23 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  28 AUGUST 2012 at 6:30 PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEE ATTACHED AGENDA


 

Ordinary Meeting - 28 August 2012

 

AGENDA

 

1.               Opening

 

2.               Acknowledgement of Local Aboriginal 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.

(28/08/2012)

 

7.               Confirmation of Minutes of Council/Committees

 

Ordinary Meeting - 14/08/2012

Budget & Operations Review Committee – 21/08/2012

Works & INfrastructure Committee – 21/08/2012

Aboriginal Consultative Committee – 16/08/2012

Works & Infrastructure Committee – 19/06/2012

Seniors’ Action Committee – 12/06/2012

 

8.               Mayoral Minutes

 

MM22/2012  GENERAL MANAGERS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 2011/12

 

9.               Notices of Motion

 

NM37/2012  OFFER BY ASHFIELD POLISH CLUB TO PROVIDE EXTRA PARKING SPACES FOR RESIDENTS

 

10.            Staff Reports

 

10.1     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.139.1
185 NORTON STREET,  ASHFIELD

 

10.2     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.146.1
37 DUDLEY STREET, HABERFIELD

 

10.3     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.145.1
41 BOOMERANG STREET, HABERFIELD

 

10.4     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 10.2010.018.4
59 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ASHFIELD

 

10.5     UNAUTHORISED TREE REMOVAL - 2-32 SMITH STREET, SUMMER HILL (FORMER ALLIED MILLS SITE)

 

10.6     FOURTH QUARTER REVIEW AGAINST THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2011 - 2015

 

10.7     SUNDRY GRANTS - REQUESTS TO COUNCIL FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

 

10.8     NSW PLANNING SYSTEM GREEN PAPER

 

10.9     COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS UPDATE - JANUARY - JUNE 2012

 

10.10   COMMUNITY PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

 

10.11   ENHANCING COUNCIL'S MURAL PROGRAM VIA THE USE OF 'STREET ART' TO DISCOURAGE GRAFFITI

 

 

11.            General Business

 

 

 

12.            Closed (Public Excluded) Committee

 

 

13.            Close

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 28 August 2012 MM22/2012

PERSONNEL

MAYORAL MINUTE

 

GENERAL MANAGERS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 2011/12

       

 

The General Manager’s Performance Assessment Committee has completed its review of the General Managers performance for 2011/12.

 

Please see attached our finding for discussion in Closed Committee.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

GM Review Letter 2012 -  - CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT - Confidential - It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

1 Page

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the review findings be  noted.

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

COUNCILLOR L KENNEDY

Mayor

 

 

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 28 August 2012 NM37/2012

Parking

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLOR Morris Mansour

 

 

OFFER BY ASHFIELD POLISH CLUB TO PROVIDE EXTRA PARKING SPACES FOR RESIDENTS

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM37/2012

 

The issue of commuter parking in residential streets, especially those close to Ashfield Station, has been one of the hottest problems facing the Council. The residents of Joseph Street, Holden Street, Rose Street, A'Beckett Avenue, Hugh St and Carlisle Street for example have felt the brunt of this problem for too long.

 

Only last month, Ashfield Council granted consent to Ashfield Mall to change the use of their free carpark to a paid parking operation. It is expected that hundreds of cars will seek free parking in the already crowded residential streets.

 

There are some encouraging signs that Council is moving in the right direction by unanimously supporting my motion in June 2012 which called for the introduction of a residents parking scheme and lobbies the State Government to build a multistorey carpark on top of the existing street level carpark at Ashfield Station. I am also aware of Council’s own parking study and the Mayor’s Minute calling for a report on the issue.

 

These are steps that may take some time to bear fruit. I am therefore pleased that the Polish Club, who currently have 35 car spaces at 75 Norton Street and could increase this capacity to 90 spaces, have approached me and offered to work with Ashfield Council to provide these facilities for the benefit of residents.

 

This is a golden opportunity that we must pursue with the Club urgently.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Letter dated 8 August 2012 from Polish Club Ltd

1 Page

 

 

 

Accordingly, I move:-

That the General Manager approach the Polish Club as a matter of priority to explore its offer further and report to Council about the outcome of the discussions.

 

 

Morris Mansour


 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 28 August 2012  CM10.1

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.139.1
185 NORTON STREET,  ASHFIELD

 

File Ref                            10.2011.139.1

 

Prepared by                   Philip North - Specialist Planner       

 

 

 Reasons                         Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 

 

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0    Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Clause 82A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks a review of Council’s determination of Development Application No. 10.2011.139.1 for the demolition of the existing structures on the site, and the construction of a 6 unit in-fill residential flat building at 185 Norton Street, Ashfield.

 

The proposal has been submitted pursuant to the ‘in-fill housing’ provisions of Division 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) – Affordable Rental Housing 2009.

 

Plans of the proposal are included as Attachment 1.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

This proposal was originally refused by Council on 14 February 2012.

 

The applicant has submitted amended plans to Council under the provisions of s82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which substantially address the reasons for the previous refusal of the application.

 

The amended proposal now satisfies the requirements of Ashfield DCP 2007 with the exception of the car parking provisions. Nevertheless, the proposal complies fully with the car parking requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and Council is consequently unable to refuse the application on this basis.

 

The applicant has, however, failed to provide documentation demonstrating finalisation of a stormwater drainage easement through the downstream property. To address this, Council’s stormwater engineer has recommended the application of a deferred commencement condition such that stormwater drainage matters must be resolved prior to the activation of any consent.

 

Given this, the development is recommended for Deferred Commencement approval.


 

Background

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         Mr B Rofail

Owner                                    :         Mr B Rofail

Value of work                       :         $1,500,000

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: 1 DP: 1007091

Date lodged                          :         17/06/2011

Date of last amendment     :         2 May 2012

Building classification        :         2

Application Type                  :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

Section 94A Levy                :         No

 

On the 30 May 2011 the NSW Government (the Department of Planning and Infrastructure) implemented revised controls for the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP. For in-fill residential developments, these revisions to the Policy include:

 

·    In-fill residential developments  need to be compatible with the design character of the area in which they are located;

 

·    Residential flat buildings will no longer be allowed in low-density residential areas;

 

·    In-fill residential developments  will be subject to a more stringent public transport test;

 

·    Higher parking standards are required for in-fill residential developments; and

 

·    The ‘affordable housing’ component of any in-fill residential development needs to be provided as a percentage of the total floor space rather than as a proportion of units.

 

With the exception of the first point’s ‘character test’, the amendments to the Policy are transitional (or are not relevant) and therefore have no bearing on the submitted proposal.

 

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

 

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

 

As no further information had been received by that date, the application was again referred to Council for determination at its meeting of 13 December 2011. At this meeting, Council again resolved that consideration of the application be deferred until the first Council meeting of February 2012.

 

A further meeting was held with the applicant’s planning consultant and architect on 18 January 2012. At this meeting, amended plans were presented which appeared to resolve many of the issues with the proposal. Notwithstanding this, the applicant was advised that the changes proposed were so extensive that they could not be considered as part of the current application. It was also advised, however, that it would be possible to consider these amendments under a section 82A review resulting from refusal of the present application. The applicant’s planning consultant agreed that this would be the most suitable way forward.

 

Amended plans along the lines presented were received by Council on 27 January 2012. As discussed, the amendments contained therein were so extensive that they could not be considered under the original development application. Council subsequently refused consent to the application on 14 February 2012.

 

Nevertheless, these plans formed part of ongoing discussions with the applicant which were directed towards the resolution of the outstanding issues through the submission of a section 82A review

 

Subsequent to this, the amended proposal was submitted to Council under 82A on 2 May 2012 and is the subject of this assessment.

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Norton Street, bounded by Milton Street to the West and Miller Avenue Street to the east.  The site area is approximately 933 square metres.  An existing multi-unit housing building is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises residential and commercial buildings.  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

6.8628/1938

25/10/1938

Dwelling – change of use

Approved

6.8914/1939

 

Garage

 

6.3946/1962

06/03/1962

Garage

Approved

6.5333/1965

02/02/1965

Multi-unit housing

Approved

6.9401/1974

30/08/1974

Garage

Approved

6.9711/1975

06/05/1975

Alterations and additions to dwelling

Approved

10.285/2006

11/09/2007

Unauthorised work – conversion of garage to unit

Refused

 


Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

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

 

The proposed development is prohibited under the provisions of the Ashfield LEP but may be considered for approval subject to the provisions of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP. See Section 7.1.3 of this report for a discussion on permissibility.

 

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 subject site is zoned 2(a)-Residential and the proposed in-fill residential development comprises a residential flat building as defined under Ashfield LEP 1995. Residential flat buildings are not permissible within the 2(a)-Residential zone pursuant to Table 10 of the Ashfield LEP. As such the proposal is prohibited under the Ashfield LEP.

 

Nevertheless, the development may be considered for approval subject to the provisions of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP. See Section 7.1.3 of this report.

 

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.

 

Clause 17(2) and its associated table outline a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.75:1 for buildings within the 2(a)-Residential zone. However, as detailed in Clause 17(1), for the purposes of this clause the definition of a building does not include a residential flat building.


 

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

 

The proposed residential flat building would be defined as a two-storey building under this Policy.

 

Whilst not strictly applicable, Clause 17A(3)(a) establishes a maximum ceiling height of 6m for residential flat buildings within the 2(b)-Residential zone. Whilst the proposed development is located within the 2(a)-Residential zone, the provisions of this clause have been considered on the basis that they establish a maximum height for what would generally be appropriate for a two-storey high residential flat building.

 

The proposed development has a maximum ceiling height of 7.3m at its highest point and would therefore fail to satisfy this control if it was applicable.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

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

 

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

 

For the purposes of this Policy a ‘residential flat building’ is defined as a building that “comprises or includes:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal is not defined as a residential flat building under this Policy as it consists of no more than two storeys.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

 

Division 1 of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP outlines the controls for in-fill residential developments, including those for residential flat buildings. A table detailing the proposal’s level of compliance with this Policy is included below:


 

Affordable Rental Housing SEPP

Section 10 – Land to which Division applies

 

SEPP Control

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Building Height

Clause 10(1)

The land must be within a specific zone, including the R2-Low Density Residential zone

The site has a 2(a)-Residential zoning, which is equivalent to R2-Low Density Residential

Yes

Public transport – Accessibility

Clause 10(2)

The land must be located in close proximity to public transport, including within 800m walking distance of a railway station

The site is located approximately 260m to the closest bus stop

Yes

Section 11 – Development to which Division applies

 

SEPP Control

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Building height (residential flat buildings not permissible within zone)

Clause 11(a)(i)

The building height is not to be more than 8.5m above the natural ground level

The proposed residential flat building is to have a maximum height of approximately 8.3m at its highest point

Yes

Percentage of Affordable Housing (residential flat buildings not permissible within zone)

Clause 11(a)(ii)

A minimum of 50% of the dwellings must comprise ‘affordable housing’ because residential flat buildings are not permissible on the lands otherwise than because of the SEPP.

 

The SEE supplied proposes only that 50% of the dwellings will comprise affordable housing units.

Yes

Section 14 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

 

SEPP Control

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Density and scale

(low rise development)

Clause 14(1)(a)(i) and (ii)

The proposal cannot be refused on ‘density or scale’ grounds if it has a FSR of not more than 0.75:1

The proposal has an FSR of 0.69:1

Yes

Site area

(low rise development)

Clause 14(1)(b)

The proposal cannot be refused on ‘site area’ grounds if it has an area of at least 450m2

The subject property has a site area of 933m2

Yes

Landscaped area

(low rise development)

Clause 14(1)(c)(ii)

The proposal cannot be refused on ‘landscaping’ grounds if at least 30% of the site is landscaped

The proposal will provide a landscaping percentage of 44% for the site

Yes

Deep soil zones – Area

(low rise development)

Clause 14(1)(d)(i)

The proposal cannot be refused on ‘deep soil’ landscaping grounds if at least 15% of the site comprises deep soil landscaping

The proposal will provide a deep soil landscaping percentage of at least 31% for the site

Yes

Deep soil zones – Width

(low rise development)

Clause 14(1)(d)(ii)

The proposal cannot be refused on ‘deep soil’ landscaping grounds if the deep soil zones have minimum dimensions of 3m

All deep soil areas have a minimum width of 3m.

Yes

Deep soil zones – Location

(low rise development)

Clause 14(1)(d)(iii)

The proposal cannot be refused on ‘deep soil’ landscaping grounds if at least two-thirds of the deep soil zone is located to the rear of the site where practicable.

Two-thirds of the deep soil zone is located to the rear of the site

Yes

Solar access

(low rise development)

Clause 14(1)(e)

The proposal cannot be refused on ‘solar access’ grounds if the living rooms and private open spaces of a minimum of 70% of development’s dwellings are provided with a minimum of three (3) hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter

84% of the units satisfy this provision.

Yes

Parking

Clause 14(2)(a)(ii)

The proposal cannot be refused on numerical ‘parking’ if a minimum of 0.5 car spaces are provided for each dwelling

Based on the requirements of this Policy, a minimum of 3 parking spaces would be required given that six units are proposed. A total of 3 parking spaces are proposed

Yes

Dwelling size

Clauses 14(2)(b)(i) and (iii)

The proposal cannot be refused on ‘dwelling size’ grounds if a minimum gross floor area of:

 

-  50m2 is provided for a one bedroom unit or larger; and

-  95m2 is provided for a three bedroom unit or more.

All units comply with these requirements.

Yes

 

Section 17 of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP outlines that a “consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless conditions are imposed by the consent authority to the effect that:

 

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

 

(i)         the dwellings proposed to be used for the purposes of affordable housing will be used for the purposes of affordable housing, and

 

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

 

(b)       a restriction will be registered, before the date of the issue of the occupation certificate, against the title of the property on which development is to be carried out, in accordance with section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, that will ensure that the requirements of paragraph (a) are met”.

 

The applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects states that three of the six units would be proposed for use as affordable housing. Although no documentation has been submitted with the application to indicate that the applicant has an agreement with a community housing provider, such a condition would be applied should the application be approved. 

 

In this instance, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the registration of a restriction-of-user on the property title covering the use of three of these units for the purpose of affordable housing. The recommended condition would outline a mixture of unit types be used for this purpose (Units 1, 2 and 6 – the latter being the adaptable unit).

 

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 R3 Medium Density Residential

Multi dwelling housing

Yes

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

500m2

933m2

Yes

4.3

Height of buildings

9.5m

8.3m

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

0.7:1

0.69:1

Yes

5.10

Heritage Conservation

Not located in a heritage conservation area or listed as a heritage item.

 

As demonstrated above, the application 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

See comment below.

C3

 

ASHFIELD TOWN CENTRE

 

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

 

Not applicable.

C4

ASHFIELD WEST AREA

 

Not applicable.

C5

 

MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL FLAT ZONES

See comments below.

C7

HABERFIELD HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREA

 

Not applicable.

C10

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Not applicable. The subject property is not a heritage item or located within a conservation area.

C11

PARKING

See comments below.

C12

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

The proposal was notified as a major development in accordance with the Public Notification DCP (Part C12 of the Ashfield DCP). See Section 7.7 of this report.

 

Ashfield DCP 2007 – Part C1 – Access and Mobility

 

The Access and Mobility DCP (Part C1 of the Ashfield DCP) does not strictly apply to this development as it is only applicable to residential flat buildings in 2(b) and 2(c) zones.

 

Notwithstanding this, the proposal generally complies with this part and is considered acceptable.

 

Ashfield DCP 2007 – Part C5 – Multi Unit Development in Residential Zones

 

Part C5 of Ashfield DCP - Multi Unit Development applies to residential flat buildings located within the 2(b) and 2(c)-Residential zones. As discussed previously the subject property is zoned 2(a)-Residential and as such the DCP does not strictly apply to this proposal. However, given that it outlines Council’s standards and controls for residential flat buildings, the provisions of the Multi Unit Development DCP has been in used in a merit-based assessment of this proposal.


 

COMPLIANCE TABLE – DCP PART C5 – MULT UNIT DEVELOPMENT

 

SECTION 1

Objectives

This section of the DCP does not technically apply to the proposed development.

SECTION 2

Residential Design Process

No site analysis has been submitted.

 

SECTION 3

Preferred development

3.2, 3.3 Ashfield’s Housing Character

Section 3.2 of the Plan outlines that “Ashfield’s housing heritage … includes flats, which have been built in considerable numbers since the 1920s… During the 1960s and 1970s, when many of these flats were built, the standard of design and siting was poor. A characteristic of many streets in Ashfield is poor flat design in conflict with the previously established suburban streetscape. The existence of the poor design is not to be taken as a precedent for further poor design”.

 

The section of Norton Street between Hampden Street and King Street is a largely single storey street consisting of detached dwellings except for  two residential flat buildings of two and three stories respectively; the rear entry of Ashfield RSL Club is also adjacent the site.  The opposite side of the street from the subject site consists of the Hampden Street Heritage Conservation Area.

 

The proposal’s general form and appearance and the massing of its elements is generally consistent with this established character and is considered appropriate.

 

3.4 Streetscape and Landscape

The proposed two storey building is of a sympathetic scale to both adjacent single storey buildings. As such, it is in character with the existing streetscape and landscape character and is appropriate.

 

3.5 Building Appearance and Character

Apart from two residential flat buildings probably dating from the 1960s and 1970s, this part of Norton Street consists of a mixture of Victorian, Federation and Californian Bungalow dwellings, largely with steeper roof pitches, dry pressed face brick cladding and slate or terracotta tile roofs. It also contains two local heritage items.

 

The proposed building is generally consistent with the character of the streetscape.

 

3.6 Fences and Walls

The application proposes a 1.2m high picket front fence which is considered appropriate in the streetscape.

 

3.7 Heritage Conservation

The development sits opposite the Hampden Road Conservation area. It is considered to be sympathetic to the character of this adjacent conservation area.

SECTION 4

Housing Density

4.6 Floor Space Ratio

The application proposes an FSR of 0.69:1 which would fail to comply with the FSR controls (0.5:1) of the Plan. However, the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP overrides the FSR controls in this instance.

 

4.10 Subdivision

Not applicable. No subdivision is proposed.

 

4.11 Maximum dwelling size

Complies. None of the proposed units have an area in excess of 125m2.

SECTION 5

Building Envelope, siting and solar access

5.4 Front Setback

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

 

5.2 Orientation and Siting

Section 5.2 of the Plan outlines that “as a general rule, as many units as possible in new developments should be given a northerly orientation, subject to urban character considerations, and the desirability of avoiding “carriage style” development and excessive overshadowing”.

Does not comply. Only one out of the six units has a northerly orientation (i.e. unit 6). Nevertheless, due to the orientation of the site this is considered acceptable, especially given that all units have an easterly orientation.

 

5.9-5.14 Building Height

Complies.

 

Solar Access

5.15 Windows:

Does not comply. Only one out of the six units have a northerly orientation (i.e. unit 6). Nevertheless, due to the orientation of the site this is considered acceptable, especially given that all units have an easterly orientation.

 

5.16(b)Courtyards:

Complies.

 

5.16(a) Adjacent Properties:

Complies. Sunlight will reach at least 50% of the private open space on adjoining sites for a minimum of three (3) hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

 

5.16(c) Windows of Adjacent Properties:

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

SECTION 6

Privacy, views & outlook

6.3 Visual privacy

Generally Complies:

A condition has been included which requires obscure glazing to upper level east facing bedroom windows. The previous scheme had living areas facing this boundary so the changes have significantly improved privacy impacts.

 

6.5 Acoustic privacy

Complies.

 

6.8 - 6.10 Views and Outlook

6.9 Neighbours’ Outlook:

Complies.

 

6.10 Outlook of Development:

Complies.

SECTION 7

Car-parking

Superseded.

 

SECTION 8

Open Space and Landscaping

8.7 – 8.8 Private Open Space

Complies.

The private open space areas of all units are of adequate size and proportion.

 

8.10 Communal Open Space

Complies

A communal open space is proposed to the rear of the site with an area in excess of 120m2.

 

8.11 – 8.12 Landscaping

Complies.

 

SECTION 9

Safety and Security

Complies.  It is considered that the proposed development satisfies the provisions of this part. A number of the units overlook the main pedestrian access route providing satisfactory passive surveillance.

 

SECTION 10

Design for climate

Energy and Water Conservation

BASIX certificates have been submitted as required.

 

The installation of rainwater tank is proposed.

 

Air movement

Complies.

 

Services, lighting and appliances

BASIX certificates have been submitted as required.

 

Noise on traffic routes

N/A

SECTION 11

Stormwater drainage

Comments with respect to stormwater have been received from Council’s Design and Development Engineer.

 

SECTION 12

Site Facilities

12.2 Waste management

Complies. 

 

12.6 Contaminants

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.

 

12.8 Storage

Complies. 

All units contain adequate storage of 8m2.

 

12.9 Mailboxes

Complies.  The proposed location of mailboxes satisfies the provisions of this part.

 

12.10 Clothes Drying

Complies.  The proposed location and size of the open air, communal clothes drying area is considered to satisfy the provisions of this part.

 

 

As detailed above the proposal generally complies with Part C5 of Ashfield DCP 2007

And it is considered that the application generally satisfies its objectives.


 

Ashfield DCP 2007 – Part C11 – Parking

 

The Parking DCP (Part C11 of the Ashfield DCP) outlines the following parking controls for residential flat buildings:

 

-           One (1) car space per unit,

-           Plus one (1) additional space for every five (5) 2 bedroom units,

-           Plus one (1) additional space for every two (2) 3 bedroom units,

-           One (1) visitor space required per five (5) units,

-           Plus one (1) car wash bay, and

-           One (1) accessible car parking space is to be provided for each accessible/adaptable residential unit.

 

Based on the number and layout of the proposed residential flat building, a minimum of 12 parking spaces (9 resident spaces, 2 visitor spaces and 1 wash bay) would be required under the Parking DCP.

 

The proposal fails to comply with these requirements as it only provides 3 spaces, none of which is accessible.

 

However, Council is unable to refuse the proposal on numerical parking grounds as it fully complies with Clause 14(2)(a)(ii) of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP (see Section 7.1.1 of this report).

 

Section 4.2 and Table 2 of the Parking DCP outlines that bicycle parking should be provided in a communal area. Although no bicycle parking has been shown, it can be accommodated on the site. A condition has been recommended accordingly.

 

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 23 July 2012 until 13 August 2012.

 

7.7.1   Summary of submissions

 

Four submissions (Attachment 4 – circulated under separate cover) were received during the notification of the development application:

 

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

 

Submission Issue

Assessing Officer’s Comment

In adequate parking.

Although the proposal does not comply with the minimum number of parking spaces required by Ashfield DCP 2007, it provides the minimum number of parking spaces required by the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. Council is unable to refuse the application if it complies with the provisions of the SEPP.

Amended plans address previous concerns.

This is agreed. The amended design resolves the majority of the issues which resulted in the previous refusal of this application.

Overshadowing of 183 Norton Street.

The rear of both no 183 and the subject site face north and, as such, there is no likelihood that the proposal would interfere with solar access to the north facing windows of no. 183, as required by the DCP. This is demonstrated by the shadow diagrams provided with the application.

Noise.

The pedestrian access path of the proposal has been located on the opposite side of the development from no. 183 to avoid the creation of noise impacts upon that neighbour. In addition, the elements of no. 183 that interface directly with the subject site are car parking structures and a driveway which are not elements which are sensitive to noise and also provide a degree of separation. Conditions have been recommended which would also set minimum standards to control excess noise during construction.  It is thus considered that excess noise is likely to be a concern.

Overdevelopment - several granny flats nearby.

These do not impact upon the permissibility of the proposal on this site and are, in any case, a very minor intensification of development in the area.

Trees to be removed.

Although the landscape plan shows the removal of 4 palm trees in the front setback area, it also shows significant additional planting including numerous low shrubs (to 3m in height) and two canopy trees (blue berry ash) with a mature height of 8m. In addition, 8 new canopy trees are proposed in other locations on the site.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

Given the demand for low cost rental accommodation and the satisfactory urban design resolution of the proposal, it is considered to be broadly in the public interest.

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

The application has been referred internally as follows:


 

Referral

Comments

Support

Stormwater Engineer

Due to the lack of finalisation of a downstream easement for the disposal of stormwater, Council’s stormwater engineer has recommended that application of a deferred commencement condition requiring that the easement be finalised to Council’s satisfaction prior to activation of the consent.

 

Supported subject to deferred commencement conditions.

Environmental Health

Supported.

Supported subject to conditions.

Heritage

“I have looked at the plans sent to me for the latest proposal for this site. They seem to be the most careful and responsive of the proposals we have seen to date. I have no specific heritage comments to offer except to note that the materials and colours of such a large building will be important and influential in context”.

Satisfactory subject to conditions.

 

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 94 Contributions:

 

The following condition would be applied in respect of Section 94 Contributions should the application be approved:

 

In accordance with Section 80A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Ashfield Council Development Contributions Plan, the following monetary contributions shall be paid to Council Prior to issue of a Construction Certificate to cater for the increased demand for community infrastructure resulting from the development:


 

 

CONTRIBUTIONS
(NEW DEVELOPMENT)

ALLOWANCE FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

TOTAL

Residential Accommodation between
60-84sqm GFA

Residential Accommodation greater than 84sqm GFA

Sub-Total

Residential Accommodation between
60-84sqm GFA

Sub-Total

Number of Dwellings / Beds or GFA

1

5

N/A

3

N/A

N/A

Number of deficient car parking spaces

0

 

0

N/A

N/A

0

Local Roads

$138.74

$886.38

$1,025.12

$416.21

$416.21

$608.91

Local Public Transport Facilities

$684.35

$4,878.52

$5,562.87

$2,053.04

$2,053.04

$3,509.82

Local Car Parking Facilities

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Local Open Space and Recreation Facilities

$12,034.64

$85,791.50

$97,826.14

$36,103.92

$36,103.92

$61,722.22

Local Community Facilities

$743.40

$5,299.49

$6,042.89

$2,230.20

$2,230.20

$3,812.69

Plan Preparation and Administration

$546.80

$3,897.98

$4,444.77

$1,640.40

$1,640.40

$2,804.38

TOTAL

$14,147.93

$100,753.86

$114,901.78

$42,443.78

$42,443.78

$72,458.01

 

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 amended proposal has addressed the issues raised with the previous submission and is therefore recommended for deferred commencement conditional approval.


 

 

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) and the proposal is permissible with Council consent.

CLAUSE 17

Floor space ratios

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

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

Complies.  

Site Area               = 933m2

Gross Floor Area   = 644.6m2

Proposed FSR                = 0.69:1

Maximum FSR                = 0.75:1

 

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   = 5.3m

Allowable Height    = 6m

 

 


CLAUSE 37

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

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

MODEL PROVISIONS

 

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

Streetscape appearance is considered satisfactory.

5(2) – Car impacts

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

b)   adequate car-parking

c)   compliance with RTA representations

 

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

 

17 – Residential flat buildings - setbacks

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

N/A

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of the Proposal

5 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Conditions

16 Pages

 

Attachment 4

Submissions - Circulated under separate cover

4 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(3) and 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) issue a “Deferred commencement” consent for Development Application No. 10.2011.139.1 for the demolition of the existing structures on the site, and the construction of a 6 unit in-fill residential flat building on Lot 1 in DP 1007091, known as 185 Norton Street, Ashfield, subject to the attached conditions.

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment


Attachment 1

 

Plans of the Proposal

 






Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Conditions

 

















Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 28 August 2012  CM10.2

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.146.1
37 DUDLEY STREET, HABERFIELD

 

File Ref                            10.2012.146.1

 

Prepared by                   Haroula Michael - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Council determination-Heritage Item

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0    Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Clause 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council’s consent for alterations and addition to the existing dwelling including an attic and new swimming pool.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The proposed works fails to meet the aims and objectives of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985, the Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 particularly Part C7 Haberfield Conservation Area and the Draft Local Environmental Plan 2012 and therefore the development is recommended for refusal.

 

Background

 

A Provisional Development Application was lodged with Council on the 4 June 2012.

 

On the 14 June 2012 a letter was sent to the applicant requesting additional information. A further letter was sent to the applicant on the 12 July 2012 advising the concerns raised by Councils heritage adviser and requesting a meeting to discuss alternate possibilities to the roof form.

 

A meeting between Council staff, Council’s heritage adviser and the applicant was held on 23 July 2012. Council’s heritage adviser raised issues with the roof from and advised that a revised roof form be considered.

 

On the 24 July 2012, a letter was sent to the applicant with the heritage comments from the meeting held on the 23 July 2012.

 

The applicant lodged the application on the 24 July 2012, with no further amendments.


 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         Filmer Architects Pty Ltd

Owner                                    :         Mr M D Ritchie & Ms R F Allen

Value of work                       :         $550,000.00

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: 2 SEC: 4 DP: 5908

Date lodged                          :         24/07/2012

Date of last amendment     :         24 July 2012

Building classification        :         1a, 10a and 10b

Application Type                  :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

Section 94A Levy                :         Yes

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Dudley Street, bounded by Crescent Street to the north and Learmouth Street to the south.  The site area is approximately 695.6 square metres.  An existing dwelling house is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises of 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

10.2003.101

19/8/2003

Alterations and additions to garden shed

Approved

6.1965.5498

22/7/1965

Carport

Approved

 

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

 

Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

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

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

·    The property is a heritage item.

 

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)

 

Section 32- Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics states that:-

 

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

 

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

 

Comment:

 

The proposed development has maintained the general pattern of development of the heritage conservation area.

 

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

 

Comment:

 

The proposal incorporates a rear Dutch gable with a gablet window and fixed timber louvres over the gablet window. Council’s heritage adviser raised concern with the proposed roof form and it was advised that a hipped form roof would be preferable “without the contested gablet”. Given the significance of the site and its individual heritage listing the proposed rear Dutch gable end is considered to be unsympathetic with the dwelling-house and not consistent with the objectives of this part.

 

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

 

Comment:

 

The windows and doors to the ground floor are generally meet the objectives of the heritage conservation area. However, the rear gablet window i.e. Dutch gable end finish to the attic room is considered to compete the significance of the subject dwelling house and surrounding area. Council’s heritage adviser also raised concern with the rear roof form.

 

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

 

Comment:

 

The proposal refers to rendering and painting of sections of the proposed new walls, which is not compatible with the general external finishes of the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area.


 

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

 

Comment:

 

The proposed positions of paths and plantings are generally in accordance with the requirements of the heritage conservation area.

 

Section 35- Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area

 

(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”.

 

Comment:

 

The proposal will result in a rear gablet window, however, the applicant has not provided a State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP No.1) objection to vary the Development Standard and provide information as to why it is unnecessary or unreasonable to comply with the development standard.

 

Therefore, having considered the proposal against the provisions of Clause 32(5) of the Ashfield LEP it is considered that the proposed roof form would be unacceptable within the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area and the proposal would not meet the objectives 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

 

A SEPP No.1 objection is required, however, has not been provided for the proposed rear gablet window as per Clause 35(2)(f) of the ALEP 1985 which does not permit “dormer or gablet windows”. Refer to part 7.1.1 of this report for details.


 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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 assessment made against the Draft LEP.

 

Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

Summary Compliance Table

Clause No.

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Compliance

2.2

Zoning

Zone R2 Low Density Residential

Alterations to existing dwelling house (permissible with consent)

Yes

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

500m2

696.8m2 (existing site area)

Yes

4.3

Height of buildings

7m

7.3m (existing building height).

6.9m (proposed rear addition)

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

0.5:1

0.41:1

Yes

5.10

Heritage Conservation

Located in:

·  Haberfield Conservation Area C42 and an Individual Item L441

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.

A Heritage Impact Statement has been submitted with the application.

Council’s Heritage Adviser raised concerns with the proposal and this is further addressed in part 8.1 of this report.

No

6.1(2)

Development in the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area

Development consent must not be granted to development for the purposes of a dwelling house on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

Consent is sought

Yes

6.1(2)(a)

Development in the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area

If the development involves the addition of gross floor area above the ground floor of a dwelling house the additional gross floor area is contained entirely within the roof space of the dwelling house.

The proposed gross floor area above the ground floor area is contained within the main roof space and within the proposed roof area within the rear extension.

Yes

6.1(2)(b)

Development in the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area

If the development involves the additional gross floor area below the ground floor of the dwelling house – the additional gross floor area does not exceed 25 percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling house and does not require significant excavation.

No additional gross floor area is proposed below the ground floor.

N/A

6.1(2)(c)

Development in the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area

The development does not involve the installation of dormer of gablet windows.

A gablet window is proposed.

No

6.1(2)(d)

Development in the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area

A minimum of 50% of the site is available for landscaping.

296.305sqm (42.5%) due to the new standard LEP definition of landscape area – i.e. a swimming pool cannot be included as landscape area.

No

 

An assessment of the proposal was considered against the Draft LEP 2012. The proposal fails to comply with two of the above development standards being the proposed construction of a gablet window and the minimum landscaping area, therefore, given the non-compliances, the proposal is not supported.

 

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:

 

C7

HABERFIELD HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREA

 

Refer to comments and table below.

C10

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

The heritage controls were considered in the assessment of this application.

C11

PARKING

The proposal does not alter the parking arrangements on the site. The site accommodates a car space to the front of the site and as a result of the proposed works the proposal does not alter the existing parking arrangements on the site.

C12

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

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

C15

HOUSES & DUAL OCCUPANCIES

Refer to comments below

D1

PLANNING FOR LESS WASTE

A waste management plan has been submitted with the application.

 

Part C7 Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area:

 

Building Form:

 

2.6 Controls

 

“a)     Alterations to the original main part of a building (other than a non-conforming building), including front and side facades, verandahs and roof forms, are not permitted.”

 

The proposal seeks to demolish part of the rear existing dwelling to allow for a rear addition which will include a new bathroom, laundry, study, kitchen, dining and family room. The proposal does not seek to alter the front verandah, however, the proposal does incorporate internal alterations to the main part of the dwelling house and the blocking of an existing window to the southern elevation and creating a new window opening to the proposed new ensuite.

 

The proposal also potentially outlines two “windows” in the new attic area within the main roof area. It is unclear from the elevations if the new glass areas will form part of the smaller existing gable ends to the main dwelling house, which would result in a change to the original roof of the dwelling house. Such a change to the main roof would not be supported.

 

“b)     Where a building, other than a non-conforming building has undergone limited change, restoration and repair of the original front of the building is encouraged”.

 

The proposal seeks internal alterations to the main section of the dwelling house to create a walk in robe, an ensuite, a new bathroom and new stairs leading to the attic area.

 

“c)     Where a building, other than a non-conforming building has suffered major alteration, reinstatement is encouraged. When no surviving physical or documentary evidence of the original can be found, reconstruction similar to the neighbouring or other original Haberfield houses is encouraged”.

 

The front of the existing dwelling is in good condition, and therefore the re-construction of the front façade would not be required in this instance.

 

“d)     Extensions shall not conceal, dominate or otherwise compete with the original shape, height, proportion and scale of the existing buildings”.


 

Despite the rear roof being set lower than the main roof, the Dutch gable end to the rear addition will create a roof form which is uncharacteristic of houses in Haberfield. The rear extension roof form is considered to dominate and compete with the original shape, height, proportion and scale of the existing dwelling-house and is not supported.

 

“e)     Extensions are permitted only to the rear. In certain circumstances (where there is inadequate rear land) modest side extensions may be allowed where this does not alter or overwhelm the original front façade or the presentation of the house from the street”.

 

The proposed addition is located to the rear of the existing dwelling-house and incorporates a lateral extension to the northern side of the site. Generally, lateral extensions are only permitted where there is inadequate rear land, however, given the built form of the main dwelling and the location of the gazebo along the front of the premises, the lateral extension would be obscured from the street. In addition, there is no vehicular access to the site as the southern side setback is 1390mm and the octagonal gazebo is located to the northern side of the site with a setback of 1200mm to the boundary.

 

The proposal also includes a swimming pool in the far north eastern corner of the site.

 

“f)      Where extensions are involved, new roofs are to be lower than the main roof form with a maximum height considerably less than the principal ridge point”.

 

In this regard it is noted that the DCP refers to the main roof form and principal ridge point. The proposal maintains the height of the proposed secondary roof below the main roof form and therefore consistent with the requirements of the DCP.

 

“g)     The overall length of any extension is to be less than, and secondary to, the original house”.

 

The proposed rear addition is considered to be secondary in length to the original dwelling house

 

“h)     New roof shapes may include gables and gablets where these are related to shapes already present in the main roof, and where they are subordinate to the main roof shape. Dormer windows, Juliet balconies and similar protrusions will not be permitted”.

 

The proposed gablet window to the rear and the roof form it will produce is not support by Council’s heritage adviser. It is also to be noted that gablet windows are not permitted under 35(2)(f) of the ALEP 1985 and a SEPP No. 1 objection to vary the development was not provided to Council.

 

“i)      Attic rooms can be built within the main roof shape where they do not involve alteration of the roof shape. They are to be modest in scale and comprise one (1) or at the most two (2) rooms capable of habitation. Attic windows in the front or side faces of the main roof are not permitted”.


 

The proposal seeks to create a storage room within the existing main roof area. The proposal also appears to outline glazing in the new attic area within the original roof area. It is unclear from the elevations if new glazing will form part of the smaller gable ends to the main dwelling house. Such a change would not be supported. In addition, the proposed storage room does not require light and ventilation and therefore the requirement for glazing to this area would not be required.

 

“j)      Rear extensions containing an attic may be considered where the attic does not cause the extension to compete with the scale and shape of the main roof and is not visible from a public place”.

 

The rear extension area seeks accommodation within the proposed rear roof form, and will produce a Dutch gable end, which will result in a scale and shape that would compete with the main roof. Give the significance of the dwelling and its individual heritage listing the proposed roof form for the rear attic is not considered to be in keeping with the significance of the dwelling and heritage conservation area nor is it supported by Council’s heritage adviser.

 

“k)     Where attics are permitted, their windows shall be located in rear gable ends or gablets. They shall be discreet in scale and appearance and cannot be visible from a public place. Where extensions to existing roofs are being undertaken, modest sized in-line skylights may be considered in the side and rear planes or the extension only, and limited to one such window per roof plane”.

 

The applicant proposes three new skylights to the new rear roof - one on each roof plane to service bedroom 3 and the third skylight on the lower roof plane servicing the kitchen area. This is consistent with the DCP provisions.

 

“l)      Extensions shall not employ any major or prominent design elements that compete with the architectural features of the existing building”.

 

The proposed rear gablet to the attic area provides a prominent design element that is considered to compete with the significance of the heritage listed dwelling-house. Council’s heritage adviser has stated that a hipped roof form would be preferable, given the significance and distinctive qualities of this cottage.

 

Roof Form

 

2.9 Controls

 

“a) Since roof shapes are integral with building shape, this section should be read in

conjunction with Clauses 2.4 - 2.6 of this Plan”.

 

Noted, and clauses 2.4-2.6 of this plan have been considered in the assessment of this application.

 

“b) Roof extensions are to relate sympathetically and subordinately to the original roof in

shape, pitch, proportion and materials”.


 

The proposed rear roof extension as stated above will result in a prominent design element that is considered to compete with the significance of the heritage listed dwelling-house and is not considered to be a subordinate to the original roof form.

 

“c) New buildings are to have roofs that reflect the size, mass, shape and pitch of the

neighbouring original roofs”.

 

The proposed roof form to the rear extension will create a dominant roof form design which is not consistent with neighbouring original roof forms. Given the location of the subject site the proposed rear roof area will be visible from Learmonth Street.

 

“d) Roof extensions are to be considerably lower than the original roof and clearly

differentiated between the original and the new section. (See Clause 2.6)”.

 

The proposed rear roof has been set lower than the main ridge point by 400mm.

 

“e) Replacement roof materials are to match original materials or are to employ approved

alternative materials. Suitable roof materials are: unglazed terra cotta Marseilles tiles;

Welsh slate; approved fibrous cement tiles; and at the rear, corrugated non-reflective

galvanised steel sheeting (painted or natural)”.

 

The roof material to the rear extension has been nominated as colourbond custom orb roof sheeting.

 

f) Roof details such as finials, ridge capping, are to be maintained, repaired and reinstated

where necessary.

 

The roof details to the main dwelling such as the finials and ridge cappings are not being altered as part of this application. Should the application be approved a condition is to be imposed to ensure that the details to the main roof area are not be altered or removed.

 

Part C15 Houses and Dual Occupancies:

 

Scale and bulk

 

The proposal consists of alterations and additions to the existing dwelling with an attic, an in ground swimming pool and landscaping works. The overall height and bulk of the rear addition is generally acceptable, however, the proposed rear roof is considered to create a form which is not consistent with the built upon area within its vicinity.

 

Clause 2.3 of the ADCP 2007 requires visual heights to have a maximum wall height of 6 metres as measured from the existing ground level.

 

The rear addition has a wall height (at the height point) of approximately 3.8 metres which meets the numerical requirements of this part and is within the FSR requirements.

 

The subject site has a maximum FSR requirement of 0.5:1. As a result of the proposed works the floor space ratio is (285sqm) 0.41:1 and therefore consistent with the ADCP 2007.


 

Aesthetics:

 

The proposal consists of alterations and additions to the existing dwelling with an attic, and an in ground swimming pool and landscaping works.

 

The Ashfield Development Control Plan requires new development to be sympathetic to the context of the site, and have a high standard of architectural composition. There are varying architectural forms of development within the vicinity of the site, comprising of mainly single storey dwellings. The proposal is not considered to be sympathetic in context of the site and adjoining dwellings in relation to the rear roof from.

 

Landscape and Site Layout:

 

The ADCP requires that the site provides a landscaped area of 50% of the site area at a minimum and that 70% if the minimum landscaped area be deep soil planting.

 

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

 

The subject site requires a minimum of 50% of the site area to be landscaped area at ground level i.e. 348.4sqm. As a result of the proposal the proposed soft soil landscaped will be increased from 310.7sqm (44.6%) to 352.8sqm (50.6%).

 

The proposal seeks to remove a Mango tree. Council’s tree technical officer did not raise any objections to the removal of this tree. Council’s heritage adviser raised concerns with the location of the rear addition in relation to the existing Jacaranda tree. Refer to part 8.1 of this report for details.

 

Amenity for neighbours:

 

The ADCP requires solar access to at least 50% (or 35m2, whichever is lesser) of the principal private area at ground level of the private open spaces of the adjacent properties is not reduced to less than three hours between 9am and 3pm on the 21 June.

 

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

 

The proposal complies with these requirements.

 

Neighbour's Privacy: The proposal is not considered to impact the privacy of the adjoining properties.

 

Ecological Sustainable Development:

 

A BASIX certificate was submitted with the application.


 

Ancillary Design Matters

 

Solid Fuel Heating

 

Council does not support solid fuel heating due air pollution. The proposal includes a new fire place within the living area. It is not clear if the intention is to burn solid fuel or use this fire place heat the living area by some other means.

 

Summary

 

It is considered the application does not meet a number of the aims and objectives of the Ashfield DCP.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application. It is considered that the proposed development will have an adverse environmental impact on the character of the area.

 

7.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants, the Haberfield Association and Councillors from 26 July 2012 until 14 August 2012.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

Two submissions (Attachment 4 - circulated under separate cover) were received during the notification of the development application:   

 

Submissions

Mr and Mrs. A Sufferini

Dr. R H Woog

 

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


 

The submission by Mr and Mrs Sufferini did not raise any objections to the proposed new works, however, concerns were raised with the applicant’s existing Jacaranda tree causing damage to their property.

 

This issue is not a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is one which needs to be resolved between the affected parties.

 

The submission by Dr R H Woog raised the following concerns:

 

“......what is proposed here amounts to virtually a second storey addition, and the creation of a hugely extended and very high roof space where none existed previously. Anyone who cares to look at the height of the chimneys currently on this property will note that they are very high, and from the plans submitted, that will be the height of a new and extensive roof space which will be covering the entire house. This would seem to me entirely out of keeping with other houses in this area, none of which have amounts to a second storey addition at chimney height”.

 

The proposal includes a new roof form to provide additional accommodation to the rear of the existing roof area. Upper level attics are permissible where the new roof ridge is below the main roof ridge and is sub-ordinate to the existing main roof. The roof to the rear has been set below the existing ridge height by 400mm and not in line with the chimneys on the site.

 

However, the roof form proposed with the rear Dutch gable produces a mass and bulk which is not in keeping and consistent with the existing dwelling-house or adjoining properties.

 

Construction noise, dust, trucks, obstructing of driveway by trades people, etc

 

Should the application be approved conditions will be imposed to nominate construction hours and the control of dust to minimise the nuisance to the area. Applications which involve building work/demolition are conditioned with restricted hours of work and dust control.

 

In relation to obstruction of the driveway, any construction workers would need to follow parking and road regulations which are applicable to everyone.

 

Neglected rear garden and overhanging vegetation

 

The matter of general tidiness of the property is not a matter for consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Unauthorised tree house

 

The matter of the unauthorised tree house was investigated at the time of complaint in July 2010. The tree house was subsequently removed and no further complaints were received.


 

7.8    The public interest

 

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

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Heritage Adviser:I would confirm that the basis of my recommendations based upon my interpretation of the DCP is as follows:

 

The recommendation of the DCP on gables and gablets are very specific and emerge from the concerns that adaptation of Haberfield Houses should not produce characteristics which confuse and eventually change the typology of houses in the conservation area. 

 

·    While gablets usually with louvre vents are quite common as features of transverse ridges on large main hipped roofs, rear facing gablets as the termination of hipped ends are not common and are in my opinion are a difficult element when proposed in conjunction with new attic areas. They change the appearance, scale and bulk of new longitudinal hipped forms which are increasingly replacing rear skillion roofs, usually to introduce large attic areas. 

·    The attics which the DCP facilitate are in themselves a concession conceived by Council in order to balance ground floor extensions, which would otherwise be larger, with the need to maintain landscaped garden area. 

·    The subject house with its distinctive corner turret, is well known as a prime Haberfield cottage and it would be doubly regrettable if it were to be altered in an unsympathetic way.

·    As discussed with Mr Filmer, it would be preferable for the proposed hipped form, without the contested gablet, to extend a little further rearwards in order to deliver the desired bedroom size.  It is appreciated this will likely require the rearmost roof form to be modified from the present design, but a simpler more economic roof form might be achievable through this.

 

With some reconsideration along the above lines, a good outcome should be secured through this proposal”.

 

Comments from Council’s Heritage Adviser are included at Attachment 3.

 

Building: Council’s Construction Assessment Team Leader raised a concern with non-compliance with the heights to bedroom 3 and the bathroom area in terms of the Building Code of Australia. Conditions have also been provided.

Engineering: No objections raised, subject to conditions.

Environmental Health: No objections raised subject to a condition to delete the flue to the proposed family room as it does not comply with the ADCP.


 

Tree Management Officer:The alts to the dwelling need to ensure that the existing branch and root system of this tree is retained and protected. Consideration should be given to amending the design after the applicant has obtained an amended Consultant Arborist Report.  The Arborist Report should address the tree management issues consistent with the Australian Standards for tree protection on construction sites.

 

The new swimming pool will be significantly impacted by debris from this tree potentially creating conflict with Council when they find the pool maintenance more onerous than they expected. The swimming pool design will need to be amended to provide for an integrated removable pool cover”.

 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

Section 94A Contribution Plan

 

Based on the estimated value-of-works of $550,000.00 a Section 94A Contribution fee of $5500.00 would be payable to Council should the application be approved.

 

Haberfield Conservation Study 1986

 

The Haberfield Conservation Study 1986 was noted  and considered in the assessment of this application.

 

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

 

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

 

10.0  Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

The proposal was referred to Council’s Construction Assessment Officer, who provided comments.

 

Financial Implications

 

Nil.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

See Section 8.1 of this report.

 

Public Consultation


See Section 7.7 of this report.


 

Conclusion

 

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

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of the Proposal

10 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Heritage Advisor Comments

2 Pages

 

Attachment 4

Submissions - Circulated under separate cover

2 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) refuse Development Application No. 10.2012.146.1 for Alterations and addition to dwelling including an attic and new swimming pool on Lot 2 in DP: 5908, known as 37 Dudley Street, Haberfield for the following reasons:

 

 

 

Reasons for Refusal

 

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

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

3.   A State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 Objection has not been submitted to vary Clause 35(2)(f) of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985.

4. The development fails to comply with the policy of Part C7-Haberfield Conservation Area in the following terms:

o the proposal does not keep the general building form of development;

o the proposal will create a roof form (Dutch gable) which will be contrary to the controls of this part. Council’s heritage advisor also does not support the proposed roof form.

o The proposal will result in a modification to the existing main roof with the inclusion of glazing areas - “glass over”.

o the proposal will result in part of the new walls being rendered and painted which is contrary to the Controls of 2.15.

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


 

6. The Arborist Report does not address the tree management issues as required by the Australian Standards for tree protection on construction sites as the alterations to the dwelling need to ensure that the existing branch and root system of the Jacaranda tree is retained and protected.

7. The plans are in consistent as south-western elevation indicates four windows, however the floor plan indicates three windows and an existing opening to be blocked off.

8.   The proposal fails to comply with Draft Local Environmental Plan 2012.

9.   The proposal is not in the public interest.

 

 

COMPLIANCE TABLE - ASHFIELD LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1985

 

CLAUSE 2

Aims, objectives etc.

This plan aims to:

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

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

Does not Comply. It is considered that the carrying out of the proposed development will not meet the aims and objectives of Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

CLAUSE 10

Zoning

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

CLAUSE 10A

Development consent required for change of building use and subdivision

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 11

Dwelling houses – residential allotment size

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

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

(b) in any other case –

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

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

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

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

 

The allotment was in existence on the appointed day.

 

 

CLAUSE 12:

Number of floors in dwelling-houses

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

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

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

 

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

No. of floors         = 2

 

CLAUSE 13

Dwelling houses – dual occupancy

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 17

Floor space ratios

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

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

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 17A

Height of residential flat buildings

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

(2) In this clause –

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 17B

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

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

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

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

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

(a) the scale and character of the streetscape,

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

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

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

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 18

Development for the purpose of advertisements

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 20

Clubs

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 21

Motor showrooms

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 22

Industrial uses 4(b)

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 23

Setbacks 4(b)

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 24

Parking in Zone 4(b)

 

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 25

Development of land within Zone No. 6(a)

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 27

Acquisition of land

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 28

Suspension of certain laws

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 29

Provision for public amenities and services

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

 

CLAUSE 29A

Classification and reclassification of public land as operational

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 30

Heritage provisions – aims

The aims of this Part are:

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

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

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

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

Does not comply.  It is considered that the carrying out of the proposed development will not meet the aims of the heritage provisions of Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

CLAUSE 32

Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics

 

 

 

 

 

1.

Requirement for development consent

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

2.

Development consent not required

Not applicable.

3.

Assessment of impact on heritage significance

Does not comply.  It is considered that the carrying out of the proposed development will have an adverse impact upon the heritage significance of the conservation area and heritage item.

4.

Requirement for conservation plan or heritage impact statement

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

 

5.

Assessment criteria for development of land within heritage conservation areas.

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

CLAUSE 34

Notice to Heritage Council

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 35

Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area

 

(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

Complies.  The proposed attic accommodation will be contained wholly within the existing roof form of the dwelling.

 

(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

The dwelling will appear as a single storey dwelling when seen from any public place.

 

 

(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

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

Site Area               = 696.8sqm

Gross Floor Area   = 285sqm

FSR                      = 0.41:1

 

(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

Site Area                         = 696.8sqm

Existing soft landscape            =310.7sqm (44.6%)

Proposed soft landscape          =352.8sqm (50.6%)

 

(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

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

 

(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

The dwelling house is visually compatible in height to adjacent houses.

 

(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

The proposed attic will consist of two rooms. 

 

The storage room is contained wholly within the existing roof form of the dwelling and the new bedroom and bathroom are proposed within the new roof area.

 

The requirements for health, daylight and ventilation for the proposed rooms are provided by skylights and a gablet window.

 

(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.

The proposed development includes a gablet window to the rear roof form. A State Environmental Planning Policy Number 1 to vary this standard has not been provided with this development application.

 


CLAUSE 36

Development of known or potential archaeological site

s

Not applicable.

 


CLAUSE 37

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

 

Does not comply.  It is considered that the carrying out of the proposal will have an adverse impact upon the heritage significance of heritage items, conservation areas, archaeological sites or potential archaeological sites in its vicinity.

 

CLAUSE 37A

Conservation incentives

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 38

Development of land known as 476 Parramatta Road Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 38A

Multiple dwellings on certain land

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 38B

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 39

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

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

CLAUSE 39A

Temporary car park–Liverpool Road and Elizabeth Avenue, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 39B

Mixed development in commercial zones – generally

Not applicable.

 


CLAUSE 40

Mixed development on certain land – floor space concessions

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 41

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 42

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 43

Development of community centre at Smith Street, Summer Hill

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 44

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 45

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 48

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 49

Development of land known as 191 Ramsay Street, Haberfield

 

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 51

Development of land known as 93 Milton Street, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 52

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

 

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 53

Development of land known as 3 Carlton Crescent, Summer Hill

 

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 54

Development at 11–13 Hercules Street, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 55

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 56

Development of certain land at Queen Street, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 57

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

Not applicable.

 

MODEL PROVISIONS

 

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

Not applicable.

5(2) – Car impacts

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

b)   adequate car-parking

c)   compliance with RTA representations

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

Not applicable.

 


 

COMPLIANCE TABLE – DCP PART C7 – HABERFIELD HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREA

 

      2.3. Pattern of Development

The general pattern of development is being maintained. The new grass strips to the existing front hard stand area is not considered to impact the Heritage Conservation area. The subject site has no other alternatives for onsite parking, however the proposal does not seek to alter the existing parking area.

 

      2.6. Building Form

The proposed works fails to comply with a number of controls in particular the proposed rear roof form is considered to be unsympathetic and suggested glazing to the attic storeroom would involve changes to the main roof area. This clause is further discussed in part 7.3 of this report.

      2.9. Roof Forms

Refer to part 7.3 of this report for further details.

 

      2.12. Siting, Setbacks & Levels

The proposal seeks to maintain the pattern of the front and side setbacks. The proposal does seeks a lateral extension, this is further discussed in part 7.3 of this report. The proposal does not incorporate a substantial difference in floor levels from the adjacent properties.

      2.15. Walls

The proposal seeks to render portions of the new rear walls on the north east and south western elevations which is contrary to the objectives of this control which only allows rendering of external walls if it is for authentic restoration works. The controls also state the unpainted surfaces shall not be painted.

 

      2.18. Chimneys

The proposal seeks to retain the existing chimneys.

 

      2.21. Joinery

The existing joiner is be maintained to the main dwelling house.

 

      2.24. Windows and Doors

The windows and doors proposed are generally consistent with the existing windows. The gablet window has been further discussed in the report.

      2.27. Window Sunhoods, Blinds and awnings

Not applicable.

 

      2.30. Verandahs

The proposed verandah to the rear of the dwelling has been kept of a simple design and does not challenge the presentation of the house.

 

      2.33. Garages and Carports

Not applicable.

 

      2.36. Garden Sheds/Store       Sheds/etc

Not applicable. The proposal is not seeking approval for the construction of any outbuildings.

 

      2.39. Colour Schemes

A colour scheme has been provided with the application. However, the plans indicate that section of the new walls are nominated to be rendered and painted which is contrary to this clause.

 

      2.42. Fences & Gates

Not applicable. The proposal does not seek to alter the front fence. The proposal seeks a pool fence which is located to the rear north eastern corner of the site.

 

      2.45. Garden Elements including paving, driveways, pergolas & pools

The proposal seeks to increase the soft landscaping area, and seeks to provide a new grass strip to the front hard stand area.

      2.47. Treatment of Non-      Conforming Houses

Not applicable.

 

SECTION 3:

Planning Measures for Commercial Properties

Not applicable.

 

SECTION 4:

Miscellaneous

 

      4.2. Modern Technological

      Developments

Not applicable.

 

      4.4. Dual Occupancy

Not applicable.

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of the Proposal

 











Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Heritage Advisor Comments

 



Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 28 August 2012  CM10.3

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.145.1
41 BOOMERANG STREET, HABERFIELD

 

File Ref                            10.2012.145.1

 

Prepared by                   Daisy Younan - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter submitted to Council for determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0    Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Clause 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council’s consent for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including the demolition of an existing garage, alterations and addition to dwelling house, removal of 8 trees, construction of an underground garage within the rear courtyard area with an enclosed carport style garage entry at ground level and a first floor attic addition.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

Background

 

As part of its pre-lodgement services, Council, in its letter dated 16th December 2011 and 16th March 2012 (included in Attachment 3), has raised a number of issues with a previous development application, being 10.2012.73 for what appears to be the same development proposed by the current application. The issues previously raised include, among other items, the proposed underground garage. This application was withdrawn by the applicant.

 

Despite the pre-lodgement advice no modifications have been made to the proposal and

the issues which have been raised previously remain unresolved.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The main issue with the proposal is the 147m2 underground car park in the rear yard of the site which can accommodate at least four vehicles and a workshop area. This will involve significant excavation of the rear yard which is not in keeping with the planning controls for Haberfield. These controls clearly state that site excavation should be kept to a minimum and should only be allowed where site gradients naturally permit lower levels. The subject site is relatively level sloping up towards the rear so the extent of excavation needed to achieve appropriate clearances will be substantial.

 

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


 

Table1

Items

Required

Existing

Proposed

Does proposal comply?

Total/Soft Landscaped Area

Minimum required landscaped area

50% of total site area (583m˛)

Approximately

28.35%

(330.55m˛)

Approximately 49%

(571.45 m˛)

Note: applicant has calculated this area to be 50.01%

No1

 

Floor Space Ratio

Maximum

50% (583m˛ of gross floor area)

Approximately

24.11%

(281.09m˛ of gross floor area)

Approximately

40.34%

(470.38m˛ of gross floor area)

 

Yes

Height

Maximum permitted height for 2 storeys (6m)

Single storey dwelling house

Single storey rear addition and underground garage

Yes

 

1.   Upon Council’s request a landscaped area calculation plan has been submitted to determine soft landscaped area included in the calculation of landscaped area. This plan shows that some hard paved area such as access paths in vegetable garden “shown on proposed ground floor plan” and other hard paved areas at the front of the property “shown on the landscape plan” have been included in the applicant’s calculation on landscaping area which is contrary to the landscaped area definition of Clause No. 31 of Ashfield LEP. It is acknowledged that the proposed development results in an improvement to the existing landscaped area, however, no approval has been granted for the extent of the existing hard paved area on site as it stands. Whilst the variation sought is considered minor and could have been supported in a different circumstances had a SEPP1 objection been submitted, in this instance, Council officers unable to support the proposal in its current form for other reasons included in the report.

 

The proposed development will set an undesirable precedent which is not one that can be considered characteristic to Haberfield and as such the development is recommended for refusal.

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               : Filmer Architects Pty Ltd

Owner                                    : Ms T J Gavegan

Value of work                       : $650,000

Lot/DP                                   : LOT: 18 SEC: 1 DP: 5908

Date lodged                          : 24/07/2012

Date of last amendment     : N/A

Building classification        : 1A

Application Type                  : Local

Construction Certificate     : No


 

Section 94A Levy                : Would be required were the proposal recommended for approval.

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Boomerang Street, bounded by Learmonth Street to the north and Waratah Street to the south.  The site area is approximately 1166 square metres.  An existing single storey dwelling house is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises detached dwellings. Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.

 

5.0    Development History

 

Previous building and development applications submitted to Council for the subject site since 1990 include:

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

10.2012.73

22/05/2012

Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house

Withdrawn

6.1991.27

25/02/1991

Fences

Approved

1990.109

15/05/1990

Alterations and additions to existing dwelling house

Refused

1990.224

06/11/1990

Alterations and additions to existing dwelling house

Approved

 

Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

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

·    The property is located within the Haberfield 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)

 

Clause 35(1)(b)(i)(ii) of Ashfield LEP 1985 states that the Council must not grant a consent required by clause 32 for land within the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area unless, 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 is satisfied that such basement accommodation:


 

§ does not require major excavation of the site to achieve the accommodation or access, and

§ does not change the setting of the existing house, and

 

Officer’s comments

 

The intent of the above clause is to minimise excavation and changes to the setting of the site. This can be proven by the impact this clause is seeking to avoid. The excavation for an underground garage will not have less impact than the impact of excavation for habitable accommodation.

 

This clause allows basement accommodation, only when the natural slope of the land allows for such accommodation, and does not suggest that other sites, where the natural slope does not accommodate such excavation should be utilized in such a way.

 

Council’s heritage adviser has commented that “the use of such excavated garages is somehow quite out of character with Haberfield, in which garages have traditionally been on grade at the rear of properties, and as outbuildings usually more modest than the houses they serve”.

 

Clause 35(2)(a) of Ashfield LEP 1985 states that Council shall not grant consent to the alteration, extension or erection of a dwelling-house within the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area where the floor space ratio exceeds 0.5:1.

 

Officer’s comments

 

The floor space ratio, is defined, under Clause No 6 of Ashfield LEP as follows:

 

floor space ratio, in relation to a building, means the ratio of the gross floor area of the building to the site area of the land on which that building is or is proposed to be erected.

 

Gross floor area is defined, under Clause No 8 of Ashfield LEP as follows

gross floor area means the sum of the areas of each floor of a building where the area of each floor is taken to be the area within the outer face of the external enclosing walls as measured at a height of 1400 millimetres above each floor level excluding:

(i) columns, fin walls, sun control devices and any elements, projections or works outside the general line of the outer face of the external wall,

(ii) lift towers, cooling towers, machinery and plant rooms and ancillary storage space and vertical air-conditioning ducts,

(iii) car-parking needed to meet any requirements of the council and any internal access thereto,

(iv) space for the loading and unloading of goods.

 

From the definition above, car-parking areas needed to meet any requirements of the council and any internal access thereto can be excluded from the calculation of the gross floor area. Any additional area within a garage can be included in the gross floor area calculation.


 

The total basement floor area is approximately 141.14sqm (not including the access ramp). An area of 36sqm being an area that is equal to 6m × 6m (for two car-parking space, has been deducted from the total basement floor area). The additional basement floor area being 105.14sqm has been included in the calculation of gross floor area.

 

The resulting Floor Space Ratio is approximately 40.34% (470.38m˛ of gross floor area) which complies with Council’s Floor Space Ratio controls under clause 35(2)(a) of Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

Clause 35(2)(b) of Ashfield LEP 1985 states that Council shall not grant consent to the alteration, extension or erection of a dwelling-house within the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area where the landscaped area on site is less than 50% of the total area of the allotment on which it is situated.

 

Officer’s comments

 

The landscaped area as defined by Clause 31 of Ashfield LEP is as follows:

 

“Landscaped area does not include hard surfacing on a site or areas less than 900mm in width”.

 

Even though the area located above the proposed underground garage contains a shallow area of soil which will be planted with lawn it has not been included in the calculation of landscaped area because is it a structure and cannot be used in the a traditional way for landscaping purposes.

 

The proposed landscaped area is approximately 571.45 m˛ (49%) which does not comply with Council’s landscaped area controls under clause 35(2)(b) of Ashfield LEP 1985. An objection in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 has not been submitted justifying the variation to the landscaped area requirements of Clause 35(2)(b) of Ashfield LEP 1985 (this is largely because the applicant has calculated the area slightly differently and come up with a figure of 50.1% - refer to comments in section 2.0).

 

Under the draft LEP currently on public exhibition, which includes the standard instrument definition for landscaped area, the wording is a follows:

 

Landscaped area means a part of a site used for growing plants, grasses and trees, but does not include any building, structure or hard paved areas”.

 

Under this definition the proposed gravel surfaced driveway area, which has been included as landscaped area under the current LEP definition, is no longer included and the resulting change is landscaped area of 38.6% which is well below the 50% requirement.

 

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


 

In addition, Clause 32(5) of Ashfield LEP 1985 requires Council, when determining a development application for land within a heritage conservation area, to make an assessment of:

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

The proposed development is considered to have a detrimental impact on the heritage significance of the area, refer to Clause 2.0 and clause 7.5 of this report for further comments.

 

It is considered that the proposal does not comply with the provisions of the Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

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

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

 

The proposed development does not comply with the landscaped area controls of Clause No. 35(2)(b) of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 and an objection in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 has not been submitted justifying the above none compliance, further comments are provided under Clause No. 7.1.1 of this report.

 

 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

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


 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

 

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

 

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

 

Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Draft ALEP 2012) was placed on public exhibition on 27 June 2012 and is a matter for consideration under S79C of the EPA Act 1979. The following compliance table outlines the proposal’s performance against the provisions of the Draft instrument.

 

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 proposed development, in modifying the setting, the uniform building setbacks and the site coverage by which Haberfield area is characterised, is contrary to the aims and objectives of the Draft Ashfield LEP 2012.

No

2.2

Zoning

Zone R2 Low Density Residential

Dwelling House

Yes

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

500m2

N/A

N/A

4.3

Height of buildings

7m

Max 5.1m (carport style garage entry)

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

0.5:1 (50%)

40.34%

Yes

5.10

Heritage Conservation

Located in:

·  Haberfield Conservation Area C42

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).

The proposed development has been reviewed by Council’s heritage adviser and a number of issues have been raised relating to the proposed development. Refer to heritage adviser’s comments in Attachment 4.

Yes

5.10(5)

 

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.

A Statement of Heritage Impact has been submitted as part of the application. Please refer to previous comments.

Yes

6.1(2)

Development in the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area

Development consent must not be granted to development for the purposes of a dwelling house on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

6.1(2)(a)

 

If the development involves the addition of gross floor area above the ground floor of a dwelling house the additional gross floor area is contained entirely within the roof space of the dwelling house.

The proposed development involves creating an attic within the roof form.

Yes

6.1(2)(b)

 

If the development involves the additional gross floor area below the ground floor of the dwelling house – the additional gross floor area does not exceed 25 percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling house and does not require significant excavation.

The proposed development involves additional gross floor area below the ground floor of the dwelling house of 105.14 (37.4%) and it requires major excavation.

The proposed development fails to comply with the requirements of Clause 6.1(2)(b) of Part 6 of Ashfield Draft LEP 2012.

6.1(2)(c)

 

The development does not involve the installation of dormer of gablet windows.

No dormer or gablet windows are proposed.

N/A

6.1(2)(d)

 

A minimum of 50% of the site is available for landscaping.

Approximately 38.6% of total site area.

No, refer to comments under Clause No. 7.1.1 of this report.

 

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:

 

Table 4

C7

HABERFIELD HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREA

 

Refer to comments provided under Clause 7.5 of this report.

C11

PARKING

The proposed development involves modifications to the existing car-parking settings on site. Refer to comments provided under Clause 7.5 of this report. 

C12

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

See Clause No. 7.7

C15

HOUSES & DUAL OCCUPANCIES

The proposed development involves the demolition of an existing garage, alterations and addition to the dwelling house comprising a first floor addition within the roof space. It also involves the construction of  underground garage within the rear courtyard area with an enclosed carport style garage entry at ground level

 

Garages

 

The proposed development fails to comply with Clause No. 3(3.8) of Section 2 – Part C15 of Ashfield DCP 2007 which states that  basement garages, and driveways to access those garages, which are visible from the street, will not be supported.

 

Solar access

 

On 21 June, the shadow cast in the morning, midday and afternoon by the proposed extended roof above outdoor area will fall towards the adjoining properties located at 39 Boomerang Street mainly within the shadows cast by existing structures located on the subject site. Therefore, solar access impacts are acceptable.

 

Building Setbacks

 

The proposed development involves the construction of a carport style structure at garage entry with a 200mm setback from the north property boundary and a set of stairs, to be constructed within the southern setback, to access the basement garage. Those proposed structures do not comply with the 450mm setback requirements of Clause No. 4.6 of Section 2.0 - Part C15 of Ashfield DCP 2012. 

 

Privacy

 

The proposed development will not have an unacceptable impact on adjoining neighbours.

 

Part C7 Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area

 

Site coverage, Sitting, Setbacks and Levels

 

As per Part C7 of the DCP, the uniform pattern of site coverage and setbacks is one of the most significant aspects of Haberfield, demonstrating Stanton’s Garden Suburb ideals and establishing the principles for Australian suburban development. Most houses are free standing with car access down one side, and a traditional tradesmen’s path down the other.

 

The proposed development will result in modifications to the established pattern of side setbacks because the basement garage essentially extends the full width of the allotment. This is contrary to the requirements of Clause 2.12(a) which requires the established pattern of side setbacks to be kept.

 

It will also result in modifications to the established pattern of site coverage by the construction of a remote basement level within the rear garden resulting in non- compliance with the minimum landscaped area requirements which is contrary the requirements of Clause 2.12(c) of section 2 - Part C7. Rear gardens are a very important element of the character of Haberfield so their potential use for large excavated basement car parks is clearly not in keeping with the intent of the area’s ‘garden suburb’ status.

 

The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of Clause 2.12(e) of section 2-Part C7 which allows, where natural land slope allows, sub-floor and basement development for use as laundries, storerooms, workrooms or garages. The natural slope of the site does not allow a basement level to be accommodated in accordance with this objective as the site slopes up towards the rear not downward. The end result is a much more significant excavation to achieve appropriate clearances for access to the basement car park - refer to the submitted survey plan included in Attachment 5.

 

The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of Clause 2.45(c) of section 2-Part C7 which requires paving, hard surfacing and secondary outbuildings to be kept to an absolute minimum on individual sites.

 

The proposed development involves the replacement of existing concrete driveway with gravel. This does not comply with the requirements of Clause 2.45(e) of section 2- Part C7 which requires driveways to consist of two (2) strips of hard surface paving with grass, garden or gravel in between.


 

Garages

 

As per Part C7 of the DCP, garages, in Haberfield, were utility buildings, designed to be less important than the house; they often had roofs of a pitch lower than the house.

 

The proposed basement garage fails to comply with Clause 2.33 of section 2- Part C7 of Ashfield DCP 2007 which requires garages to be of simple utilitarian design, to be free standing (not buried) and, when they form part of a basement level attached at the rear of the house and not be visible from a public place and not conflict with other considerations in the Plan.

 

The roof form proposed for the garage entry structure, being curved, is not sympathetic to the traditional outbuildings in Haberfield.

 

Earthwork-excavation

 

The extent of the excavation for the proposed basement garage is not consistent with the provisions of clause 35(1) of Ashfield LEP 1985. Issues in that regard have been raised by Council’s heritage adviser. Refer to clause 7.1.1 for further comments.

 

Design

 

The proposed attic rooms do not comply with Clause 2.6(i) of section 2 – Part C7 which requires attic rooms to be modest in scale and comprise one (1) or at the most two (2) rooms capable of habitation. Their total floor area is close to 80m2 and represents a significant proportion of the footprint of the original dwelling.

 

The proposed development, in extending the existing roof over the proposed rear veranda and partly enclosing it with a 2.4m high wall, does not comply with the requirements of Clause 2.30 (c) of section 2- Part C7 of Ashfield DCP 2007 which requires verandah additions to be simple in design, not to compete with the importance of the original verandah and to be generally simpler than the front main verandahs.

 

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

 

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

 

Fire safety matters have been considered in the assessment of this application. The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons included in the report.

 

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 development will have an adverse environmental impact on the locality for reasons outlined in the report.


 

7.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

The natural slope of the land does not allow a basement garage to be accommodated without involving major excavation. The proposed development is not considered suitable in the context of the locality 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, the Haberfield Association and Councillors from 26 July 2012 until 14 August 2012.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

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

 

7.8    The public interest

 

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

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Heritage Adviser

 

The proposed development has been reviewed by Council’s heritage advisers who have raised a number of issues in the pre-lodgement stage as well as during the assessment of the current development application. Those issues have not been adequately addressed. As advised previously, Council’s heritage adviser has stated that “the design poses a precedent of a potentially very serious nature, because of the impact which such structures, cumulatively, might have on the area, its houses and their planning context”.

 

Full details are included at Attachment 4.

 

Building

 

The application was referred to Council's building surveyor and issues have been raised relating to the proposed development. However, Council’s building surveyor is satisfied that the technical aspects of compliance with the BCA can be addressed at the CC stage and hence the relevant conditions of consent have been provided.

 

Engineering

 

The application was referred by Council's engineering department (Hydraulic and Traffic engineers). No issues have been raised and relevant conditions have been provided.


 

Tree Management Officer

 

No issues have been raised in relation to the proposed removal of the trees numbered 1,2 & 3 identified in the submitted arborist report prepared by Pat Mckibbin dated 25 May 2012.

 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

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

 

10.0  Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

A Construction Certificate will be required in the event that the application is approved.

 

Financial Implications

 

The proposal will attract contributions under S94A if it is approved.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

See Section 8.1 of this report.

 

Public Consultation


See Section 7.7 of this report.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

The proposal is unacceptable for reason outlined in the report and is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of the Proposal

4 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Council's previous letters

4 Pages

 

Attachment 4View

Heritage Advisor Comments

8 Pages

 

Attachment 5View

Survey Plan

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. 10.2012.145 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including the demolition of an existing garage, alterations and addition to dwelling house, removal of 8 trees, construction of an underground garage within the rear courtyard area with an enclosed carport style garage entry at ground level and a first floor attic addition on Lot 18 in DP: 5908, known as 41 Boomerang Street, Haberfield, for the following reasons:

 

Reasons

 

1.      The proposed development fails to comply with the minimum landscaped area requirements of Clause 35(2)(b) of Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

2.      An objection in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 has not been submitted justifying the variation to the landscaped area requirements of Clause 35(2)(b) of Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

3.      The proposed development fails to comply with the requirements of Clause 2.3(b) of Section 2- Part C7 of Ashfield DCP 2007 which requires extension to an existing building to produce site coverage similar in pattern and size to the site coverage established by the original development of the suburb.

 

4.      The proposed basement garage fails to comply with Clause 2.33 of section 2- Part C7 of Ashfield DCP 2007 which requires garages to be of simple utilitarian design, to be free standing (not buried) and, when they form part of a basement level attached at the rear of the house and not visible from a public place and not to conflict with other considerations in the Plan.

 

5.      The proposed development fails to comply with Clause No. 3(3.8) of Section 2 – Part C15 of Ashfield DCP 2007 which states that  basement garages, and driveways to access those garages, which are visible from the street , will not be supported.

 

6.      The proposed carport style structure at garage entry, to be constructed at 200mm setback from the north property boundary, and the stairs, to be constructed within the southern setback to access the basement garage, do not comply with the setback requirements of Clause No. 4.6 of Section 2.0- Part C15 of Ashfield DCP 2012. 

 

7.      The roof form proposed for the garage entry structure is not sympathetic to the traditional outbuildings in Haberfield.

 

8.      The proposed attic rooms do not comply with Clause 2.6(i) of section 2 – Part C7 which requires attic rooms to be modest in scale and comprise one (1) or at the most two (2) rooms capable of habitation.

 

 

9.      The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of Clause 2.12(e) of section 2- Part C7 which allows, only where natural land slope allows, sub-floor and basement development for use as laundries, storerooms, workrooms or garages.

 

10.    The proposed development, in extending the existing roof over the proposed rear veranda and partly enclosing it with a 2.4m high wall, does not comply with the requirements of Clause 2.30 (c) of section 2- Part C7 of Ashfield DCP 2007 which requires verandah additions to be simple in design, not to compete with the importance of the original verandah and to be generally simpler than the front main verandahs.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of the Proposal

 





Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Council's previous letters

 





Attachment 4

 

Heritage Advisor Comments

 









Attachment 5

 

Survey Plan

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 28 August 2012  CM10.4

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 10.2010.018.4
59 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ASHFIELD

 

File Ref                            10.2010.018.4

 

Prepared by                   Atalay Bas - Manager Development Services       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         Council to determine the application

 

 


1.0    DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

 

1.1    An application pursuant to Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended seeks Council’s approval to delete condition 12 of the consent applicable to a boarding house development which has recently been completed at 59 Liverpool Road, Ashfield. The condition reads as follows:-

 

“12. Use of the premises as a boarding house

 

The premises must be used as a boarding house as defined in Section 516(1A) of the Local Government Act 1993, being a building wholly or partly let as lodging in which each letting provides the tariff-paying occupant with a principal place of residence. Each tariff charged must not exceed the maximum tariff for boarding houses or lodging houses for the time being determined by the Minister by order published in the Government Gazette.

 

For information concerning the current maximum tariff the Department of Local Government can be contacted on 02 4428 4100 or at www.dlg.nsw.gov.au.”

 

This condition relates to the rental charges that can be applied to the rooms of the boarding house and was imposed, through agreement by all parties, earlier this year by the Land & Environment Court during court proceedings to determine whether or not an additional bedroom could be added to the boarding house on the subject land.

 

The applicant has a current action (appeal) in the Land & Environment Court in relation to another condition of consent (condition 7) and is seeking to have the matter of deletion of condition (12) also included in these proceedings.

 

2.0       SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

 

2.1    It is recommended that the condition be deleted given the advice that has been provided by Council’s solicitors (provided under separate cover).

 

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


 

3.0    BACKGROUND

 

3.1    On 11 May 2010 Council granted approval for demolition of existing structures and construction of a three storey building to be used for the purposes of a boarding house, subject to conditions.

 

3.2    On 11 October 2011 a Section 96 application was lodged seeking Council approval for the construction of an additional one (1) boarding room to the western side of the second floor of the building. The Section 96 application was refused by Council on 13 December 2011, however, it was subsequently approved by the NSW Land and Environment Court (LEC) on 10 April 2012. During the appeal proceedings Council was required to prepare conditions of consent in respect to the proposal.

 

3.3    A set of conditions was drafted and sent to the applicant’s solicitor for comment and review (LEC conditions provided at Attachment 1). The applicant’s solicitor did not raise any concerns or issues with the conditions during the appeal and as such these conditions were provided to the LEC and accordingly a court order was issued to the applicant to comply with the conditions.

 

4.0    DISCUSSION & COMMENTS

 

4.1    The applicant now claims that condition 12 is not applicable, should not have been imposed, is beyond Council’s powers to impose and as such should be deleted. The applicant in the Section 96 application has provided the following justification, seeking deletion of condition 12:-

 

“It is considered that this condition is not applicable to a boarding house or one to be imposed upon an entire boarding house when consent was only sought for 1 additional room under the Section 96(2) modification.

 

Furthermore, such condition could only be viewed as beyond power.

 

It is considered that the condition is unreasonable and unnecessary as no rent capping is contemplated nor required by the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 under which the application was lodged and approved.

 

The provisions of the SEPP which relate to Boarding Houses have no reference to rent capping nor do any of the accompanying fact sheets published by Planning NSW.

 

It is considered that no rent capping can be lawfully applied as boarding houses by virtue of their room sizes ensure that such developments are ‘affordable’.

 

This is consistent with other development approvals issued by Councils and the Land and Environment Court of NSW whereby no such restriction/condition has been imposed.

 

It is understood that it is the choice of the boarding house provider as to whether the tariffs are provided below the Government imposed tariff to achieve a land tax exemption or to qualify for a certain rate categorisation.”


 

4.2    Condition 12 imposes a requirement that the operator of the boarding house cannot charge more than the set maximum tariffs to the occupants. The maximum tariffs are determined by the Minister for Local Government on a yearly financial basis.

 

4.3    It is acknowledged that during the determination of the initial application in 2010 a condition in respect to charging boarders maximum tariffs was not imposed. It is understandable that the applicant is now of the view that such a condition should not have been imposed for the reason that it caps the rental return for the boarding house development.

 

4.4    Given the advice from Council’s solicitors it is recommended that the condition be deleted.

 

5.0    APPLICATION DETAILS

 

Applicant

Prasino Pty & John Galatis

Owner

Mr J Galatis & Prasino Pty Ltd

Lot/DP

LOT: 7 SEC: 10 DP: 439

Date lodged

13 August 2012

Application Type

Local

Construction Certificate

No

Section 94 Levy

No

 

6.0    SITE & SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

 

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

 

Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.

 

7.0    DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

 

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

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

10.2010.18.2

10 April 2012

Increase the number of boarding rooms from 31 to 32

Approved by Land and Environment Court

10.2010.18.1

11 May 2010

Construction of a three storey boarding house

Approved

10.2004.106

10/09/2004

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

Approved

10.1997.112

19/08/1997

Replacement of Sign on front pole

Approved

6.1992.384

24/12/1992

Alterations to Squash Court

Approved

6.1989.373

23/11/1989

Verandah Enclosure

Withdrawn

6.1989.278

03/08/1989

Carport

Approved

6.1957.2323

26/11/1957

Unknown

Unknown

6.1957.2102

19/02/1957

Unknown

Unknown

 

8.0    ZONING

 

The site is zoned Part 2(c) - Residential and Part 9(c) County Road Widening Reservation under the provisions of Ashfield LEP 1985. The proposed modification is permissible with Council consent.

 

9.0    SECTION 96(1a) ASSESSMENT

 

9.1    Is the proposed modification of minimal environmental impact?

 

The proposed modification to delete condition 12 will not adversely affect the site or the neighbouring properties as there is no change in use or intensification of the use of the property and is therefore considered to have no further environmental impact.

 

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

 

The modification to delete the condition 12 does not substantially alter the development and it is considered that the modification will result in substantially the same development.

 

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

 

Clause 2.26 (c) of Part C12 Council’s notification policy exempts notification of applications for amendment of consents in relation to technical conditions of consent.

 

9.4    Has council considered any submissions made concerning the modification?

 

Not applicable.

 

10.0  SECTION 79C ASSESSMENT

 

10.1  The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

10.1.1        Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with the LEP.

 


10.1.2        Regional Environmental Plans

 

Not applicable.

 

10.1.3        State Environmental Planning Policies

 

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

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with SEPP(ARH) 2009.

 

10.2    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 R3 Medium Density Residential use pursuant to Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposed modification is permissible with consent.

 

10.3    The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with relevant DCPs.

 

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

 

Not applicable.

 

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

 

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

 

10.6    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.

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

 

Clause 2.26 (c) of Part C12 Council’s notification policy exempts notification of applications for amendment of consents in relation to technical conditions of consent.

 

10.8  The public interest

 

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


 

11.0  REFERRALS

 

Not applicable.

 

12.0  OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS

 

Not applicable.

13.0  BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA (BCA)

 

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

 

14.0  CONCLUSION

 

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

 

There is no provision under the SEPP requiring the imposition of tariffs. Council controls also do not require such a requirement and given the additional advice that has been received it is recommended that the condition be deleted.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

LEC Consent Conditions

4 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3

Legal Advice -  - CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT - Confidential - It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (g) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

8 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Development Application No. 2010.18 4 for construction of a boarding house at 59 Liverpool Road Ashfield be modified in accordance with section 96(1a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by deleting Condition 12.

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 


Attachment 1

 

LEC Consent Conditions

 





Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 28 August 2012  CM10.5

Subject                            UNAUTHORISED TREE REMOVAL - 2-32 SMITH STREET, SUMMER HILL (FORMER ALLIED MILLS SITE)

 

File Ref                            2-32 Smith Street, Summer Hill

 

Prepared by                   Phil Sarin - Director Planning and Environment       

 

 

Reasons                          Update Council on matter

 

Objective                         For the information of Council

 

 


Overview of Report

This report outlines the status of the removal of three significant trees from the former Allied Mills site without Council authorisation and the action that has been taken in relation to the matter to date.

 

1.0    Background

 

In late July Council became aware that a number of trees had been removed from the former Allied Mills site. The information was provided by a local resident who had witnessed a contractor working on the site and removing the trees.

 

Council’s Ranger – Development Compliance inspected the site in late July and confirmed that three trees had been removed and what remained in place were three large stumps. The three trees were located at the southern end of the former Allied Mills site near the rear boundary of properties fronting Edward Street (nos 42 and 44) – refer to photographs provided in Attachment 1. Council’s Ranger contacted management at the site and was informed that they would get in touch with the contractor who had removed the trees and them get back to him with further information. They subsequently contacted him and advised that according to the contractor Council consent had been sought and granted for the trees to be removed. A check of Council’s records revealed that no such consent had been sought nor issued for the removal of the trees under Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

 

Council’s TPO requires consent to be sought for removal of trees which have a height greater than five (5) metres, but does exempt certain species, subject to conditions as follows:

 

CATEGORY B - The trees listed below are exempt from the Tree Preservation Order subject to the following conditions:

 

a) The tree must be less than 10 metres in height or have a trunk diameter less than 450mm when measured 1.5 metres from ground level.

 

b) The tree must be within 3 metres of a dwelling or sewer line and causing damage. Dwellings do not include structures such as carports and pergolas.


 

Trees in this category are: · Camphor Laurel · Willow · Liquidambar · Poplar

 

The three trees in question were Camphor Laurels, which are potentially exempt from the TPO, however, their size was well in excess of the standards outlined above so consent was required for their removal under the TPO.

 

2.0    Current Action

 

A team of officers has been assembled to carry out an investigation into the matter. This team comprises officers from regulatory services and parks and gardens. Council’s solicitor has also been briefed on the matter and inspected the site. Council has also engaged the services of a qualified arborist to provide a report on the age and condition of the trees following a recent inspection of the remaining tree stumps.

 

Discussions have also occurred with persons responsible for managing the site and engaging the contractor who carried out the removal of the trees. The contractor alleged to have removed the trees has also contacted the Council to explains his actions.

 

Once all the evidence has been collected it will be forwarded to Council’s solicitor for evaluation and advice on what options are available to Council in terms of further action. This could include the issue of fines, prosecution or some other form of legal action.

 

Council officers have reviewed the most recent concept plans and supporting documents for the Allied Mills site proposal which is currently before the State Government’s Planning Assessment Commission for determination. These plans show that the subject trees are not proposed to be retained and the area in which they are located is intended to be used for a new internal road with on-street car parking.

 

3.0    Financial Implications

 

In the event that some form of legal action is pursued costs will obviously be incurred to mount such an action. This will be resourced from Council’s current legal budget. Council’s solicitor will provide further advice concerning costs and likely prospects in due course.

 

4.0    Conclusion

 

This matter represents a serious breach of Council’s TPO and an appropriate response needs to be made to discourage other property owners from taking similar action in relation to the removal of significant trees. Councillors will be kept informed of what further action will be pursued following the conclusion of the investigation and the evaluation of the evidence that is collected.


 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Photographs

4 Pages

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council note and receive the report.

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment  


Attachment 1

 

Photographs

 





Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 28 August 2012  CM10.6

Subject                            FOURTH QUARTER REVIEW AGAINST THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2011 - 2015

 

File Ref                            Governance>Management Plan 2011

 

Prepared by                   Gabrielle Rennard - Manager Governance       

 

 

Reasons                          To fulfil statutory reporting requirements according to the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009

 

Objective                         To update Council on progress towards delivery of the 2011/2015 Management Plan

 

 


Overview of Report
The report (attachment 1) reflects actions and achievements undertaken during the fourth quarter (April – June 2012) in relation to performance targets as determined in the Management Plan 2011/2015.

 

 

Background

This is the fourth and final quarterly review presented against the Management Plan 2011/2015.

 

Detailed information on performance against each initiative listed in the management plan is provided for this quarter in the attachment to this report. The report indicates that, overall, good progress was made towards finalising the delivery of programs/initiatives that Council committed to for the 2011/2012 year.

 

 

Financial Implications

These have been outlined in the fourth quarter Budget review report that is being presented to Council in correlation with this report.

 

 

Other Staff Comments

All Program Managers and Directors have contributed to the review through the delivery of their operational plans.

 

 

Public Consultation

Not specifically required for this report, however on-going community consultation is undertaken in order to meet the aims and objectives of the various individual actions as noted. The quarterly review is also made available for viewing and downloading by the community on Council’s website.

 


 

Conclusion

This fourth quarter review provides detail regarding each of the actions in the management plan and reflects the performance against each initiative listed as undertaken over this period.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Fourth Quarter Review 2011/12

30 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council's performance over the Fourth Quarter 2011/12 be noted and the report be published on Council’s website.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Fourth Quarter Review 2011/12

 































Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 28 August 2012  CM10.7

Subject                            SUNDRY GRANTS - REQUESTS TO COUNCIL FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

 

File Ref                            Financial Assistance - Grants from Council

 

Prepared by                   Gerard Howard - Team Leader Community Services       

 

 

Reasons                          To respond to requests for financial assistance

 

 


Overview of Report

This report provides Council with information on recent requests for financial assistance.

 

 

Background

Council has received requests for financial assistance or sponsorship from two local residents and a request from De La Salle College, Ashfield.

 

1.    Applicant One (1) has requested financial assistance to attend the 2012 National Student Leadership Forum on faith and values hosted by the Australian Parliament.

 

2.    Applicant Two (2) has requested financial assistance from Council to attend the National Youth Science Forum in Perth in early 2013.

 

3.    De La Salle College Ashfield has written to Council seeking assistance towards a Walkathon on 31st August to help raise funds for education equipment.

 

 

Under Council’s adopted procedures for determining ‘sundry’ requests for financial assistance from organisations and individuals, Council can consider applications for financial assistance from individuals and groups/organisations in the following categories:

 

a)   Individual residents living in the Ashfield Council area. Residents must provide proof of residency with their application.

 

b)   Locally based groups, teams and organisations, requiring assistance for projects and activities for the benefit of residents of Ashfield Municipality. Such organisations must be located in the Municipality of Ashfield or provide benefits for a significant proportion of the residents; and established as not-for-profit, community based and/or charitable organisations (i.e. not commercial or profit-driven entities, including registered clubs).

 

c)   Other groups and organisations requiring assistance for humanitarian or community concerns consistent with Council’s social and/or other policies.


 

Preference for funding will generally be given to groups/organisations with limited sources of funding or fund-raising. In cases where individuals and teams apply for assistance they should provide support documentation from their club or association and peak body.

 

Council may consider applications or proposals involving financial assistance of the following nature:

 

·    An initiative which strengthens formal and informal support networks, reduces isolation and increases community participation and opportunities especially for people with the greatest need.

·    A special event servicing the local community, which is not provided for in Council’s events programs.

·    Establishment of a new service where no other source of funding exists

·    State or national representation in chosen field, including academic, cultural, artistic and sporting endeavours, where people require financial assistance to attend or compete.

·    A team or individual from a disadvantaged background in pursuit of a unique cultural, academic or sporting experience and which will produce considerable social capital for those involved.

·    Requests for use of Council facilities, which involve either waiving of charges or reduction of fees and charges at a level below the scheduled amounts in Council’s Annual Management Plan Fees and Charges.

·    Donations towards humanitarian or community concerns consistent with Council’s social and/or other policies.

 

Applications for a Sundry Grant will not be considered in cases where they:

 

·    Are eligible to apply for an Ashfield Council Community Grant or have already been granted assistance from another Council assistance program.

·    Will gain a personal financial benefit from the grant.

 

Current Requests

 

All requests which have been received are worthy endeavours.  In the case of the request for assistance from Applicant One, it is considered to be consistent with a “State or national representation in chosen field, including academic, cultural, artistic and sporting endeavours, where people require financial assistance to attend or compete”.  The National Student Leadership Forum is the initiative of Members and Senators of the Federal Parliament, supported by business and community leaders.  The cost to each student in attending is $1,050 and a donation from Council of $300 would seem in order.

 

The request for assistance from Applicant Two is also consistent with a “State or national representation in chosen field, including academic, cultural, artistic and sporting endeavours, where people require financial assistance to attend or compete”.  Ms Chandra has been selected to attend the National Youth Science Forum in Perth on 26 January, 2013 and needs to raise a further $1,695 to attend. 


The correspondence indicates that 432 students were selected from nearly 2000 applicants around Australia.  Applicant Two has also outlined her particular circumstances and the associated financial implications.  With this in mind, along with the local voluntary contribution at the Exodus Foundation she has outlined, it is considered that a donation from Council of $600 is warranted.

 

In the case of the request from De La Salle College, it can be seen to be consistent with “a special event servicing the local community, which is not provided for in Council’s events programs”.  The Walkathon also serves to strengthen and build the capacity of a local school.  Therefore, a Sundry grant donation from Council of $200 to the school would seem reasonable on this occasion.

 

Financial Implications

 

Sundry donations such as those recommended in this report will be sourced from available funds within the existing Councillors’ Donations vote  There is currently $15,000 remaining within this vote.

 

Other Staff Comments

Nil

 

Public Consultation

N/A

 

Conclusion

 

Council regularly receives requests for financial assistance. On this occasion three requests have been received and each is recommended for some level of support.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

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

3 Pages

 

Attachment 2

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

2 Pages

 

Attachment 3View

De La Salle College - Sundry Grants

1 Page

 

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/4    That Council note the information contained in the report.

 

2/4    That Council provides $300 to Applicant One to assist with her attending the National Student Leadership Forum.

 

3/4    That Council provide $600 to Applicant Two to assist with her attending the National Youth Science Forum in Perth.

 

4/4    That Council provide $200 to De Le Salle Ashfield to assist with the August Walkathon Fundraiser.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services


Attachment 3

 

De La Salle College - Sundry Grants

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 28 August 2012  CM10.8

Subject                            NSW PLANNING SYSTEM GREEN PAPER

 

File Ref                            GREEN PAPER

 

Prepared by                   Ron Sim - Manager Strategic Planning & Projects       

 

 

Reasons                          Inform Council of important exhibited legislative proposals affecting the NSW Planning System and suggest a Council response.

 

Objective                         Provide constructive comment that will assist the ongoing legislative review process prior to closing date of exhibition

                                           (14 September 2012).

 

 


Overview of Report

 

The purpose of this report is to outline the NSW Government’s proposals for the comprehensive reform of the State’s planning system and elicit a response from Council. 

 

 

1.0 Background

 

As recently reported in the media, the key thrust of the Green Paper (see Paper at Attachment 1 and FAQ’s for Councils at Attachment 2) is a new focus on up-front strategic land use planning, coupled with a more streamlined development approval process for individual projects. However, the Green Paper also contains a number of specific proposals that will be significant to landowners and developers.  This report summarises the big picture, as well as some of the specific measures that will have ramifications for property development. 

 

2.0 Synopsis

 

Legislative milestones

 

The Green Paper proposes the following:

 

·      a White Paper (a final set of broad policy proposals) and draft legislation will be released before the end of 2012.

·      legislation will pass through State parliament in the first half of 2013.

·      the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney and the eight sub-regional strategies (including one for the inner west) will be replaced with a new metropolitan growth strategy and regional growth strategies.

·      within two years of the finalisation of the relevant growth strategy, subregional delivery plans be prepared for areas within Sydney, and other areas of change.  These documents will be subject to new, comprehensive levels of community consultation.  


 

Key Objectives

 

The high-level objectives of the new planning system are to be: simple, certain, transparent, efficient, effective, integrated and responsive.

 

The Green Paper consistently emphasises the need to ensure that:

 

·      there is flexibility to respond to change

·      markets are competitive; and

·      market demand is able to be satisfied. 

 

Public Participation

 

The Green Paper suggests participation by the public at an earlier stage of the planning process when strategic planning for development is taking place. The methods by which the planning system will enable this are by a series of changes, which notably include the implementation of a Public Participation Charter and better access to the planning process through e-technology. The Public Participation Charter is slated to be an "integral part of the planning system" to encourage community participation when deciding how and where development is going to take place.

 

Subregional delivery plans

 

Significant reforms are linked to the preparation of new subregional delivery plans for areas likely to experience growth, including all of Sydney. Subregional delivery plans will be the principal planning tool for effecting land use change and for the setting of development parameters and criteria within a region. It is intended that the most decisions about transport capacity and patterns of infill and Greenfield development will be made at the subregional planning level.

 

Subregional delivery plans will be prepared for a group of local councils.  Sub-regional boundaries have not yet been specified.  Responsibility for overseeing the preparation will be given to a regional planning board composed of public servants representing the relevant local councils and state government agencies. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure will provide support services - although local councils will also play an important role. It is subregional delivery plans that will apportion housing, employment and retail targets across local government areas (not the metropolitan-wide strategy as is currently the case). 

 

The subregional delivery plans will include:

 

·    a series of “sectoral strategies” on subjects such as housing, employment, retail, environment, etc

 

·    growth infrastructure plans which will detail the state government’s infrastructure commitments to support the anticipated growth.


 

Unlike previous subregional strategies there will be little or no lag time between the finalisation of subregional delivery plans and the rezoning of land.  The finalised subregional delivery plans will, themselves, directly rezone high priority growth areas, including urban release areas. 

 

The Green Paper anticipates that subregional strategies will be finalised within two years of the relevant metropolitan/regional growth strategy.  If it is assumed that Sydney’s metropolitan growth strategy is finalised at the end of 2012, the new subregional delivery plans are expected to be completed by the end of 2014. However, there is no guarantee that this will happen if, for example, councils and government officials cannot reach an agreement on the plan. 

 

In this context, it is worth noting that subregional delivery plans are intended to simultaneously:

 

·      be informed by a consideration of the economic and market drivers of investment;

·      reflect home buyer and business preferences

·    be based on an understanding of financial feasibility

·    provide a genuine opportunity for communities to shape the growth of their local areas; and

·    “empower” councils.

 

Local land use plans to replace LEP’s and DCP’s

 

The existing system of local environmental plans and development control plans will be replaced by new “local land use plans”, once the subregional delivery plans have been finalised.

 

These local land use plans will have four parts:

 

·      Part A - A “clear, simple plain English” explanation of what the plan is trying to do.

 

·      Part B - A spatial land use plan, which will zone land, in accordance with a “more flexible” standard instrument.

 

·      Part C - An outline of local, regional and state infrastructure to be provided to support development.

 

·      Part D - Development guidelines and performance measures.

 

Strategic Planning Emphasis

 

The Green Paper emphasises strategic planning as a cornerstone of the new planning system. This will be reflected in a new, upfront planning regime which will involve community members at an early stage. Communities will be able to decide and comment on the types of development considered appropriate in an area at the initial stages of drafting a strategic plan.


However, once the strategic plan has been decided, it will be a green light for development in areas agreed upon in the strategic planning stages similar to current Housing and Commercial Codes.

 

Parts B and D are the portions of the plan that will be most relevant to the statutory planning process (they will replace existing local environmental plans and development control plans). 

 

In this regard the Green Paper strongly criticises the existing system of development standards and development control plans which it sees as rigid and inflexible.  Of the new system it says that “guidelines should facilitate outcomes desirable to the market, not dictate solutions that preclude choice and flexibility”.

 

It also says that development guidelines will focus on performance based outcomes and will not merely be a compendium of rules.  Under the new plans, development guidelines may contain prescriptive standards where those provisions are ‘deemed to satisfy’ a performance based outcome.  If a proposal complies with either a prescriptive standard in a guideline - or is an acceptable alternative solution - then the proposal will get a tick on that issue. 

 

The Green Paper says that the zoning framework in the new planning system will contain greater flexibility to provide for a broader range of uses within a given zone. This approach will allow a larger number of compatible land uses to be undertaken in a particular area with limited regulatory requirements, while segregating out those activities that are truly incompatible.

 

Three new zones are proposed.  Namely:

 

·    An “enterprise zone” - which is about employment-related development, but also could provide opportunities for mixed use housing investment.  These are intended to have little, if any, development controls, provided there are no significant adverse environmental impacts. 

 

·    A “suburban character zone” - which appears to be a more restrictive version of the current Standard Instrument’s “Zone R2 Low Density Residential”.  It is likely that this new zone will largely replace the R2 zone (and its equivalents). 

 

·    A “future urban release area zone” – is about formally designating land for future Greenfield development when state and local governments are not ready to deliver the necessary infrastructure. 

 

Other overall major structural changes proposed to all levels of the current planning take the following form:

 

·    NSW Planning Policies (State Government) – NSW Planning Policies will replace State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and 117 Directions, which currently number upwards of 48 documents on areas including housing supply and affordability, employment, biodiversity conservation, retail development, coastal management and regional development, and reduce the volume of policy documents to between 10 and 12.

 

·    Metropolitan/Regional Growth Plans (State Government) – including the current Metropolitan Plan for Sydney will be drafted for regional areas in NSW and focus on integration.

 

·    Subregional Delivery Plans (Regional Boards) – to be prepared in partnership with Local Government, state agencies and stakeholders.

 

·    Local Land Use Plans (Local Councils) – to replace Local Environmental Plans (see above).

 

·    New Zones – to divide areas into different development opportunities.

 

Different levels of government will be responsible for devising and implementing the above strategies and policies.

 

New governance initiatives including a Chief Executive Officer's Group, Regional Planning Boards, mandatory performance monitoring and organisational reform are all proposed to deliver the above structural changes.

 

Integrated Infrastructure Planning

 

The Green Paper proposes to implement Growth Infrastructure Plans which will integrate land use, infrastructure and transport planning. Within this system, the Green Paper outlines plans to minimise or repeal the use of Voluntary Planning Agreements and substitute a new, fairer and simplified system for infrastructure contributions that will aim to support housing areas with rapid growth. The cost of infrastructure will be borne by both government and private industry through a system of levies. These levies have been an aspect of the paper which has been publicised fairly heavily, particularly with Councils or consent authorities which for the purpose of the authority's own fiscal considerations. The Green Paper proposes to abolish "hoarding" or "banking" of infrastructure levies by public authorities and establish a fairer, simpler and more affordable system for infrastructure contributions.

 

Some general principles are articulated and an option is floated with three levels of infrastructure contribution as follows:

 

·        local infrastructure identified in a plan – limited to local roads, local drainage works and land for community facilities (not land for open space or drainage);

 

·        a fixed levy per residential development (both in Greenfield and infill) to fund the acquisition of:

                -  land for local and regional open space

                -  land for local and regional drainage; and


                -  biodiversity offsets.

 

·        a regional infrastructure contribution for new and upgraded regional roads, land for health and education and emergency service facilities.

 

Strategic compliance

 

The Green Paper acknowledges that  there will be a lag between the introduction of the metropolitan/regional growth plans and the finalisation of subregional delivery plans. This lag could be lengthy if, for example, a regional planning board struggles to agree on a subregional delivery plan. Any delay in the finalisation of the subregional delivery strategy, will also delay the new local land use plans. The paper addresses this problem by proposing a new “strategic compatibility certificate”. 

 

It is stated this will enable good development that implements metropolitan or regional strategies to be considered straight away, before the local land use plan catches up. 

 

Applications for a strategic compatibility certificate will be made to the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. If granted, the certificate will authorise the assessment of a strategy-consistent development proposal, where the provisions of the existing local plan prevent the implementation of the strategy. If dissatisfied with the decision that the Director-General makes in response to such an application, the applicant, or Council will be able to seek a review of that decision from the relevant Joint Regional Planning Panel. 

 

Demand and needs assessment

 

According to the Green Paper, the planning system should facilitate investment and development and if a proponent is willing to invest in a proposal then that is the measure of whether a proposal is viable within the market. As a result, the Green Paper proposes that, if a particular land use is allowed under the zone, a consent authority should not be allowed to refuse an application on the grounds of competition.

 

Reviews of spot rezoning decisions

 

The Green Paper recognises that the proposed reforms will not eliminate the need for spot rezoning.   It also proposes more accountability for decision-makers who are dealing with spot rezoning.

 

As a consequence, the Green Paper supports:

 

§ Pre-gateway reviews of rezoning applications - may be requested by a proponent because a local council refuses or delays preparation of a planning proposal.  Subject to meeting strict eligibility requirements, including consistency with strategies, the pre-gateway review would be undertaken by the relevant Joint Regional Planning Panel. 


If the proposal is considered to have merit, it would proceed to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a gateway determination.

 

·    Gateway reviews of rezoning applications - would apply where the proponent or the Council do not agree with the Gateway determination. Gateway reviews may be requested by a council or proponent following a gateway determination, but before community consultation on the planning proposal has commenced.  In these instances, planning proposals would be reviewed by the Director-General of the Department with advice from the Planning Assessment Commission.

 

Site compatibility certificates

 

At present, site compatibility certificates are commonly used in relation to seniors housing. Under the proposed reforms, there will be a new ability for local councils to seek a review by a Joint Regional Planning Panel of any Departmental decisions to issue a site compatibility certificate. 

 

    Streamlining Development Approvals

 

The Green Paper proposes an overhaul of development assessment and compliance as follows:

Independent expert decision-making

 

The stated aim is to “depoliticise decision making”: allowing independent and expert panels to make decisions on development applications. The Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) and the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) will continue to assess State and regional-scale development. The Green Paper proposes bringing JRPPs into the assessment process more by:

 

·    involving JRRPs in pre-lodgement meetings;

·    allowing both the council and the applicant to regularly brief the JRRP;

·    considering the provision of dedicated staff to JRRPs.

 

Local government will be part of the planning process in the making of Regional Growth Plans, Local Land Use Plans and Subregional Delivery Plans and as part of Regional Planning Boards. It is also going to be part of the assessment process of State Significant Development and Priority Infrastructure Projects as well as retaining its role as the consent authority for merit assessment of development and merit related issues.

 

However, all Councils will be encouraged to follow the lead of some 11 councils who have already implemented independent expert panels with delegated authority to determine development applications to ensure a faster turnaround for planning decisions. The panels would be comprised of planning experts, architects, scientists and lay residents and is lauded as “key to depoliticising the planning process”.


 

A significant change is proposed for the existing system of local council reviews of decisions concerning development applications and modification applications (known as “section 82A” reviews and “section 96AB” reviews respectively). Many applicants have no confidence in a process where Council is merely asked to review its own decision.  Presumably that is why, when development applications are refused, applicants often proceed direct to the Land and Environment Court and ignore the option of having a local council conduct an internal review.  

 

  The Green Paper proposes a change, so that where a decision:

 

·    was made by an elected council - the joint regional planning panels will now conduct the review; and

 

·    where a decision was made by council staff under delegation – a mechanism to be established where senior staff of the adjoining council(s) undertake the review or there will be a small appeals tribunal similar to the City of Sydney model.

 

Existing appeal rights to the Land and Environment Court are to be retained.

 

This will give applicants greater choice in how they respond to adverse decisions. It will allow them to go through a more cost-effective review administrative process, rather than rushing off straight to Court. 

There will continue to be no review mechanism for decisions initially made by a joint regional planning panels or the Planning Assessment Commission (other than the traditional right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court).

 

Joint regional planning panels

 

There will be a greater capacity for the panels to be engaged in the assessment process early on, including in pre and post development application meetings with applicants. Consideration is to be given to providing Joint Regional Planning Panels with their own dedicated staff to assist with the assessment and determination process.

 

Expansion of Code assessable development

 

There will be a new system of code assessable development. This form of assessment will be triggered either via the subregional delivery plans/local land use plans or via the grant of a concept (stage 1) development consent. 

 

The new system mandates the approval of development applications for apartments, office buildings and shopping centres when they fully comply with the requirements of the relevant plan or concept (stage 1) development consent.

 

For developments of this scale the approval authority will be the local council or the joint regional planning panel.  The approval must be given within pre-set timeframes.

Sitting alongside that system will be a merit assessment stream. 


 

Development that does not reflect the building envelopes and agreed land uses set out in a subregional delivery plan may still be approved against the strategic objectives of the plan. This might occur, for example, if market conditions have changed and the prescribed envelopes and land uses are no longer appropriate for desired development outcomes. This form of merit assessment stream is different to current “SEPP 1” variations. The current SEPP 1 does not apply to prohibitions (only development standards), and changes in market conditions are rarely accepted as grounds for a SEPP 1 variation. 

 

A development that partially satisfies the code will be code-assessed on the compliant component of the development and subject to a limited merit assessment on the non-compliant portion.

 

Consent conditions

 

Under the new system, development consent conditions must be clear, reasonable, cost effective and proportionate in addressing the assessment issue. They will not be allowed to duplicate other conditions or matters that are dealt with through building certification. They will only be imposed to ensure that the development is actually carried out as proposed and to mitigate unacceptable adverse impacts of the proposed development.

 

The Government says it will establish clear principles about the types of development consent conditions that are appropriate, ensuring that they do not duplicate other regulatory requirements and facilitate the development of standard conditions, possibly on a regional basis so that there is consistency across Councils.

 

Removing duplication between the different stages of the development approval process

 

The government is proposing to constrain development assessment, so that it does not attempt to duplicate other parts of the process. This means, when assessing development applications, consent authorities cannot raise or pursue matters that can be adequately dealt with in the construction certificate stage. 

 

Similarly, when development applications are staged, matters dealt with in a concept (Stage 1) development consent will not be able to be revisited by a consent authority in its assessment of subsequent applications. Likewise, the scope of the assessment for a Stage 1 consent will not be able to intrude into matters that can be adequately addressed in the subsequent applications. 

 

State significant development

 

The considerations that the Planning Assessment Commission needs to take into account when dealing with state significant development will be broadened beyond just local issues, to embrace state and regional impacts (noting that “impacts” can be positive, as well as negative).   


 

Reforms are also proposed to ensure that the Planning Assessment Commission does not develop its own planning policies, but, where more general issues arise, turns to the Minister and Director-General for input. 

 

Similarly the State Government’s planning principles would need to be taken into account by the Commission as they “provide a better strategic framework in which to assess proposals, rather than that provided by purely local land use plans”. 

 

The Green Paper flags that the government will consider a recommendation by Tim Moore and Ron Dyer (who conducted the independent review) to extend the scope of the State Significant Development stream to include:

 

1.     projects of a retail and/or commercial nature of a project value of $75 million and:

 

2.     residential developments with a planned yield of 500 dwellings or more (including staged development underpinned by concept plans or master planning to such an anticipated yield).

 

However, the government’s response on this point will only be determined following a consideration of community submissions. The Green Paper also proposes that consultants preparing environmental impact statements will need to be chosen from an accredited panel. 

 

Voluntary planning agreements

 

Voluntary planning agreements are to be phased out or “significantly modernised” and simplified. The Green Paper says the intention of such agreements is for them to be linked to larger precinct developments. The paper also proposes clear minimum benchmarks for voluntary planning agreements, including defined negotiations time frames and a greater use of in-kind contributions. 

 

3.0  Implications of the prospective legislation for Ashfield Council

 

It is clear that the current planning system is overly complex and bureaucratic.

However, precise details of how the proposed changes will be implemented are not yet available in the Green Paper. It is evident that there is move towards significant change and this will affect all stakeholders including developers, local government and community interest groups.

 

It is fair to say that that:

 

·   The proposed new planning system gives priority to making the process more streamlined and efficient for developers;

 

·    Local government, currently the main approval authority, will take on a significantly reduced role in the planning process and JRPP’s/private certifiers will have a correspondingly increased role. There will also be more “State Significant” developments dealt with by the State Government .


 

·    A Code based assessment system may result in “bland” development and adverse outcomes for neighbouring properties if design requirements are absent in the Codes. The current complying development housing codes do not address design because by their very nature they must rely on simplistic numerical development standards that can be easily measured. This is an inherent flaw of a “Codes” approach and exists because good design is impossible to quantify. Large developments need to meet high standards of urban design and it is difficult to see how a codes based assessment system will achieve this.

 

·      The move towards greater code based assessment is of some concern in circumstances where private certifiers rather than Council deal with the application. The current building industry accountability structure is arguably dysfunctional and lacking in force. The Green Paper also does not deal with the problems associated with enforcement when development is not carried out in accordance with a consent.

 

·      Local communities and interest groups, including environmental groups, may be critical of the lack of emphasis on urban design, sustainability and the protection of social and environmental outcomes. Whether current environmental law will be able to adequately address this perceived gap may be a matter for comment before the final White Paper is released.

 

References:

 

i)   DOP&I web site >>    http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/a-new-planning-system-for-nsw

ii)  Gadens Lawyers.

iii) Lindsay Taylor lawyers.

 

Financial Implications

 

N/A.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

This  report was peer reviewed.

 

Public Consultation

 

Being undertaken by State Government- closing date for comments 14 September 2012.

 

4.0 Conclusion

 

The Green Paper focuses on a streamlined and efficient planning system to ensure a delivery culture for new development proposals and aims to depoliticise the planning process. There seems to be a preferred further shift to a “tick the box” code complying development once strategic plans have been prepared. The new planning system would ostensibly be simpler and clearer for developers when undertaking the planning process and decisions are more likely to arbitrated by independent panels rather than local government.


The jury is out concerning the quality of development that will result and whether the community will feel it is adequately consulted and have a fair say in decision making. Further details will be released in the upcoming White Paper and Exposure Bill before planning laws are altered and a new planning system implemented.

 

A further report will be prepared once more detail is known though the white paper process.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

NSW PLANNING SYSTEM REVIEW GREEN PAPER

91 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS FOR COUNCILS

5 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2    That the State Government be commended for initiating a comprehensive           review of the NSW Planning System.

 

2/2.   That Council advise the State Government prior to the close of the public           exhibition period on 14 September 2012 that any legislative review needs           to address the following:

 

i.    Retain a meaningful role for local communities through their Councillors to be involved in the development assessment and decision making process.

ii.   Incorporate mechanisms to ensure the community is adequately consulted and represented in the strategic plan making process and that this process needs to be the subject of further discussion with local government.

iii.  Code based assessment systems only be Implemented if they can  achieve good urban design outcomes and incorporate detail design controls agreed to by the community “upfront” as distinct from purely numerical standards.

iv.  Ensure that Code based assessment processes for substantial developments should only be undertaken by suitably experienced qualified professionals who have a sound appreciation of urban design issues.

v.   Allow applications for substantial developments to be determined by Council but subject to referral to a Joint Regional Planning Panel where refusal of the application is proposed by Council and prior to final determination.

vi.  Ensure determination of State Significant proposals adequately considers environmental impacts at the local level and that local Council representation on panels convened to assess such proposals is desirable to provide a balanced approach to decision-making.

vii. Require reviews of rezoning decisions to be subject to a rigorous assessment process to ensure that medium and longer strategic land use planning objectives previously agreed with the community are not fragmented or compromised for short term expediency.

viii. Reconsider proposals to establish an “enterprise zone” which does not have meaningful planning controls and apply appropriate development standards to ensure that good standards of urban design are achieved and adverse environmental impacts avoided.

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment


Attachment 1

 

NSW PLANNING SYSTEM REVIEW GREEN PAPER

 





























































































Attachment 2

 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS FOR COUNCILS

 






Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 28 August 2012  CM10.9

Subject                            COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS UPDATE - JANUARY - JUNE 2012

 

File Ref                            Governance>Business Paper

 

Prepared by                   Gabrielle Rennard - Manager Governance       

 

 

Reasons                          To keep Council informed

 

Objective                         To update Councillors regarding the status of Mayoral Minutes and Notices of Motion resolution actions for January – June 2012.

 

 


Overview of Report

 

This report is provided to Council by way of informing Councillors as to the status of Mayoral Minutes, Notices of Motion and Staff Reports resolution actions for the first six months of 2012.

 

 

Background

As per the Code of Meeting Practice Councillors make various motions to Council in the form of Mayoral Minutes or Notice of Motion. It is also noted that actions result from the various resolutions determined following a staff member’s report to Council.

 

This report is intended to provide Councillors with an update of the Council Mayoral Minutes, Notices of Motion and Staff Report resolution actions as noted for the period January – June 2012 and the status regarding the actions of the said resolutions (Attachment 1).

 

In order to provide ongoing monitoring and reporting to Council with respect to the actions associated with resolutions of Council, staff intend to provide a bi-annual report to Councillors each year, showing the implementation status.

 

Financial Implications

Nil

 

Other Staff Comments

The Executive Management Group have provided direct input into the attached spreadsheet.

 

Public Consultation

Not necessary

 

 

Conclusion

The regular reporting and provision of information to Council is essential for the ongoing monitoring of Council resolutions and decisions.

 


 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Council Resolutions January - July 2012 - status report

0 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the status report of Council resolution actions for January – June 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Council Resolutions January - July 2012 - status report

 

 

COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS - Mayoral Minutes and Notices of Motion to July 2012

Date

Minute #

Subject

Resolution

Directorate

Status

Comments

24-Jul-12

261/12

URBAN ACTIVATION PROGRAM

2/2 That the Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (or nominee) be advised that in Ashfield Council's opinion there are no suitable areas in the Ashfield Local Government Area that would meet the requirements for inclusion in the Urban Activation Program for the reasons as detailed in this report as noted on pages 218-224 of the business paper.

P&E

Council submission forwarded to DOP&I -
2 August 2012

10-Jul-12

235/12

BUCKLE BELT SITE 67-75 SMITH ST SUMMER HILL

That Ashfield Council engages the services of Senior Counsel to defend its refusal of DA 10.2012.051.1 67-75 Smith St in the upcoming hearing at the Land & Environment Court

P&E

Senior Counsel engaged. Appeal to be heard 30-31 August. Note: Recession motion on original NM 26 June 2012 put and lost

10-Jul-12

234/12

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

That Council write a letter of congratulations to Professor Trevor Cairney and his family on the conferment of the Order of Australia Medal

GMO

Letter sent out on 11 July 2012

10-Jul-12

233/12

SWING MOORINGS IN SYDNEY HARBOUR

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

GMO

Letter sent out on 11 July 2012

26-Jun-12

225/12

ENHANCING COUNCIL'S MURAL VIA THE USE OF STREET ART TO DISCOURAGE GRAFFITI

3/4 That Council officers come back with a report to council within 10 weeks outlining strategies and locations where ‘street art’ programs can be implemented in the municipality

C&CS

An internal working group has been convened to progress this matter with a view to reporting back to Council 27 August.

26-Jun-12

208/2012

FOOTPATH TRADING

1/3  That Council notes that the Outdoor Dining and Business use of Public Footpaths Policy, reinforces the principle that people who have visual impairment, people with disability, the elderly and the general public, should have adequate access and movement in the public domain, on the shopside of footpaths. There is also support for business, as quoted from a minute by former mayor Cr Cassidy; Ordinary Council Meeting 22/6/2011: '221/11,  MM25/2011 as noted below 1/3    Council retain its existing 'Outdoor Dining and Footpath Trading Policy' and broaden its application to include other streets and areas as detailed in the draft 'Business Use of  Public Footpath Policy. The amended policy be reported to Council as soon as practicable for its adoption for public exhibition purposes.  2/3 The moratorium on the enforcement of the current policy be  lifted and traders be given three months within which to seek  consent from the Council to continue their use of the footpath  where no current approval exists and to bring current  arrangements into compliance where approvals are still valid.  3/3  Council officers bring back a report to Council within three months which investigates the engagement of external design expertise to develop plans for more permanent solutions to the ongoing development of outdoor dining and footpath  trading within the municipality with the initial focus on the  areas of Haberfield and Summer Hill, followed by Ashfield and Croydon.' 

P&E

Item 1/3 - The "Outdoor Dining & Footpath Trading Policy" which is included as a policy item on Council's website has been approved by Council.
This policy includes street maps of various suburbs and indicating various restrictions (if any) that may apply.
Item 2/3 - A data base was prepared of all business premises using outdoor dining and/or business trading.
Application forms and Permit documentation have been completed ready for the next stage of 'compliance'.  
Approximately 6 weeks ago, Council's Rangers visited all premises who previously had outdoor dining/business trading approval or were known to be operating without approval. A copy of the policy together with an attached standard letter (outlining the changes to the amended outdoor dining & footpath trading policy) were issued to each proprietor.
Item 3/3 .It should be noted that the street maps and associated 'typical layout for various outdoor dining & footpath trading situations' as shown in the Policy were prepared by staff in-house.These "typical layouts" will be transposed as an indicative sketch on permits. Options for Engaging external design expertise will be investigated and reported to Council during September 2012.



 

 

 

2/3 From the above, action 3/3 remains incomplete, as are actions, by amendment to recommendation 10.5: Council Meeting of 28/2/2012, which strengthened Council's resolve to work with local businesses as noted with the following 4/9 – 8/9:4/9  That terms of reference be developed to engage a design consultant for the formulation of a strategic plan to promote and enhance outdoor dining. The plan would begin with Summer Hill and Haberfield, thence Ashfield CBD, Croydon, Croydon Park and North Ashfield villages.  5/9 That these terms of reference, with costings for a survey, be submitted in time for consideration as part of Council's discussions to formulate the 2012/13 budget.  6/9 That, as previously moved, the terms of reference should include the investigation of access issues, protection in wet weather, opportunities for footpath widening in Haberfield, uniformity of street furniture and barrier design and the opportunity to create more permanent outdoor dining sites, within Council resources.  7/9 That Council relocate any street furniture, garbage bins and other structures, which would hinder the location of dining tables on the kerb, adjacent to businesses wanting to establish outdoor dining.  8/9 That Council relocate all other street furniture to the kerbside of the footpath. 
3/3 That Council implement all outstanding matters as listed above

P&E

2/3 From the above, action 3/3 remains incomplete, as are actions, by amendment to recommendation 10.5: Council Meeting of 28/2/2012, which strengthened Council's resolve to work with local businesses as noted with the following 4/9 – 8/9:4/9  That terms of reference be developed to engage a design consultant for the formulation of a strategic plan to promote and enhance outdoor dining. The plan would begin with Summer Hill and Haberfield, thence Ashfield CBD, Croydon, Croydon Park and North Ashfield villages.  5/9 That these terms of reference, with costings for a survey, be submitted in time for consideration as part of Council's discussions to formulate the 2012/13 budget.  6/9 That, as previously moved, the terms of reference should include the investigation of access issues, protection in wet weather, opportunities for footpath widening in Haberfield, uniformity of street furniture and barrier design and the opportunity to create more permanent outdoor dining sites, within Council resources.  7/9 That Council relocate any street furniture, garbage bins and other structures, which would hinder the location of dining tables on the kerb, adjacent to businesses wanting to establish outdoor dining.  8/9 That Council relocate all other street furniture to the kerbside of the footpath. 
3/3 That Council implement all outstanding matters as listed above

26-Jun-12

207/2012

PARKING STUDY

2/4 That the report’s recommendations on page10 of the business paper be considered as part of the current Council Parking and Traffic Study scoping exercise to be reported back to Council within 3 months. 
3/4 That a further recommendation be added to the Notice of Motion as noted on page 10 of the business paper, requesting that Milton Street and Farleigh Street be considered for angle parking. 
4/4 That Ashfield Council lobby the State Government to build the multi story carpark on the RailCorp land at Ashfield Station.

W&I

2/4 A copy of the Notice of Motion was sent to Lylle Marshall & Associates for the recommendations to be considered as part of the current Council Traffic and Traffic Study scoping.
3/4 Copy of minutes also sent so that Milton St and Farleigh St are considered for angle parking.
4/4 Letter sent 31 July 2012

26-Jun-12

206/2012

YASMAR OPEN DAY

3/3 That the General Manager prepare a report to Council on the Draft Plan of Management and Conservation Management Plans for Council's consideration

P&E

Open Day Held. Report to Council 14 August 2012 re. Draft Yasmar Plan of Management

26-Jun-12

205/2012

2012 CIVIC CHURCH SERVICE

2/3 That the Mayor approach Reverend John Morrison at Ashfield Baptist Church to hold the Civic Church Service for 2013.

GMO

 

12-Jun-12

194/12

GRAFFITI

That the Mayor write to the Premier of NSW Government and the State Members for Strathfield, Canterbury,  Marrickville and Balmain requesting that  legislation again be introduced to State Parliament giving local government and other state government authorities powers to effectively deter and abate graffiti from public and private property.

GMO

Letters sent out on 27/06/2012

12-Jun-12

193/12

COMMUNITY BUILDING PARTNERSHIP UNDER THREAT

4/5 Ashfield Council calls on the O'Farrell Government to reconsider its decision to cut the funding available through the Community Building Partnership in the 2012-13 State Budget. Ashfield calls upon the Government to reinstate the previous allocation of $35 million per annum available for Councils and community groups to invest in local infrastructure. 
5/5 That Council write to local Members of Parliament seeking their support  to lobby the Government in reinstating the Community Building Partnership program

GMO

Letters sent 4 July 2012

12-Jun-12

192/12

PASSING OF LOCAL RESIDENT, BARBARA HOLBOROW OAM

That Ashfield Council immediately sends a letter of condolence to the family of Ms Barbara Holborow and make a donation (equivalent to the cost of flowers) to a charity nominated by the Holborow family

GMO

 

12-Jun-12

191/12

SANDAKAN REMEMBRANCE & AND WREATH LAYING

That Council support the Sandakan Remembrance Service and donate $250 towards the organisation of the ceremony

GMO

Letter sent out on 13/06/2012

22-May-12

169/12

INNER WEST LOCAL BUSINESS AWARDS

That letters of congratulations be sent to the winners of 2012 Inner West Local Business Awards

GMO

Letters sent out on 23/05/2012

22-May-12

164/12

PASSING OF REG WOODS, PRESIDENT PRATTEN PARK BOWLING CLUB

That a letter and flowers be sent to Mrs Wood expressing Council’s heartfelt sympathy on the passing of Mr Reg Wood, President Pratten Park Bowling Club

GMO

Letters sent out on 23/05/2012

22-May-12

168/12

MR PHIL TUCKERMAN OAM

That Ashfield Council write to Mr Phil Tuckerman to congratulate him on being awarded the Order of Australia Medal

GMO

Letters sent out on 23/05/2012

08-May-12

157/12

STATE RECORDS RESEARCH ROOM AT GLOBE STREET, THE ROCKS CLOSURE 30 JUNE 2012

1/2  That Council write to the minister responsible for the State Records of NSW Hon Greg Pearce MLC, Minister for Finance & Services, Level 36 Governor Macquarie Tower, 1 Farrer Place, Sydney 2000 office@pearce.minister.nsw.gov.au and our local State Members, Hon. Carmel Tebbutt MP, Marrickville; Mr  Jamie Parker MP, Balmain, Hon. Linda Burney MP, Canterbury and Mr Charles Casuscelli MP, Strathfield, raising our concerns about the closure of the State Records research room at Globe Street, The Rocks.
 2/2That a copy of the letter be forwarded to the Ashfield & District Historical Society and Councillors.

GMO

Letters sent out on 10/05/2012

24-Apr-12

146/12

PUBLIC DOMAIN PLAN - ASHFIELD TOWN CENTRE

2/6  Following receipt of submissions a report is submitted to Council recommending a preferred consultant and an anticipated work programme.  3/6 A future report to also canvass appointing interested Councillors to Working Party to guide the Public Domain Plan process and to monitor progress towards achieving plan objectives.

P&E

Draft Brief and work programme completed and forwarded to GM for consideration. Consultants to be selected prior to a report to Council to establish a working party

24-Apr-12

137/12

THE SUMMER HILL FLOUR MILL PROPOSAL PREFERRED PROJECT REPORT

1/2  That Council authorise our officers to write a further submission to the Planning Assessment Commission in response to any Department of Planning and Infrastructure report to the Planning Assessment Commission including relevant analysis, as detailed in the report CM10.4 in the 24 April 2012 business paper. This submission could also contain relevant analysis of the proponent’s replies to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure report, if available.
2/2  That Council authorise our officers to seek a meeting with the Planning Assessment Commission prior to any public hearing to directly submit Council  concerns with the Flour Mill proposal, and authorise their attendance at any public hearing.

P&E

Report endorsed by Council and transposed as submission to DOP&I

24-Apr-12

136/12

CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL MP08_0195 78-90 OLD CANTERBURY ROAD LEWISHAM

1/3That Council write to the Hon Brad Hazzard MP, Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, requesting public availability and Council scrutiny of any amended concept plans for the Lewisham Estate by, for example, the placing of such amended plans on the Department of Planning and Infrastructure website and notification to both Ashfield and Marrickville Councils.
2/3That appropriate letters also be sent to local Members of Parliament and spokespersons for planning: The Hon Carmel Tebbutt MP, The Hon Linda Burney MP, (Shadow Minister for Planning) and Mr Charles Casuscelli MP.  3/3 That Council write to the Hon Brad Hazzard MP, Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, protesting the Lewisham Estate Concept Plan should not have been approved with conditions, but should have been rejected outright, due to the fact that it is a gross over-development of the site being 10 storeys in the heart of a single and two storey area, causing increased congestion in the already traffic grid locked streets, its unacceptable impact on the village of Summer Hill and its surrounds and contrary to the wishes of the local community

P&E

Letters sent dated 7 May 2012 Development has been approved by PAC/DOP&I subject to modifications.

24-Apr-12

135/12

AIRPORT CAP SHOULD STAY, NEW AIRPORT BUILT AND SYDNEY AIRPORT CLOSED

1/2That Council write to the Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and the Premier of NSW, with a cc to the Sydney Airport Community Forum Secretariat, calling on them to work constructively in the interests of the people of NSW to agree a suitable alternative site for Sydney airport. The airport should be located outside the Sydney basin and linked to Sydney by a high speed rail link. 
2/2That the Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport be asked to instruct Air Services Australia to meet the agreed noise sharing targets contained in the Long Term Operation Plan (LTOP) for Sydney airport.

P&E

Letters sent dated 7 May 2012

10-Apr-12

122/12

IMPROVING OUR BUSINESS PRECINCTS

That Council officers provide a report during the quarterly financial review process on recommendations regarding spending the $15,000 - $20,000 for public domain areas of Haberfield, Summer Hill and Croydon as highlighted in the officers report on pages 79 – 111 of the Business Paper.

P&E

Report being prepared for October Council meeting.

10-Apr-12

120/12

NSW LONG TERM TRANSPORT MASTER PLAN DISCUSSION PAPER

1/3That Council prepare a submission to Transport for NSW on the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan Discussion Paper. 
 2/3 That Council approach both the State Member for Transport and the State Member for Strathfield to discuss solutions to resolve crush loading and insufficient train services at Ashfield station during peak hours. That a delegation of interested Ashfield Councillors and appropriate staff request a meeting with both Ministers. 
3/3That further key issues of concern for discussion include ‘rat runs’ through residential streets and access to further commuter parking at the Brown Street car park.

WIS

1/3 & 3/3 Submission prepared and sent to Transport NSW on 26/4/12. Revised submission sent on 1/5/12.
2/3 Letters dated 1 May 2012

27-Mar-12

95/12

PROTECT ASHFIELD FROM COAL SEAM GAS MINING AND ITS EFFECTS

1/4 Oppose coal seam gas exploration and mining until it can be proved to be sustainable and not interfere with aquifers. 
2/4 Call on the Premier of NSW to ban Coal Seam Gas Mining and Exploration in the Sydney basin. 
3/4 Write to our local members of parliament (both state and federal) seeking support for Council’s position. 
4/4 Support other Councils in NSW in their opposition to Coal Seam Gas Mining.

P&E

Letters sent dated 19 April 2012

27-Mar-12

94/12

REVIEW OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES

1/3  That the General Manager prepare a discussion paper on Council Committees.
 2/3  That the General Manager arrange a workshop of councillors to review our committee structure.

C&CS

A discussion paper was presented to a Councillor workshop on 14 June 2012.  A report on changes to the committee structure is being considered by Council on 14 August 2012.

27-Mar-12

93/12

LEWISHAM ESTATE

1/4  That Council receive and note the report regarding Lewisham Estate as provided on page 4 of the business paper.   
2/4  That Ashfield Council commend The No Lewisham Towers Committee for its effective and professional advocacy on behalf of residents in regard to the Lewisham Estate proposal.
3/4 That this commendation be conveyed in an appropriate letter to the Chair of the committee Ms Tamara Winikoff.
4/4  That the General Manager make enquiries with Marrickville Council on their intentions in relation to the decision of the PAC to approve the concept plan proposal.

P&E

Modified application was approved by PAC/DOP&I 19 July 2012 Councillors advised.

27-Mar-12

84/12

MCDONALDS - 141 Parramatta Road Haberfield

4/4 That the General Manager bring back to Council a report on how Council can engage with the community to maximise the effectiveness of the monitoring program.

P&E

Site is being monitored continuously and complaints dealt with expeditiously

14-Feb-12

6/12

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PROCESS

2/3 That the General Manager provide Councillors with an outline of the survey including methodology, suggested questions and how the survey results are proposed to be used. 
3/3 That the General Manager ensure that the survey and methodology includes outreach to architects, owners, applicants and persons who have made submissions in the past five years.

P&E

Report completed and referred to Council meeting on 27 March 2012. Council resolved to accept methodology but requested an expansion of the number of interviews.

13-Dec-11

572/11

Review of existing Management of Abandoned or Unattended Shopping Trolleys Policy

1/4 That Council write to all trolley owners including their corporate offices and Ashfield Mall inviting them to meet with Council representatives with a view to forming an agreement on timelines and processes to introduce management of shopping trolley containment systems. This meeting to be held before the end of February 2012.
2/4That Council representatives advise trolley owners of its intended course of action should a satisfactory agreement not be reached.
3/4That Council obtain general legal advice on matters raised in the report.
4/4 That a further report be prepared for Council by the end of March 2012 which details the outcome of the meeting held with trolley owners and other stakeholders and appropriate follow up actions.

P&E

Council has had difficulty in securing the the interest of corporate officers in meeting on this issue. However, we have secured the interest of the new Ashfield Mall Centre Manager, from Abacus, who has accepted an invitation to join the Shopping Trolleys Working Party. We will continue to work towards a meeting but have scheduled the next Shopping Trolleys Working party for April 2012. We are waiting on receipt of legal advice. Meeting held with retailers on April 10 2012. Ashfield Mall to investigate a containment system and report back to further meeting of the group in six weeks. Outcome repported to shopping trolley working party meeting on 17 April 2012.

13-Dec-11

562/11

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

1/7Council authorise a Section 64 Report to be prepared and submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure with a request that a Section 65 Certificate be issued to enable public exhibition of Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012. That the submission to the DOPI clearly identifies, in detail, that the housing targets can be met within the 6 storey (23M) limit of the Ashfield town centre plan. i.e. that the extra 2 storeys are not factored into the calculations to achieve our housing targets.
2/7The Section 64 technical document referred to in ‘Recommendation 1’ above incorporate the officer recommendations detailed in Section 5 of this report and a copy of the Section 64 submission be circulated to Councillors for information prior to its submission to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure. That a full electronic copy of the Section 64 submissions be included for Councillors.

P&E

Section 64 Report endorsed by Council and accepted by DOP&I. Section 65 Certifivate obtained and terms agreed by Council. Draft LEP is currently on exhibition. Review of Ashfield DCP 2007 has commenced

 

 

 

3/7A further report be provided to Council detailing the future response of Department of Planning and Infrastructure to Council’s Section 64 submission including details of any conditions attached to the issue of a Section 65 Certificate by the Department prior to exhibition of the Plan.
4/7The additional report referred to in ‘Recommendation 3’ above outline an appropriate Council response to any conditions applied by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to the Section 65 certificate including (where there are clear differences of opinion which Council considers the Ashfield community needs to be aware of) publicising Council’s preferred policy stance in conjunction with public exhibition of Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012.
5/7An interim updated version of Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 be prepared as soon as possible to align legislatively with the Draft LEP and a report be submitted to Council providing a synopsis of recommended changes as soon as practicable.

Section 64 Report endorsed by Council and accepted by DOP&I. Section 65 Certifivate obtained and terms agreed by Council. Draft LEP is currently on exhibition. Review of Ashfield DCP 2007 has commenced

 

 

 

6/7A report be submitted to Council in February 2012 detailing a proposed comprehensive community engagement strategy to effectively promote and manage consultation processes for the Draft Local Environmental Plan and interim updated Draft Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007.
7/7That the proposed LEP building height controls may allow buildings higher than currently permitted. That in February  2012 a report be provided to Councillors with substantiated evidence demonstrating that buildings of 23 metres will be limited to 6 storey and buildings of 30 metres high will achieve no more than 8 storeys. Alternatively, if that is not possible, officers are requested to suggest an LEP clause, which would prohibit unintended increased storeys.

Section 64 Report endorsed by Council and accepted by DOP&I. Section 65 Certifivate obtained and terms agreed by Council. Draft LEP is currently on exhibition. Review of Ashfield DCP 2007 has commenced

13-Dec-11

547/11

MONITORING 24 HOUR OPERATION OF MCDONALDS HABERFIELD

1/3 That in early 2012, Council convenes a community meeting to consult and engage the community on strategies to be used to monitor the 24 hour trial operation of the McDonalds’ Haberfield outlet.
2/3 That the General Manager provide a report to the first meeting of Council in 2012 on the strategies which the Council will support for effective monitoring of the 12 month trial of 24 hour operation of McDonalds Haberfield.
3/3 That the report include strategies for facilitating community involvement in reporting incidents and options for effective surveillance of the intersection of Parramatta Road and Dalhousie Street and Ashfield Park

P&E

1/3 Meeting being arranged for February   2/3 & 3/3 Report was prepared for 14 February 2012 Council meeting. Various strategies adopted.                          

22-Nov-11

509/11

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION ON MEDIUM TERM LEASE PROPOSAL FOR COUNCIL SPORTSGROUNDS.

3/4  That Council organise a workshop for interested Councillors after 14 February 2012 to prepare an amended sports parks proposal that:-
a) acknowledges concerns raised in the submissions received in response to the medium term lease proposal for Council sportsgrounds,
b) deletes the criteria for not for profit organisations and schools to competitively tender with other not for profit groups rental component of any lease and the value for money requirement.
4/4 That the revised paper return to Council for consideration as soon as possible.

C&CS

A strategy for continuing the medium term lease proposal was workshopped with Councillors on 29 March 2012 and a report with a proposal to progress this matter was considered and endorsed by Council on 10 April.

22-Nov-11

528/11

FINES FOR PARKING WITHIN 10 METRES OF AN INTERSECTION

1/6  That Council identify intersections where there is a high incidence of vehicles parking within 10 metres of the corner and install appropriate signage and/or line markings after consultation with local residents.
2/6  That Council, in consultation with Roads & Maritime Services, identify corners where the 10 meter rule can be shortened and signpost these.
3/6  That the General Manager report back to Council on options in the 2012/13 budget for accelerating the implementation of signage and road markings at intersections. 
4/6  That the Mayor approach SSROC to explore the option of establishing a regional Parking Fine Review Panel. 
5/6  That Council continue regular notices on the Council page and in newsletters reminding residents of the 10 meter rule. 
6/6  That Council acknowledges that this issue was first raised by Councillor Mansour on 9 December 2008 and again on 22 November 2011.

WIS/P&E

In progress

1/6, 2/6 & 3/6 Task identified to be undertaken during 2012-13, in conjunction with the traffic & Parking Study work.
4/6 Request sent to SSROC concerning regional parking fines panel. Matter to be discussed in early 2012.
5/6 Intersection diagrams included in most recent newsletter.

8-Nov-11

496/11

JOHN PATON RESERVE - Wedding Ceremony Booking

2/2  That the General Manager provide Council with a further report on the process and policy position for bookings of similar events in the future

WIS

Report prepared for May 15 Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting. Recomendations adopted.

11-Oct-11

451/11

AMENDMENTS TO OUTDOOR DINING AND FOOTPATH TRADING POLICY

4/6  That upon completion of the public exhibition that a further report be prepared for final adoption. This report to include any suggested changes/amendments that may be identified during the public notification period.

P&E

Report prepared for February 28 Council meeting. Amended policy adopted.

11-Oct-11

447/11

VACANT LAND AT THE CORNER OF LIVERPOOL ROAD AND BRUCE STREET, ASHFIELD

1/3  That Council seek an urgent meeting with Minister Duncan Gay MLC to further press the importance of the vacant land on the corner of Liverpool Rd./Bruce Street Ashfield on the immediate visual environment, open space amenity and welcoming image of the gateway to the Ashfield CBD.
2/3 That Council make representation to local MP Charles Casuscelli to seek his support with Councils proposal to improve the visual  impact and open space amenity of this highly visible vacant land located within his constituency.
3/3  That Council lobby the RTA in order to convert the vacant land into a park.

WIS

Meeting held on 9/12/11 with John Ajaka Parliamentary Secretary Hon Duncan Gay. Charles Casuscelli was also present at the meeting for his support. A further meeting was held in 16 March and agreed that Fredrick Street be passed to Council on a care and conrol baiss temporarily, noted current discussion at RMS re: disposal of Liverpool Rd, Bruce Street properties and discussed Lewis Herman Reserve.

11-Oct-11

446/11

UPDATE ON SYDNEY AIRPORT AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS

1/1  That Council write to the Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, with a cc to the Sydney Airport Community Forum Secretariat, expressing our concern at the noise sharing targets in the LTOP are not being met and request that steps be taken similar to those used to ensure that the maximum movement limit is not exceeded to remedy the situation.
2/2 That the report on maximum movement limits at Sydney Airport be made accessible from Council’s website.

P&E

Letters sent to Federal Minister and SACF. Link on website being finalised. Advice from Minister received that LTOP targets are being met according to monitoring report from ASA.

27-Sep-11

419/11

WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

1/2 That a report be brought to Council comparing our performance in workplace diversity with other Councils who participated in the Census of Local Government Employees.
2/2 That the report include recommendations for promoting diversity within Council's workplace.

C&CS

This report was considered by Council at its meeting on 28 February 2012.

27-Sep-11

421/11

PLANNING SYSTEM REVIEW

5/6  That Council officers provide regular briefing reports/additional recommendations to Council concerning the review following the 11 November Ashfield information sessions and as required thereafter.
6/6  That  Council Officers prepare a report that reflects Councils  views on the JRPP including the composition of the JRPP’s.

P&E

COMPLETED

Further information provided to Councillors on the Planning System Review. Letter sent to Planning Minister regarding JRPP decisions. State Government currently reviewing JRPP operations and procedures. Report presented to Council in February and response forwarded. Further representations made to Planning Panel re. Standard Instrument and general review of legislation.

13-Sep-11

389/11

SECURITY ISSUE FOR CBD SHOPS.

1/5 That Ashfield Council liaise with the Ashfield Police to provide a report on crime statistics in the LGA (and particularly in the CBD area).
2/5 That Council seek feedback and liaise with local business with special emphasis on businesses in the Ashfield Town Centre.
3/5  That this report be brought back to Ashfield Council within 12 weeks.
4/5  That Council staff reissue the report on CCTV cameras that was  previously provided to Council.
5/5  That the report brought back to Council include costings on  restoring the operation of the existing cameras including using  more cost effective technology.

WIS

Report presented to March 13 Council meeting

13-Sep-11

379/11

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2010.283.2
9 NORTHCOTE STREET HABERFIELD

2/2  That Council Officer's provide a further report on the stormwater management code regarding any proposed amendments.

WIS

In progress

Report is being prepared for August Works & Infrastructure meeting

9-Aug-11

330/11

IMPROVING EFFECTIVE USE OF INNER WEST SPORTING FIELDS.

 1/4 That Ashfield Council notes that Leichhardt Council has  resolved to convene a meeting of Ashfield, Leichhardt,  Marrickville, Canterbury, Burwood, Strathfield, Canada Bay,  City of Sydney, Ryde and Hunters Hill Councillors/Mayors  relevant Council staff and state and regional sporting bodies:
 • To gain a more accurate understanding of regional demand for sporting fields from the sporting bodies and current supply from other councils. (Each council identifying how many playing fields (all codes), how many clubs, how many teams (numbers to be confirmed by Football Federation of NSW and other peak sporting bodies)  and how many games are played each weekend).
• To work towards managing that demand for sporting fields more effectively at a regional level.
 • With the sporting bodies to develop a state and federal lobbying strategy for increased funding to upgrade our sporting facilities across the region. 
2/4 That the Mayor take this issue to SSROC and request that it be addressed at a regional level within that association.                               
3/4 That Ashfield Council suggest to Leichhardt Council that prior to meeting
of State and regional sporting bodies a meeting of Councillors, Mayors and
relevant Council staff be held to scope the nature of the problem of excessive
demand and insufficient availability of sporting fields.
4/4 That nothing in this motion preclude the consideration of  leases as
 outlined by minute number 175/11 of 14/6/11

WIS

In progress

The first meeting was held on 29-8-11 and it was coordinated and run by Marrickville Council. Peter Montague from Marrickville organised the meeting which included representation from a number of Councils in the inner west as well as the City of Sydney. Adam Hughes from Ashfield Council attended this meeting. The first meeting basically focused on recreational needs and cross boundary issues.Leichhardt Council will be organising the next meeting but no date set as yet.
Leichhardt Council's Senior Parks Planner, Aaron Callaghan will be running this.

9-Aug-11

329/11

SPRUCING UP OUR TOWN CENTRES - IMPROVING AESTHETICS TO GROW BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES.

1/5 That Council recognises the excellent work of shopkeepers, business owners and Council’s Community Services Department who have worked in tandem to create a successful business environment in the municipality.
2/5 That Council officers reassess ways to improve our various Town Centres’ presentation relating to:
a. placing of produce and other services on or near the Council footpath.
b. Implement and encourage painting of shopfront facades and/or other areas of buildings which enhance the streetscape.
c. Implement a Council preferred colour-palette/scheme for shop buildings and other structures in all town centre areas.
3/5 That Council officers report back to Council with recommendations within 10 weeks.
4/5 That Council note the draft guidelines in the Ashfield Council  DCP (Advertising and Advertising Structures) in relation to  guidelines involving the use of temporary 3rd party advertising  posters and the 30% coverage of glass shopfront windows                                                                
5/5 That Council’s planning officers liaise with Council’s Community Services
 Department in the assessment and implementation of this process.

P&E

Report prepared for April 27 Council meeting. Council resolved to engage services of a designer to investigate options for improving centres in Croydon, Haberfield and Summer Hill. Priority is currently being given to preparation of Public Domain Plan for Ashfield Town Centre.

12-Jul-11

265/11

ABORIGINAL RECONCILITAION ACTION PLAN GATEWAY SITES

1/2 That Council give in principle support to the installation of sculptures at the corner of Liverpool Road and Frederick Street that depicts Aboriginal themes as proposed by artist Jason Wing                                                2/2 That Council give in principle support to the installation of a mural artwork on board to the Brown Street Carpark entrance as proposed by artist Danny Eastwood

C&CS

In progress

1/2 The cost of this proposal was in the vicinity of $20,000 to $30,000 per sculpture and there were three sculptures in the proposal.  Funding for this work has not been available.  The suggestion to the artist to gift the work to Council was not taken up.  As a result, members of the Committee have proposed a large timber sign post indicating distances to significant Aboriginal land marks in Australia written in English and Dharug languages.  Part funding from the Department of Environment and Heritage is currently being investigated.  The next panel sitting for this funding is in August 2012 and the intention is to submit an application for funding that will include this project.
2/2 The artwork component of this project is expected to be completed by the end of May.  The Aboriginal Consultative Committee expects that the mural will be launched on Friday, 6 July as one of the events for NAIDOC Week being 1 – 8 July.  The Council Depot staff will fix the painted panels on to the facade of the Brown Street Car park. 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 28 August 2012 CM10.10

Subject                            COMMUNITY PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

 

File Ref                            COMMUNITY SERVICES

 

Prepared by                   Nexhmije Shala - Group Manager Community Programs & Services       

 

 

Reasons                          Update on current services and programs

 

 

 


Overview of Report

 

This report updates Council on recent changes in the community programs and services area and provides an update on key areas of work.

 

 

 

Background

 

Council is aware that a restructure of the Corporate and Community Services Directorate is being progressively implemented.

 

Changes currently being implemented as they relate to community programs and services include:

 

Grouping together in one  Department under a senior manager ; are our  libraries, community development, customer service and business relations. This places all our external community/customer focused services together and makes for good practice in terms of the programs and services we currently provide and for delivering our future strategic directions under the Community Strategic Plan Ashfield 2022.

 

The integration of these functions ensure that we are maximizing the  application  of scarce resources; our activities are coordinated and complementary and not duplicating our efforts delivering and providing high quality programs and services to a broad section of our community. 

 

Report

 

The new Group Manager Community Programs and Services, Ms Nexhmije Shala, commenced with Council on 9 July 2012. 

 

Mr Gerard Howard has accepted the role of Team Leader Community Programs and will have primary responsibility for the aged and disability portfolio.

 

An update on key areas of work includes:

 


 

Community Strategic Planner

 

Creation of a new community strategic planner role provides specialist social planning expertise to our team. We have not had this expertise to date and this role will strengthen our CP&S staff  practice to assess and understand changes in our community demographics, to develop evidence based programs and services in order to meet not only current, but anticipated future community needs.

 

This position will also provide social planning support for both the Council’s Annual  Community Grants program and the Ashfield Club Grants scheme.

 

Recruitment has commenced for the role of Community Strategic Planner.

 

 

Business Relations and Events Coordinator

 

Over the next two months the Business Relations and Events Coordinator aims to promote Ashfield as an attractive food and dining precinct. Opportunities to showcase our restaurant, shops and  dining will be directed  through the local community ‘Feast of Flavours Food Festivals’,  held in Summer Hill with the Neighbourhood Feast (Sunday 7th October, 10am – 3 pm), Ashfield Taste of Asia (Friday 12th October, 6-9pm) and Haberfield Primavera (Sunday 14th October 10am-3pm). 

 

Other promotions include a Ashfield Dining Guide, a directory of  registered restaurants, quality provedores and coffee shops in the LGA. This is accompanied by editorial pieces and local advertising. The release of the publication is scheduled to occur at the same time of the Feast of Flavours Food Festivals.

 

The Business Relations and Event Co-ordinator also has an on-going role facilitating communications between business and Council on relevant local business issues. Topical issues currently include out-door dining policies and plans for pedestrian management on Liverpool Road. 

 

 

Metro MRC

 

With the intention of attracting external programs and agencies into the new Civic Centre, the Director of Corporate and Community Services has negotiated a lease with Metro Migrant Resource Centre (MRC) for the use of the “commercial space” adjacent to the Civic Centre entrance .The purpose of this partnership service is to provide support to CALD, disadvantaged, emerging communities in the Ashfield LGA. Services provided include social orientation information sessions, housing pathways, conversation classes, resettlement and community education projects. Metro MRC have been operating out of Ashfield Library since March 2012 and will relocate to offices on the ground floor of the Civic Centre on 13th August 2012, from 9am to 5pm.

 

Library

 

The Library Marketing Team has been formed to create a marketing strategy for the Ashfield  Library , to be implemented by November 2012.

 

New Local Studies Area

 

A Local Studies project team has been formed to direct and support the opening of the Local Studies room (located 2nd Floor). Within the Library Operational Plan 2012-13 , the aim for this group is to identify the purpose and scope of local studies, to identify public training projects in local studies, provide training for staff in local studies and implement and launch the local studies collections and programs. CP&S propose to have the service operational early next year.

 

 

Youth Centre

 

Presently, construction work is progressing on the Youth Centre and the building will be complete by early next 2013. Council staff are working closely with Councils’ Youth Committee and Internal Youth Centre Advisory Committee to develop  a  Business Feasibility Plan, implement  governance processes , build partnership and management structures, negotiate successful tenancies/co-locations, develop service delivery ,program plans and a communication and marketing strategy.

 

Activity Rooms

 

Since July 2012, the Activity Rooms continue to provide high quality meeting spaces for community residents and businesses . The function of the Activity rooms respond to key components of the Council Management Plan 2012-2016 and Community Strategic Plan objectives.

 

Presently, Council’s activity rooms hire has increased over the past 2 months with both Council run programs, school holiday activities  and local community groups. These have included ; migrant services, information sessions, social groups for CALD seniors, cultural performance groups and information classes regularly booking rooms.

 

Council also attracts various community ,education services, government and business seminars to its Activity rooms and is presently providing these venues fee competitive or at concessional rates. Customer Service are also responding to an increasing number of business inquiries.  Security issues around weekend and night events continue to be an operational priority and to best deal with this access issue the CP&S Manager is discussing a strategy with all stakeholders.  

 

 

Financial Implications

 

All positions/activities are funded in the 2012/13 budget.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

N/A

 

Public Consultation

 

N/A


 

Conclusion

 

With the implementation of the new CP&S structure, all staff have been considerate and mindful of the changes that have occurred and how these changes adapt upon their work practice. These consolidations allow for improved tools for customer relationship management, performance and service planning, business intelligence and reporting, financial management and increased document management.

 

These innovative adjustments enable Council to build upon a platform for the future, based on integrated strategic and operational planning  where staff develop and assess community needs through evidence based practice, build upon their skills and expertise, review emergent trends and current community social plans, assist in improved processes and develop both Council and community reports that recommend community and financial  best practice.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the information contained in the report be noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 28 August 2012 CM10.11

Subject                            ENHANCING COUNCIL'S MURAL PROGRAM VIA THE USE OF 'STREET ART' TO DISCOURAGE GRAFFITI

 

File Ref                            Community Serivces

 

Prepared by                   Anthia Hart - Community Development Worker - Arts, Culture & Recreation       

 

 

Reasons                          To provide information as requested by Council

 

Objective                         To provide information about ‘street art’

 

 


Overview of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide information that is relevant to the implementation and recognition of ‘street art’ in the area and the engagement of young people in creative pursuits as an alternative to illegal graffiti and tagging activity.  This report is in response to a recent Council resolution.

 

 

Background

 

What is street art?

Street art can be described as any art on the street that is not graffiti.  It is art that is created for public spaces or streets, it is mostly visual art that is put on to walls, power poles, rubbish bins, roads etc, or any area that is understood  to be a public domain.  Street artists place their work in non art contexts and generally use their art to communicate to people socially relevant themes.  It is an evolving culture that includes art practices such as traditional graffiti artwork, murals, sculptures, stencil graffiti, sticker art, wheat-pasting and street poster art, video projection, art intervention, guerrilla art, flash mobbing, yarn bombing and street installations.

The legal distinction between street art and public art - is permission.  Most street art is unsanctioned unlike public art that is commissioned.  We know from experience the negative repercussions and heavy financial implications to Council and property owners directly linked to illegal graffiti.

However, thoughtful and attractive street art can have regenerative effects on a precinct, wall, space or neighborhood.  Obvious examples of this are the murals placed in and around the Ashfield area.

Forms of street art

Traditional
– painting on the surfaces of private or public property.  This form is usually artful and elaborate, covering the surface with a mural image painted with a brush, roller or spray paint.


Stencil
– painting with the use of a stencil, usually a homemade cutout or paper painted with spray paint or roller.

Sticker – Homemade stickers are placed on surfaces, these usually promote a political agenda.

Mosaic
– this is a large piece of art created by the assembly of smaller parts or pieces.

Video projection – an image projected onto a surface.  Video projection – an image projected onto a surface. 

Street installation- Street installations are a growing trend within the ‘street art’ movement. Whereas conventional street art and graffiti is done on surfaces or walls, ‘street installations’ use 3-D objects and space to interfere with the urban environment. Like graffiti, it is non-permission based and once the object or sculpture is installed it is left there by the artist.

Wood blocking- Artwork painted on a small portion of plywood or similar inexpensive material and attached to street signs with bolts. Often the bolts are bent at the back to prevent removal. It has become a form of graffiti used to cover a sign, poster, or any piece of advertisement that stands or hangs.

Flash mobbing
- A large group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual action for a brief time, then quickly disperse. The term flash mob is generally applied only to gatherings organized via telecommunications, social networking, and viral emails.

Yarn bombing - Yarn Bombing is a type of street art that employs colorful displays of knitted or crocheted cloth rather than paint or chalk. While other forms of graffiti may be expressive, decorative, territorial, socio-political commentary, advertising or vandalism, yarn bombing is almost exclusively about beautification and creativity and we have an example of this on a power pole in Frederick Street, see photograph below.

 

The use of street art to discourage graffiti

Ashfield Council proudly sponsors a mural program that has created public art in many locations throughout Croydon, Haberfield, Summer Hill and Ashfield for the enjoyment of residents and visitors to the area. Most of the murals are works that depict scenes of Australian landscape, flora and fauna that are readily identifiable to local people and emphasise the beautiful natural resources that make up our native landscape.


 

The murals not only beautify the area, they also act as a deterrent to illegal graffiti and tagging activity. 

The most recent mural is installed on the facade of the Brown Street car park.  This mural clearly acknowledges Aboriginal people, designs and totems and was created to be one of two landmarks or gateways into the Ashfield area.  The facade of this car park has been a ‘hot spot’ for illegal graffiti and tagging activity for years. Through Council’s quick response to removing graffiti or tagging we can expect overall longevity and appeal of the work.

In terms of engaging with young people around street art, Council is facilitating the ‘Signal Box’ project, an installation of community artwork on to signal boxes similar to Leichhardt Council. The Ashfield ‘Signal Box’ project is facilitated by Ms Laine Hogarty who is the current artist in residence and a highly skilled graphic artist.  Laine has already held workshops with young people aged between 12 years and 18 years during the last school holidays to set about designing artwork for three signal boxes in Liverpool Road, between Holden and Knox Streets.  Under the direction and guidance of Laine, the designs will be completed  in the September school holidays and then applied by an artist. 

 

 

Presently, Ashfield Council does not have a policy position on street art outside of the mural program; this will be addressed in the draft Public Art Strategy to be presented to Council at the end of this year. This plan will provide Council with a framework to engage young people, business and property owners in the development of Ashfield as a centre of creative arts and culture.

 

With the opening of the Ashfield Council Youth Centre, this will provide a pathway for Council to engage and support young people in arts projects. Through inclusive consultation strategies, Council will be well informed in regards to community expectations, project development and opportunities for stakeholders engagement. The first of these is a workshop that will be held on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 followed by a survey to young people that will look at needs, existing services and gaps.


 

Locations for street art

 

Local artists have identified sites that they consider would work well as surfaces for artwork.  These are the basketball court walls in Kensington Street, the practice wall in Gower Street and the shopping centre wall backing on to the playground in Darrell Jackson Gardens.

     

 

The above is a compilation of photographs of the basketball area in Kensington Street.  Minki, a well known street artist has offered to restore the ‘Wish you are here’ work in the Kensington Street site and project manage and mentor young artists to paint work on the surrounding walls.  Minki is the artist of the ‘Wish you are here’ mural.


As an approach to emerging contemporary urban street art, Community Programs recognizes the need for a strategic approach that designates approved business and community precinct sites for ‘street art’, artist guidelines around content and its delivery and long term costs.

 

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications beyond existing funding allocations

 

Other Staff Comments

 

Public Consultation

Several consultations have been held with local artists.

 

Conclusion

That street art is a vibrant, meaningful means of creative expression.

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse the Kensington Street basketball site for ‘street art’.

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services