpreted, the management of Yasmar Reserve should be managed on a holistic basis.

 

·    Promote publicly accessible institutional uses for the Reserve as a whole, and to retain public access to the Reserve.

 

·    Undertake ‘catch-up’ conservation works for Yasmar House and grounds as a matter of urgency. In the short term, the State Government should undertake an audit of urgent repair work, and undertake these repairs to prevent any further deterioration of the building. In the longer term, Yasmar House and garden should be restored using best-practice heritage restoration methods, with tradespeople fully qualified in restoration work. Following restoration, Yasmar House and garden should be conserved as required by a building conservation/maintenance schedule identifying tasks that need to be undertaken, and when they need to be done.


 

·    Prohibit new development that would adversely impact Yasmar House, its grounds and its setting.

 

·    Implement an interpretation plan for the site.

 

Funding

 

Yasmar House and garden will require substantial funds for restoration and ongoing maintenance. The State Government has already expended $350,000 towards the management of the site (Officer Comment: Additional funding for restoration works are being sought). Long term funding will need to be generated from tenures over the eastern and western wings of Yasmar Reserve, as well as possible future uses of Yasmar House. It is the intention income generated within Yasmar Reserve will be retained and applied for the general purpose of the Reserve Trust.

 

Future uses of Yasmar House and garden

 

The site offers a spectrum of opportunities for adaptive reuse, from uses that involve entirely public use, to those that involve mainly private use. A mix of private and public uses is also possible. The best use will need to be identified through a tender process calling for expressions of interest to lease the site. Potential uses may be limited by:

 

 

(i)   The need to find a use that provides a recurrent income stream sufficient to restore, conserve and maintain Yasmar House and Garden.

(ii)  The need to maintain Yasmar House’s heritage significance and integrity

(iii) The need for a level of public access and multiple uses.

(iv) The internal layout, which features many small spaces.

 

Access

 

All vehicular access to the whole site is to be via the driveway connecting to Chandos Street. The entry must be sufficient to allow the two-way movement of vehicles. At no time is vehicular access to be obtained via Parramatta Road (except in the case of emergencies). The Parramatta Road driveway and associated carriageway that once serviced Yasmar House is to be only be used for pedestrian access.

 

Parking

 

To create a framework for the equitable, efficient and safe use of the common car park, the then Department of Lands commissioned the preparation of a traffic management plan (Thompson Stanbury Associates, 2008). A Traffic Management and Safety Committee shall be established to implement the traffic management plan and to develop further guidelines and coordinate on-site parking arrangements in order to maximise on- and off-site vehicular and pedestrian safety. Under the traffic management plan, the Juvenile Justice Training Centre would continue to have sole use of the small car park to the rear of its facility. In addition, to comply with the judgment of the Land and Environment Court, car parking spaces shall be allocated for the different uses on the Reserve.


 

Management

 

Yasmar Reserve is Crown land. The Yasmar (R1011588) Reserve Trust is charged with care, control and management of the site. The Lands Administration Ministerial Corporation (MinCorp) manages the affairs of the Trust (that is, undertakes the day-to-day work). This management arrangement shall continue, though there is scope for involvement by Ashfield Council, should Council seek a greater management role. The Reserve Trust shall manage the entire Reserve, and consider the site as a

whole.

 

Zoning and reservation action (Yasmar House and Garden)

 

Once new uses are formalised, the Reserve Trust shall seek advice from Ashfield Council on appropriate zoning for Yasmar Reserve to enable these new uses, and then apply to alter the zoning accordingly.

 

2.0       Comments from Council’s heritage advisor (italicised)

 

“My concern is that an inappropriate development of the lands which form part of this Estate will be permitted because no other source of funding can be found. Any long term alienation of the lands by substantial building and development will be regretted, very quickly. However, it may be that Council will be asked to approve an inappropriate zoning change to facilitate a use which it finds inappropriate, but which has been "locked in" by higher levels of government.

 

It may be that a commercial tenant can be found for the eastern side, prepared to pay properly for such a well located site. This would deliver some funding stream to the Trust, but even with the Corrective Services returns from the western side, this may not support the work the house needs.

 

Council could support the idea of the Trust and argue for a role in it, to maintain and ensure respect for the community interest in the property. However, adequate resources over a sustained time frame must be provided, to avoid the need for a chance of any resort to inappropriate development.

 

I hope this is of some assistance.............. Robert A Moore”

 

3.0    Officer comments

 

Council and the community need to be closely involved in any future decisions relating to management and use of Yasmar – all parties need to be “kept in the loop”.

Ongoing  community involvement including the recent “open day” held at the property assists in  identify the values of the site and it will be important to continue to consult the Ashfield community at each step in the process.

 

Once the POM/CMP is finally adopted mechanisms and procedures should be followed in consultation with Council to ensure that consultation occurs in a timely fashion before important decisions are made on the future use of Yasmar and the grounds. Council can be involved in the Trust to be set up to administer the property as a means of achieving this.

 

In the interim the following specific objectives were endorsed by Council previously and communicated to the Department of Primary Industry prior to release of the Draft POM. They remain relevant and are generally consistent with those expressed in the currently exhibited Draft Plan of Management:

 

·    conservation of the cultural landscape, buildings, and any moveable heritage and other features in a manner which retains their cultural  significance,

·    conservation/protection of the extensive gardens and original vegetation - provide a landscape master plan

·    opportunities for public viewing of the house and public access to the main gardens ;

·    promotion of community understanding and appreciation of the history &  cultural significance of the historic site and educational opportunities;

·    use of the historic Yasmar site in a manner which is compatible with its significance and if possible continues its cultural traditions in a dynamic manner;

·    priority to be given to restoring and conserving features of the historic dwelling in danger of severe deterioration;

·    careful management of traffic and parking consistent with conserving Yasmar and associated gardens.

 

4.0    Development/land use options for Yasmar

 

(a)       Development options:

It may be possible to develop parts of the site (such as the eastern part of the site formerly proposed for the “COASIT” facility). However it is critical that any development be designed in a way that does not adversely affect the heritage significance of Yasmar and from a wider perspective, Haberfield Garden suburb. 

A pro-active planning approach is therefore recommended involving the preparation of site planning briefs. These should be prepared in close consultation with Council for incorporating guidelines and built form policies that will ensure future development is in accordance with CMP principles and will address some of the concerns expressed by Council’s heritage advisor.

 

The site planning briefs can be in a summary form and should address the following   issues:

·    the sustainable use and management of the site;

·    the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on        other land in the locality;

·    landscaping provisions which ensure the preservation of trees and

·    other vegetation and enhancement of the visual experience and

·    amenity values of the gardens;

·    provision of adequate infrastructure, water, electricity and sewerage;

·    provision for adequate protection and management of environmental

·    features/ hazards such as landform stability, erosion control, drainage & flooding, vegetation and landscaping, waste control and noise and lighting; 

·    the social and economic effect of any proposal on the historic building and gardens and the significance of the Haberfield locality;


 

·    the character, siting, scale, shape, size, height, design and external

·    appearance of the proposal;

·    provisions for the protection and maintenance of any heritage

·    buildings, archaeological, indigenous cultural values.  

·    criteria for the erection of signs for any proposed use which will provide for minimal signage located on the site of the activity or facility,

·    the amount of traffic, access points, parking, loading unloading and manoeuvring likely to be generated by a proposal and how it can be provided without compromising other users of the site or its heritage significance.

·    Maintaining reasonable public access to the house

 

(b)       Potential land uses

The Draft POM alludes to some potential uses for the dwelling and for other buildings on the site. Although it is agreed proposed uses for the site cannot be finally determined at this stage (with the exception of Juvenile Justice who wish to retain a training presence in the current (west wing) building, some potential uses that for the historic building site are listed below. Any use of other disused buildings on the site or their replacement with new structures must have acceptable heritage impacts and align with the principles expressed in the CMP for the site.

 

·          Art gallery, exhibitions

·          Function centre/event venue

·          Art and craft workshops

·          Restaurant/tea room

·          Residence

·          See also Table 3 on page 47 of the CMP for other  land use possibilities including possible (attached)

Most of the above uses for the historic house would satisfy Council’s objectives for use of the historic site. It is also agreed as stated in the CMP that different uses could be combined. Any use(s) must not damage, destroy, significantly alter or result in an unacceptable level of wear and tear on the landscape, spaces and fabric of Yasmar. 

Decisions about which uses are actually implemented in the historic building will depend upon State Government, Council, community and commercial interest in management of these or other uses. It will be necessary to maintain a flexible approach to future uses in order to allow for changes in public interest, progressive evolution of operations and fresh ideas. However irrespective of future uses and development options for the eastern wing some key outcomes that will always need to be achieved are:

·    The house should be open to the public at certain times of the year and it is preferable that it remain in public ownership. Perhaps some rooms in the house can also be made available to community groups.

 

·    The central garden should be always publicly accessible during daylight hours.

 

·    A “cast iron” agreement needs to be set up so that all funds received from redevelopment/sale of land or for the lease of the dwelling are directed to restoration of historic Yasmar and ongoing maintenance of the equally historic gardens.


 

Finally, the site can also provide an important educational resource, providing insight into the cultural significance of the property. An interpretation plan should be prepared to organise presentation of the site in a manner which best reflects its social, historic and archaeological importance. Interpretive strategies and methods will, however, depend upon future uses of the site. Possibilities (see above) include presentations based at the house, guided tours, a self-guided walk of the house and gardens with an interpretive brochure, a series of signs at various features and historical demonstrations and activities. Interpretation of the site’s history and features will be very important. 

 

5.0    Maintenance plan required to prevent further deterioration

 

The potential for further deterioration of the historic fabric of buildings on the site is of concern. This is mentioned in Part 4.1 of the Draft CMP however it is not clear whether there is a detailed interim conservation management plan in place to identify urgently required remedial work and prevent any further deterioration of the historic structures on the site. Council should request that a maintenance plan be produced as a matter of urgency and its recommendations implemented expeditiously.

 

6.0    Zoning considerations

 

Draft LEP 2012 will rezone the land to an R2 low density residential zone compatible with the remainder of Haberfield. Open space/public recreation is also permissible within this zone. Clause 5.10 of the Draft LEP is a “standard” clause appearing in all new LEP’s and is reproduced below

 

(10) Conservation incentives

 

The consent authority may grant consent to development for any purpose of a

building that is a heritage item or of the land on which such a building is erected, or

for any purpose on an Aboriginal place of heritage significance, even though

development for that purpose would otherwise not be allowed by this Plan, if the

consent authority is satisfied that:

 

(a) the conservation of the heritage item or Aboriginal place of heritage

significance is facilitated by the granting of consent, and

(b) the proposed development is in accordance with a heritage management

document that has been approved by the consent authority, and

(c) the consent to the proposed development would require that all necessary

conservation work identified in the heritage management document is carried

out, and

(d) the proposed development would not adversely affect the heritage significance

of the heritage item, including its setting, or the heritage significance of the

Aboriginal place of heritage significance, and

(e) the proposed development would not have any significant adverse effect on the

amenity of the surrounding area.


 

Given the flexibility offered by this Clause it is not anticipated any future zoning changes would be required. The above clause in fact provides safeguards by ensuring that a pre-requisite for approving any future uses that do not comply with the proposed residential zoning is maintaining heritage significance.

 

7.0    Establishment of Reserve Trust – Council involvement

 

It is proposed to establish a reserve trust to prepare an expression of interest document to lease the property. The trust may also choose to propose development options for other parts of the site. Council’s heritage adviser suggests that Council may wish to be involved on the Trust. This is a good approach because it will keep Council “in the loop” and involved in future decision making processes associated with the use of the site.

 

8.0       Conclusion

 

This report outlines the broad findings of the Draft POM and CMP and suggests a number of key criteria that need to be considered relating to future land uses and development options including options for access to the house and gardens by the public. The report can form the basis of a corporate Council response to the Draft POM and CMP exhibited by the Department of Primary Industry. It is also suggested that Council be involved in the proposed Reserve Trust to be set up to administer the site as a way of ensuring Council’s views are known when important decisions on the future of the property are considered.

 

Financial Implications

N/A

 

Other Staff Comments

 

Council’s heritage advisor provided comments.

 

Public Consultation

 

Currently being carried out by State Government – public exhibition concludes 24 August.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Draft Plan of Management (includes extract from Draft CMP - constraints and opportunities) - Circulated under separate cover

56 Pages

 

Attachment 2

CMP Draft Report - Circulated under separate cover

234 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/4    That a copy of this report be provided to the Department of Primary Industry as an expression of Council’s corporate view addressing a range of matters that need to be considered when determining future land use and development options for the historic “Yasmar” site.

 

2/4    That Council advise the Department of Primary Industry that it wishes to be represented on the future Reserve Trust to be formed to consider future land use/ development options for the site.

 

3/4    That the Department of Primary Industry be requested to produce a maintenance plan and implement its requirements as a matter of priority in order to halt any further deterioration of the building fabric of the historic buildings on the site

 

4/4    That the Haberfield Association and Ashfield and District Historical Society be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012  CM10.6

Subject                            COMMUNITY GARDENING POLICY

 

File Ref                            Community Gardening Policy

 

Prepared by                   Jocelyn Cutler - Sustainability & Resource Recovery Education Officer        

 

 

Reasons                          To present the results of the public exhibition of the drafted Community Gardens Policy

 

Objective                         To seek Council’s adoption of the attached Community Gardening Policy.

 

 

 


Overview of Report

Following significant interest in community gardening from the local community and council, a draft policy was developed and, following Council’s endorsement, was placed on public exhibition.

 

The draft Community Gardening Policy gained positive support from community responses during the public exhibition period.

 

This report seeks to gain Council’s endorsement of the policy.

 

 

Background

Ashfield Council supports the development of community gardening within the Ashfield Local Government Area and believes that appropriately designed and managed community gardens can provide a wide range of environmental, social and economic benefits to the Ashfield community.

 

Council’s Sustainability Team has undertaken significant research in order to develop the draft Community Gardening Policy (Attachment 1). This research and Council’s recent experience has shown that a ‘bottom-up’ approach to community gardens is preferable in the development of community gardens and as such is the model proposed in this draft Policy.

 

Under the model proposed in this draft Policy, the community initiates the development of a garden by identifying a site, establishing an incorporated group, obtaining approval for the garden, and managing the facility on a day to day basis. Council plays a support role through the policy, assesses applications, grants access to suitable land and provides general advice and support to groups. Initially Council will be able to fund some small infrastructure for the establishment of a few new gardens e.g. raised garden bed structures, recycling, worm farming and composting facilities.

 

This method has been piloted via the Eora Community Garden in Smith Street, Summer Hill, which has been running effectively as a self managed space for approximately 3 years.


 

The draft Policy sets out the support and assistance Council can provide for Community Gardens as well as the roles and responsibilities for any new community garden groups.

 

This draft policy has been on public exhibition during May 2012 and received supportive comments from the community only.

 

This report seeks Council’s adoption of the draft Community Gardening Policy (Attachment 1).

 

 

Financial Implications

Council has an existing budget allocation for Community Gardens of $40,000 ($20,000 from the Environmental Levy and $20,000 from the Waste and Sustainability Improvement Program Payment).

 

These funds will be accessed to support new garden applications and to provide appropriate training for community garden volunteers.

 

 

Other Staff Comments

Council’s Community Services Team worked closely with the Sustainability Team on the establishment of the Eora Community Garden and during the research phase for the draft Community Gardening Policy. They along with other Council staff have provided various feedback on the draft policy which has been incorporated into the attached document where appropriate.

 

Public Consultation

This policy has been developed from discussions and preliminary consultation with the Ashfield Community Gardeners Group.

The draft policy was on public exhibition during May, to garner responses from the wider community. Two comments were received; both were in support of council adoption of the policy:

“The Ashfield Gardeners have read the Ashfield Council's Community garden policy. As you may be aware, we have been great supporters of this policy and we are happy that it has now been passed. The Gardeners would like to thank the Council for approving the policy and we believe that it will be a great benefit for the local area. We look forward to working with the Council to implement the policy.
Regards,
Kim Santarossa
on behalf of Ashfield Community Gardeners”

 

“I am responding to the draft Community Gardening Policy on public exhibition and wanted to congratulate council in formalising a policy on this function within our community and thereby allowing for some activity in community gardening in Ashfield LGA.

Regards

Margaret Levin

50 Church Street

Ashfield NSW 2131”

 


 

 

Conclusion

Council has a desire to see more community gardens within the LGA. Having a clear policy and mechanism for establishing community gardens will ensure any new gardens are well developed and managed into the future.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Community Gardening Policy July 2012

14 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopts the Ashfield Community Gardening Policy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Janene Harris

Team Leader Sustainability

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Community Gardening Policy July 2012

 















Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012  CM10.7

Subject                            AMENDMENTS TO COUNCILLOR EXPENSES AND FACILITIES POLICY

 

File Ref                            GOVERNANCE

 

Prepared by                   Nellette Kettle - Director Corporate & Community Services       

 

 

Reasons                          To amend to the Expenses and Facilities Policy in preparation for the new Council term.

 

 

 


Overview of Report
This report seeks to amend, for public exhibition, the Councillor’s Expenses and Facilities Policy in preparation for the new Council term.

 

 

 

Background

The Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy provides for the equipment and facilities that are provided to Councillors to assist them in fulfilling their civic duties.  Each Council is required to have such a policy under the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Report

Council officers are in the midst of planning for the equipment and facilities of the new Council term and as part of this process we have consulted with current Councillors on equipment requirements via survey and a workshop in June 2012.

 

It is recommended that the Council adopt the following changes to the Expenses and Facilities Policy to enable planning for the new term of Council to be put into effect:

 

·  Page 8 (travel within the Sydney Metropolitan area) – an increase in the limit applying to the cost of a single taxi trip from $70 to $120, in response to feedback from Councillors that a $70 limit is too low for trips taken at peak traffic times.

·  Page 9 (travel outside the Sydney Metropolitan area including interstate travel) - an increase in the limit applying to the cost of a single taxi trip from $70 to $120

·  Page 9 (Telephone and PDA Costs and Expenses) – this section has been re-written to reflect that Council will no longer provide mobile phones to Councillors and will instead provide reimbursement of costs

·  Page 13 (Provision of Equipment and Facilities for Councillors) – this section has been rewritten to:

o Provide Councillors with the alternative of a laptop or ipad;

o Provide Councillors with the alternative of a multi-function device or an old style fax machine according to preference

o Provide for reimbursement of internet (up to $50 per month) and fax costs (up to $80 per month) for Councillors who choose to utilise their own home office set up

·  Page 14 (Provision of Additional Equipment and Facilities for the Mayor) – 3rd dot point re-written to reflect that Council no longer provides the mobile phone


 

·  Pages 21 and 22 – administrative amendments to the forms to facilitate the above changes.

 

Financial Implications

Provided for within existing budgets for 2012/13.

 

Other Staff Comments

The General Manager, Manager Corporate Services and Manager Information and Communications Technology have contributed to this review.

 

Public Consultation

Under the legislation a 28 day period of public exhibition is required before final adoption of the Policy by Council.

 

Conclusion

The changes outlined in this report and marked up in the policy are recommended for adoption for public exhibition to facilitate the issue of equipment and facilities to the new Council in due course.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Amended Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy

22 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2    That Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Expenses and Facilities Policy to facilitate planning for the new Council term for the purposes of public exhibition.

 

2/2    That the amended policy undergo public exhibition in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Amended Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy

 























Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012  CM10.8

Subject                            SECTION 449 RETURNS - PECUNIARY INTEREST RETURNS FOR PERIOD 1 JULY 2011 - 30 JUNE 2012

 

File Ref                            Governance>Statutory Reporting

 

Prepared by                   Laura Lahoud - Corporate Services Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          To comply with Section 449 of the Local Government Act

 

Objective                         To ensure transparency and accountability in local government decision making

 

 


Overview of Report

Section 449 of the Local Government Act requires that all Councillors and designated persons complete a pecuniary interest return and lodge it with the General Manager.  The returns can be inspected by members of the public and assist in ensuring transparency and accountability in local government decision-making.

 

Background

 

At the time of tabling returns were received from the following Councillors and designated persons:-

Councillor Adams

Ms V Chan

Councillor Cassidy

Ms N Kettle

Councillor Drury

Mr P Sarin

Councillor Kelso

Mr T Giunta

Councillor Kennedy

Mr M Vinayagamoorthy

Councillor Lofts

 

Councillor Mansour

 

Councillor McKenna

 

Councillor Rerceretnam

 

Councillor Stott

 

Councillor Wang

 

Councillor Wangmann

 

 

Financial Implications

Nil

 

Other Staff Comments

Nil

 

Public Consultation

As per section 450A of the Local Government Act, Council maintains a register of returns where members of the public can inspect the Pecuniary Interest Register under the GIPA Act 2009


 

Conclusion

Section 450A (2) (b) of the Local Government Act states that returns must be tabled at the first meeting held after the last day for lodgement. There are no outstanding returns.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Memorandum to Councillors and Designated Persons regarding Pecuniary Interest Returns

1 Page

 

Attachment 2View

Register of Returns - Councillors and Designated Persons 1 July 2011 - 30 June 2012

1 Page

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2         That it be noted the Pecuniary Interest Returns have been tabled in accordance with Section 450A of the Local Government Act.

 

2/2         That the Division of Local Government be given a copy of the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Memorandum to Councillors and Designated Persons regarding Pecuniary Interest Returns

 


Attachment 2

 

Register of Returns - Councillors and Designated Persons 1 July 2011 - 30 June 2012

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012  CM10.9

Subject                            SPONSORSHIP PROPOSAL - WESTFIELD BURWOOD

 

File Ref                            Sponsorship

 

Prepared by                   Robert Richardson - Business Liaison and Events Coordinator       

 

 

Reasons                          To seek Council’s approval of proposed sponsorship of Feast of Flavours Food Festivals

 

Objective                         Secure funding to support Council managed Food Festivals.

 

 

 


Overview of Report
Westfield Burwood has offered to sponsor Council Feast of Flavours food festivals to the amount of $8000; as well as making a contribution of $12,000 to the producers of an Ashfield Dining Guide.  These funds would make a very positive impact on the running of the festivals and will enable production of the Guide to commence. 

 

The Westfield sponsorship has been structured so that it does not detract from the promotion of Ashfield LGA food destinations and it brings a complementary Inner West wide focus to our promotion.  Westfield Burwood are also providing sponsorship to a food festival and dining guide for Strathfield Council. The project thus demonstrates the effectiveness of a combined campaign by two Inner West Councils to effectively procure services; and may well be a program which more Inner West Councils can join in future years. 

 

Council approval of the sponsorship offer is recommended.

 

 

Background

 

Ashfield Council recently engaged Big Splash Media to investigate the financial feasibility of producing an Ashfield Dining Guide, listing all restaurants, coffee shops and selected food providores in the Ashfield LGA and including editorial and advertising, to be released in conjunction with the 2012 Festival of Flavours food festivals.  Our brief to Big Splash was to identify sponsors who would contribute funds for both the production of the Dining Guide and the running of the festivals.  Big Splash, a producer of specialty business publications, was selected for this role because they have successfully worked with Strathfield Council to produce a Strathfield Good Food Guide. 

 

Big Splash approached over 20 potential major sponsors to promote an opportunity to jointly support food guides and food festivals in Ashfield and Strathfield.  This project has proved challenging, but so far one organisation, Westfield Burwood, has agreed to a sponsorship of $20,000, consisting of contributions of $12,000 for production of an Ashfield Dining Guide and $8000 for the running of our 3 Feast of Flavours food festivals.  This funding will provide sufficient security for Big Splash to proceed with production of the Dining Guide and will also make a major contribution towards the costs of running the festivals. 


 

Westfield Burwood’s principle aim in providing sponsorship is to promote their Spring Summer fashion offerings.  They will take booths at the festivals where a fashion stylist will offer visitors a free fashion styling consultation and Westfield gift card.  Refreshments will also be served at the booth and we are offering Westfield options of using locally based caterers.  However the focus will be on fashion, not food. The Westfield booth will thus offer an interesting and enjoyable experience to fashion conscious visitors to our food festivals and will not detract from promotion of the local precinct food offerings. 

 

For their $8000 sponsorship, Westfield will receive the following benefits:

-     4mx4m stall at each event

-     Logo on all banners

-     Logo on posters

-     Logo on brochures (delivered to 19,000 homes)

-     Logo on website

-     Mention in festival press releases

 

Subject to Council approval, this arrangement will be confirmed in an exchange of letters with Westfield. 

 

Financial Implications

 

Provision of $8000 from Westfield will provide a substantial supplementation to Council’s net funding of $25,000 for the 3 Feast of Flavours food festivals.  Sponsorship will enable us to provide enhanced levels of marketing and entertainment to draw audience numbers and make their experience more satisfying.  The sponsorship meets the requirements of Council’s Sponsorship policy. 

 

The production and budget for the Ashfield Dining Guide are being managed by Big Splash Media, with support and consultation from Council.  Thus the funding of $12,000 for the Guide will be paid direct to Big Splash and is not a sponsorship subject to Council approval.  However it is relevant to note that Westfield’s contribution will provide Big Splash with the required security to commence production of the guide and approach potential advertisers to fund the balance of their costs.  

 

Other Staff Comments

 

N/A

 

Public Consultation

 

Discussions have been held with Ashfield Mall management and Ashfield Business Chamber regarding the proposed Westfield sponsorship.  Representatives of both these organisations expressed an understanding of the substantial benefits which the Westfield sponsorship would provide our festival and dining guide projects, and agreed that, as a similar level of sponsorship could not be obtained from organisations with the Ashfield LGA Council, had valid and reasonable grounds to accept sponsorship from Westfield.  Both organisations will collaborate with Council to run the Feast of Flavours food festivals. 


 

The Westfield sponsorship proposal has also been discussed with a group of local businesses involved in planning for the Feast of Flavours food festivals.  The response was enthusiastic as the business owners felt Westfield’s involvement would add to the quality of the events and assist in drawing audience.  One fashion business owner from Haberfield commented favourably on the inclusion of a fashion aspect to the festival.

 

Conclusion

 

The sponsorship of $8000 from Westfield Burwood for the Feast of Festivals food festivals and the inclusion of a fashion consultation service will provide substantial benefits for the Feast of Flavours food festivals.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Strathfield Good Food Guide 2011

1 Page

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approve the sponsorship of $8000 from Westfield Burwood for the Feast of Festivals food festivals. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Strathfield Good Food Guide 2011

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012 CM10.10

Subject                            PROPOSED CHANGES TO COMMITTEE STRUCTURE

 

File Ref                            GOVERNANCE

 

Prepared by                   Nellette Kettle - Director Corporate & Community Services       

 

 

Reasons                          To report back to Council on a review of the Committee Structure

 

Objective                         To  adopt changes to the Committee Structure from October 2012.

 

 

 


Overview of Report
In March 2012 Council resolved that the General Manager commence a review of the Committee Structure.  This report provides the results of that review and recommends some minor changes to the Committee Structure to apply for the new term of the Council.

 

 

Background

Council resolved the following on 27 March 2012:

 

1.   That the General Manager prepare a discussion paper on Council Committees.

 

2.   That the General Manager arrange a workshop of Councillors to review the committee structure.

 

3.   That the third Tuesday of each month be set aside for Council Committee meetings.

 

A discussion paper was prepared and a workshop held of interested Councilors on 14 June 2012.  The recommended changes presented in this report arise from the workshop discussions.

 

Current Committee Structure

The current committee structure comprises a mix of standing and advisory committees and one steering committee, as follows:

 

1.         Budget and Operations Review Committee

2.         Community Services

3.         Communications Committee

4.         Environment Committee

5.         Library Committee

6.         Local Indigenous, Multicultural & Ethnic Affairs Committee

7.         Strategic Planning & Economic Development Committee

8.         Works & Infrastructure Committee

9.         Aboriginal Consultative Committee

10.       Ashfield Access Committee

11.       Ashfield Youth Committee

12.       Seniors Action Committee


 

13.       Ashfield Business Advisory Committee

14.       Pratten Park Advisory Committee

15.       Internal Audit Committee

16.       Investment Advisory Committee

17.       General Manager’s Performance Review Committee

18.       Women’s Committee

19.       Civic Centre Steering Committee

 

The advantages and disadvantages of this Committee Structure include:

 

Advantages

 

Disadvantages

·   Committees service a broad range of interest/subject areas

·   Structure provides opportunities for a number of Councillors to Chair committees

·   Staff/public participation on some committees

·   Large number of topic/issue specific committees, not reflective of collaborative practices or organisational outcomes

·   Some committees not meeting regularly or at all

·   Difficult to support a large number of committees within available resources

·   Many committees increase the time demands on Councillors

·   Not a lot of opportunity to community representatives to participate as some committees are more receive and note focussed (e.g. community services)

·   Not specifically aligned with current strategic priorities

·   Overlap across some committees (e.g. Community Services and LIMEAC)

 


 

Proposed Committee Structure post September 2012

 

Arising from the Councillor Workshop the following new Committee Structure is recommended to Council for adoption:

 

3 x Standing Committees (directorate structure based – Councillors as members  only)

 

Community Activities Committee –

Dealing with community development, community programs and services, library, customer service and business relations matters

 

Works and Services Committee –

Dealing with civil works, parks, traffic, waste, aquatic centre, asset management matters

 

Planning and Environment Committee –

Dealing with regulatory, urban planning (excluding DAs) and environmental/sustainability matters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OR

Councillor Briefing Evening (held every second Tuesday of the month) in place of standing committees.

 

Agenda to be developed based on needs and key issues at the time and would include briefing updates, workshops and staff/external presentations.

 

 

7 x Advisory Committees (comprising Councillor, community and other representatives according to the Terms of Reference)

 

Aboriginal Consultative Committee

Ashfield Youth Committee

Ashfield Access Committee

Seniors Action Committee

Pratten Park Advisory Committee

Internal Audit Committee

Women’s Committee

 

1 x Steering Committee (Councillors only)

 

Civic Centre (sunset committee, project based)

 

1 x Other Committee (Councillors only)

 

General Manager’s Performance Review Committee

 


Future Working Parties

 

Working parties are generally time and issue specific.  Council has a number of working parties, some of which are current and others which have not been active for some time.

 

It is proposed that Working Parties be reviewed annually.

 

At the current time it is recommended that we move forward with the Shopping Trolleys Working Party only as the only current active working party. 

 

The need for any new or future Working Parties can be called and considered by the new Council as appropriate to its interests.

 

External Representation/Committee

 

Council is reminded that Councillors also represent on a number of external committees and panels, including the SSROC Board and Committees, Local Traffic Committee and the Joint Regional Planning Panel.

 

Financial Implications

Nil.  The new Committee Structure can be implemented within existing resources

 

Other Staff Comments

The Council management team have participated in a workshop on the Committee Structure prior to the Councillor workshop in June 2012.

 

Public Consultation

Not required.

 

Conclusion

The proposed committee structure is a minimal change option that realigns the standing committees with the organisation structure and results in a more effective number of advisory committees.  The structure retains the ability for community representation and engagement with Council activities through the Advisory Committees.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/5    That Council adopt the proposed Committee Structure as outlined in the report to commence from October 2012.

 

2/5    That terms of reference be developed for each of the new Standing Committees and presented to the first Council meeting in October for adoption.

 

3/5    That new terms of reference be developed for each of the Advisory Committees within 3 months.

 

4/5    The Shopping Trolley working party continue into the new Council term and that Council’s Working Parties be formally reviewed on an annual basis or as needs arise.

 

5/5    That a letter of thanks be sent to all (non Councillor) current term Committee members thanking them for their contributions over the last four years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 14 August 2012 CM10.11

Subject                            ASHFIELD RESPONSE TO THE INDEPENDENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW PANEL CONSULTATION PAPER

 

File Ref                            State Government

 

Prepared by                   Vanessa Chan - General Manager       

 

 

Reasons                          To report back the outcomes of the Councillor Workshop on the Local Government Review Panel Consultation Paper - Strengthening Your Community

 

Objective                         To agree a response from Ashfield Council to the Consultation Paper.

 

 

 


Overview of Report

Findings of the councillors workshop are attached for consideration of Council.

 

 

Background

 

At the Budget and Operations Committee held 17 July 2012, Council considered a report by the Manager Governance providing background to NSW Local Government Review Panel. The report attached a copy of the Consultation Paper and noted that the closing date for submissions is 14 September 2012. Council resolved:

 

That the Council note the information contained in this report and that a workshop be arranged by the General Manager for interested Councillors to develop a submission regarding the Local Government Review Consultation Paper

 

A Councillors workshop was held 31 July, attended by Cllrs McKenna, Wang, Loft and Cassidy. The Consultation paper seeks responses to three specific questions:

 

1.   What are the best aspects of NSW local government in its current form

 

2.   What challenges will your community have to meet over the next 25 years?

 

3.          What ‘top 5’ changes should be made to local government to help meet your communities future challenges?

 

During the workshop we focussed on these specific questions. The outcomes of our discussion are attached.

 

Financial Implications

Nil

 


 

Other Staff Comments

Nil

 

Public Consultation

The NSW Local Government Review Panel Consultation Paper is currently available for broad community comment.

 

Conclusion

 

That Council make a submission to the Local Government Review Panel Consultation process.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

LGRP Workshop Outcomes - 31 July 2012

2 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council submit the attached responses to the questions put by the Local Government Review Panel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VANESSA CHAN

General Manager

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

LGRP Workshop Outcomes - 31 July 2012

 

AMC_Logo_landscape_RGB-1COUNCILLOR WORKSHOP

31 JULY 2012

 

 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW PANEL – CONSULTATION PAPER

STRENGTHENING YOUR COMMUNITY

 

 

Present       Vanessa Chan

                   Councillor Cassidy

                   Councillor McKenna

                   Councillor Lofts

                   Councillor Wang

 

What are the best aspects of NSW local government in its current form

 

·    Local government is the closest form of government to the people

·    Elected councillors have familiarity and affinity with their communities

·    Councillors have an intrinsic knowledge of and desire to promote community and the needs and aspiration of residents.

·    Council provides voice for its community to other levels of government

·    Council can respond quickly to local issues

·    Can deliver services efficiently and with clear community focus

·    Current structure provides balance between political and organisational aspects of Council

·    Community finds it easy to feedback, participate and engage with Councils - more so than larger forms of government institutions

·    Councils are innovative and explore new ideas and ways to consult/engage with our communities

 

What challenges will your community have to meet over the next 25 years?

 

·    Addressing demand for delivery of services that are rightly the forum/domain of state government

·    Cost shifting

·    Continuing to focus on the basic role of local government to ensure public health, safety and convenience of community – given the broader community services role imposed on Councils will little or no funding

·    Maintaining community wellbeing and aspirations of the community in addressing technical and environmental change, particularly where it immediately effects lifestyle

·    Reducing and recycling waste

·    Infrastructure renewal, particularly in historic urban areas

·    Managing development and population pressure locally, in accordance with state wide planning pressures

·    Increased density creating pressure on open space and recreational facilities

·    Managing traffic and parking in the corridor suburbs

·    Understanding and responding to the needs of diverse communities

 

THESE CHALLENGES DO NOT GET SOLVED BY HAVING LARGER LOCAL GOVERNMENT

 

 

What ‘top 5’ changes should be made to local government to help meet your communities future challenges?

 

·    State or Federal Government Commission for local infrastructural renewal funded from GST (every person pays tax) and from local communities where they have the ability to pay.

·    Core function of local government – public health, safety, convenience – must take precedents over functions that are the rightful role of state and federal without associated funding

·    Town planning (statutory/strategic) should be simplified for the community, builders and home owners and applications should be removed from political determination

·    A person of aboriginal heritage should be representative on all councils

·    Change to size of Councils should only occur after a referendum in all proposed areas delivers majority support

·    Popularly elected Mayors should be introduced

·    Each Council should have a standards number of councillors (determined by % population but with a ceiling where appropriate)

·    Facilitate an increase in local government influence to bring local knowledge to state government decision

·    Simplified Code of Conduct for councillors and senior staff

·    Constitutional recognition

·    Councils need to be resourced and funded to provide services

 

 

Closing comments

 

·    Amalgamations do not bring efficiencies through economies of scale.

·    ROCS  enable us to deliver efficiency gains and financial saving with flexibilities to tailor through joint purchasing and shared services.

·    The problem is not structure it is funding