17 October 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 

23 OCTOBER 2012 at 6:30pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEE ATTACHED AGENDA


Ordinary Meeting - 23 October 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.

(23/10/2012)

 

7.               Confirmation of Minutes of Council/Committees

 

Ordinary Meeting - 09/10/2012

Extraordinary Meeting – 25/09/2012

Ordinary Meeting – 28/08/2012

Civic Centre Redevelopment Steering Committee – 21/08/2012

Ashfield Youth Committee – 20/08/2012

 

8.               Mayoral Minutes

 

MM27/2012  THANK YOU TO ELECTION OFFICIALS

 

MM28/2012  100 YEARS OF CRICKET AT PRATTEN PARK

 

MM29/2012  FEAST OF FLAVOURS FESTIVAL

 

9.               Notices of Motion

 

NM41/2012  BUS SHELTER

 

NM42/2012  RESPECT FOR AUSTRALIA'S HEAD OF STATE

 

NM43/2012  ASHFIELD DRAFT NEW LEP

 

NM44/2012  COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS

 

NM45/2012  DANGEROUS AND UNACCEPTABLE PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS

 

NM46/2012  ASHFIELD COUNCIL'S RESPONSIBILITY ON SAFETY AND CRIME

 

 

Notices of Motion (Contd)

 

NM47/2012  CONCEPT APPROVAL MP_0155 SUMMER HILL FLOUR MILL REDEVELOPMENT

 

NM48/2012  WESTCONNEX - SYDNEY'S NEXT MOTORWAY PRIORITY

 

10.            Staff Reports

 

10.1     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.185.1
60 PALACE STREET ASHFIELD

 

10.2     PUBLIC EXHIBITION OF THE DRAFT PARRAMATTA RIVER ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

10.3     SSROC TENDER - Plants and Trees

 

10.4     PRESENTATION OF THE 2011/2012 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BY HILL ROGERS SPENCER STEER - Auditors

 

10.5     APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILLOR DELEGATES TO THE COOKS RIVER ALLIANCE BOARD AND THE GREENWAY STEERING COMMITTEE

 

10.6     INVESTMENT REPORT SEPTEMBER 2012

 

10.7     REPORT ON REQUEST FOR ABORIGINAL LIAISON OFFICER

 

 

11.            IPART – Local Government Compliance and Enforcement Review

             

              A draft submission will be circulated, under separate cover, to               councillors prior to the meeting

 

12.            Closed (Public Excluded) Committee

 

12.1     CIVIC CENTRE LEGAL UPDATE – To be tabled at the Meeting

 

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) (d) (g) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:
(i)   prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or
(ii)  confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or
(iii) reveal a trade secret; AND advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.
  

 

13.            General Business


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 MM27/2012

Governance>Elections

MAYORAL MINUTE

 

THANK YOU TO ELECTION OFFICIALS

       

 

Local government elections are always a complex event to manage. The recent council elections held on Saturday, 8 September 2012 were no different. The Returning Officer, Mr John Neeely and his staff should be commended for their great work at all stages of the election process from nominations through to polling day.



 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 


That a letter expressing Ashfield Council’s appreciation be sent to the NSW Electoral Commission for the great work undertaken by its officials, ably led by Mr John Neely as Returning Officer.

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

COUNCILLOR M MANSOUR

Mayor

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 MM28/2012

Public Relations>Congratulations

MAYORAL MINUTE

 

100 YEARS OF CRICKET AT PRATTEN PARK

       

 

 

On the weekend of 13-14 October 2012, the Western Suburbs District Cricket Club celebrated the remarkable milestone of 100 years at Ashfield’s Pratten Park, which was named in honour of Herbert Edward Pratten, Mayor of Ashfield between 1909 and 1911, in recognition that its establishment was largely due to his efforts.

 

I was deeply honoured that Mr Michael Pratten, great-grandson of H.E. Pratten, participated in the festivities. Through Mr Pratten’s involvement, we were also able to acknowledge his great-grandfather’s significant contribution to the game.

 

Many great sporting names have passed through the turnstiles of Pratten Park including Sunny Jim Mackay, Austin Diamond, Warren Bardsley, Stan Sismey, Alan Davidson, Wally Wellham, Bob Simpson and current Australian captain Michael Clarke – who returned to the ground to play in the centenary match held in honour of the first Grade cricket match at the ground on 12 October 1912 between Western Suburbs District Cricket Club and North Sydney District Cricket Club (Third Grade).

 

Pratten Park has always been a much loved and well utilised park in our area and the Club has contributed enormously to its reputation as a significant sporting venue.

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council writes to congratulate the Western Suburbs District Cricket Club, led by President John Hardgrove, for a successful centenary celebration and its important contribution to the local community.

 

 

 

 

    

COUNCILLOR M MANSOUR

Mayor

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 MM29/2012

Public Relations>Congratulations

MAYORAL MINUTE

 

FEAST OF FLAVOURS FESTIVAL

       

 

 

I would like to congratulate the organisers of the three food festivals for a very successful event. A lot of preparation goes into an event like this and there were a lot of contributors. I would also like to congratulate the Crave Sydney International Food Festival team and their principal sponsor Citibank, who organise a wonderful month-long series of food events around our city.

 

The very generous contribution made by the major sponsor of Ashfield’s Feast of Flavours festival, Westfield Burwood, was very much appreciated and Council was very grateful for their support.

 

I would also like to acknowledge the sponsorship of AMF Bowling Centres Australia and our supply partners who supported the event – Patti’s Hire who supplied the stalls and tables, Mosaic Collective who designed our graphics and EcoDesign EcoPrint who printed our flyers and signs.

 

Special thanks also to the Ashfield Business Chamber and their tireless President Kerrie Bush, from Summer Hill’s Bob Bush Leadlights. Kerrie and Ashbiz have worked closely with Council since the start of the Feast of Flavours festival four years ago to make these events a success. Thanks also to all the businesses who took stalls or tables or contributed to the entertainment program.

 

This year Ashfield Council ran some new activities in parallel with the festival including the “Win a Free Feast on Facebook” competition. Council also partnered with Big Splash Media to bring another element to the festivals: a guide to support dining experiences in the Ashfield LGA all year round.

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3    That a letter be sent to the sponsors expressing Council’s appreciation of           their support.

 

2/3    That a letter of appreciation be sent to Kerrie Bush, President of the           Ashfield Business Chamber.

 

3/3    That a letter of appreciation be sent to Robert Richardson for his expertise           in organising the event and introducing new elements to the festival           experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

COUNCILLOR M MANSOUR

Mayor

 

 

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 NM41/2012

Bus Shelters

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLOR Julie Passas

 

BUS SHELTER

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM41/2012

 

The recent demolition of the cluster of heritage buildings on the corner of Liverpool Road and Elizabeth Street Ashfield has resulted in the bus stop being removed further along Liverpool Road.

 

Previously those commuting by bus were sheltered under the leaking awnings of the shops providing some protection from the elements.

 

The present position of the bus stop has no shelter or seating and residents are left to wait in the wind, rain and hot sun.

 

This basic amenity has been ignored by Council and it is hypocritical on the councillors part given the fact that Council has spent time and funds urging its residents to use public transport i.e. light rail, bicycle lanes etc.

 

Also, many councillors continuously make statements about their concern for the environment yet something as basic as a bus shelter for commuters would help in addressing council’s concern for the reliance on cars.

 

Officers Comments

Director of Works and Infrastructure – Peter Cormican.

The subject location in Liverpool Road Ashfield near the intersection of Elizabeth Street has been identified as a location for a shelter as part of the negotiations with our new bus shelter provider.

 

Negotiations are in progress to execute the contract. The installation of a shelter is subject to Roads and Maritime Services approval as Liverpool Road is a classified road.

 

It is important to note the company will commence bus shelter installations in 2013.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

That Council contact the state member for Strathfield and request a bus shelter be installed as soon as practicable.

 

Julie Passas


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 NM42/2012

Properties & Building - Civic Centre

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLORS Julie Passas, Vittoria Raciti, Max Raiola and Adriano Raiola

 

 

RESPECT FOR AUSTRALIA'S HEAD OF STATE

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM42/2012

 

After the 2004 Council election the photo of the Queen was removed from the Council Chambers. Until we become a republic and if only out of respect for our heritage, the photo should be returned to its previous position.

 

This Council spends vast amounts of funds on the issue of heritage, indeed the whole concept of Council – the Mayor’s attire (robe and chains) are all part of Council’s heritage. Who decides what we keep and what we discard?

 

Council has repeatedly invited the Governor-General for various occasions. Is the Governor-General not a product of the monarchy?

 

The action of this council in removing the photo is a blatant act of disrespect and serves no purpose for Ashfield and its residents.

 

For as long as Ashfield Council has existed, a photo of the Queen has been a part of Council. It has featured in the Council Chambers without one complaint that I am aware of from residents. I do not recall any Councillor having the mandate from the residents for its removal.

 

Until we become a republic and if only out of respect for our heritage which this Council prides itself upon by spending vast amount of our resources i.e. heritage consultants etc., I am at a loss as to why it was removed. I move that the Queen’s photo be returned to the place where it was previously displayed for many years.

 

Our country recognises worthy citizens with the honour of the Order of Australia Medal which is related to the monarchy. How is this any different to having the Queen’s portrait displayed?

 

Politicians of all political persuasions have treated the Queen with respect each time she visits our great country.

 

Just as this Council respects and acknowledges the traditional inhabitants of our country, we should afford the same respect to our head state.


 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

 

Accordingly, we move:-

 

That the Queen’s photo be reinstated at Ashfield Council as soon as possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Julie Passas

 

 

Vittoria Raciti

 

 

 

Max Raiola

 

 

Adriano Raiola

 

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 NM43/2012

Planning and Building

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLORS Julie Passas, Vittoria Raciti, Adriano Raiola and Max Raiola

 

 

ASHFIELD DRAFT NEW LEP

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM43/2012

 

Councillors will be aware that some time ago the state government required all NSW councils to reform their planning instruments to bring them in line with a proforma LEP document which the state government had developed. Ashfield Council has progressed this project to the extent that in the period leading up to recent Council elections, the new Draft Ashfield LEP was exhibited with submissions closing on 21st August, 2012.

 

Councillors, you will further be aware that the new LEP looks at thing such as:

 

1.  Land use and zonings

2.  FSR

3.  Building heights and lot sizes

4.  Heritage

 

Since being elected to Council I have fielded many enquiries to do with the proposed heritage changes earmarked in the draft LEP. In particular, as a South Ward councillor I have fielded numerous enquiries from concerned commercial property owners and tenants who hold property or leases in the Ashfield CBD. They are particularly concerned at what they say are non-meritorious proposals to heritage list in their properties. I know the Mayor and Councillor Drury would have had similar enquiries. Some constituents have gone as far as to say that Ashfield Council is attempting to use heritage as a tool to stifle development in the Ashfield CBD. Further, these constituents have also told me that independent heritage architects, employed by council, have been meeting with concerned property owners to review the work of Council’s previous heritage consultants Bob Irving.

 

Councillors, heritage is clearly appropriate when merit and concurrence of all parties can be shown unequivocally.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, we move:-

 

1/3    That council deliberations on the draft LEP, submissions having closed on 21st August, 2012, be expedited.

 

 

2/3    That separate to Item 1, Council officers bring an urgent report to Council showing the results of the deliberations between the newly   appointed heritage architects and property owners. Further, that all people having made submissions to the draft LEP be advised when this report will be before Council and that these people be given an opportunity to address Council at this time.

 

3/3    That council tonight determinate that the criteria for heritage listing of properties in the new Ashfield LEP be expanded to include the compulsory concurrence of the new property owner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Julie Passas

 

 

Vittoria Raciti

 

 

Adriano Raiola

 

 

 

Max Raiola

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 NM44/2012

Footpath Dining

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLORS Julie Passas, Max Raiola and Adriano Raiola

 

 

COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM44/2012

 

Prior to the September, 2012 local government election, Ashfield Council introduced an outdoor dining policy that was ill-conceived and discriminatory.

 

As a former small business operator I am well aware of the outgoings involved in running a

business. The hours are long and the rewards are little. The cost of small business i.e. rents, rates, waste services, power, insurance, wages, health inspectors etc. have all risen, and the majority of

small operators are struggling to stay afloat and are behind in their rental responsibilities.

 

The current Council’s outdoor dining policy was ill-conceived without any thought of the consequences. No one is disputing the fact that we all have a duty of care for the vision impaired

residents and visitors to our municipality, however Council’s furniture, uneven damaged footpaths and the recent green boxes installed by Energy Australia cancels out Council’s reasoning for the

policy.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, we move:-

 

1/3    That Council immediately overturn the present outdoor dining policy.

 

2/3    That Council waive the present fee charged for tables and chairs.

 

3/3    That the health inspection fee be a ‘one-off’ annual fee of $350 regardless of      the number of inspections.

 

 

 

 

 

Julie Passas

 

 

 

 

 

Max Raiola

 

 

 

Adriano Raiola

 

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 NM45/2012

Footpaths

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLORS Julie Passas, Vittoria Raciti, Max Raiola and Adriano Raiola

 

 

DANGEROUS AND UNACCEPTABLE PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM45/2012

 

This Council is well aware of the deteriorating conditions of our footpaths and that many residents have sustained serious injuries and continue to do so. The suffering, pain, not to mention the financial costs such as dental work, replacing spectacles etc. could be avoided to some extent if the crumbling footpaths were replaced years ago.

 

This Council embarked on a massive project with borrowed funds (new civic centre), a project that has seen the cost blow out to nearly double. The Councillors who supported the project have stated repeatedly, one of their reasons for backing the project was an occupational, health and safety issue. Their concern for our staff is commendable however, I am unaware of any staff member sustaining injuries in the office.

 

I am aware of an unacceptable number of residents seriously injured not only our senior citizens but also residents of all ages regardless of their mobility. It is not an OH & S problem.

 

At the recent council elections one of the most complained about issues from residents was the condition of our footpaths and the inappropriate pavers and surfaces in our shopping centres that are a slipping hazard when wet, loose unstable and lifting. The rates wasted on ad hocs repairs and maintenance is throwing good money after bad in many cases the repairs add to the tripping hazards.

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, we move:-

 

1/3         That in the interim Council commence an urgent restoration of the footpaths surrounding Cardinal Freeman Village and continue at other nursing home locations.

 

2/3         That the Mayor and General Manager seek an urgent meeting with our state and federal members requesting a grant and/or an interest free loan so council can embark upon an intense footpath restoration programme.

 

3/3         That until our request for state and federal funding is forthcoming Council must look at alternatives if we are to go it alone.

 

 

 

Julie Passas

 

Vittoria Raciti

 

Max Raiola

 

Adriano Raiola

 

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 NM46/2012

Community Development - Crime Prevention

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLORS Julie Passas, Vittoria Raciti, Max Raiola and Adriano Raiola

 

 

ASHFIELD COUNCIL'S RESPONSIBILITY ON SAFETY AND CRIME

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM46/2012

 

I am sure all Councillors were shocked at the untimely death of the young lady from Melbourne who lost her life returning home from a night out. It has been well publicised that the alleged person responsible for her death was apprehended when police used images from a CCTV camera.

 

I am aware of the incidents in Ashfield where police would have been assisted in solving crime if our cameras were in working order at the time, in fact this was highlighted not so long ago when local shopkeepers in Ashfield featured in the local press unhappy about Council’s cameras being out of operation. Surveillance cameras do work as I know of a business in Ashfield that has working cameras installed that the police use frequently whenever incidents occur in that area.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, we move:-

 

1/3    That Council immediately review all present cameras in Ashfield to ascertain if they are operational.

 

2/3    That an urgent report be brought back to Council on the number of           cameras and their location.

 

3/3    That Council contact our local police to obtain their support and expertise           in the location of the cameras.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Julie Passas

 

 

 

Vittoria Raciti

 

 

 

Max Raiola

 

 

 

Adriano Raiola

 

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 NM47/2012

Planning

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

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

 

 

CONCEPT APPROVAL MP_0155 SUMMER HILL FLOUR MILL REDEVELOPMENT

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM47/2012

 

The Planning Assessment Commission will soon determine the Summer Hill Flour Mill concept plan.

 

With some modifications, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure recommends approval. See https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/80252067eae7ccb2faea08b0d34c03f1/MP10_0155_Recommended%20Concept%20Approval.pdf

 

Council’s present position is that no development should be approved in this precinct, including that within Marrickville LGA, until public transport, infrastructure, parking and traffic issues are properly addressed; with solutions provided by State authorities (i.e. Roads and Maritime Services; State Rail and Sydney buses). We have also expressed concerns regarding the density and the height of some of the structures within the proposed development

 

Of course the ideal result, as moved by Cr Cassidy in a Mayoral Minute, would be to have the heritage buildings restored and the majority of the site dedicated to Council as parkland. However, this is a remote possibility and therefore Council needs to formulate a position as to the submission, if any, we want to present to the PAC.

 

The following is a rudimentary first reading summary of the Department’s recommendation:

 

   280 to 300 units (1, 2 and 3 beds). no affordable housing, no reduction in density;

   The 3 level extrusions atop the ‘4 pack’ and ‘6 pack’ silos are not supported by the DoP & I;

   3,500to 4,000 sqr. m. of commercial space (restrictions to be imposed on individual unit size);

   4,806 sq m  of public open space dedicated to Council; plus 5,287 sq m. of publically available open space, maintained by the body corporate;

   a roundabout at Edward and Smith Sts and traffic signals at Edward and Old Canterbury Rd, in attempt to address traffic gridlock;

   improvements to pedestrian access to Summer Hill village;

   tree planting along Edward St;

   A reduction in parking per unit when compared to Council’s DCP, the theory being that people will therefore use public transport;

   2 car dedicated car share spaces;

   measures to be taken to protect and enhance long nose bandicoot habitat but no construction of the adjacent section of the GreenWay, as requested by Council.


 

Except for the silo extrusions, the recommendation means that the concept proposal remains similar to that submitted and, thus, does not address many of the concerns expressed by Council and residents. The following motion is submitted to facilitate debate and to enable Council to determine or re-enforce its position. I will, however, be arguing for a particular view during that debate.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, we move:-

 

1/4    That Council determines what submission it wishes to present to the Planning Assessment Commission.

 

2/4    That we note and include relevant points arising from our Officers’ analysis.

 

3/4    That we also authorise our officers to appear before the PAC.

 

4/4    That Council determines how we communicate our decision to our residents.

 

Alex Lofts

 

 

Lucille McKenna

 

 

 

Mark Drury

 

Jeanette Wang


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 NM48/2012

Transport

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLOR Lucille McKenna

 

 

WESTCONNEX - SYDNEY'S NEXT MOTORWAY PRIORITY

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM48/2012

 

The recent publicity regarding the Infrastructure NSW release of their Transport for NSW plan and their recommendation that WestConnex should be Sydney’s next motorway priority raises a range of concerns.

 

WestConnex has enormous implications for our local government area and many of the projects and strategies already underway or planned for Ashfield. The minimalist report that has been released raises many concerns for the Heritage items along Parramatta Rd, the Haberfield Conservation area and The Parramatta Rd Enterprise Zone.

 

The report states a major intersection at Wattle St “Ashfield”, increased traffic on the City West Link and “a clear and equitable process of property acquisition”.

 

The report consistently mentions improved amenity and quotes as an example the Eastern Distributer.

 

The Eastern Distributor on South Dowling Street is a noisy, polluted, road. There are no cafes, restaurants or other uses immediately adjacent to the road. It is no great improvement on what it was. The photos included in the WestConnex document are pretty telling on this. There will be no real urban renewal directly beside a motorway carrying 120k + vehicles a day.  It is difficult to imagine anyone setting up a café above the Inner West motorway, and beside what also will be a busway. 

 

 

The WestConnex document makes no mention at all of the increased air pollution that will be generated by the increased number of vehicles using the Parramatta Road corridor, particularly heavy vehicles. This is an extraordinary omission. There is an increasingly well understood correlation between air pollution from freeways and a number of health impacts, including several types of cancer. Elevated, at grade and slot freeways generate far more pollution than tunnels.

 

Further concerns are that Ashfield will become a totally divided community with our suburbs silos completely surrounded by major roads.

 

This report raises many more questions than it answers


 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

1/2    That the Mayor write to the Premier seeking clarification in relation to the           Haberfield Conservation area, Heritage items such as Ashfield Park,           Yasmar and Bunnings, the increased pollution likely from diesel fuelled           heavy transport vehicles travelling at speed and the property acquisitions.

 

2/2     That Council write to the Ministers for Planning and Transport requesting           the creation of a WestConnex Taskforce comprising representatives of all           relevant State Government agencies and the Council's that the proposed           WestConnex Project will run through or adjacent to.


The purpose of this Taskforce should be to:

·      Ensure effective community engagement occurs from the outset

·      Allow for effective coordination of the planning and infrastructure elements of the project

·      Ensure the development of appropriate planning controls along the route of the project and that the planning controls of local communities are upheld

·      Allow for effective coordination of any future works

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lucille McKenna

 

 

 

 

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 CM10.1

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.185.1
60 PALACE STREET ASHFIELD

 

File Ref                            DA 10.2012.185.

 

Prepared by                   Haroula Michael - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Council determination

 

Objective                         Determine Application

 

 

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0    Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Clause 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council’s consent for alterations and addition to  the existing dwelling house consisting of:

 

·    Extension to the rear of the dwelling to create an ensuite, bathroom, laundry, kitchen and dining/living room;

·    New roof over rear section of dwelling;

·    New windows to the eastern side of the dwelling serving the ensuite and laundry;

·    A new patio to the rear of the dwelling house;

·    Demolition of the existing shed located in the south western corner of the site;

·    Reduction on the length of the existing garage/shed.

 

Plans of the proposal are included as Attachment 1.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The proposal is acceptable and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Background

 

A site inspection undertaken on the 20 September 2012 revealed that the following works have been undertaken to the premises without consent:-

 

·    A colourbond fence forward of the front building line has been erected to a height of 1800mm in height. It is advised that you discuss lowering this section of fence (forward of the front building line) with the adjoining neighbour, and details of the reduction of the fence could form part of this application.      Please note that should agreement be met with the neighbour to lower the fence, all owners consent will be required as this relates to a boundary fence.

·        The roof material to the front and side verandah has been replaced;


 

·        The timber flooring to the front verandah has been replaced;

·        A skirting board has been placed around the edges of the existing dwelling house;

·          Modifications to the existing facade brick work, with the removal of two layers of darker brick works located to the top and bottom sections of the wall.

 

An email was sent to the applicant requesting clarification and additional information to enable assessment of the application. These were:-

 

1.         A plan that provides calculations of the landscape area in accordance with the requirements of Ashfield DCP 2007 is to be submitted.

2.         The Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) refers to the incorrect subject site (i.e refers to 56 Palace Street, rather than the actual site 60 Palace Street). Section 5 Conclusion of the SEE refers to Canterbury Council LEP, which is incorrect.

3.         The waste management plan (WMP) refers to the incorrect subject site. The WMP shall reflect the correct address.

4.         The Heritage Impact Statement (page 7) refers that "the existing garage will be demolished and replaced with a slightly smaller garage shed". Clarification is required as to what the "actual" proposal is sought for the existing garage.

5.         As the proposed works (i.e. to the existing garage/shed) are located within 450mm of the common boundary with 58 Palace Street, the written agreement of all owners of this property is required permitting access to their property to enable construction and future maintenance (see Part C15, 2.1 of the Ashfield DCP 2007).

 

The applicant provided amended plans and additional information to address the concerns raised in Council’s email as follows: -

 

Point 1      A landscape plan has been provided.

 

Points 2-3 have been dealt with. The reference has been corrected in relation to the subject site and controls for Ashfield Council.

 

Point 4 has been rectified making correct reference to the proposed works to the existing garage/shed.

 

Point 5 The written agreement of the adjoining owners has not been provided. However as the existing shed is located less than 450mm and the extent of works involves the removal of a small section of the garage it is considered that owners consent is not required however a condition will be imposed requiring the applicant to inform the adjoining property owner when works to the garage will commence.

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         In Vision Design

Owner                                    :         Mr F Z & Mrs M & Mr J A Succar

Value of work                       :         $115,000.00

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: 60 DP: 876820

Date lodged                          :         05/09/2012


Date of last amendment     :         5 September 2012 and 28 September 2012

Building classification        :         1a

Application Type                  :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

Section 94A Levy                :         Yes

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the south side of Palace Street, bounded by Holden Street to the east and Milton Street to the west. The site area is approximately 613.4 square metres. An existing single storey cottage is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises of residential development of varying densities.  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

6.1952.941

03/09/1952

Garage

Approved

 

The above building application relates to the garage that is being sought to be modified as part of this proposal.

 

Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

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

·    The property is a heritage item.

·    The property is located within the vicinity of a heritage item identified as 54 Palace Street.

 

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

 

7.0    Section 79C Assessment

 

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

 

7.1    The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

7.1.1 Local Environmental Plans


 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

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

 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

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

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

 

Not applicable.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (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 compliance of the application.


 

 

Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

Summary Compliance Table

Clause No.

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Compliance

2.2

Zoning

Zone R2 Low Density Residential

Dwelling House (alterations to existing dwelling-house)

Yes

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

500m2

613.4m2

Yes

4.3

Height of buildings

8.5m

5.8m (at the highest point)

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

0.7:1

0.3:1

Yes

5.10

Heritage Conservation

Heritage Item I255

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.

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

 

A Heritage Impact Statement has also been submitted with the application..

 

Yes

 

As indicated by the above table, the proposal generally complies with the provisions of the 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:


 

C10

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

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

 

C11

PARKING

The subject site is capable of providing one on-site parking space behind the building line of the dwelling house. The proposal will not increase the demand and need for additional parking.

 

C12

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

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

 

C15

HOUSES & DUAL OCCUPANCIES

Refer to comments below:

D1

PLANNING FOR LESS WASTE

A waste management plan has been submitted with the application.

 

Part C15 Houses and Dual Occupancies:

 

Scale and bulk

 

The proposal consists of alterations and additions to the existing dwelling. The height and bulk is consistent with existing development in the locality.

 

The subject site has a maximum FSR requirement of 0.5:1. As a result of the proposed works the floor space ratio is (199.3sqm) 0.32:1 and therefore consistent with the ADCP 2007.

 

Aesthetics:

 

The proposal consists of alterations and additions to the existing dwelling-house.

 

The Ashfield Development Control Plan requires new development to be sympathetic to the context of the site, and have a high standard of architectural composition. There are varying architectural forms of development within the vicinity of the site, comprising mainly single storey dwellings. The proposal is considered to be sympathetic in its local context.

 

Landscape and Site Layout:

 

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


 

As the subject site is an individually listed heritage item 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. 306.7sqm in this case it would be required to be deep soil planting. The subject site as a result of the proposed works will provides a total landscaped area of 315sqm and a total deep soil landscape area of 215.3sqm, as a result of the proposed works the deep soil planting area will be increased to 249.7sqm. Although the deep soil planting area does not meet the minimum requirement of 50%, the overall deep soil planting will result in an increase to the deep soil planting area.

 

The proposal does not seek to remove any trees.

 

Amenity for neighbours:

 

The ADCP requires solar access to be maintained 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 between 9am and 3pm on the 21 June.

 

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

 

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

 

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:

 

The proposal seeks to reduce the length of the existing garage. The structure is located within 450mm to the boundary and therefore the consent of the adjoining neighbour is required for the works within 450mm from the property boundary.

 

The written agreement of the adjoining owner has not been provided. However as the existing shed is located less than 450mm and the extent of works involves the removal of a small section of the garage it is considered that owners consent is not required in this instance. However a condition will be imposed requiring the applicant to inform the adjoining property owner when works to the garage will commence.

 

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


 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

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

 

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

The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants and Councillors from 11 September 2012 until 27 September 2012.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

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

 

7.7.2 Mediation

 

Mediation was not required for this application.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

Matters of the public interest have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the application. The proposal is acceptable and warrants support.

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Heritage Advisor: Councils heritage advisor has provided a condition of consent to be imposed to ensure photographic and drawn records of the areas to be disturbed or demolished are documented. This shall form part of the conditions of consent.

 

Comments from Council’s Heritage Advisor are included as Attachment 3.


 

Engineering: No objections raised, subject to conditions.

 

8.2    External

 

Not applicable.

 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

Section 94A Contribution Plan

 

Based on the estimated value-of-works of $115,000.00 a Section 94A Contribution fee of $575.00 would be payable to Council should the application be approved.

 

Ashfield Heritage Study

 

The Ashfield Heritage Study conducted by Godden Mackay Pty Ltd was 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)

 

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

 

Financial Implications

 

Nil.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

See Section 8.1 of this report.

 

Public Consultation


See Section 7.7 of this report.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

The proposal is acceptable and is recommended for conditional approval.


 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

3 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Heritage Advice

2 Pages

 

Attachment 4View

Conditions

7 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) approve Development Application No. 10.2012.185.1 for alterations and addition to the existing dwelling house consisting of:

 

·    Extension to the rear of the dwelling to create an ensuite, bathroom, laundry, kitchen and dining/living room;

·    New roof over rear section of dwelling;

·    New windows to the eastern side of the dwelling serving the ensuite and laundry;

·    A new patio to the rear of the dwelling house;

·    Demolition of the existing shed located in the south western corner of the site;

·    Reduction on the length of the existing garage/shed

 

on Lot 60 in DP: 876820, known as 60 Palace Street, Ashfield subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

COMPLIANCE TABLE - ASHFIELD LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1985

 

CLAUSE 2

Aims, objectives etc.

This plan aims to:

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

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

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

 

 

CLAUSE 10

Zoning

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

CLAUSE 10A

Development consent required for change of building use and subdivision

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 11

Dwelling houses – residential allotment size

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

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

(b) in any other case –

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

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

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

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

The allotment was in existence on the appointed day.

 

CLAUSE 12:

Number of floors in dwelling-houses

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

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

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

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

Complies.

No. of floors                   = One

 

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.

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

 

CLAUSE 32

Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics

 

 

 

 

1.

Requirement for development consent

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

2.

Development consent not required

Not applicable.

3.

Assessment of impact on heritage significance

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

 

4.

Requirement for conservation plan or heritage impact statement

 

Complies.  A heritage impact 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.

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 34

Notice to Heritage Council

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 35

Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area

Not applicable.


CLAUSE 36

Development of known or potential archaeological sites

Not applicable.

 


CLAUSE 37

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

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

 

CLAUSE 37A

Conservation incentives

Not applicable.

 

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.

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 




Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Heritage Advice

 



Attachment 4

 

Conditions

 








Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 CM10.2

Subject                            PUBLIC EXHIBITION OF THE DRAFT PARRAMATTA RIVER ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

File Ref                            Environmental Management>Programs>Environmental Issues/Projects

 

Prepared by                   Sarah Kamarudin - Project Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          To advise Council that a draft Parramatta River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan has been completed. This plan has been developed for the Parramatta River Estuary Committee whose members include Ashfield Council along with a number of other councils, organisations and state agencies. This Plan is now available for public consultation.

 

Objective                         To seek Council’s endorsement for the public exhibition of the draft Parramatta River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan.

 

 

 


Overview of Report


The Parramatta River Estuary Committee resolved to prepare an estuary management plan for the Parramatta River, in accordance with the NSW Government’s Estuary Management Policy. Ashfield Council is a longstanding member council of this Committee and has been involved in this planning process. 

 

A draft estuary management plan has now been prepared and is now available for public consultation. An executive summary of this report is attached and the full report is available for viewing at https://hotfile.com/dl/168463219/6dad796/Final_Draft_report_-_Estuary_Study_and_Plan_(Aug_12).pdf.html. It is recommended that Council approve public exhibition of the draft plan for a minimum period of 28 days.

 

 

Background

 

1.         The Parramatta River estuary is one of the most important estuaries in Sydney and is of high ecological, social and economic value. The estuary starts at Charles St Wharf, Parramatta (the Ferry Wharf) and continues through many suburbs / Council areas until it reaches Cockatoo Island, after which it becomes Sydney Harbour.

 

2.         The Parramatta River estuary catchment, an area of 252 km2, covers a significant portion of the Greater Sydney Metropolitan region, with a population of more than a million people. However, like many estuaries, the Parramatta River suffers from a number of problems such as poor water quality, weed infestation, bank erosion and uncontrolled public access.


 

3.         In order to address these problems and help improve the health of the Parramatta River, the Parramatta River Estuary Committee was set up in 2006. The Committee is organised/chaired by Parramatta Council on behalf of its members. These members include representatives from the following Councils:

 

·    Parramatta City Council

·    City of Ryde

·    Auburn Council

·    City of Canada Bay

·    Leichhardt Municipal Council

·    Strathfield Council

·    Ashfield Municipal Council

·    Hunters Hill Council

 

Other agencies / organisations represented on the Estuary Committee include:-

·    NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

·    NSW Department of Primary Industries

·    NSW Roads and Maritime Services

·    Shell Refining (Australia) Pty Ltd

·    Sydney Ferries Corporation

·    Sydney Harbour Federation Trust

·    Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority

·    Sydney Olympic Park Authority

·    Sydney Water

·    Darug Tribal Aboriginal Corporation

·    Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council

·    Friends of Duck River

·    Ryde Hunters Hill Flora and Fauna Preservation Society

 

4.         The Committee has now produced a new draft document, the Parramatta River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP), which describes a range of actions which if undertaken would improve the environment of the Estuary.

 

5.         After public exhibition any comments received from the public would be reported back to the Estuary Committee before the CZMP is finalised. The CZMP would then be presented to Council for its consideration.

 

Financial Implications

 

The development of this Plan has been funded by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority (SMCMA), Sydney Water and the member councils.


 

The involvement of staff in the estuary management process has meant that the actions described in the plan have been made as realistic and as achievable as possible for Council. Nearly all actions described in the plan are either actions that Council is already undertaking or intends to undertake in the near future. This includes, for example, actions around water sensitive urban design, bush regeneration, community education and enforcement of erosion and sediment controls.

 

Actions under the plan are non-binding on Council. Actions are also subject to the priorities, funding and resources of Council.

 

Once Council has adopted the Parramatta River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan and it has been certified and published in the Government Gazette, Council is eligible to apply for up to 50% grant funding for identified actions under the NSW Government’s Estuary Management Program. Having an adopted CZMP will also make funding easier from other funding providers such as the SMCMA and the Federal Government.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

Not sought.

 

Public Consultation

 

It is a requirement of the State Government’s estuary management process that there is public consultation about estuary related issues and plans. All council members of the Parramatta River Estuary Committee are therefore currently seeking to place the draft plan on public exhibition.

 

Conclusion

 

The Parramatta River is a significant estuary within the Sydney Metropolitan area and is of high ecological, social and economic value. The Parramatta River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan represents a coordinated and integrated approach to address many of the issues facing the estuary and to protect these important values.

 

The plan provides Council with a targeted list of actions to improve the health of the estuary. It also protects Council from liability, and provides an opportunity for Council to apply for state and federal government grant funding to implement actions.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Draft Parramatta River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan - Executive Summary

7 Pages

 

 


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse the public exhibition of the draft Parramatta River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan for a minimum period of 28 days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment


Attachment 1

 

Draft Parramatta River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan - Executive Summary

 







Attachment 1

 

Draft Parramatta River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan - Executive Summary

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 CM10.3

Subject                            SSROC TENDER - PLANTS AND TREES

 

File Ref                            2310

 

Prepared by                   Lyn Blain - Strategic Procurement Coordinator       

 

 

Reasons                          Council adopt the recommendation contained in the CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 1

 

 

 


Overview of Report
SSROC (Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils), on behalf of its member Councils, held a tender to select a supplier(s) of Plants and Trees.  A report on the results of assessment of the received tenders by the Tender Review Panel can be found in the CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 1.

 

Background

There is no regional agreement in place for the supply of Plants and Trees and it was decided by the SSROC Supply Group that a regional tender could be expected to achieve improved rates for the participating Councils.

 

Participating Councils in this tender were Ashfield, Botany Bay, City of Canada Bay, Canterbury City, Hurstville, Kogarah, Leichhardt, Marrickville, Rockdale, Sutherland Shire, Waverley and Woollahra Councils.

 

The tender was advertised on 19 June 2012 in the Sydney Morning Herald and Tenders Online and the tender closed on 17 July 2012.

 

There were two tenders received.

 

Discussion

A Tender Review Panel was established under the auspices of SSROC, consisting of representatives from Botany Bay Council, Sutherland Shire Council and SSROC.

 

Tender Assessment Criteria

1.   Proven capacity to meet contract

2.   Delivery and performance standards and implementation

3.   Range of plants offered

4.   Sustainability

5.   Quality Assurance

6.   Price

 

Financial Implications

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

 

Other Staff Comments

The Coordinator Parks & Trees advised that Council is currently utilising the services of the proposed suppliers.


 

Public Consultation

None required

 

Conclusion

That the Tender Panel recommendation be adopted.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

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

4 Pages

 

Attachment 2

Andreasens Pricing Plants & Trees -  - 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) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:
(i)   prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or
(ii)  confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or
(iii) reveal a trade secret.

9 Pages

 

Attachment 3

Alpine Pricing Plants & Trees -  - 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) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:
(i)   prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or
(ii)  confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or
(iii) reveal a trade secret.

9 Pages

 

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the recommendation contained in the Confidential Attachment 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services of Works & Infrastructure

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 CM10.4

Subject                            PRESENTATION OF THE 2011/2012 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BY HILL ROGERS SPENCER STEER - AUDITORS

 

File Ref                            Financial Management>Reports>Financial Statement 2011/12

 

Prepared by                   Myooran Vinayagamoorthy - Chief Financial Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Statutory Requirement

 

Objective                         To present the audited financial statements

 

 

 


Overview of Report
It is a statutory requirement that Council’s audited financial statements are presented at a public meeting. Council has received an unqualified audit report and Council’s current financial position is sound.

 

Background

Council adopted a draft set of Financial Statements on 09 October 2012 and resolved to refer them to Council’s external auditor.  Subsequently the audit has been completed and the financial statements have been finalised.

 

Having now received the auditor’s report on the General Purpose Financial Statements and report on the Conduct of the Audit, in accordance with s419(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council must present its audited financial reports, together with the auditor’s reports, at a public meeting of the Council.

 

Result of the Audit of the Adopted Financial Statements

Apart from some minor formatting and reallocations, the financial result did not change as a result of the audit. This is a pleasing result.

 

The auditors have issued an unqualified audit report and state that Council’s overall financial position as at 30 June 2012 is sound.

 

Attachment 1 reconciles the audited financial statements to the funding budget format which Council is more familiar with. Overall there was an increase in Council’s working capital of $1,920k.

 

Financial Implications

No additional implications apart from any outlined in the body of this report.

 

Other Staff Comments

Nil


 

Public Consultation

In accordance with s418 of the Local Government Act 1993, a Public Notice of the meeting at which the audited financial statements are to be presented has been made in the prescribed form and timeframe.

 

The audited financial statements have been available at the Customer Service - Civic Centre and on Council’s website as per the Public Notice.

 

Submissions with respect to Council’s audited financial statements or the auditor’s report close one week after the public meeting has been held.

 

Conclusion

With the presentation of the audited financial statements, Council has completed its annual financial reporting requirements.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

2011-2012 Audited Financial Statements

84 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Funding Budget Format

1 Page

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2       That Council resolve to thank Mr Brett Hanger from Hill Rogers Spencer Steer for addressing Council.

 

2/2       That Council resolve to note the contents of this report and the attached financial statements which incorporates the auditor’s reports.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

2011-2012 Audited Financial Statements

 


























Attachment 1

 

2011-2012 Audited Financial Statements

 


Attachment 1

 

2011-2012 Audited Financial Statements

 


















Attachment 1

 

2011-2012 Audited Financial Statements

 


Attachment 1

 

2011-2012 Audited Financial Statements

 















Attachment 1

 

2011-2012 Audited Financial Statements

 


Attachment 1

 

2011-2012 Audited Financial Statements

 






















Attachment 1

 

2011-2012 Audited Financial Statements

 




Attachment 1

 

2011-2012 Audited Financial Statements

 


Attachment 2

 

Funding Budget Format

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 CM10.5

Subject                            APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILLOR DELEGATES TO THE COOKS RIVER ALLIANCE BOARD AND THE GREENWAY STEERING COMMITTEE

 

File Ref                            Environment

 

Prepared by                   Gabrielle Rennard - Manager Corporate Services       

 

 

Reasons                          To appoint Councillor delegates to the Cooks River Alliance Board and the Greenway Steering Committee

 

 

 

 


Overview of Report

This report seeks Council’s determination of delegates to the Cooks River Alliance Board and the Greenway Steering Committee.

 

 

Background

 

COOKS RIVER ALLIANCE BOARD

 

The Cooks River flows from south western Sydney to Botany Bay.  The Cooks River Catchment covers approximately 10,000 hectares and portions of 13 different local government areas (LGAs).  Set in a dense urban landscape, the Cooks River Catchment is home to around 500,000 people.

 

The Cooks River Alliance was launched in September 2011 by eight councils in the Cooks River Catchment – Ashfield, Bankstown, Canterbury, City of Sydney, Hurstville, Marrickville, Strathfield and Rockdale. It aims to address the complex problems of the Cooks River in the long term, whilst maximising the efficient use of member councils’ limited resources. The Alliance provides technical and expert skills and knowledge to member councils and their communities.

 

Alliance activities include – actively engaging with people living and working in the Cooks River Catchment, monitoring water quality, seeking funding from government and private organisations for catchment projects and managing the construction of on-ground works, and advocating and lobbying for legislative amendments to help improve the health of the catchment. Refer to Attachment 1 for a copy of the Terms of Reference documents attached to this report for the Cooks River Alliance Board.

 

The Board is made up of elected representatives from member councils of the Alliance. One Councillor and one alternate shall be nominated to represent each member council on the Board.


 

GREENWAY STEERING COMMITTEE

 

The GreenWay is an environmental, active transport and cultural corridor extending some five kilometers from the Cooks River at Earlwood in the south, to Iron Cove at Haberfield in the north.

 

The GreenWay Master Plan and Coordination Strategy was adopted by the four GreenWay councils - Ashfield, Canterbury, Leichhardt and Marrickville - in

October 2009.

 

The Greenway Steering Committee provides a forum for the four councils to establish a regional and collaborative approach for the implementation of the GreenWay. Refer to Attachment 2 for a copy of the Terms of Reference.

 

The GreenWay Steering Committee has replaced previous GreenWay Working Groups and Steering Committees. It is separate from project management groups. It will implement the GreenWay Master Plan and Coordination Strategy, the GreenWay Action Plan and generally work towards the goal of establishing the Cooks River to Iron Cove GreenWay.

 

The committee advises Councils, organisations, state agencies and state government on the way forward to achieving the goal of implementing the Cooks River to Iron Cove GreenWay. It facilitates regional collaboration on the GreenWay corridor between councils, the community, the State Government and state agencies.  The Steering Committee meetings rotate around the member Councils and are held on a Monday, commencing at 4.15pm for a 4:30pm start.

 

The following people have been identified as key stakeholders and therefore members of the GreenWay Steering Committee:

 

·        GreenWay Coordinator

·        An elected Councillor representative from each of the 4 councils;

·        A relevant staff representative from each of the 4 councils;

·        Representatives from the key community groups, Bicycle User Groups, Inner West Environment Group and Friends of the GreenWay;

·        Four general community representatives.

·        Special representatives consultants or advisors invited to attend and participate as appropriate; eg State Agencies, other community groups

 

The Committee is made up of elected representatives from each member Council, being one Councillor and one alternate.  Each member Council has one vote on the Committee.

 

Financial Implications

 

Nil


 

Other Staff Comments

Nil

 

 

Public Consultation

Nil

 

 

Conclusion

It is recommended that Council endorse the attached Terms of Reference for the GreenWay Steering Committee and appoint a Councillor delegate and alternate to the Cooks River Alliance Board and Greenway Steering Committee respectively.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Cooks River Alliance Terms of Reference

9 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Greenway Steering Committee Terms of Reference

5 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/4    That Council note and adopt the Terms of Reference documents attached to this report for the Cooks River Alliance Board.

 

2/4    That Council appoint one Councillor delegate and one alternate to the Cooks River Alliance Board.

 

3/4    That Council note and adopt the Terms of Reference documents attached to this report for the GreenWay Steering Committee.

 

4/4    That Council appoint one Councillor delegate and one alternate to the Greenway Steering Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services


Attachment 1

 

Cooks River Alliance Terms of Reference

 










Attachment 2

 

Greenway Steering Committee Terms of Reference

 






Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 CM10.6

Subject                            INVESTMENT REPORT SEPTEMBER 2012

 

File Ref                            Financial Management/Reports/Investment Report

 

Prepared by                   Myooran Vinayagamoorthy - Chief Financial Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Legislative Requirement

 

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

 

 

 


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

30 September 2012.

 

Background

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

 

Investment Balances

Council’s cash at bank and investments as at 30 September 2012 amounted to $20,239,562.13. It should be noted that the amount currently invested represents all of Council’s external and internal restrictions (i.e. grants, section 94 funds, loans, etc) as well as cash flow requirements.

 

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

 

Cash at Bank and Investments as at 31 Aug 2012                                             $21,376,593.04

Increase/(Decrease) during the month of Sept 2012                                       $ (1,137,030.91)

Cash at Bank and Investments as at 30 Sept 2012                                           $20,239,562.13

                                                                                              

Represented By:

Book Value          of Investments                                                                               $19,729,633.99

Cash at Bank                                                                                                      $     509,928.14 

                                                                                                                            $20,239,562.13

 

In September 2012, the cash at bank and call deposits decreased by $1,137,030.91 representing a net cash outflow for maintaining Council’s activities during the month. This was mainly due to the mismatch in timing between the receipt of a large proportion of Councils income and  expenditure being relatively constant.

 

Return on Investment

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


 

Date

Monthly Return*

Quarterly Return*

Annual Return*

Two Years Return*

Three Years Return*

30/09/2012

12.45%

8.57%

6.31%

6.24%

6.19%

31/08/2012

7.71%

6.71%

5.64%

5.99%

5.93%

31/07/2012

4.90%

5.77%

5.27%

5.76%

5.75%

30/06/2012

7.18%

5.59%

5.21%

5.50%

5.69%

31/05/2012

5.13%

4.98%

5.54%

6.40%

4.83%

30/04/2012

4.04%

5.21%

5.66%

6.38%

4.78%

31/03/2012

5.69%

5.51%

6.01%

6.38%

4.79%

29/02/2012

5.75%

5.72%

6.20%

6.33%

4.85%

31/01/2012

5.02%

5.16%

5.98%

6.29%

4.83%

31/12/2011

6.31%

4.90%

6.07%

6.27%

4.76%

30/11/2011

4.29%

4.92%

6.25%

6.21%

4.80%

31/10/2011

4.20%

4.91%

6.24%

6.19%

4.67%

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

 

The average yield on the short term portfolio for September 2012 was 4.88% whilst the comparative benchmark yield for 90 days bank swap rates was 3.29%.

 

Interest earned for this financial year to date is $209,977 compared to the budget amount of $129,000.

 

The market value of Aphex Pacific Capital CDO as at 30 September 2012 as per the reports provided by Australia and New Zealand Group Limited is $71,875.

 

Other Staff Comments

Nil

 

Public Consultation

Nil

 

Conclusion

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Investment Portfolio Sept 2012

2 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Investment Graph Sept 2012

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Interest Income Graph Sept 2012

1 Page

 

Attachment 4View

ANZ CDO Report Sept 2012

10 Pages

 

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the investment report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Investment Portfolio Sept 2012

 



Attachment 2

 

Investment Graph Sept 2012

 


Attachment 3

 

Interest Income Graph Sept 2012

 


Attachment 4

 

ANZ CDO Report Sept 2012

 











Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 CM10.7

 

Subject                            REPORT ON REQUEST FOR ABORIGINAL LIAISON OFFICER

 

File Ref                            ACC

 

Prepared by                   Nellette Kettle - Director Corporate & Community Services       

 

 

Reasons                          In response to Council resolution

 

 

 


Overview of Report
This report is provided in response to Council’s request for a report in relation to the establishment of a new position within the organisational structure for an Aboriginal Liaison Officer.

 

 

Background

The Aboriginal Consultative Committee at its meeting on 21 June 2012, passed the following resolution:

 

That the ACC unanimously calls on Ashfield Council to establish a full time position of Aboriginal Liaison Officer.

 

Council at its meeting on 10 July 2012 resolved as follows:

 

That Council adopt the minutes of the Aboriginal Consultative Committee held on Thursday 21 June 2012 as a true record and refer the recommendation regarding the employment of an Aboriginal Liaison Officer to the General Manager for a staff report

 

This report is provided in response to that resolution.

 

Report

 

Council’s senior staff are not in support of establishing a full time Aboriginal Liaison Officer position for the following reasons:

 

·  Council has existing resources allocated to Aboriginal reconciliation and working with the Aboriginal community;

 

Council’s Community Development Worker Arts and Culture, Anthia Hart, has within her portfolio responsibility for working with the Aboriginal community.  In this capacity Ms Hart provides support to the Aboriginal Consultative Committee and coordinates the implementation of Council’s Reconciliation Action Plan. 

 

In addition, the budget currently provides for a casual Aboriginal Cultural Worker for the equivalent of 5 hours per week.  These funds have been used to engage the services of Patricia Blackman (a member of the ACC) from time to time for special projects/activities as required.


 

Whilst it would be good to increase resources in this area, resources are currently allocated at the level that Council can currently afford.

 

 

·  Requests for new or increased resources must be considered in the context of overall resource needs and budget constraints for Council and prioritised accordingly;

 

Councillors would be very aware that Council’s resources are finite and must be balanced across a range of important and competing areas of need.  As such it is not good practice to make decisions on resource levels outside of the formal budget process where competing needs can be balanced and evaluated.  Given the resource constraints, it should be noted that any increased resourcing in one area would come at the expense of resources elsewhere.

 

·  The staffing structure for community programs is moving away from specialist focus areas to more generic competencies 

 

In recent times, our operational model for the provision of community programs has shifted away from specialist areas to more generic competencies.  This is consistent with our need for integrated services across a range of program areas, but also because of our scale.

 

Being a small Council with limited resources, Ashfield Council relies heavily on multi faceted roles with multi skilled staff in order to deliver services.  Unlike larger councils we are not in a position to have specialist roles with a single focus.  Our scale cannot sustain such specialisation and it creates high levels of operational risk, such as business/service continuity in times of staff absence.    

 

Financial Implications

Nil from this report.  As an indicator, the salary for a full time position at the same level as our existing community development workers is $54,011 to $63,180p.a.  This excludes superannuation and other employee on costs such as workers compensations, training etc.

 

Other Staff Comments

Nil

 

Public Consultation

Not applicable

 

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined in this report, the senior staff do not support the establishment of a new full time Aboriginal Liaison Officer position.  There are many areas across the Council that would benefit from increased resource levels, were additional funding to be available.


 

Council staff will continue to look for grant opportunities that may be able to add to our existing resources.

 

However, should Council decide to increase resources in this area, it is recommended that any decision of this nature be taken as part of broader budget discussions in the coming months to enable all priority areas to be assessed on their relative merits.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council note the information in this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services