5 December 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 

11 DECEMBER 2012 at 6:30 PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEE ATTACHED AGENDA


 

Ordinary Meeting - 11 December 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.

(11/12/2012)

 

7.               Confirmation of Minutes of Council/Committees

 

Ordinary Meeting - 27/11/2012

Ashfield Youth Committee – 19/11/2012

Ashfield Youth Committee – 05/11/2012

 

8.               Mayoral Minutes

 

 

9.               Notices of Motion

 

NM52/2012  OFF LEASH AREA IN PRATTEN PARK

 

NM53/2012  CIVIC CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT

 

NM54/2012  RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS

 

 

10.            Staff Reports

 

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

 

10.2     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2009.31.4
283 - 285 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ASHFIELD

 

10.3     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2006.39.5
119 PROSPECT ROAD, ASHFIELD

 

 

 

10.4     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.216.1
75 PARK AVENUE, ASHFIELD

 

10.5     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.161.1
150 DALHOUSIE STREET, HABERFIELD

 

10.6     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.204.1
49 CROYDON ROAD, CROYDON

 

10.7     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.144.1
120C OLD CANTERBURY ROAD SUMMER HILL

 

10.8     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.159.1
22 LOUDON AVENUE HABERFIELD

 

10.9     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.222.1
644 - 654 PARRAMATTA ROAD CROYDON

 

10.10   WASTE MATTRESS COLLECTION AND PROCESSING TENDER

 

10.11   SSROC Tender Playground Equipment

 

10.12   SSROC tender- Provision of Advanced Waste Treatment Services

 

10.13   SSROC Tender - Supply of General hardware and Associated Products

 

10.14   TREE POLICY UPDATE

 

10.15   TRAFFIC AND PARKING STUDY - RESIDENT PARKING SCHEME

 

10.16   UTS UNION LIMITED LEASE AGREEMENT

 

10.17   AUSTRALIA DAY REPORT

 

 

11.            Closed (Public Excluded) Committee

 

 

12.            Close

 

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 NM52/2012

Parks & Reserves

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLOR Monica Wangmann

 

 

OFF LEASH AREA IN PRATTEN PARK

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM52/2012

 

The dog owners of Ashfield wish to petition Council to provide an off leash area for dogs with partial shade at Pratten Park, Ashfield.

Many of those that live close to this park in Ashfield are elderly and do not drive. Pratten Park is for most of them the only option to walk their companion dogs. This would mean many local residents with companion dogs would be able to exercise their pets in a safe environment. This would potentially make the most of the areas in Pratten Park, which are currently under utilized.

Please find attached the names and addresses of dog owners in Ashfield who support the petition as well as non dog owners who support this initiative.

The petitioners would welcome any suggestions by Council regarding an off leash area in Pratten Park.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Petition to Council -  - 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.

6 Pages

 

 

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

1/4    That Council officers investigate options for a dog off leash area at Pratten Park and bring a report back to Council by March 2013.

2/4    That Ward Councillors, the head petitioner and Clr Monica Wangmann be kept informed by email of the viable options prior to the return of the report to Council.

 

3/4    That the Pratten Park Committee be consulted as soon as possible.

4/4    That officers seek comment from the head petitioner, Ward Councillors and Clr Wangmann after the initial analysis but at least two weeks before the report returns to Council.

 

 

 

 

Monica Wangmann


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 NM53/2012

Civic Centre

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

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

 

 

CIVIC CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM53/2012

 

On behalf of residents and ratepayers of Ashfield, we are seeking answers from Council regarding the cost and delays re: the Civic Centre redevelopment. Since the adverse findings of the Ernst and Young report residents are no wiser as to why this project was so desperately needed at such a crippling amount when there were alternatives and cost effective facilities that could have been utilised to address any perceived shortfalls in Council’s delivery of services and statutory requirements responsible for the everyday running of our Council.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

1/2    For the above reasons I move that Council request the Minister of Local Government carry out a full and comprehensive independent inquiry pertaining to the whole project to ascertain why the urgency, how it came about and was the project warranted.

 

2/2    Were alternatives to the development of the administration centre canvassed, and fully investigated. Given the fact that residents were told at meetings that the project would cost ratepayers in the vicinity of $10m which to date has doubled and still not completed. This motion is in the interest of open and transparent expenditure of public funds and good governance.

 

 

 

 

 

Julie Passas

 

 

 

Max Raiola

 

 

 

Vittoria Raciti

 

 

 

Adriano Raiola

 

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 NM54/2012

Council Meetings

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLOR Lucille McKenna

 

 

RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM54/2012

 

Agenda, minutes and decisions taken by councils are the most important records of local governments.

 

Well-prepared agendas, orderly meetings and minutes which accurately reflect the proceedings of councils and their committees, are essential to the objectives of council as an effective, efficient, transparent and accountable system of government.

Many councils electronically record their meetings to assist staff in the preparation of the minutes.

 

This allows the audio record to be checked as necessary, therefore ensuring that minutes are transcribed accurately.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

1/2    That the General Manager investigate the audio recording of Council meetings.

 

2/2    That a report be brought to the first meeting in 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lucille McKenna

 

 

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 CM10.1

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

 

File Ref                            DA 10.2012.134.1

 

Prepared by                   William Daskalopoulos - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0    Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council to review its determination for: -

 

Use of unit 4 (ground floor) premises for the purposes of remedial massage.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

Council at its meeting of 14 August 2012 refused Development Application No. 2012.134.1. for the use of the above premises as a massage clinic for the following reasons: -

 

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

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

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

 

The applicant has now submitted a section 82A review for Council to reconsider the refusal of the application.

 

It is recommended that Council confirm its original determination of the application.

 

Background

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant:                              Mr R He

Owner:                                   Owners of Strata Plan 74482

Lot/DP:                                  LOT: 4 SP: 74482

Date lodged:                         06/07/2012

Date of last amendment:    N/A


Building classification:       6

Application Type:                 Local

Construction Certificate:    No

Section 94A Levy:               No

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

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

 

DA NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

10.2011.63

14/06/2011

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

Deferred commencement consent. Consent lapsed.

2004.202

 

15/10/2004

Strata Subdivisions of existing mixed use development

Approved

10.2012.134

08/05/2012

Use of (ground floor) unit 4 as a massage clinic

Refused

 

On 14 June 2011 a deferred commencement consent (DA No 10.2011.63.1) was granted for the use of the ground floor front tenancy (unit 4) as a remedial massage clinic with the following deferred commencement condition: -

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In this instance the applicant was required to activate the deferred commencement consent prior to 13 December 2011 in order to take up the approval.


 

In March 2012 Council received a complaint that the premises were being used without approval. A search of Council records revealed that the deferred commencement consent approved on 14 June 2011 was not activated and therefore the deferred commencement consent lapsed on 13 December 2011. An inspection of the premises confirmed that the premises were being used without approval. An order dated 03/04/2012 was subsequently issued to the applicant requiring the unauthorised use of the subject tenancy as a remedial massage to cease.

 

In response to the order the applicant on 6 July 2012 submitted Development Application No. 10. 2012.134.1 seeking Council’s consent for the permanent use of the ground floor front tenancy as a therapeutic massage clinic. Amongst other things, the applicant provided a certificate from Discover Massage Australian as part of the DA submission.

 

On 30 July 2012 Council’s assessment officer checked the applicant’s qualifications with Discover Massage Australian and it was revealed that the applicant has to undertake further advanced course to be qualified to provide the proposed service.

 

As mentioned previously, development application 10. 2012.134.1 was refused by Council at its meeting of 14 August 2012.

 

On the 14 September 2012 the applicant submitted a section 82A application for Council to review the determination of the above application. In support of the Section 82A review application the applicant has submitted a certificate from the Massage Association of Australia which states that the applicant/operator is a member of the Association and is entitled to practice massage therapy.

 

The applicant has also submitted a list of professional courses he has undertaken at the Australian College of Massage. Perusal of the applicant’s academic record has revealed that the applicant has failed to pass the course entitled “Massage Practice 1” and as such is not appropriately qualified.

 

A recent inspection of the premises has also revealed that the applicant has engaged female staff to work at the premises, who are not qualified to perform remedial massage. The applicant does not work at the premises.

 

Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

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

·    The property is not located within a Conservation Area.

·    The property is not a heritage item.

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


 

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

·    The proposed development would be permissible with Council consent under the Ashfield Draft LEP 2012.

 

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)

 

 

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 3(a) and the proposal is permissible with Council consent.

CLAUSE 10A

Development consent required for change of building use and subdivision

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

CLAUSE 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.

No proposed increase in floor area.

CLAUSE 18

Development for the purpose of advertisements

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.

 

 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

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

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

 

The signage shown on the plans generally complies with the provisions of the SEPP.

 

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

Summary Compliance Table

Clause No.

Subject

Standard

Proposed

Compliance

1.2

Aims of Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) to protect the urban character of the Haberfield, Croydon and Summer Hill urban village centres whilst providing opportunities for small scale, infill development that enhances the amenity and vitality of the centres,

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

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

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

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

 

The proposed development is not considered contrary to the aims or objectives of the Draft Ashfield LEP 2012.

2.2

Zoning

Zone B2 Local Centre

No change to the zone is proposed.

The premises would be classified as a “commercial premises” which is defined as being any of the following:

(a) business premises,

(b) office premises,

(c) retail premises.

 

Heritage Conservation

5.10 (2)

Requirement for consent

 

Development consent is required for any of the following:

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

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

(ii) a heritage item,

(iii) an Aboriginal object,

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

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

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

5.10(4)

Effect on heritage significance

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

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

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

6.6(1)

Accessibility and universal accessible design

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

(a) to provide equitable access within all new development, and ensure that

substantial alterations to existing development, or an intensification of an

existing land use, provides for an improved level of access for all people,

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

development, and non-residential development, and

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

disability through investigation and promotion of best-practice through the

design, construction and operation of development.

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

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

 

 

 

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 comments under part 7.2 of this report.

C2

ADVERTISEMENTS AND ADVERTISING STRUCTURES

 

Generally complies.

C11

PARKING

No increase in FSR therefore no additional parking is required.

C12

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

Complies. The application was notified as required by this part.

 

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

 

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

 

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


 

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

 

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

 

The applicant has indicated that the proposal is for therapeutic massage services, however, there are questions over the credibility of the business given the applicant’s lack of appropriate qualifications and that of staff.

 

The previous deferred commencement consent granted on 14 June 2011 provided an opportunity for the applicant to submit to Council the necessary qualifications required to undertake remedial massage services. Not only did the applicant fail to submit the required proof but then began to operate the premises in breach of the deferred commencement conditions despite the consent having lapsed.

 

Given the applicant and the female staff do not have the required qualifications to provide therapeutic massage services and there is a concern that the premises is not a legitimate massage clinic, Council should confirm its determination to refuse the application.

 

It is considered that the proposed development will have adverse environmental and social 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 site is suitable for a legitimate massage clinic, however, as the applicant and the female staff are not properly qualified the application in this instance is not supported and it is recommended that the previous determination be confirmed.

 

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, occupants, and Councillors from 26 September 2012 until 12 October 2012.

 

7.7.1 Summary of submissions

 

One submission (Attachment 3) was received during the notification of the development application:

 

Submissions

 

Matthew De Nevo  of 2 /95 Edwin Street North.

 


 

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

 

The applicant is not conducting a legitimate business. He is not qualified, he is never at the premises although he indicated that he would be working at the premises and he has female staff with unknown qualifications providing services on the premises.

 

Officer Comment:

 

The applicant has submitted a list of courses completed in the Australian College of Massage Course. Academic transcript for the applicant has reveled that he has not successfully passed “Massage Practice 1”. In addition, inspection of the premises has revealed that the applicant does not carry out massage on the premises himself but has female staff with unknown or no qualifications providing services at the premises. To date the applicant has not submitted to Council any qualifications for the females working at the premises.

 

Conditions of the Deferred Development Consent No. 10. 2011.63.1 required ‘Inter Alia’ that each employee carrying out massage shall hold a certificate from the Australian College of Massage and the certificate shall be displayed in each therapy room. Condition  H(1) required a CCTV system to be installed and details to be provided to Ashfield Police. Whereas condition G(2) required an Occupation Certificate be obtained prior to occupation of the premises. The applicant has not complied with the above conditions.

 

The objector also claims there was an incident at the premises with a non-English speaking female staff member who had become hysterical and was shouting loudly disturbing the neighbourhood.

 

From evidence and the assessment carried out, it appears that the applicant has no intention of working at the premises. It is more likely than not that the female staff are not qualified in massage therapy as the applicant to date has not produced any certificate of qualifications for the female staff and there are no certificates displayed at the premises.

 

Ashfield Police have raised concerns that if the applicant, Mr He, is not the massage therapist then the premises may be used as a future illegal brothel or massage parlour providing sexual services.

 

The applicant was requested to provide information as to why he does not work at the premises and replied with words to the effect of “it is not busy”. If that were the case then it is questionable as to why there is a need for other female staff to be employed at the premises.

 

The objector lives in the same building as the subject premises and has raised valid concerns regarding the intended use of the premises.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

The public interest is best served by confirmation of refusal of the application.


 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Nil.

 

8.2    External

 

NSW Police

 

Ashfield Police have raised concerns that the premises may be used as a future illegal brothel or massage parlour providing sexual services.  See Attachment 3 for police report.

 

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 storm water pipes.

 

10.0  Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

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

 

Financial Implications

 

Section 94A Contributions are not applicable in this instance.

 

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 it is recommended that Council confirms the previous determination to refuse consent to the development application.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of the Proposal

3 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Qualifications of Applicant

3 Pages

 

Attachment 4View

Police Report

1 Page

 

Attachment 5View

Submission

2 Pages

 

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) confirm its determination to refuse Development Application No.2012.134 for use of the premises as a massage clinic on Lot 4 in SP: 74482, known as unit 4 /95 Edwin Street North Croydon, for the following reasons:

 

1.      The applicant’s Certificate of Qualification submitted does not qualify the applicant to provide therapeutic massage services;

 

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

 

3.      The change of use, proposed to be carried out without the required qualified massage therapists, is not in the public interest;

 

4.      Qualifications of the female staff employed to work at the premises have not been submitted;

 

5.      The intended use of the premises does not promote the orderly and economic development of the local government area of Ashfield in a manner consistent with the need to protect the environment.

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment


Attachment 1

 

Plans of the Proposal

 




Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Qualifications of Applicant

 




Attachment 4

 

Police Report

 


Attachment 5

 

Submission

 



Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 CM10.2

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2009.31.4
283 - 285 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ASHFIELD

 

File Ref                            DA 10.2009.31.4

 

Prepared by                   William Daskalopoulos - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         Council to determine the application

 

 


1.0     DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

 

An application pursuant to Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, seeks Council’s approval to delete condition A(3) of development consent No. 10.2009.31.3, which states:-

 

“A(3)         Trial Period

 

The development is subject to a trial period, ending twelve months from the date of the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

Note: For the premises to continue operating after the expiry of the trial period, the applicant will need to make an application to modify these conditions of consent prior to the expiry of the trial period. The reports completed by independent consultants, described above, are to be submitted to Council, with any such application.”

 

In essence the proposed modification to delete condition A(3) will allow permanent trading of the existing Karaoke Lounge.

 

2.0       SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

 

The premises was granted a 12 month trial period in order to determine whether the proposed use of the site for the purposes of a karaoke lounge will cause local amenity impacts.

 

During the operation of the premises, Ashfield Police informed Council that they have been called to several incidents involving intoxicated patrons on and off the premises which the management have not taken appropriate controls to alleviate.

 

In addition, the applicant has not complied with relevant conditions of the development consent, particularly Condition A(4) which required the applicant to contact Ashfield Police for additional security measures.

 

Condition H(5) of the development consent has also not been complied with as the management are not maintaining an adequate control over the operation of the business and the patrons attending the premises.


 

In this respect the continuation of the use is not in the public interest and accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.

 

3.0    APPLICATION DETAILS

 

Applicant:                              :         New Face Entertainment Pty Ltd

Address:                                :         Level 1, 283-285 Liverpool Road Ashfield, NSW  2131

Owner:                                   :         Bade Pty Ltd

Lot/DP:                                  :         LOT: B DP: 190714

Date lodged:                         :         29/10/2012

Date of last amendment:    :         N/A

Building classification        :         9B

Application Type                  :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

 

4.0    SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

 

The subject land is located on the northern side of Liverpool Road, bounded by Fox's Lane to the east and Chessel Lane to the west. The site area is approximately 467.9 square metres. An existing three storey commercial building is located on the site.

 

Surrounding development is predominantly commercial and retail uses with the exception of a 2 storey residential flat building which is located to the rear of the site at 5-6 The Esplanade.

 

Ashfield Station is approximately 150metres from the site.

 

Refer to Attachment 1 for Locality Map.

 

5.0    DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

 

The use of the first floor of the building situated at 283-285 Liverpool Rd as a social gathering room during the day and a karaoke lounge at night has been the subject of several development applications since 2003 and has previously been approved by both Council and the NSW Land and Environment Court.

 

The use was first approved by Council’s Development Approvals Committee on 22 July 2003 with a 12 month trial period. This consent was never taken up.

 

The most recent approval granted by the Court in March 2007 was also subject to a 12 month trial period. This consent also lapsed as the use did not commence.

 

On 12 May 2009, Council granted a Deferred Commencement Consent DA 10.2009. 31.1 for the use of the subject premises as a place of assembly (social gatherings and presentation room) during the day and a karaoke lounge in the evening and at night. The Deferred Commencement condition required the following matters to be satisfied:-


 

“(A)   That all works as stipulated in Councils Emergency Fire Order No .6 dated 13 January 2005 be satisfactorily completed and certified by a competent practising Fire Consultant in accordance with the requirements of the Order and an original of the Certification be submitted to Council.

 

(B)    That the air conditioning compressor units located on the front awning of the building facing Liverpool Road be removed in accordance with Council’s Order No 2 & 4 dated 11 December 2007.”

 

On 11 May 2010, an application under S96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 was submitted to Council requesting an extension of six months to satisfy the Deferred Commencement Conditions prior to release of the Operational Consent. The application was approved on 12 May 2010.

 

On the 30 September 2010 the applicant submitted additional information as per Deferred Commencement conditions.

 

On 13 October 2010, the Deferred Commencement Consent became operational.

 

On 21 January 2011 a Section 96 Application (No. 2009.31.3) was submitted seeking approval to:-

 

1.      Modify the use of the first floor of the building from “a place of assembly (social gatherings and presentation room) during the day and a karaoke lounge in the evening and at night”

to

use of the first floor for the purpose of a karaoke lounge during day and night in accordance with the approved hours;

 

2.      Modifying condition H(7) to permit the sale of alcohol subject to the attainment of a liquor licence.

 

3.      Modifying condition H(3) of consent to extend operating hours so that it is changed from:

 

Sunday – Thursday   10am – 1am

Friday & Saturday      10am – 4am

to

Monday – Thursday  10am – 1am

Friday – Sunday        10am – 4am

 

Council approved the section 96 application except for the change in trading hours. However, amongst other things, the following additional conditions were also imposed:-

 

“A (4)        Additional Security Measures

 

Additional security measures have been recommended by Ashfield Police.


It is required that the applicant obtain relevant advice, from Ashfield Police, as to the necessary security measures required to be implemented for the safe operation of the premises. The applicant is to abide by the above advice and the recommended measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of operation of the premises. Written approval by Ashfield Police following the implementation of those measures is to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of operation of the premises.

 

            H (5)      Management of premises

 

The management must maintain an unfettered control over the operation of the business and the patrons attending the premises. At least two (2) security staff must be employed commencing at 5pm in winter and 6pm in summer (according to Eastern Standard Time). One is to be positioned at the entrance to the premised during the hours of operation and until the premises close.

 

The purpose of the condition is to ensure control is exercised over the operation of the premises so that there is no adverse impact on the amenity of the nearby neighbourhood in terms of noise or anti-social behaviour. Whether this objective has been achieved will be measured against observations made by Council staff from time to time and against any valid objections or comments made by nearby residents and/or the Police Department.”

 

6.0    ZONING/PERMISSIBILITY/HERITAGE

 

The site is zoned 3(a) - General Business under the provisions of Ashfield LEP 1985. The site is not located within a Conservation Area and is not a heritage item. The site is located within the vicinity of two heritage items at 281 Liverpool Road and 7 The Esplanade. The property is located within the Ashfield Town Centre.

 

7.0 96(1A) ASSESSMENT

 

Is the proposed modification of minimal environmental impact?

 

Comments:

The proposed modification to delete the trial period is not supported for the reason that the applicant/operator has not complied with the terms of the approved consent and managed the use appropriately.

 

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)?

 

Comments:

The modification does not substantially alter the development and as the modification is to a condition of development consent it will result in substantially the same development.


 

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

 

Comments:

The application was notified from 31 October 2012 until 23 November 2012 as required under Part C12 of ADCP. No objections were received. However, a submission was received from Ausgrid in respect to power supply to the site.

 

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 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

7.1    The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

7.1.1 Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with the LEP.

 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Not applicable.

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with the relevant SEPPs.

 

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

 

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 subject site is proposed to be zoned B4 Mixed Used in which the use is permissible.

 

7.3       The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with relevant DCPs.

 

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

 

Not applicable.


 

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

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application. It is considered that the proposed permanent use will have adverse environmental impacts in the locality.

 

The proposed use of the premises has resulted in 6 reported incidents from May 2011 to August 2012. Furthermore, the applicant has not complied with the conditions of the development consent namely Condition A(4) which required the applicant to contact Ashfield Police for advice on additional security measures.

 

Condition H(5) of the development consent has also not been complied with as the management are not maintaining appropriate control over the operation of the business and the patrons attending the premises.

 

7.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners, occupants, and Councillors from 31 October 2012 until 23 November 2012. Notification was checked during site inspection and was acceptable.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

One submission was received from Ausgrid regarding requirements for electrical power supply to the premises. See Attachment 2.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

The public interest would be best served by refusal of this proposal as there have been several incidents of anti-social behaviour from patrons. In addition, the required security measures as required by Ashfield Police have not been complied with.

 

8.0    REFERRALS

 

External referral

 

NSW Police- Ashfield

NSW Police - have verbally advised that they have been called out to the premises on 6 separate occasions over the past eighteen months in response to anti-social behaviour of patrons of the premises.


 

9.0    OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS

 

Not applicable.

10.0  BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA (BCA)

 

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

 

11.0  CONCLUSION

 

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

 

The proposal to continue the use is considered to be unacceptable and is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 2View

Submission from Ausgrid

1 Page

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Section 96(1A) Application No. 2009.31.4 to delete condition A (3), to allow for the permanent use of the first floor of the premises as a karaoke lounge on Lot B in DP190714 at 283- 285 Liverpool Road, Ashfield be refused in accordance with section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for the following reasons:-

 

(1)    Condition A(4) of the development consent has not been complied with as the applicant has not contacted Ashfield Police for additional security measures to be implemented on the premises.

 

(2)    Condition H(5) of the development consent has not been complied with as  the management are not maintaining an unfettered control over the operation of the business and the patrons attending the premises.

 

(3)    There have been 6 recorded incidents by Ashfield Police of drunken behaviour from patrons who have consumed alcohol at the premises and therefore the continuation of the use is not in the public interest.

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 2

 

Submission from Ausgrid

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 CM10.3

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2006.39.5
119 PROSPECT ROAD, ASHFIELD

 

File Ref                            10.2006.39.5

 

Prepared by                   Philip North - Specialist Planner       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         Council to determine the application

 

 

 


1.0    DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

 

An application pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, seeks Council’s approval to amend the existing consent as follows:-

 

·    Remove the approved playing surface from the roof of the enclosed swimming pool building;

·    Increase the overall height of the enclosed swimming pool building by 3.57m by reducing the depth of excavation; and

·    Altering the external appearance to adapt the structure to these modifications.

 

2.0       SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

 

It is considered that the proposed amendment substantially alters the compliance of the proposal with Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended) and the applicable development control plans.

 

In particular, the proposal is considered to have negative impacts upon the streetscape, nearby heritage items and heritage conservation areas and the amenity of adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, it is not supported by Council’s heritage adviser. The proposal is consequently considered to be unacceptable and is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

3.0    APPLICATION DETAILS

 

Applicant                               :         Trinity Grammar School

Address                                 :         119 Prospect Road SUMMER HILL  NSW  2130

Owner                                    :         The Council of Trinity Grammar School

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: 20 DP: 15765

Date lodged                          :         13/09/2012

Date of last amendment     :         23/11/2012

Building classification        :         9B

Application Type                  :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No


 

4.0    SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

 

Not altered by proposal.

 

5.0    DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

 

Development application 10.2006.39.1 was approved by the Land and Environment Court of NSW on 7 November 2007 for the construction of the following:

 

·    a multipurpose hall and weight training facility;

·    archives store;

·    amenities and counselling rooms;

·    swimming pool;

·    general sports playing surface above the swimming pool;

·    underground car park; and

·    building for general purpose learning areas.

 

A variety of subsequent amendments to the consent followed which are summarised in the table below. The most significant of these, is a Section 96 application 10.2006.39.4 which sought approval to delete the multi-purpose hall. The present application also proposes a relatively substantial amendment by increasing the height of the swimming pool enclosing structure and deleting the playing surface above it.

 

Summary of Amendments to Consent

DA No.

Details

Determination

Date

10.2006.39.1

Demolition of eleven dwelling houses situated at 113, 115 and 117 Prospect Road, 32-38 Seaview Street and 40, 40A and 42-44 Seaview Street, Summer Hill; and the construction upon that land and Lot 100 DP 1049869 of a new multipurpose hall and weight training facility, archives store, amenities and counselling rooms; swimming pool; underground carpark and building for general purpose learning areas

Refused

24.04.07

10.2006.39.1

Determination of application by Land and Environment Court of NSW

Approved by Court

07.11.07

10.2006.39.2

S96:  relocate driveway entrance

Approved

25.11.08

10.2006.39.3

S96:  amend conditions of consent re deposits

Approved

08.07.10

10.2006.39.4

S96:  delete multi-purpose hall

Approved

10.08.10

10.2006.39.5

S96: Increase height of pool building and delete rooftop playing surface

pending

pending

 

The subject application, No. 10.2006.39.5, was lodged on 13 September 2012. The following table summarises the key milestones in the progression of the application.

 

Milestones – Current Application

Date

Event

File no

19.07.12

Pre-lodgement meeting held and the following advice provided:-

·    Perspectives required to adequately determine heritage impacts;

·    Concern raised regarding extent of above ground structure

·    Boundary acoustic wall too high

·    Heritage impact of extensive glass facade

·    Further detail regarding front fence required

·    Front setback details required

9.2012.18

13.09.12

S96 lodged:  delete playing surface above pool and raising height

10.2006.39.5

14.11.12

Meeting held with applicant to discuss issues regarding s96:

·    Heritage impacts (scale, massing and materials)

·    Materials and finishes

·    Excessive height

·    Lack of modulation to achieve suitable streetscape rhythm

·    Excessive size of trees on boundary with Seaview Street properties

10.2006.39.5

14.11.12 to

23.11.12

Numerous phone discussions and emails between Council and applicant.

10.2006.39.5

23.11.12

Amended plans received including the following modifications:

·    Street elevation changed to include face brickwork and greater facade modulation;

·    Trees along boundary with Seaview Street properties changed to a smaller species.

10.2006.39.5

 

A formal pre-lodgement meeting was held at which the issues noted above were raised.

 

The s96 was lodged on 13 September 2012 without going through the customary Provisional DA process.

 

Assessment of the application identified various unresolved issues identified during the original pre-lodgement process which were discussed with the applicant at a meeting of 14 November 2012.


The applicant subsequently provided amended plans on 23 November 2012 which modified the proposal as follows:

·    Modification of the Prospect Road elevation with proud face brick panels to provide greater articulation;

·    Modification of the proposed planting to the boundary with the dwelling houses to the north to provide a smaller and less dominating tree species.

 

6.0    ZONING/PERMISSIBILITY/HERITAGE

 

The proposed amendments are permissible with Council consent.

 

7.0    SECTION 79C and 96(2) ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

Section 96(2) Assessment

 

“(a) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and “

 

Comment:

Although altered in height, scale and appearance, the amended application continues to propose an enclosed swimming pool in the same location and with the same footprint, albeit with the deletion of the rooftop playing surface.

 

As a result of the modifications the use of the overall site is not being altered and will continue as an educational establishment, therefore it is considered that the modifications will result in substantially the same development.

 

“(b) it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and”

 

Comment:

Not applicable.

 

“(c) it has notified the application in accordance with:

 

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or


 

(ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and”

 

Comment:

The proposed modifications were notified in accordance with Council's Development Control Plan 2007 Part C 12 Public Notification in the Planning Process. Refer to part 7.7 of this report.

 

“(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be”.

 

Comment:

Submissions have been considered under Section 7.7 below.

 

7.1    The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

7.1.1 Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

Due to its impacts upon the streetscape, nearby heritage items and conservation areas, it is considered that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the following clauses of Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (ALEP 1985):

 

·    clause 2(b) of Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (ALEP 1985) in that it does not retain and enhance the identity of the Ashfield area;

·    clause 32(3) in that it will have an adverse impact upon the heritage item existing on the site; and

·    clause 37 in that it will have an adverse impact upon the heritage items in the vicinity of the site and the heritage conservation areas in the vicinity of the site.

 

Consequently, it is considered that the proposed amendment fails to satisfy the provisions of the Plan.

 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Not applicable.

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with any relevant SEPPs.


 

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

 

Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

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

Complies

2.3

Zone objectives and land use table

Part SP2 Infrastructure and

Part R2 Low Density Residential

Educational Establishment

Yes

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

500m2

>500m2

Yes

4.3

Height of buildings

8.5m

8.5m

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

Part of site: no FSR

Part of site: 0.5:1

0.63:1

No

 

As demonstrated in the above table above table, the proposed development satisfies the principal provisions of Draft ALEP 2012 with the exception of the FSR standard.

 

Nevertheless, although Draft ALEP 2012 has been exhibited, its provisions in respect of this site are not yet certain given that the applicant has made a submission in respect of the draft requesting that the entirety of the site be rezoned SP2 – Infrastructure to be consistent with its currently approved use as an educational establishment. If this were the case, no FSR would apply to the site. Consequently, it is considered that DRAFT ALEP 2012 is not certain, particularly in respect of clause 4.4, and that this aspect of the draft instrument should be given little weight.

 

Despite this, due to its impacts upon the streetscape, nearby heritage items and conservation areas, it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the following clauses of Draft ALEP 2012:

·    1.2(2)(b)To retain and enhance the identity of the Ashfield area derived from its role as an early residential suburb; and

·    1.2(2)(c)To identify and conserve the environmental and cultural heritage of Ashfield.


7.3       The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with applicable DCPs.

 

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

 

Not applicable.

 

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

 

It is considered that the proposed amendments would have the following adverse environmental impacts upon the built environment:

 

·    Adverse streetscape impacts due to excessive height, scale and unsympathetic massing;

·    Adverse impacts upon adjacent properties due to excessive height and overbearing scale; and

·    Adverse impacts upon the nearby heritage items and heritage conservation 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.

 

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 2 October 2012 until 26 October 2012.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

Four submissions (Attachment 4) were received during the notification of the development application.

 

Submission

J & A Antonios

30 Seaview Street

Summer Hill NSW 2130

M Wise & P Giles

99 Prospect Road

Summer Hill NSW 2130

J Doherty

144 Prospect Road

Summer Hill NSW 2130

S van der Sluys

28A Seaview Street

Summer Hill NSW 2130

 

Submission Issue

Assessing Officer’s Comment

Noise impacts from above ground swimming pool.

The applicant has submitted an acoustic report which assesses the noise impacts and recommends the imposition of certain conditions of consent to address noise issues to render the acoustic impacts acceptable. These conditions will be imposed should the application be approved.

Health impacts of swimming pool chemical fumes upon nearby residences.

The proposal to increase the height of the approved swimming pool enclosure is unlikely to alter the fume/odour impacts of the current approval.

Tree root damage to rear of 30 Seaview Street from screening.

The proposed boundary planting has been amended from the originally proposed Quondong (mature height approx 15m) to the more diminutive Blueberry Ash (mature height approx 8m) which is a more suitably scaled tree for the locality and less likely to have adverse impacts upon neighbouring properties.

Not clear from the documents provided what amendments are actually sought.

An understanding of the amendments proposed is most readily gained by direct comparison between the plans of the previous approval and the current proposal. Nevertheless, the drawings have been amended to more clearly describe the amendments proposed.

Query regarding the motivation for raising the pool out of the ground.

The applicant advises that the design change is primarily due to economics and the high cost of excavation.

Elevations show the proposal in the context of existing dwellings currently owned by the school even though it is likely that these will be demolished in future to construct structures that are already approved.

It is customary for application drawings to depict surrounding buildings only either as existing or already approved for construction. It is not customary to show surrounding buildings speculatively as this is likely to be subject to change and would be misleading.

Adverse impact on Prospect Hall Conservation Area: Demolition of existing houses will destroy character of area and result in an institutional character.

Although the proposal is not located within the conservation area, it is located directly adjacent it and would have a clear impact upon it. It is agreed that the proposal lacks the appropriate scale, form and detail to relate comfortably to the conservation area.

Impact of traffic flow of proposed underground car park.

The proposed amendment would not increase the traffic flows associated with the underground car park.

Congestion and noise resulting from use of additional amenities including pool and sporting facilities.

The proposal removes a significant part of the original proposal (the playing surface) and consequently likely to reduce noise and congestion.

The proposed amendment is a totally new design.

The proposed amendment is a significant redesign of the original consent but is substantially the same in that the indoor swimming pool, coverage and layout is largely identical and changed primarily in respect of height and elevational detail.

The proposal will dominate the rear of 28A Seaview Street.

The height of the amended structure is 3.57m greater than that originally approved. The result is a vertical wall surface 8.2m in height (over natural ground level) to the rear of 28 and 30 Seaview Street. Under Ashfield DCP 2007, Part C15, dwellings in a 2a zone could ordinarily expect an adjacent structure to have a side wall height of no greater than 6m. The scale of this structure would consequently tower over and dominate these properties.

The amended proposal will have an even greater impact than the previous proposal.

Although the noise impacts of the amendment are likely to be lessened due to the removal of the outdoor playing surface, the bulk and scale impacts are significantly greater.

Impact of noise, artificial light and gases.

The proposed amendment would be unlikely to alter the extent of gasses/odours associated with the use and would be likely to decrease the noise due to the deletion of the outdoor playing surface. It may, however, result in increased light spill upon the dwellings in Seaview Street in the evenings due to the elevated glazed surfaces. Although the proposed screen planting on the boundary is likely to eventually address this issue, it is largely a consequence of the excessive height of the structure and should be moderated.

Internal headroom is inadequate and height of design will need to be increased.

Any increase in height would require a further application to Council which may or may not be approved.

Noise from ventilation plant likely to be audible in 28A and 30 Seaview Street.

The applicant has provided a variety of acoustic fencing devices and an acoustic report which indicates that the acoustic impacts of the proposed amendment upon adjacent properties would be acceptable.

The narrow and constricted space (between the boundary retaining wall and the acoustic wall) allowed for screen trees at the rear of the Seaview Street properties could be unworkable.

Agreed. Access for maintenance of these trees also appears to be an unresolved issue.

Stormwater runoff problems for adjacent properties.

The amended proposal has essentially the same site coverage as the approved proposal and is unlikely to alter the approved stormwater runoff situation.

Hours of operation could be between 5am and 10pm.

It should be noted that the hours of operation of the pool were approved by the Land and Environment Court in the original consent for the site. The hours of operation are not a component of the subject application and as such it is not open to Council to vary them by way of condition of consent or otherwise. The hours previously approved by the Court are as follows:

·    Monday to Friday: 5.30am to 10.00pm

·    Saturday       5.30am to 8.00pm

·    Sunday         closed except for up to 8 Sundays a year : 8.00am to   6.00pm.

Risk of damage to residential properties in Seaview Street during excavation and construction.

The proposed amendment involves significantly less excavation than the approved proposal and would be significantly less likely to result in and associated damage to adjacent properties (the amended excavation is more than 12m from the property boundary whereas the approved excavation is less than 6m from the property boundary and more than twice as deep). Despite this, conditions would be applied to any consent requiring the preparation of a dilapidation reports and the protection of and rectification of any damage to adjacent properties.

Inadequate space for the tree planting proposed.

It is agreed that the space allocated for tree planting proposed on the boundary with the Seaview Street properties is very tight.

Swimming centre is too close to northern neighbours.

The proposed amendment does not alter the proximity to neighbours of the original consent.

The aquatic centre should be relocated to Oval no. 3.

This is not the proposal before Council and consequently cannot be considered.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

The public interest would not be served by approval of this proposal, in particular with respect to its impacts upon the streetscape and the nearby and adjacent heritage conservation area and heritage items as well as its impacts upon adjacent residential properties at 28 and 30 Seaview Street.

 

8.0    REFERRALS

 

The proposal was referred to Council’s heritage adviser for comment (Attachment 3). The heritage adviser does not support the application in its current form.

 

9.0    OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS

 

Not applicable.

 

10.0  BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA (BCA)

 

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

 

11.0  CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as amended with all matters specified under Section 79C (1) Clauses (a) to (e) and Section 96(2) have been taken into consideration.

 

The proposal is considered to have negative impacts upon the streetscape, nearby heritage items and heritage conservation areas and the amenity of adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, Council’s heritage adviser has reviewed the proposal and does not support it. The proposal is consequently considered to be unacceptable and is therefore recommended for refusal.

 


 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of the Proposal

8 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Heritage Adviser Comments

1 Page

 

Attachment 4View

Submissions

14 Pages

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That development application no. 10.2006.5 for Section 96(2) amendments to delete the playing surface and increase the height of the enclosed swimming pool structure at 113 Prospect Road SUMMER HILL, 115 Prospect Road SUMMER HILL, 117 Prospect Road ASHFIELD, 44 Seaview Street ASHFIELD, 42 Seaview Street ASHFIELD, 40 Seaview Street ASHFIELD, 40A Seaview Street ASHFIELD, 38 Seaview Street ASHFIELD, 36 Seaview Street ASHFIELD, 34 Seaview Street ASHFIELD, 32 Seaview Street ASHFIELD, 119 Prospect Road SUMMER HILL, 113-119 Prospect Road SUMMER HILL, 117 Prospect Road SUMMER HILL, be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.   The proposed development does not comply with clause 2(b) of Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 in that it does not retain and enhance the identity of the Ashfield area.

2.   The proposed development does not comply with clauses 32(3) and 37 of Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 in that it will have an adverse impact upon the heritage item existing on the site, the heritage items in the vicinity of the site and the heritage conservation areas in the vicinity of the site.

3.   The proposed development does not comply with clause 1.2(2)(b) of Draft Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that it does not retain and enhance the identity of the Ashfield area.

4.   The proposed development does not comply with clause 1.2(2)(c) of Draft Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that it does not conserve the environmental and cultural heritage of Ashfield.

5.   The proposed development is inconsistent with Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in that it would have adverse impacts upon the built environment of the locality due to:

a.   excessive in height and scale;

b.   unsympathetic modulation and facade presentation to Prospect Road;

c.   excessive height and scale relationship to adjacent residential properties at 28 and 30 Seaview Street;

d.   unsympathetic relationship to nearby heritage items and heritage conservation area.

6.   The application is deficient in information in that it has not provided an adequately detailed schedule of materials, colours and finishes.

7.   The proposal is not in the public interest.

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment


Attachment 1

 

Plans of the Proposal

 









Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Heritage Adviser Comments

 


Attachment 4

 

Submissions

 















Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 CM10.4

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.216.1
75 PARK AVENUE, ASHFIELD

 

File Ref                            10.2012.216.1

 

Prepared by                   William Daskalopoulos - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 

 

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0   Description of Proposal

 

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 construction of a two storey addition to a semi detached dwelling house comprising of: -

 

i.          Living /dining room, kitchen, laundry and bathroom at the ground level; and

ii.         Master bedroom, ensuite and walk in wardrobe on the first floor level.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling house are mainly located to the rear of the property with the existing front façade to remain unchanged. The qualities and fabric of the existing façade which contribute to the character and identity of the property and the Park Ave Conservation Area are preserved.

 

In addition, Council’s Heritage Adviser has raised no objection to the development. Given the above, the proposed development is recommended for conditional approval.

 

Background

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         Mr A L Sims

Owner                                    :         Mr A L & Mrs G T Sims

Value of work                       :         $ 200,000

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: B DP: 85825

Date lodged                          :         29/10/2012

Date of last amendment     :         N/A

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 northern side of Park Ave, bounded by Shepherd Street to the west and Holden Street to the east. The site area is approximately 263.6m2. An existing single storey semi-detached brick dwelling house is located on the site.

 

Surrounding development comprises mainly dwelling houses. 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

10.2001.131

14/08/2001

Alts and adds to existing semi-detached dwelling

Approved

10.2012.98

26/6/2012

Alts and adds to existing semi-detached dwelling including a subfloor area

Approved

 

The current proposed development is similar to that development approved under Development Consent No. 2012.98. Particularly the roof height and form of approved DA 2012.98 is similar to the current proposed development.

 

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 Park Ave Conservation Area.

·    The property is a heritage item.

·    The property is located within the vicinity of a number of heritage items located at 73, 61, 87 & 89 Park Ave.

 

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

 

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 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.

Complies.

Allotment Size                        = 263.6m2

Width of front alignment         = 7.2m

 

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                  = 2

CLAUSE 30

Heritage provisions – aims

The aims of this Part are:

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

CLAUSE 32

Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics

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

1.

Requirement for development consent

Complies.

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

2.

Development consent not required

Not applicable.

3.

Assessment of impact on heritage significance

Complies.

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

4.

Requirement for conservation plan or heritage impact statement

Complies.

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

5.

Assessment criteria for development of land within heritage conservation areas.

Complies.

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 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.

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

Clause 32(3) of Ashfield LEP 1985 requires Council, when determining a development application, to assess the heritage significance of a heritage item or a 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 the heritage conservation area.

 

Comment

The proposed development was referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser who reports that he has no objection to the development. The proposed development is located at the rear of the dwelling house and is generally consistent with development in the Park Avenue Conservation Area. The development will have minimal impact on the Heritage Item and the Park Avenue Conservation Area.

 

Clause 32(5) of ALEP Report:

(a)  the relationship of the proposed development to the general pattern of development in the Conservation Area.

 

Comment

The proposed development will result in an increase in floor space. The development involves the construction of a two storey addition to the rear of an existing single storey dwelling house. It is considered that the development is consistent with the general pattern of development in the Park Avenue Conservation Area.

 

(b)  the roof pitch and form.

 

Comment

The existing pitched roof form at the front section of the dwelling house will remain unchanged. The proposed roof at the rear is lower than the roof at the front and is acceptable.

 

(c)  the style proportion size and position of openings for windows and doors.

 

Comment

Window openings are generally vertically proportioned and consistent with openings in the existing dwelling house and the Conservation area.

 

(d) compatibility of external finishes and colours with finishes and colours used in the Conservation Area.

 

Comment

The proposed external finishes are generally consistent with the preferred external finishes and colours in the Conservation Area.


 

(e) The layout, position, style, size and proportion of garden beds, plantings and paths.

 

 

Comment

The garden beds, plantings and paths are generally unchanged at the front of the dwelling house. The soft landscaped area on the western  and northern sides will be increased which will improve the total landscaping on the site. Garden beds, plantings and paths are considered to be consistent with those in the Conservation Area.

 

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

 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

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

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

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

 

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

 

A certificate in accordance with Clause No. 3(1)(a) of the SEPP (BASIX) 2004 has been submitted as part of this application. A condition will be imposed on the development consent requiring the proposed building works to comply with the commitments in the Basix Certificate obtained from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

 

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

Principal Development Data Table

Clause No.

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Compliance

2.2

Zoning

Zone R2 Low Density Residential

Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house

Yes

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

500

263.6 m2

No. However, the allotment is existing.

4.3

Height of buildings

8.5m

   6.9m  the height of the proposed addition

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

0.5:1

0. 63 :1

No. However ADCP allows a FSR of 0.7:1.

5.10

Heritage Conservation

Located in Park Avenue  Conservation Area.

5.10(4)

Effect on heritage significance

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

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

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

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

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

Satisfactory assessment by Council’s Heritage Adviser

Yes

 

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

The property is located in the Park Avenue Heritage Conservation Area. It is also a Heritage Item. Council’s Heritage Adviser has raised no objection to the proposed development.

C11

PARKING

See Part C11 report below

C12

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

Complies. The application has been notified as required by this part

C15

HOUSES & DUAL OCCUPANCIES

See Part C15 Report below.

 

Compliance table demonstrating the proposal performance against Council’s FSR, Landscaping area and height controls under Part C15.

 

Items

Required

Existing

Proposed

Does proposal comply?

Total Landscaped Area

Minimum required landscaped area

35% of total site area (92.26m˛)

Approximately

37.5%

(99m˛)

Approximately

35%

(92.2 m˛)

Yes

Floor Space Ratio

Maximum

0.7:1 (184.52m˛ GFA)

Approximately

0.45:1

(118.6m2)

Approximately

0.63:1

( 166 m˛GFA)

 

Yes

Wall Height

Maximum permitted height for

2 storeys (6m)

Single storey dwelling house

Two storey addition

(approximately  6.9m

No

Deep Soil Planting area

Minimum required landscaped area

70% of total required landscaped  area

 (64.5m2)

38.2m2

(41.4%)

65m2

(70.4%)

Yes

 

The eastern external wall adjacent to 73 Park Avenue has a height of 6.9m. Ashfield DCP allows a wall height greater than 6m where dwelling houses have elevated floors and are on sloping sites. The subject property has an elevated timber floor in the front section and a concrete slab in the rear section of the dwelling house.


The land slopes down approximately 1.3m from Park Avenue to Park Lane, consequently, the additional height is acceptable.

 

The height of the proposed eastern wall addition is similar in height to that of the eastern wall approved by Council under Development Consent 2012.98.

 

Part C11 Report :

 

The DCP requires at least one car space but preferably two car spaces behind the building line of the dwelling house. The proposed development does not alter the existing car parking arrangement on the site. There is an existing car parking space at the rear of the property accessed from Park Lane. The proposed development complies with the car-parking requirements of Part C11 of Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007.

 

Part C15 Houses and Dual Occupancies:

 

Scale and bulk

 

The proposal seeks approval for alterations and construction of a two storey addition to the existing dwelling house. The height and bulk is consistent with other dwellings within its vicinity.

 

The subject site has a maximum allowable FSR requirement of 0.7 :1. The existing Floor Space Ratio is 0.45:1 and with the proposed additions the new FSR is will 0.63:1 below the maximum permitted FSR.

 

Aesthetics:

 

The Ashfield Development Control Plan requires that new developments be sympathetic to the context of the site, and have a high standard of architectural composition.

 

The proposal is considered to be sympathetic in its context. In addition the development is lower than the front ridge height and does not compete with the main roof of the dwelling house.

 

Landscape and Site Layout:

 

The ADCP requires a landscaped area of 35% (92.26m2) of the site area and a minimum 70% (64.5m2) of the landscaped area be capable of deep soil planting.

 

The proposed landscape area is 92.2 m2 (35 %) and therefore complies. The proposed deep soil planting area is 65m2 (70 %) and also complies.

 

Amenity for neighbours:

 

The ADCP requires that solar access is not reduced to less than three hours between 9am and 3pm on the 21 June. 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.


 

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

 

The property has a north/south orientation therefore overshadowing to adjoining properties is minimised. The rear yards of the adjoining properties will still receive sunlight during midwinter in accordance with the provisions of ADCP.

 

North facing windows of the adjoining property at 77 Park Avenue will receive more than the required 3 hours of sunlight on 22 June. The property at 73 Park Avenue currently does not receive three hours of sunlight on 22 June to north facing windows due to the fact that an existing awning on that property overshadows the northern wall of the dwelling house.

 

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

 

Ecological Sustainable Development:

 

A BASIX certificate has been submitted for the proposed development..

 

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. Necessary fire safety measures have been incorporated into the recommendation of this report as conditions.

 

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. An engineering certificate (Attachment 3) prepared by Harrison & Morris Consultancy P/L has been submitted as part of this application stating that the proposed roof, wall and floor structures shall not rely on the existing party wall for lateral or vertical support.

 

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

 

There are no site constraints and it is considered that the site is suitable for the development.


 

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

 

The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants and Councillors from 15 May 2012 until 31 May 2012.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

One submission (Attachment 6) was received during the notification of the development application:

 

Submissions

 

Xiao Ping Li & Zi An Xiog

73 Park Ave, Ashfield

 

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

 

Concerns raised

 

1.      Party Wall & Joining roof;

2.      Sunlight and over-shadowing;

3.      Impact on outlook from our window;

4.      Aesthetics of the proposal.

5.      Water leakage during construction work.

 

Officer’s comments

 

1.                An engineering certificate (Attachment 3) prepared by Harrison & Morris Consultancy P/L has been submitted as part of this application stating that the proposed roof, wall and floor structures will not rely on the existing party wall for lateral or vertical support;

 

2.                The north facing window of the objector’s property is already overshadowed by an existing awning installed on the northern wall of the objector’s dwelling house covering the full length of the northern window.

 

3.      The view to Alma Street is a distant view from the rear of the properties in Park Avenue to the north. The development has a north-south orientation and generally maintains views from neighbouring properties to the north.

 

It is considered that the proposed development does not significantly or unreasonably reduce the amenity enjoyed by the occupants of adjoining dwellings.

 

4.      The proposed development has employed a skilful design that would allow the current or the future owner of the objector’s property to employ a mirror image design resulting in a sympathetic design that would be compatible with the character of the existing building and the area.


 

5.      A condition is recommended that a dilapidation report be prepared by the applicant. A further condition is also recommended that precautions be taken to stop stormwater entering the objectors property during construction works.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

The proposal satisfies amenity considerations with respect to neighbouring properties and will have no significant adverse impact on the streetscape. Given the above and the proposal’s compliance with the aims and objectives of ALEP 1985 and ADCP 2007, the proposed development warrants support.

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Heritage Adviser

 

The application was reviewed by Council’s Heritage Adviser - no issues have been raised to the proposed development.

 

Engineering

 

The application was referred to Council's Engineers for consideration. No issues have been raised to the proposed development and relevant conditions have been recommended.

 

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 to be applied for by condition of consent.

 

Financial Implications

 

The proposed development will attract contribution levies under S94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the value of work is greater than $100,000.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

See Section 8.1 of this report.


 

Public Consultation


See Section 7.7 of this report.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

The proposal is acceptable and is therefore recommended for conditional approval.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of the Proposal

14 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Engineering Certificate

1 Page

 

Attachment 4View

Heritage Adviser Comments

1 Page

 

Attachment 5View

Conditions

11 Pages

 

Attachment 6View

Submission

3 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) approve Development Application No. 10.2012.216.1 for alterations and two storey addition to an existing semi-detached dwelling house on Lot B in DP: 85825, known as 75 Park Ave, Ashfield, subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of the Proposal

 















Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Engineering Certificate

 


Attachment 4

 

Heritage Adviser Comments

 


Attachment 5

 

Conditions

 












Attachment 6

 

Submission

 




Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 CM10.5

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.161.1
150 DALHOUSIE STREET, HABERFIELD

 

File Ref                            10.2012.161.1

 

Prepared by                   Haroula Michael - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         Council to determine the application

 

 

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0    Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application is seeking Council to review its determination for the:-

 

Construction of a new open covered structure in the rear yard.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

It is recommended that Council can support this Section 82A review for the reason that the applicant has now adequately satisfied the reasons for refusal namely that adequate landscaping is now provided.

 

Background

 

On the 13 August 2012 the applicant lodged a development application for the construction of a new open covered structure in the rear yard.

 

A site inspection undertaken by Council revealed a number of works undertaken on site prior to the consent of Council and consist of the following:-

 

·    The driveway was concreted;

·    The majority of the rear yard has been concreted with the exception of 9sqm of landscaped area;

·    A pergola/carport constructed to the side of the dwelling; and

·    A front timber picket fence erected.

 

On the 4 September 2012 the application was refused for the following reasons:-

 

1.   “The objection lodged pursuant to SEPP was considered not to be well founded and not supported”.


 

2.   “The proposal fails to comply with Clause 35(2)(b) Landscaped area of Ashfield LEP 1985 as it fails to provide the required landscaped area”.

 

3.   “The proposal fails to comply with aims and objectives of part C7 of Haberfield Heritage Conservation area and will have an adverse impact on the significance of Haberfield Conservation Area.”

 

4.   “The proposal is considered to be contrary to the objectives of Haberfield Conservation Area and is not supported on heritage grounds.”

 

5.   “The proposal is not in the public interest.”

 

6.   “The subject property has significant unauthorised building works.”

 

The applicant has now requested a review of the determination under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The proposal has been amended to incorporate an additional 10.8sqm of soft landscaping in the form of a grass strip within the existing driveway.

 

The unauthorised works incorporating the front fence and pergola/carport to the side of the dwelling house, does not form part of this Section 82A Review.

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :Miss R Aversa

Owner                                    :Mr A Costa & Miss R Aversa

Value of work                       :$10,000.00

Lot/DP                                   :LOT: B DP: 442367

Date lodged                          :13/08/2012

Date of last amendment     :12 October 2012

Building classification        :10a

Application Type                  :Local

Construction Certificate     :No

Section 94A Levy                :No

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Dalhousie Street, bounded by Waratah Street to the north and martin Street to the south.  The site area is approximately 356.77 square metres.  An existing semi detached federation cottage, carport and pergola is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises residential development.

 

Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.


 

5.0    Development History

 

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

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

6.1978.87

22/3/1978

Carport

Approved

10.2012.161

4/9/2012

Covered structure in rear yard.

Refused

 

Previous consents are relevant to the current proposal in particular the refusal for Development Consent number 10.2012.161 as the applicant seeks a review of this determination under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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 not 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

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

82A Review of determination

 

(1) If the consent authority is a council, an applicant may request the council to review a determination of the applicant’s application, other than:

(a) a determination to issue or refuse to issue a complying development certificate, or

(b) a determination in respect of designated development, or

(c) a determination in respect of integrated development, or

(d) a determination made by the council under Division 4 in respect of an application by the Crown.

 

(2) A council must, on a request made in accordance with this section, conduct a review.

(2A) A determination cannot be reviewed:

(a) after the time limited for the making of an appeal under section 97 expires, if no such appeal is made against the determination, or


 

(b) after an appeal under section 97 against the determination is disposed of by the Court, if such an appeal is made against the determination.

 

Comment:

The application for review is made within the 6 months time limit for an appeal under section 97, and therefore the Section 82A Review can be considered.

 

(3A) In requesting a review, the applicant may make amendments to the development described in the original application, subject to subsection (4) (c).

 

(4) The council may review the determination if:

(a) it has notified the request for review in accordance with:

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii) a development control plan, if the council has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of requests for the review of its determinations, and

(b) it has considered any submissions made concerning the request for review within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be, and

(c) in the event that the applicant has made amendments to the development described in the original application, the consent authority is satisfied that the development, as amended, is substantially the same development as the development described in the original application.

 

Comment:

The request to review the determination has been notified in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy Part C12 of the Ashfield Development Control Plan (ADCP) 2007.

 

No submissions have been received during the notification period of the Section 82A review.

 

The proposal incorporates an amendment to the proposal with the inclusion of a new grass strip within the existing driveway. However, it is considered that the proposal is substantially the same development as the development described in the original application.

 

(4A) As a consequence of its review, the council may confirm or change the determination.

 

(6) If the council reviews the determination, the review must be made by:

(a) if the determination was made by a delegate of the council-the council or another delegate of the council who is not subordinate to the delegate who made the determination, or

(b) if the determination was made by the council-the council.


 

Comment:

The original application was determined under delegated authority and the Section 82A review determination is to be made by the Council.

 

(10) If on a review the council grants development consent, or varies the conditions of a development consent, the council is entitled, with the consent of the applicant and without prejudice to costs, to have an appeal made under section 97 in respect of its determination withdrawn at any time prior to the determination of that appeal.

 

7.1.1 Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

The subject site is zoned 2(a) Residential and the proposal is permissible with consent.

 

Section 82A Review Assessment

 

The following is an assessment as to how the applicant has addressed the reasons for refusal:-

 

Reasons for refusal 1 and 2:-

 

1.   “The objection lodged pursuant to SEPP is considered not to be well founded and not supported”.

2.   “The proposal fails to comply with Clause 35(2)(b) Landscaped area of Ashfield LEP 1985 as it fails to provide the required landscaped area”.

 

Comment:

In the original proposal the applicant provided 64.6sqm (18.1%) of soft landscaping, significantly less than the 50% requirement.

 

The applicant has revised the scheme to provide 75.4sqm (21.1%) soft landscaping. Whilst this does not achieve the minimum required of 178.385sqm (50% of the site area) in this instance it is supported for the following reasons:-

 

·    An additional 10.8sqm of soft landscaping in the form of a grass strip to the existing driveway will improve the streetscape presentation of the semi-detached dwelling.

·    The overall landscaped area does not affect the presentation of the dwelling-house.

·    The applicant will maintain a useable 'landscaped area' to the rear of the dwelling-house.

·    The site includes areas for the absorption of stormwater.

·    Achieving a 50% landscaping standard is unrealistic for a semi-detached dwelling on a small allotment and the extent of landscaping is reasonable in the circumstances.


 

Refer to Attachment 3 for SEPP No. 1 Objection.

 

Reason for refusal 3 and 4:-

 

3.   “The proposal fails to comply with aims and objectives of part C7 of Haberfield Heritage Conservation area and will have an adverse impact on the significance of Haberfield Conservation Area”.

 

4.   “The proposal is considered to be contrary to the objectives of Haberfield Conservation Area and is not supported on heritage grounds.”

 

Comment:

Council’s heritage adviser raised concerns with the excessive concrete/paving to the subject site and stated that the proposed structure may be acceptable if extensive areas of the concrete are replaced with lawn or garden bed, with driveway strips along the driveway.

 

The soft landscaped area is being increased by an additional 38.6sqm in the rear yard and a 10.8sqm grass strip within the existing driveway. In order to further increase the soft landscaping a condition has been imposed for an additional grass strip to the existing driveway forward of the front building line.

 

Therefore, given the increase and reinstatement of soft landscaping to the site it is considered that the objectives of Part C7 of the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area have now been satisfied.

 

Reason for refusal 5:-

 

5.   “The proposal is not in the public interest.”

 

Comment:

The amended scheme is in the public interest and should be supported.

 

Reason for refusal 6:-

 

6.   “The subject property has significant unauthorised building works.”

 

Comment:

The applicant has stated that the pergola/carport structure located to the side of the dwelling was in existence prior to the property being purchased by the current owner. The applicant also states that the existing metal fence was remove and replaced with a federation style front fence.

 

The unauthorised works has not been considered as part of this Section 82A review and will be further investigated by Council’s compliance officer.


 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

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

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (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 proposed works.

 

Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

Summary Compliance Table

Clause No.

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Compliance

2.2

Zoning

Zone R2 Low Density Residential

Covered structure

Yes

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

500m2

356.77m2 (existing site area)

N/A

4.3

Height of buildings

7m

2.81m (highest point of covered structure)

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

0.5:1

0.4:1 (The proposal does not seek to alter the existing floor space ratio).

Yes

5.10

Heritage Conservation

Located in:

·  Haberfield Conservation Area C42

 

5.10(4)

Effect on heritage significance

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

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

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

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

 

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

Council’s heritage adviser raised concerns with the extent of concrete paving on the site. Refer to part 8.1 of this report for further details.

N/A

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.

No gross floor area above the ground floor proposed.

N/A

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.

No gross floor area below the ground floor of the dwelling is proposed.

N/A

6.1(2)(c)

 

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

No dormer or gablet windows are proposed.

Yes

6.1(2)(d)

 

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

21.1%

No

 

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 in compliance table below.

C10

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

The proposed open covered structure in the rear yard is not considered to detract from the objectives of the heritage conservation area.

C11

PARKING

The subject site currently provides on site parking and this will not be altered as a result of the proposed review.

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 and 7.7.1 of this report for details.

C15

HOUSES & DUAL OCCUPANCIES

It is considered that the modified scheme lodged for the Section 82A review is considered to meet the objectives of this part. Further assessment is made under part 7.1 of this report.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants, the Haberfield Association and Councillors from 13 November 2012 until 28 November 2012.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

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


 

7.8    The public interest

 

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

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Heritage Adviser:– Council’s heritage advisor raised concerns with the extent of concrete to the subject site and the effects that the concrete had on the brickwork to the dwelling house. Council’s heritage adviser has stated that the structure in the rear yard would be acceptable with extensive areas of concrete being removed and replaced with lawn or garden beds and with driveway strips for the vehicular travel along the driveway.

 

Comment:

The proposal seeks to reduce the amount of hard paving by increasing the soft landscaping area by 49.4sqm. The proposal includes a new grass strip within the existing driveway, however, a further condition has been recommended requiring the grass strip to be extended of 900mm be included from the front boundary of the site to the front wall of the dwelling-house.

 

Comments from Council’s Heritage Adviser are included at Attachment 4.

 

Engineering: No objections raised, subject to conditions.

 

8.2    External

 

Not applicable.

 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

Section 94A Contribution Plan

 

The costs of works have been nominated as $10,000 therefore the proposal is excluded from the Section 94A contribution plan.

 

Haberfield Conservation Study 1986

 

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

 

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

 

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

1 Page

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

SEPP 1 Objection

3 Pages

 

Attachment 4View

Heritage Advice

1 Page

 

Attachment 5View

Compliance Tables

8 Pages

 

Attachment 6View

Conditions

6 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

A       That the objection to Clause 35(2)(b) of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended), lodged pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1, is considered to be well-founded and it is recommended that the objection be supported; and

 

B      That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) approve Development Application No. 10.2012.161.1 for the construction of a new open covered structure in the rear yard on Lot B in DP: 442367, known as 150 Dalhousie Street, Haberfield, subject to conditions.

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 


Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

SEPP 1 Objection

 




Attachment 4

 

Heritage Advice

 


Attachment 5

 

Compliance Tables

 








Attachment 6

 

Conditions

 







Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 CM10.6

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.204.1
49 CROYDON ROAD, CROYDON

 

File Ref                            DA 10.2012.204.1

 

Prepared by                   Daisy Younan - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         Council to determine the application

 

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0    Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Clause 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council’s consent for the demolition of the rear portion of the existing two storey terrace and construction of two storey rear addition.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The proposed development will not extend beyond the existing rear wall of the existing terrace. It does not dominate or compete with the original shape, height, proportion or scale of the existing building. It respects the character and identity of the property and maintains similar site coverage to that of the area.

 

Additionally, the proposed development has been reviewed by Council’s heritage adviser and no issues have been raised.

 

The development is recommended for conditional approval.

 

Background

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         Jaime Kleinert Architects Pty Ltd

Owner                                    :         Mr N A Narbey & Ms T N Rasmussen

Value of work                       :         $80,000

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: 2 DP: 215854

Date lodged                          :         12/10/2012

Date of last amendment     :         N/A

Building classification        :         1a

Application Type                  :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

Section 94A Levy                :         No


 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Croydon Road, bounded by Elizabeth Street to the south and Hunt Street to the North. The site area is approximately 182.4m2. An existing two storey terrace house, being one of a row of three terraces, is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises residential establishments.

 

Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.

 

5.0    Development History

 

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

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

5.1997.203

11/12/1997

Demolition of the rear portion of the existing two storey terrace and construction of two storey rear addition.

Approved

 

No conditions have been imposed on previous consents to restrict, in any form, the redevelopment of the subject site.

 

Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

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

·    The property is a heritage item.

·    The property is located within the vicinity of two heritage items being the properties located at 47 and 51 Croydon Rd.

 

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 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.”

 

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

 

Officer’s comments

 

The proposed rear addition will not result in any modifications to the front façade or compete with the original shape, height, proportion or scale of the existing building. It respects the character and identity of the property and maintains similar site coverage to that of the area. In addition, the proposed development is considered compatible with the adjoining terrace located at 47 Croydon Road

 

The proposal will result in an improvement to the amenity of the dwelling with no adverse streetscape impacts. The proposal also complies with the provisions of the Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

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

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

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


 

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

 

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

 

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 is not considered contrary to the aims or objectives of the Draft Ashfield LEP 2012.

Yes

2.2

Zoning

Zone R2 Low Density Residential

Dwelling House

Yes

4.3

Height of buildings

8.5m

Max 5.8m

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

0.7:1 (70%)

Given that the definition of GFA in the draft LEP 2012 takes measurements from the internal face of the external inclosing walls, the proposed GFA would be less than 60%.

Yes

5.10

Heritage Conservation

 

 

Objectives

 

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Ashfield,

(b) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage

conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

(c) to conserve archaeological sites,

(d) to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

The proposed development has been reviewed by Council’s heritage adviser and no issues have been raised.

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.

The proposed development has been reviewed by Council’s heritage adviser and no issues have been raised. A heritage management plan has not been requested in this instance.

Yes

 

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:

 

The following compliance table outlines the proposal’s performance against the Council’s principle planning controls:

 

Items

Required

Proposed

Does proposal comply?

Total/Soft Landscaped Area

Determined on merit, subject to provision of a minimum rear courtyard area with deep soil area of 20m2 with a minimum width of 3.5 m. Provision of a front garden areas complying with the objectives of Section 4-Landscape

Approximately

48.3%

(88.12 m˛ comprising an area of approximately 25.92m2 at front garden and an area of approximately 62.2m2 at the rear yard)

Yes

 

Floor Space Ratio

Maximum FSR is assessed on merit, subject to :

- an adequate level of amenity is provided for neighbours in terms of solar access and privacy and the applicable requirements of Section 5 – Amenity for neighbours are met.

- architectural composition complies with the applicable objectives of Section 3-Aesthetics

Approximately

60.97%

(111.21 m˛ of gross floor area)

Yes

Height

Maximum permitted height for

2 storeys (6m)

Two storey rear addition (5.8m)

Yes

 

 

C10

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

The proposed development is considered consistent with part C10 of Ashfield DCP 2007 which aims to keep the qualities and fabric which contribute to the heritage significance and identity of the Ashfield local government area and to allow necessary change, but only where it will not remove or detract from those special qualities.

 

The proposed development will not result in any modifications to the front facade keeping the quality and fabric which contribute to the heritage significance of the item. It will not be visible from the street nor dominate or compete with the original shape, height, proportion or scale of the existing building.

 

The proposed development respects the character and identity of the property and its contribution to the identity of the area by maintaining similar site coverage to that of the area.

C11

PARKING

The proposed development does not involve any modifications to the existing car-parking setting on site which does not allow for off street car-parking.

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 the rear portion of the existing two storey terrace house and the reconstruction of a new two storey rear addition that will not extend beyond the existing rear wall of the existing terrace.

 

Solar access

 

Given that the proposed rear addition mainly occupy the existing footprint, no additional impact on the solar access of adjoining properties is created by the proposed development.

 

The shadow cast, on 21 June, during the morning and midday will fall towards the adjoining property located at No. 47 Croydon Rd. However, the morning shadow will not fall on the rear yard of that adjoining property which has no north facing windows. Midday shadows will mainly fall within the shadows of the existing building located on the subject site while the afternoon shadows will fall only on the subject site and not on any other adjoining properties.

 

Building Setbacks

 

The proposed rear addition provides no setbacks from the side property boundaries, which consistent with other row dwellings. The proposed nil setbacks from either property boundaries are considered acceptable in this instance.

 

Privacy

 

The proposed development is considered compatible with the adjoining terrace located at 47 Croydon Road.

 

However, in order to preserve privacy arrangements a condition will be imposed on the development requiring the depth of first floor balcony to be reduced from 1.2m to 0.9m and the installation of a privacy screen on either side of balcony with 0.5m return from the north side. The condition will also require that obscure glass is used for balcony balustrades. The proposed development, as conditioned, will not have an unacceptable impact on the privacy of the adjoining neighbour.

 

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. Necessary fire safety measures have been incorporated into the recommendation of this report as conditions.

 

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 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 17 October 2012 until 02 November 2012.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

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


 

7.8    The public interest

 

The proposal satisfies amenity considerations with respect to both site and the neighbouring properties and will have no adverse impact on the streetscape. Given the above and the proposal’s compliance with the aims and objectives of ALEP 1985 and ADCP 2007, it is considered that support for the proposal is in the public interest.

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Heritage Adviser

 

The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s heritage adviser - no issues have been raised to the proposed development.

 

(Heritage comments are included in Attachment 3).

 

Building

 

The application was referred to Council's building surveyor and technical aspects of compliance with the BCA have been addressed in relevant conditions of consent.

 

Engineering

 

The application was referred by Council's engineering department. No issues have been raised to the proposed development and relevant conditions have been provided.

 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

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

 

10.0  Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

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

 

Financial Implications

 

The proposed development will not attract contribution levies under S94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the estimated work value is below $100,000.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

See Section 8.1 of this report.


 

Public Consultation


See Section 7.7 of this report.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

The proposal is acceptable and is therefore recommended for conditional approval.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

8 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Heritage Advice

1 Page

 

Attachment 4View

Conditions

10 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. 10.2012.204 for the demolition of the rear portion of the existing terrace and construction of two storey rear addition on Lot 2 in DP: 215854, known as 49 Croydon Road, Croydon, subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 11 December 2012 CM10.7

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2011.144.1
120C OLD CANTERBURY ROAD SUMMER HILL


 

File Ref                            DA 10.2011.144.1

 

Prepared by                   Daisy Younan - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 

 

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0    Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Clause 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council’s consent for the construction of a factory/warehouse building, with associated offices, car-parking and caretaker's residence.

 

In August 2012, the proposed development was revised following comments from Sydney Water regarding potential flooding of the subject site. These amendments involved the submission of a revised statement of environmental effects and amended plans incorporating new levels for the access bridge over the canal and new levels for the building which is proposed to sit on fill.

 

The proposal was further amended to modify the alignment and levels of the access bridge to enable the adjoining owner’s consent to be obtained and in November 2012, additional details were provided in relation to the intended use of the building. The building is proposed to be used for the purposes of an industry involving the manufacturing of replacement building features used predominately in the restoration of heritage buildings. The site will also be used for the storage of equipment used for emergency work such as structurally stabilising heritage buildings.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

1.0    Background

 

The development, as originally proposed, was put to Council (Click on web link: http://210.247.155.6/BusinessPapers/Open/2011/CM_22112011_AGN_AT_WEB.HTM) for determination over 12 months ago with a recommendation of refusal for the following reasons:

 

1. Owner’s consent is not provided for the reconstruction of the existing bridge (owned by Sydney Water) located over the stormwater channel abutting the north and east property boundaries within the right of way.


 

2. The factory building is proposed to have its ground floor level at an RL of 10.6m (which is below the 100 year ARI design flood level relevant for the subject site as indicated by Sydney Water) which suggests possibilities for the proposed building to be inundated in the 100 year ARI event.

3. The proposed building would form a considerable impediment to possible future flood mitigation options in the area and would likely obstruct overbank floodway areas.

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

 

Council, at its meeting held on Tuesday 22nd November 2011, resolved:

 

“That the Development Application No. 10.2011.144 for the construction of a factory/warehouse style building, with the associated offices, car-parking and caretaker's residence, to be used for manufacturing or warehousing on Lot 100 in DP: 875660, known as 120C Old Canterbury Road, Summer Hill be deferred to allow the applicant to seek legal advice with respect to the flood management study.”

 

After a number of discussions with the applicant on progress in early 2012 a letter was sent on 30th May 2012 seeking amended plans addressing issues raised (including flooding) to be submitted to Council by the end of June 2012.

 

On 4th June 2012 Council received a letter from applicant advising that:

 

§ The recommendations of the catchment wide flood study conducted by Sydney Water were for revised building floor levels and revised site access level;

§ A revised design, based on the recommended building floor levels and revised site access level, has been submitted to Sydney Water and the applicant is awaiting a response to the revised design.

 

On 2nd August 2012, Council received amended plans incorporating changes which proposed filling almost the entire site by almost 2m and modifying the building floor levels so that they were raised as follows:

 

§ from 10.6m to12.00m (ground floor level);

§ from 14.40m to 15.80m (first floor level); and

§ from 17.9m to 19.3 (second floor level).

 

This amended proposal was notified to relevant internal departments, external state agencies/authorities and owners/occupants of neighbouring properties from the 7th August 2012 to 30th August 2012.

 

On 8th August 2012, a letter was sent to applicant requesting additional information to be submitted to facilitate further assessment of the proposal.


 

On 11st September 2012 in response to referral of the amended proposal, a draft response was received from Sydney Water raising issues of concern in relation to the filling of the site. However, it was indicated that this issue was ultimately a matter for Council to determine.

 

In response to Council’s letter dated 8th August 2012, further amendments were made to the right of way on the adjoining neighbour’s property (grading of the approach to the new Hawthorne Canal bridge) which provides access to the subject site. However, the applicant was not able to obtain the adjoining owner’s consent for these works.

 

The second amended proposal was notified to relevant internal departments, external state agencies/authorities and owners/occupants of neighbouring properties.

 

In response to this second referral, Sydney Water raised concerns with the revised levels of the right of carriageway and bridge (detailed on plans - issue E) and advised that it was not prepared to support these changes. It was, however, still supportive of the alignment and height of the bridge detailed in the previous amended plans (issue D).

 

On 23 November, a meeting has been held between Council staff and the owners of the property and their representatives. During the meeting, the following issues were discussed:

 

1.   Sydney Water concerns;

2.   Filling of the site;

3.   Permissibility; and

4.   Adjoining owner’s consent

 

Council officers advised the applicant that a recommendation in support of the proposal would only be put forward on the following basis:

 

1.   The new bridge alignment and height and approaches to the bridge being based on Issue D plans;

2.   The building and car park area being supported on pier and beam construction (i.e. no fill being introduced to the site) to allow the site to accept overland flows from Hawthorne Canal and minimize potential downstream flooding impacts;

3.   Clarification to be provided on the use of the site to ensure that it was permissible;

4.   That the proposal would require a deferred commencement consent so that adjoining owner’s consent could be obtained for works on the adjoining right of way and for a separate development application to be submitted for these works (asphalt works and grading around the new bridge).

 

The applicant subsequently provided more specific advice concerning the use of the site which is considered acceptable.


 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The proposal is recommended for approval on the basis of the matters raised above and it is recommended that the deferred commencement requirement (owner’s consent for the works on the right of way) be provided within 12 months of the date of issue of the consent.

 

 

 

Background

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               : Mr M Kitmiridis

Owner                                    : Messers R & T P Timperi

Value of work                       : $816,556

Lot/DP                                   : LOT: 100 DP: 875660

Date lodged                          : 21/06/2011

Date of last amendment     : 23 November 2012- Amended Statement of Environmental

                                                  Effects

Application Type                  : Integrated

Construction Certificate     : No

Section 94A Levy                : Yes

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located between the goods railway line and the Hawthorne Canal on the north side of Old Canterbury Road bounded by Edward Street to the west. The subject site is not accessible from Old Canterbury Road but is accessed from McGill Street, Lewisham which is located in the Municipality of Marrickville Council. Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.

 

5.0    Development History

 

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

 

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

10.2010.235

24/11/2010

Construction of a new factory with associated offices, car-parking and caretaker residence.

Withdrawn

10.2001.216

02/10/2001

Alterations and additions to an existing factory and construction of a new factory with associated offices and car-parking.

Refused

 


 

As part of the assessment of the previous development application, a site inspection was carried out and revealed that extractive materials as defined by State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 are being stored on site which gives rise to the possibility that an extractive industry was being carried out on site. During the site meeting the owners indicated that they operate, off site, a restoration/construction business known as Stone Mason and Artist P/L. The business involves stone cutting, crushing and separating stones into different sizes. Such a process would be a prohibited development under Ashfield LEP 1985 if it were being carried out on the subject site.

 

The site inspection also revealed that significant trees had been cut down. The above matters were referred to Council’s compliance office for consideration. Upon negotiation with the owners, action in relation to these matters has been deferred pending the determination of the current application.

 

Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

·    The site is zoned 4(b) - Light Industrial and 5(b) – Special Uses (Railways)

 

The subject site comprises 2 separate lots being:

 

1.   Lot 100 in DP 875660 zoned 4(b) Light Industrial; and

2.   Lot 1 in DP 817359 zoned 5(b) Special Uses (Railways) under the provisions of Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

The site access extends over an existing stormwater channel being the Hawthorne Canal which is owned by Sydney Water. Being an Integrated Development, the proposal was referred to the Department of Water and Energy (refer to Section 8.2 of this report for further comments).

 

The amended proposal also is seeking an approval for the use of the proposed building and subject site for an industry involving the manufacturing of replacement building features used predominately in the restoration of heritage buildings. The site will also be used for the storage of equipment used for emergency work such as structurally stabilising heritage buildings. It has been outlined in the revised Statement of Environmental Effects (SOEE) prepared by GSA Planning dated 23 November 2012 that “stone will not be processed on the subject site as the intended occupier of the site, Stone Mason Artist, has two processing plants elsewhere in NSW” (refer to Section 6.0 of this report for further comments).

 

The proposed use, as amended, does not appear to be one of those listed on Schedule 4 of Ashfield LEP 1985 and hence is permissible.


 

The proposed filling of the western portion of the subject site is not permissible and has been opposed by Sydney Water and Council’s hydraulic engineer. A condition will be included in the consent which requires the building to be of pier and beam construction to minimize downstream flooding impacts.

 

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 proposal generally complies with the provisions of the Ashfield LEP.

 

1.          Clause No. 10 - under Zone 4(b) Light Industrial:

 

ˇ Dwellings used in conjunction with industries and situated on the same land as the industries are permissible with consent on Zone 4(b) Light Industrial Zone and hence the proposed care taker residence on the second floor is permissible.

 

ˇ Industries other than those referred to in Schedule 4 of Ashfield LEP 1985 are permissible with consent on Zone 4(b) Light Industrial Zone.

 

It is noted that industries referred to in Schedule 4 include manufacturing of cement and rubber products. The statement of environment indicates that the building features to be replicated will be manufactured using sand, resin and epoxy and hence are not prohibited. It is also noted that rubber moulds will be used as part of the process of manufacturing replacement building features. Such moulds are manufactured off site so they can be used in the restoration process.

 

The storage of equipment, not being quarry materials, used for emergency work such as structurally stabilising heritage buildings is considered an ancillary use to the proposed industry and is therefore permissible.

 

2.          Clause No. 17 of Ashfield LEP – Floor Space Ratio

 

Clause No.17 of Ashfield LEP 1985 permits a maximum FSR of 1:1 on 4(b) zoned land. The proposed development provides Gross Floor Area of 644.85m˛ resulting in a Floor Space Ratio of 0.62 based on the area of the portion of the site that is zone 4(b) which is 1026m˛.


 

3.          Clause 22 of Ashfield LEP – Industrial uses

 

Clause No. 22(1) of Ashfield LEP 1985 states that development for the purpose of an industry shall not be carried out on an allotment of land within Zone No 4(b) unless the allotment has an area of not less than 1000 square metres - Clause (22)(1)(a)- and has a frontage to any road of not less than 21 metres – Clause (22)(1)(b).

 

The subject site complies with the minimum site area requirements of Clause (22)(1)(a). Whilst it has no vehicular access to Old Canterbury Road it does have a frontage of 15.52m for the portion of the site that is zoned 4(b). Although this frontage is less than the recommended minimum the allotment is an existing parcel and Clause (22)(1)(b) of Ashfield LEP 1985 allows the Council to consent to such development.

 

 

 

 

4.          Clause 23 of Ashfield LEP - Setback   

 

Clause No. 23(a) of Ashfield LEP 1985 states the a building on an allotment of land within Zone No 4(b) shall not be erected or used  for the purposes of any industry unless the building is not less than 15metres from the nearest alignment of a main road or county road.

 

The proposed development provides a setback of approximately 13.4m from Old Canterbury Road which does not comply with the minimum setback requirements of Clause 23 of Ashfield LEP 1985. A SEPP1 objection has been submitted in support of the application to justify the variation, refer to Clause 7.1.3 of this report for further comments. This objection is supported.

 

5.          Clause 24 of Ashfield LEP - Parking

 

For the erection of a building on an allotment of land within Zone No 4(b), Clause No. 24(a) of Ashfield LEP 1985 requires car parking to be provided on site at the rate of either:

 

(i)      1 parking space for every 2 employees of the occupier or proposed occupier of the allotment, or

(ii)     1 parking space for every 46 square metres of gross floor area of the building,

 

whichever results in the greater number of parking spaces.

 

It has been outlined in the SOEE that the number of employees is 5 persons, which would result in 2 required car-parking spaces. However, based on the proposed gross floor area of the industrial component (500m2) and the caretakers residence a total of 12 car parking spaces are required.


The proposed development provides 12 car-parking spaces and therefore complies with the minimum car-parking requirements of Clause 24 of Ashfield LEP.

 

It is considered that the proposal generally 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

 

As part of the original proposal, an objection, in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1, to Clause 23 of Ashfield LEP 1985 has been submitted justifying variation. Clause 23 of Ashfield LEP 1985 states the following:

 

A person shall not erect or use a building on an allotment of land within Zone No 4 (b):

 

(a)  for the purposes of any industry—unless the building is not less than 15 metres from the nearest alignment of a main road or county road, or

(b)  for any other purpose - unless the building is not less than 8 metres from the nearest alignment of a main or county road.

 

The proposed development is for an industrial use and hence is required to have a setback of 15m from the Old Canterbury Road alignment. The proposed development results in a setback of approximately 13.4 metres.

 

The application has been supported by an objection under SEPP 1 submitting that compliance with Clause 23 of Ashfield LEP 1985 is unnecessary in the circumstances of the case because “compliance would be no more beneficial in terms of streetscape or traffic movement nor would there be an improvement in amenity or better environmental outcome achieved by full compliance”. The applicant further submits that:

 

a.      The control presents a development standard as it fixes a numerical requirement for the floor area of a local shop;

 

b.      In the absence of specific objectives, the reasoning behind the restriction may be surmised as:


 

ˇ To ensure a consistent streetscape and provide adequate space for landscaping;

ˇ To provide appropriate vehicular sight lines on major road;

ˇ To ensure building scale is compatible with existing buildings.

 

c.      The proposed building is partially set back behind the 15m, with an almost equal proportion forward of the line as is behind it;

 

d.      The majority of its bulk will not be visible from the street due to the rapid fall in level of the land away from Old Canterbury Road;

 

e.      The lot has an angled road frontage and while the form of the building could be similarly angled to satisfy the setback requirements, this would add cost unnecessarily and not alter the street appearance of the building nor increase the available space for landscaping.

 

Officer’s Comments:

 

Whilst no objectives have been specified under Clause 23 of Ashfield LEP, setback provisions are generally aimed at achieving a consistency in the pattern of built form on streets and to enable adequate landscaping to be established between the building and public road. This section of Old Canterbury Road has industrial development with variable setbacks.

 

The setback is considered to be acceptable and the SEPP 1 Objection is supported.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

Clause 7(1) of the above state policy requires a consent authority not to consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

 

No report specifying the findings of a preliminary investigation of the land has been submitted to Council for consideration. A condition requiring a report specifying the findings of a preliminary investigation of the subject land carried out in accordance with the contaminated land planning guidelines has been included in the recommendation. If the land is contaminated, the report is to make recommendations for remediation and confirm that the land will be suitable, after remediation, for the proposed use.


 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

 

The proposal does not include any advertising structures or any advertisements - the above SEPP does not apply in this instance.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

Clause 45(2)(a) & (b) requires that, before determining a development application (or an application for modification of a consent) for development to which clause 45 applies, the Consent Authority gives written notice to the electricity supply authority for the area in which the development is to be carried out, inviting comments about potential safety risks and to take into consideration any response to the notice that is received within 21 days after the notice is given.

 

Clause 45(1)(b)(i) indicates that clause 45 applies to a development application (or an application for modification of a consent) for development carried out within or immediately adjacent to an easement for electricity purposes (whether or not the electricity infrastructure exists).

 

The proposed development has been referred to Energy Australia in accordance with Clause 45 of SEPP Infrastructure. No issues have been raised by Energy Australia to the proposed development.

 

However, Energy Australia has advised that the existing easement for electricity purposes relating to overhead transmission cables appears to be owned by NSW Transport RailCorp.

 

The application has been referred to NSW Transport RailCorp for any comments in relation to the existing easement. No issues have been raised and their conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation.

 

 

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 from 27 June 2012 until 21 August 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.


 

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 involves filling of a considerable portion of the subject site which is contrary to aims and objectives of this draft plan.

No. A condition has been recommended which requires the building to be of pier and beam construction and the site not to be filled.

2.2

Zoning

Zone B4 (Mixed Use) & SP2 (Infrastructure)

Industrial Building

No, refer to comments below.

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

No minimum requirements have been specified

Industrial Building

N/A

4.3

Height of buildings

20m

The height of the proposed building as amended is 13.44m.

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

1:1 (100%)

Given that the definition of GFA in the draft LEP 2012 takes measurements from the internal face of the external inclosing walls, the proposed GFA would be less than 62%.

Yes

 

The portion of the subject site currently zoned as 4(b), if and when the draft plan is gazetted, will be changed to Zone B4 (Mixed Use) and the other portion currently zoned as 5(b) will be changed to SP2 (Infrastructure). Both new zones prohibit the proposed development, however, it has been noted that Clause 1.8AA of the draft plan states the following:


 

“If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced.”

 

The draft plan has not yet been gazetted and the application has been made before the commencement of the draft plan and can therefore be 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:

 

C2

ADVERTISEMENTS AND ADVERTISING STRUCTURES

The proposal does not include any advertising structures or any advertisements - Part C2 does not apply in this instance.

C11

PARKING

Refer to Clause No. 7.1.1 of this report.

C12

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

Refer to Clause No. 7.7 of this report.

Appendix No. 6

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CODE

Refer to Clause 8.1 of this report.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application.  The proposal, as recommended, will have an acceptable impact on the locality.

 

The amended proposal, with the exception of the proposed fill, satisfies concerns raised by Sydney Water, Council’s hydraulic engineer and NSW RailCorp.


 

7.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

The subject site sits below McGill Street and Canterbury Road street levels abutting an open stormwater channel to its eastern side and railway line to its western side.

 

The only access to the site is through a right of way off McGill Street. Given the circumstances, a flood study, upon Council’s request, has been prepared. Council’s hydraulic engineer as well as Sydney Water is satisfied that the amended proposal has RLs that are above the 100 year ARI design flood event and hence the proposed development will not be impacted upon by flooding from Hawthorne Canal.

 

Additionally, conditions have been provided by NSW RailCorp requiring the submission of a number of reports, prior to the release of the construction certificate, to ensure that  RailCorp’s facility will have no adverse impact on the proposed development and the proposed development will not negatively impact on their facility.

 

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

 

The proposal was originally notified in June/July 2011 and the amended proposals on two recent occasions from 7 August - 30 August 2012 and 12 September - 26 September 2012.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

Two submissions (Attachment 4) were received during the notification of the amended proposals:   

 

Submissions

 

Stephen L Falkiner CEO

120B Old Canterbury Road

Lewisham NSW 2009

Judy Clark

Marrickville Council

PO Box 14, Petersham NSW 2049

 

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

 

Issues raised by Mr Falkiner in relation to the amended proposal

 

·    The Right of Carriageway is not designed to accommodate large vehicles/articulated trucks transporting  large size shipping containers or heavy slabs of stones;


 

·    Size of apron (forecourt) is extremely large and can be used, with minor modifications, as car-parking area resulting in dangerous situations;

·    No reason why car-parking area cannot be checked for contamination, surface is not sealed as being indicated by SEE;

·    FSR non-compliance;

·    Non-compliance with the front setback results in encroachment onto an area of batter which should not be built upon;

·    Concerns that unauthorised use currently occurring on site, in particularly storing of quarry materials, will continue to be carried out after DA is approved;

·    Marrickville Council’s master plan should be considered in the assessment of this application. The use of the carriage way by the proposed development is inconsistent with its use as proposed by Marrickville Council’s master plan;

·    Turing of truck and heavy vehicles into right of carriage way being in very close proximity to the intersection with Old Canterbury Road is a matter of concern and danger. Development will result in increased traffic problems and congestion around the area and the nearby intersection.

 

Issues raised by Marrickville Council

 

·    The proposed use is to consider impact of noise, traffic, odour, hours of operation and waste disposal on adjoining residential uses;

·    Proposal is considered to have little architectural merit being a large utilitarian metal shed;

·    The proposed location and sitting of the building and car parking in relation to the boundaries does not appear to offer the opportunity to provide significant screen planting along the Marrickville Council boundary.

 

Officer’s comments

 

In response to concerns raised by Mr Falkiner, the following comments are provided:

 

·    Conditions have been included in the development consent prohibiting the use of the subject site for extractive industry, the use of the car-parking area for storage purposes and the use of the portion of the site for any purposes that is not considered as exempt development without council approval;

·    A condition has been included in the development consent prohibiting the use of the forecourt fronting Old Canterbury Road for car-parking purposes;

·    A condition requiring a  report specifying the findings of a preliminary investigation of the subject land carried out in accordance with the contaminated land planning guidelines has been included in the recommendation to Council;

·    The proposed FSR complies with Council FSR controls (refer to Section 7.1.1 for further comments);

·    The proposed front setback is acceptable (refer to Section 7.1.1 for further comments);


 

·    Council is not able to refuse the amended proposal on the ground of inconsistency with Marrickville Council Master Plan;

·    A condition will be included in the development consent requiring that the proposed development is not to interfere with the adjoining neighbours’ amenity;

 

In response to concerns raised by Marrickville Council, the following comments are provided:

 

·    The amended proposal, if carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent, will have minimal impact on adjoining neighbours’ amenity;

·    The property is not located in a heritage conservation area and is proposed to be for industrial purposes, which is consistent with the current zoning;

·    The proposed building is a basic industrial structure but considered acceptable;

·    The subject site is separated from Marrickville Council by the existing open stormwater channel and hence little opportunity is available for a landscaped area along the eastern side of the property. Providing landscaping in this area would not leave adequate land for the proposed development to be carried out on the portion of the site that permits the proposed development. In addition, such landscaping could hinder overland water flows from the canal during flood periods.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

The amended proposal has addressed most of the issues raised by Council officers and other external authorities with the remaining issues addressed by appropriate conditions of consent. The amended proposal, as recommended, is not considered contrary to the public interest.

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

 

 

Building

 

The application was referred to Council’s building surveyor who recommended a number of conditions of consent should the application be supported.

 

Engineering

 

The application has been referred to Council’s hydraulic engineer who raised concerns with the proposed fill and has advised that the amended proposal does not meet Council’s stormwater design standards nor does it adhere to the guidelines set out in the NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2005 for flood prone land.


Council’s hydraulic engineer has disagreed with the recommendation of the flood study prepared by SBR Consulting for the site to be filled and has indicated that such an approach will have the following  ramifications:

 

(a) Flood levels to surrounding properties will increase due to the proposed filling.

(b) Downstream velocities will be increased.

(c)  The proposed filling will redistribute flows to neighbouring properties.

(d) The potential for cumulative effects of possible filling proposals in the area is increased.

(e) The flood liability of buildings on surrounding properties is increased leaving Council accountable for any potential losses or damages.

 

However, it was agreed that provided the building is of pier and beam construction to a height above the 100 ARI as described in the site's flood study and the site is not filled, the amended proposal can be supported.

 

Environmental Health

 

The application has been referred to Council’s health and environment officer - no issues were raised subject to conditions of consent.

 

Tree Management Officer

 

The application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer who indicated that a tree previously removed without Council’s consent was a noxious weed. Consequently, Council consent was not required under the Tree Preservation Order.

 

No issues have been raised in relation to the removal of the existing privet trees.

 

8.2    External

 

Department of Water and Energy (NSW Office of Water)

 

The proposal, being an integrated development, requires approval under the Water Management Act 2000.

 

The original proposal was referred to Department of Water and Energy (NSW Office of Water) and no issues were raised. The Department provided general terms of approval to be included in any development consent issued.

 

In August and September this year the first and second amended proposals were referred to NSW Office of Water for further comment.

 

No issues were raised and it was advised that the proposed activity is exempt due to a recent amendment to the Water Management Act 2000. Consequently, no conditions have been provided to be included in the development consent.


 

State Rail

 

The original proposal was referred to NSW Transport RailCorp for concurrence in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. Conditions of consent were provided to be included on development consent.

 

In August and September 2012 the amended proposals were referred to NSW Transport RailCorp for comment. In response, concerns were raised in respect of the proposed filling of the site and a number of approaches were recommended to resolve the flooding issues. Conditions of consent were also provided in the event that the proposal was supported.

 

As mentioned previously, filling of the site is not supported for the reasons indicated in the report and a condition has been included in the recommendation requiring the building to be of pier and beam construction. 

 

Sydney Water

 

Sydney Water raised concerns with the original proposal in terms of its potential impacts on local flooding and the impacts of flooding on proposed development. Objections were also raised to the proposed reconstruction of the access bridge located over the open stormwater channel (Hawthorne Canal) as it did not meet contemporary design parameters particularly in terms of the underdeck clearance (minimum 300mm) above the 100 year ARI design flood event.

 

The amended proposals were referred to Sydney Water in August and September this year for comment. Concerns were raised in relation to the second amendment in terms of the alignment and design of the new bridge over the stormwater channel. In addition, the proposal to fill the site was not supported because of potential flooding impacts on surrounding and downstream properties, however, Sydney Water was of the view that Council should determine whether or not this method of construction was acceptable.

 

Sydney Water expressed a preference for the design and layout of the new bridge proposed in the first amendment and this is reflected in the recommended conditions of consent.

 

 

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 to be applied for by condition of consent.

Financial Implications

The proposed development will attract contribution levies under S94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A relevant condition has been included in the recommendation.

 

 

Public Consultation

See Section 7.7 of this report.

 

 

Conclusion

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

 

The proposal is generally acceptable subject to the changes that have been recommended regarding the building’s method of construction, no fill being introduced to the site and owner’s consent being obtained for works on the adjoining property through a Deferred Commencement Consent.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

7 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Conditions

14 Pages

 

Attachment 4View

Submissions

14 Pages

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

A         That the objection to Clause 23 of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended), lodged pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1, be supported; and

 

B         That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) grant a Deferred Commencement Consent to Development Application No. 10.2011.144 for:

 

1.   The construction of a factory/warehouse building, with associated offices, car-parking and caretaker's residence;

2.   The reconstruction of the bridge located over the open stormwater channel;

3.   The use of the building for the purposes of an industry involving the manufacturing of replacement building features used predominately in the restoration of heritage buildings;

4.   The use of site for the storage of equipment, not being slabs of stones or any other quarry materials, used for emergency work such as structurally stabilising heritage buildings.

 

on Lot 100 in DP 875660 zoned 4(b) Light Industrial and Lot 1 in DP 817359 zoned 5(b), known as 120C Old Canterbury Road, Summer Hill, subject to conditions.

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 








Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Conditions

 















Attachment 4

 

Submissions

 









Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 CM10.8

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.159.1
22 LOUDON AVENUE HABERFIELD

 

File Ref                            DA 10.2012.159.1

 

Prepared by                   Daisy Younan - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 

 

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0    Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Section 82A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) a request has been made to council seeking a review of Council’s determination of development application 10.2012.159 for the construction of an in-ground swimming pool and timber deck.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

1.1    Background

 

The application was determined on 24th September 2012 and refused consent for the following reasons:

 

1.           The SEPP No.1 Objection submitted to vary Clause 35(2)(b) – landscape area of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 is not well founded and fails to demonstrate that the development standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in this particular case and therefore not supported;

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

3.           The development fails to comply with the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 as the proposal will result in a reduction of the existing soft landscaping area contrary to Clause 35(2)(b);

4.           The development fails to comply with Part C7-Haberfield Conservation Area of the Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 in particular keeping hard surfacing to a minimum as per section 2.45(c);

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 result in the loss of amenity to the adjoining properties;

6.           Insufficient information was lodged to make a full assessment of the proposed works:

o The landscaping calculation plan is inconsistent with the existing site conditions.


 

o The existing ground levels have not been provided to determine the likely impacts of the proposed pool deck and pool coping;

7.           The air-conditioner unit located to the eastern side of the dwelling house has been installed prior to the consent of Council; and

8.           The proposal is not in the public interest.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The amended proposal will result in a small improvement to existing soft landscaped area as it involves the removal of significant areas of concrete within the eastern setback of the dwelling and on the southern side of existing garage. It is also proposed to create a 900mm grass strip within the rear section of existing driveway. The S82A review application is supported.

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         Filmer Architects Pty Ltd

Owner                                    :         Mr D W & Mrs S V O'Sullivan

Value of work                       :         $60,000.00

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: 111 DP: 6668

Date lodged                          :         17/10/2012

Date of last amendment     :         17/10/2012

Application Type                  :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

Section 94A Levy                :         No

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Loudon Avenue, bounded by Chelmsford Street to the east and Dobroyd Parade to the west.  The site area is approximately 696.77 square metres. An existing dwelling-house and garage is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises residential development.

 

Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.

 

5.0    Development History

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

10.2007.142.1

13/08/2007

Alterations and additions to dwelling house

Approved

10.2012.159.1

24/09/2012

Construction of an in-ground swimming pool with a timber deck around.

Refused

 

It has been noted that Consent No. 10.2007.142.1 required a 900mm grass strip to be created within the driveway which extends from the front property boundary to approximately 3m north of garage located at the rear of the property.


This required landscaped area was not constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

 

It is also noted that a final occupation certificate has not been received for the above-mentioned previous 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 not a heritage item.

 

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

 

7.0    S82A Review Assessment

 

In response to the reasons of refusal, the applicant has provided the following responses:

 

Reason for refusal No.1 which states the following:

 

The SEPP No.1 Objection submitted to vary Clause 35(2)(b) – landscape area of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 is not well founded and fails to demonstrate that the development standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in this particular case and therefore not supported.

 

Applicant response

 

The arguments in the SEPP1 Objection have been strengthened to better support the application. The SEPP 1 Objection lists the main reason for support of the objection as the retention of the soft landscape area. The diagrams attached to the application show that the existing soft landscape area amounts to 43.2% of the site. This proposal will maintain the 43.2%.

 

Officer’s comments

 

It is considered that the submitted existing landscape calculation diagram is not accurate given that the area between the dwelling and the eastern boundary is shown as soft landscaped area when in fact it is currently concrete paved.

 

Calculation of existing soft landscaped area suggests that it is approximately 282.17m2 (or approximately 40.5%).


 

Despite the above and what has been approved in the previous development application (10.2007.142) the proposed development will result in a small improvement to the existing soft landscaped area given the removal of significant areas of concrete within the eastern setback between the dwelling and eastern boundary and the area between the garage and rear boundary. It is also proposed to create a 900mm grass strip within the rear section of existing driveway. The removal of the concrete areas indicated above will result in a small improvement to the existing landscaped area so that it is 300.97m2 (43.2%) and hence the SEPP1 objection is supported.

 

Reason for refusal No.2 which states the following:

 

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

 

Applicant response

 

If the soft landscape area remains unchanged then, by definition, it is hard to argue that the proposal will detract from the core values of the Conservation Area. The core values are the character, the distinctive qualities and the significance of the Conservation Area. In the case of a swimming pool if the numerical controls remain unchanged those core values will not be affected.

 

Officer’s comments

 

Given that the amended proposal will result in a small improvement to the existing landscaped area, the proposal will not detract from the character, distinctive qualities or significance of the Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area.

 

Reason for refusal No.3 which states the following:

 

The development fails to comply with the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 as the proposal will result in a reduction of the existing soft landscaping area contrary to Clause 35(2)(b).

 

Applicant response

 

The reason for refusal given in point three is not a valid reason. There is no loss of soft landscaped area. The attached diagrams show the existing and proposed soft landscape area as 43.2%.

 

Officer’s comments

 

Given that the proposal will now result in a small improvement to the existing landscaped area, the non-compliance which is supported by a SEPP1 objection, is acceptable in this instance.


 

Reason for refusal No.4 which states the following:

 

The development fails to comply with Part C7-Haberfield Conservation Area of the Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007 in particular keeping hard surfacing to a minimum as per section 2.45(c).

 

 

Applicant response

 

The reason for refusal given in point four is not a valid reason as there is no loss of soft landscape. The attached diagrams show the existing and proposed soft landscape area as 43.2%.

 

Officer’s comments

 

Refer to previous comments under reason 1 of this section.

 

Reason for refusal No.5 which states the following:

 

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 result in the loss of amenity to the adjoining properties.

 

Applicant response

 

If a pool is installed to comply with the current LEP & DCP controls then there can be no loss of amenity to the adjoining properties.

 

Officer’s comments

 

The issue with the original proposal was lack of information on proposed RLs for the new pool. Further information has now been provided to clarify ground levels and the proposed development is unlikely to have any adverse external impacts.

 

Reason for refusal No.6 which states the following:

 

Insufficient information was lodged to make a full assessment of the proposed works:

 

o The landscaping calculation plan is inconsistent with the existing site conditions.

o The existing ground levels have not been provided to determine the likely impacts of the proposed pool deck and pool coping.

 

Applicant response

 

The existing and proposed landscape plans are accurate and reflect the site conditions. The existing ground levels have been provided and the garage floor has been used as a datum.


 

Officer’s comments

 

Refer to officer’s comments for reasons 1 and 5.

 

Reason for refusal No.7 which states the following:

 

The air-conditioner unit located to the eastern side of the dwelling house has been installed prior to the consent of Council.

 

Applicant response

 

The unit has been positioned on site. There has been no objection from the adjoining neighbour.

 

Officer’s comments

 

The unauthorized installation of the air conditioning unit can be treated as a separate matter.

 

Reason for refusal No.8 which states the following:

 

The proposal is not in the public interest.

 

Applicant response

 

If the above arguments are accepted then point 8 is not a valid reason for refusal.

 

Officer’s comments

 

Given the above, the proposal is not considered to be contrary to the public interest.

 

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 is acceptable and is recommended for approval.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

3 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Conditions

7 Pages

 

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

A         That the objection to Clause 35(2)(b) of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended), lodged pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1, being well founded, be supported; and

 

B         That Council as the consent authority support S82A review by granting consent pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) and approve Development Application No. 10.2012.159 for the construction an in-ground swimming pool and timber deck on Lot 111 in DP: 6668 known as 22 Loudon Ave, Haberfield subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 




Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Conditions

 








Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 CM10.9

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.222.1
644 - 654 PARRAMATTA ROAD CROYDON

 

File Ref                            DA 10.2012.222.1

 

Prepared by                   Philip North - Specialist Planner       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter requires Council determination

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the application

 

 

 


Overview of Report

 

1.0    Description of Proposal

 

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

 

·        Demolish existing motor vehicle showroom buildings and bollards on Lots 3 – 7, DP 11461 (646-654 Parramatta Road);

·        Construct two (2) new motor vehicle showrooms on Lots 3 – 7, DP 11461 (646-654 Parramatta Road) with:

o Car display areas;

o A total of eight (8) ground level car parking spaces for motor vehicle showrooms;

o A total of 25 ground level parking spaces for the service workshop;

o Basement level car parking for 78 service vehicles (stacked) including bicycle parking for nine (9) bicycles;

o Associated ground level parking;

o Associated signage; and

o Landscaping.

The proposal will not result in any modifications to the operation of the existing motor vehicle service workshop on Lot 9, DP 11461 and Lot D, DP 308408. Further, no new or additional vehicle crossings are proposed to the site.

 

Proposed hours of operation are as follows:

 

646-654 Parramatta Road: Proposed Motor Showroom:

·        8:30am – 5:30pm Monday to Friday; and

·        9:00am – 5:30pm Saturday and Sunday.


644 Parramatta Road: Existing workshop:

Hours to remain as per previous consent DA 66/1999:

·        7:30am – 10:00pm Monday to Friday; and

·        8:00am – 5:00pm Saturday.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of Ashfield LEP 1985 and the applicable controls of Ashfield DCP 2007. It would not result in unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of adjacent properties or upon traffic flow in Parramatta Road and is considered acceptable by Roads and Maritime Services, subject to the application of recommended conditions. Consequently, it is recommended for conditional approval.

 

Background

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         Gillen Motors Pty Ltd

Owner                                    :         Doderry Pty Ltd

Value of work                       :         $2,314,000

Lot/DP                                   :         LOTS 3-9, DP: 11461 & LOT D, DP 308408

Date lodged                          :         05/11/2012

Date of last amendment     :         N/A

Building classification        :         6,0

Application Type                  :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

Section 94A Levy                :         Yes

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the south western side of Parramatta Road between Scott Street to the north and Croydon Road to the south. It consists of the following eight individual lots with a land area and existing uses as follows:

 

 

Street Address

 

Lot No.

Deposited Plan

Built Form

Site Area

654 Parramatta Road

3

11461

Open car display area

2,036.8m2

652 Parramatta Road

4

11461

Open car display area

650 Parramatta Road

5

11461

Single storey office

648 Parramatta Road

6

11461

Single storey office

646 Parramatta Road

7

11461

Single storey garages and amenities

644 Parramatta Road

8

11461

Driveway

644 Parramatta Road

9

11461

Open car port and car repair building

4,947.21m2

644 Parramatta Road

D

308408

Car repair building

TOTAL AREA

6,984m2

 

As noted above, the site is currently used for both vehicle servicing and car sales.

 

The site has four vehicular crossings to Parramatta Road, only two of which are used.

 

It has a moderate fall from north to south away from Parramatta Road and contains an easement for drainage from Parramatta Road to the adjoining lot at 19 Dalmar Street. An easement for drainage is located within the sealed driveway and car park area of the site, and is contained wholly within Lots 8 and 9.

 

Surrounding development includes commercial uses to the east and the opposite side of Parramatta Road and low density residential development adjacent the site to the east and south.

 

Lots 3-7 comprise the primary location of the proposed works.

 

5.0    Development History

 

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

 

Key Development Approvals

DA No.

Proposal

Determination

Date

DA 204/2011

Installation of pylon sign

Approved

11.10.2011

DA 140/2010

Signage

Approved

21.07.2010

DA 135/2008

Signage

Approved

15.08.2008

DA 125/2007

Signage

Approved

11.10.2007

DA 1814/1977

Use 644 for storage and servicing of cars

Approved

13.10.1977

DA 913/1968

Extend car sales from 646 & 648 to 650 Parramatta Road

Approved

06.08.1968

DA 4279/1962

Office & amenities block for existing factory

Approved

20.11.1962

 

The above consents establish the validity of the existing motor repair and display uses on the site notably that which will remain at the rear of the site on lots 9 and D.

 

Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

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


 

·    The proposal is classed as a motor showroom under the Model Provisions – this use is permissible in the zone.

 

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

 

7.0    Section 79C Assessment

 

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

 

7.1    The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

7.1.1 Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

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

 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

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

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

Due to the proposed use of the site for vehicle showroom and servicing purposes, remediation of the site is not required prior to the carrying out of the proposed development.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

 

The application proposes the following signage:

 

Hyundai sales building:

 

·        Two (2) illuminated panel signs (one north and one east facing) including:

o 4400mm wide x 800mm high Hyundai logo; and

o Wording of “Croydon” 275mm high.


 

·        One (1) 6m high pylon sign including:

o 1575mm wide x 1200mm high illuminated Hyundai logo; and

o Wording of “Croydon” 132mm high.

·        One (1) 2.5m high directional sign including:

o 655mm wide x 505mm high Hyundai logo; and

o Wording and directional arrows for “Reception”, “Information”, “Showroom” and “Accounts”.

·        One (1) small 3D signature wall logo;

·        One (1) gateway sign at building entry including:

o 504mm wide x 293mm high Hyundai logo; and

·        One (1) 2000mm wide x 1500mm high illuminated clip sign on building roof.

 

Great Wall sales building:

 

·        One (1) illuminated panel sign including:

o 5400mm wide x 950mm high Great Wall logo/name; and

o Wording of “Truscotts” 350mm high.

·        One (1) 6m high pylon sign including:

o 1800mm wide x 1225mm high Great Wall logo/name.

The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 (Advertising and Signage) (SEPP 64) apply to the development.

 

Clause 8 of SEPP 64 sets out the following controls in relation to the granting of consent to signage:

 

A consent authority must not grant development consent to an application to display signage unless the consent authority is satisfied:

(a)  that the signage is consistent with the objectives of this Policy as set out in clause 3 (1) (a), and

(b)  that the signage the subject of the application satisfies the assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1.

Pursuant to the provisions of Clause 8(a), the objectives of SEPP 64 are set out under Clause 3(1)(a) as follows:

 

(a)  to ensure that signage (including advertising):

(i)  is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and

(ii)  provides effective communication in suitable locations, and


 

(iii)  is of high quality design and finish, and

 

It is considered that the proposed signage satisfies the objectives of SEPP 64 as it is compatible with the established commercial visual character of the Parramatta Road streetscape which consists of existing motor vehicle showrooms and other commercial activities, provides effective communication in suitable locations and is of a high quality design and finish which is well integrated into the architecture of the development.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

Clause 104 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (SEPP Infrastructure) sets out provisions relating to traffic generating development, which requires Council to give written notice of the proposal to Roads and Maritime Services. These provisions apply to development identified under Schedule 3 of the SEPP.

 

Development for the purpose of a motor showroom with access to a classified road with a size or capacity of 50 or more vehicles is development to which Clause 104 of SEPP Infrastructure applies. As the subject site has direct access to Parramatta Road (a classified road) and capacity for more than 50 vehicles (including ground level parking and parking associated with the rear service building), it is considered that Clause 104 of the SEPP applies to the proposed development.

 

Accordingly, Council referred the application to Roads and Maritime Services for comment. No objection was raised, subject to the application of certain conditions which have been included in the conditions of consent.

 

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

Complies

2.3

Zone objectives and land use table

Zone B6 Enterprise Corridor

Vehicle sales premises

Yes

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

N/A

N/A

N/A

4.3

Height of buildings

15m (lots 3-8)

9.5m

Yes

10m (lots 9 & D)

No work proposed

N/A

4.4

Floor space ratio

2:1 (lots 3-7)

0.4:1

Yes

1.5:1 (lots 8, 9 & D)

0.46

Yes

 

As demonstrated in the above table above table, the proposed development satisfies all 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

Complies.

The applicant has prepared an access report. The proposal provides access to the entrance level which contains all necessary facilities including offices, workspaces, kitchenettes and accessible sanitary facilities.

One accessible car parking space is provided for each of the two showrooms.

 

The following parts of the proposal are not accessible:

·      the mezzanine level which contains facilities similarly present on the entry level; as such this is considered acceptable.

·      the basement car park level which is only used as storage parking for the car service building and does not contain any accessible car parking facilities; as such access to this level is not considered necessary.

The proposal is thus considered to be in general compliance with Part C1 of the ADCP.

C2

ADVERTISEMENTS AND ADVERTISING STRUCTURES

See discussion below.

C11

PARKING

Complies.

Parking rates for the site are as follows:

·      0.75 spaces per 100m2 of site area used for motor showroom (i.e. 2036m2);

·      6 spaces per vehicle servicing work bay (18 work bays).

 

The resultant car parking requirement for the site is:

·      15 spaces for the motor showroom (incl. 1 accessible space);

·      108 spaces for the car servicing;

·      TOTAL: 123 spaces

 

The proposal provides:

·      34 spaces (incl. 2 accessible spaces) at ground level;

·      78 stacked spaces at basement level; and

·      12 spaces in the workshop.

·      5 motorcycle spaces; and

·      9 bicycle spaces.

·      TOTAL: 124 car spaces.

 

The parking provision exceeds the minimum required by 1 space and is considered acceptable.

 

Note that the stacked basement parking provision is considered acceptable given that it is not customer or staff parking but intended for use as interim storage space for cars before and after servicing/repair. As such, repair staff would be available to manage the stored vehicles by rotating and moving them as required.

C12

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

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s DCP requirements.

 

Signage

The application proposes new signage for both the Hyundai and Great Wall showrooms

 including one pylon sign for each motor vehicle showroom, and one fascia sign on each motor vehicle showroom building. The provisions of Ashfield DCP, Part C2 in respect of signage are as follows:

 

The following table summarises the relevant clauses of Part C2 – Advertisements and Advertising Structures, of Ashfield DEP 2007 and the performance of the proposal against them.

 

 

Ashfield Development Control Plan 2007

Part C2: Advertisements and Advertising Structures

Compliance Table

Clause No.

Requirements

Proposed

Compliance

Table 2: Signage Requirements

Pole or Pylon Sign

1.

Pole/pylon signs should not be located so as to dominate or protrude significantly above the skyline or to obscure or compromise significant scenic views or views that add to the character of the area. Refer to Section 9 of this document for development submission requirements.

The proposed signage does not obscure significant views or protrude excessively in the skyline.

Yes

2.

They should also not be located so as to diminish the heritage values of items or areas of local, regional or state heritage significance.

The site is not located in close proximity to a heritage conservation area or heritage item.

N/A

(a)

Signs attached directly to buildings are preferred to pole signs given that freestanding pole signs can be dominant/visually disruptive in the streetscape.

Although freestanding, the three pole signs (one existing and two new) are well designed and integrated into the overall design of the complex.

Yes

(b)

Applicants will need to justify the need for pole/pylon signs in preference to conventional signs fixed to buildings.

The pole signs are required in their particular locations to provide directional information for customers to distinguish the different elements of the complex which contains three separate components:

1. Toyota Service Centre (existing but relocated)

2. Hyundai Sales

3. Great Wall Sales

Yes

(c)

Pole/pylon signs will only be considered for larger sites with a primary street frontage exceeding 25 metres in width.

The development site (lots 3 -7) has an overall width of 55m and complies with this requirement.

Yes

(d)

Freestanding pole/pylon signs are not acceptable if the primary building is located within 5 metres of the street frontage.

The pylon signs are not located where the building is located within 5m of the street boundary.

Yes

(e)

Freestanding pole/pylon signs will only be considered where signage fixed to a building may be ineffective (see above) and where strict compliance with the provisions of SEPP 64, the guidelines accompanying SEPP64 and the provisions of Council’s DCP are all achieved.

The pylon signs are required to identify the separate functions of the site, in particular:

1. Toyota Service: there is no building at the street frontage upon which to locate this sign.

2. Hyundai: the sign is used to identify the customer vehicular entrance.

3. Great Wall: The sign is used to distinguish this dealership from the others.

Yes

(f)

Pole/pylon signs will only be considered in circumstances where an overall reduction in the number of signs on a property is implemented to reduce advertising “clutter” if present (all signs proposed to be removed are to be shown on plans).

The proposal would result in a coordinated design for the entire site which would considerably reduce visual clutter.

Yes

(g)

Maximum permissible height for any freestanding pole/pylon sign is 6 metres and the maximum advertisement area outline is 3.3 m2.

The two new signs comply with this requirement.

Yes

(h)

Advertisement area of a pole/pylon sign is to be of a simple, regular shape and dimension (e.g. rectangular, square, circular). Avoid multiple messages.

Signage component is simple and square element towards top of pylon. There is no unnecessary visual clutter.

Yes

(i)

Only one pole/pylon sign will be permitted for each property.

Although two pylon signs are proposed, it is noted that the site currently consists of 5 separate lots. The amalgamated site is 55m in width which results in one sign per 27.5m which is consistent with the minimum lot width requirement above of 25m. In addition, the site, although one unified development, functionally provides two visually separate buildings for two different vehicle dealerships.

No but acceptable.

(j)

Pole/pylon signs must not project over the roadway/footpath.

Signs do not project over footpath.

Yes

(k)

The area of any sign should appear in proportion with height of the pole

Signage area is proportional.

Yes

(l)

Side protrusions and 3-dimensional shapes for pole/pylon signs are not preferred;

Signage is simple rectangular shape.

Yes

(m)

Pole/pylon signs should display the street number (preferably at the top) - this assists customers and also makes good business sense.

No street number proposed.

Can be conditioned.

(n)

Pole/pylon signs should be located adjacent or close to the front property boundary but not overhanging the public footpath) so that a "sign envelope" is established to create some uniformity in positioning of signs along the street which will also improve "readability" for the public.

Located appropriately at front boundary.

Yes

Roof/Sky Sign

(a)

Not favoured but may be possible in exceptional circumstances if designed to improve the architectural features /finish of the building. Refer to State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 for specific requirements and read Section 4.7 of this Part - "Landmark" signs.

No roof or sky signs proposed.

Yes

Section 9: Development applications – data requirements for pole/pylon signs

 

Applicants for pole/pylon signs that will be 6 metres or greater in height must clearly demonstrate as part of their development submission that any pole/pylon sign proposed will not be visible from a heritage conservation area or protrude above the dominant building skyline or tree canopy in the locality. In order to achieve this aim, applicants may be asked to lodge with their application a (“3ds”) data file showing 3 dimensional rendering of pole/pylon signs over 6 metres in height. This can then be “loaded” into Council’s current computer modelling, animation and rendering software for the Ashfield Council Local Government Area to validate compliance with the above objectives. Check with Council “upfront” to see whether you need to supply this information with your application.

The only pylon sign greater than this height is the already existing Toyota service sign which is simply being relocated.

N/A

 

As indicated by the above table, the proposal generally complies with the provisions of Part C2: Advertisements and Advertising Structures with the exception of one element of table 2.

 

Summary:

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

 

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

 

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

 


 

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

 

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

 

 

Acoustic Impact:

 

It is noted that it is not proposed to change the use of the site which is already used as a motor vehicle showroom and motor vehicle service facility. Nevertheless, given the more intensive use, the potential for an increased impact requires consideration.

 

The applicant has supplied an acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Logic, which provides an assessment of the existing acoustic environment, a discussion on external noise emission criteria, establishment of noise emission objectives, assessment of the operation noise impact and recommendations for the mitigation of any potential impacts.

 

The report has assessed the nearby sensitive residential uses adjoining the site to the north, southeast and southwest, and the potential impacts the proposed development may have on these developments.

 

The report notes that the existing noise environment is generally dominated by traffic along Parramatta Road, with very little difference between the minimum acoustic background ratings for day and night.

 

It also notes that the general nature of the service workshop and associated car park would remain unchanged, and the additional traffic on the site resulting from the proposed use would not generate any audible noise, given the large number of traffic movements on Parramatta Road.

 

The Noise Emission Assessment recommends:

 

Install 1.8m high imperforate fence along the eastern, western and southern boundary of the site. The fence shall be constructed from 6mm FC sheet, glass, colorbond, lapped-n-capped fence or the like continuous and all junctions shall be acoustically sealed.

This recommendation has been included in the conditions of consent.

 

Similarly, any mechanical plant and air conditioners installed would be required to comply with the mechanical noise emission criteria set out within the report. This has also been included in the recommended conditions.


 

Given this, it is considered that the proposed development would not have adverse impacts upon the acoustic amenity of surrounding development, subject to implementation of the recommendations of the acoustic report.

 

Solar Access:

 

It is noted that the proposed development is located on the boundary with an existing dwelling house at 656 Parramatta Road. The proposal, however, is located to the south of this dwelling and as such will have no overshadowing impacts.

 

Street Setbacks:

 

Where it adjoins existing residential development to the north (656 Parramatta Road), the proposal adopts a similar street setback. Towards the southern end of the site, away from nearby residential uses, the proposal has a setback of 1.55m. This is considered appropriate given the commercial character of the streetscape and the traditionally adopted zero lot line front setback of commercial development along Parramatta Road that exists in close proximity to the site between Croydon Road and Great North Road.

 

Side & Rear Setbacks:

 

The proposal generally has generous side and rear setbacks. It proposes, however, a zero lot line set back to the northern boundary adjacent the detached single storey dwelling house at 656 Parramatta Road. This is considered appropriate given that:

·    It is to the south of the dwelling and does not result in an overshadowing impacts;

·    It is directly adjacent an existing garage on no. 656 which is also built to the boundary;

·    The height of the wall has been kept to around 3m to match that of the adjacent garage against which it is built;

·    It is built adjacent the driveway of no. 656 and as such would have minimal adverse impacts upon the property in respect of bulk and scale;

·    The adjacent site is also located in a 3(b) zone and it could be anticipated that it may, in time, also accommodate a development built to that boundary.

 

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 8 November 2012 until 3 December 2012.


 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

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

 

7.8    The public interest

 

The proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Internal Referrals

Officer

Comments

Support

Building Surveyor

Support subject to conditions.

Yes

Traffic Engineer

Support subject to conditions.

Yes

Environmental Health

Support subject to condition requiring amalgamation of lots comprising site.

Yes

Stormwater Engineer

Support subject to conditions.

Yes

 

8.2    External

 

Roads and Maritime Services

The application was referred to Roads and Maritime Services for comment under clause 104 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

No objection was raised to the proposed development subject to the application of certain conditions which have been included in the proposed conditions of consent.

 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

Section 94A Contribution Plan

 

The proposal is subject to section 94A levies of $23,140.00.

 

10.0  Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

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

 

Financial Implications

 

Noted above.


 

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. It is an appropriate use for the site having regard to the zoning and adjacent land uses and complies readily with the development standards and DCP controls applicable to the site. It is considered to have a positive visual impact upon the streetscape along with acceptable amenity impacts upon adjacent properties and acceptable traffic impacts in respect of Parramatta Road.

 

The proposal is acceptable and is therefore recommended for conditional approval.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

8 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Roads & Maritime Services Comments

2 Pages

 

Attachment 4View

Conditions

18 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. 10.2012.222.1 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a new motor showroom with ancillary offices and car parking on Lots 3-9, DP 11461 and Lot D, DP 308408, known as 644-654 Parramatta Road, Croydon, 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 3(b) Special Business Zone and the proposal is permissible with Council consent.

CLAUSE 10A

Development consent required for change of building use and subdivision

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

CLAUSE 17

Floor space ratios

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

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

Complies.  

Site Area               = 6,984m2

Gross Floor Area   = 3,902m2

Proposed FSR      = 0.44:1

Maximum FSR       = 0.5:1

 

CLAUSE 18

Development for the purpose of advertisements

Complies.  The proposed advertisement is permissible with Council consent and meets the specified conditions of Ashfield LEP 1985.

CLAUSE 21

Motor showrooms

Complies.  

Site Area               = 2,037m2 (showroom part of site)

Road frontage       = 55m

Complies.  There is no access available from a road other than a main road therefore the access from Parramatta Road is acceptable.

 

Complies.

The proposed development will not affect the vision of drivers.

CLAUSE 29

Provision for public amenities and services

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

MODEL PROVISIONS

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

Complies.

The proposal is considered to have a high quality aesthetic appearance from the main road.

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

Complies.

The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s traffic engineer and is considered acceptable.

12 – Land used for commercial or industrial purposes:

 

Complies.

The land between the buildings and the main road is to be used for the display of motor vehicles and the applicant has made the appropriate application to Council.

13 – Off street loading, facilities, etc.

Complies.

Loading and unloading facilities are acceptable.

22. Motor Showrooms: Where the land has a frontage to a main or arterial road, vehicular access to the site where alternative access is available is only by way of a road, other than the main or arterial road.

Complies.

There is no alternative access therefore access off the main road is acceptable.

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 









Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Roads & Maritime Services Comments

 



Attachment 4

 

Conditions

 



















Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 CM10.10

Subject                            WASTE MATTRESS COLLECTION AND PROCESSING TENDER

 

File Ref                            Waste Management Material Disposal Special

 

Prepared by                   Erin White - Senior Sustainability Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          To accept the SSROC Waste mattress collection and processing tender.

 

Objective                         To secure a value for money service in processing waste mattresses in an environmentally and socially sustainable way.

 

 


Overview of Report
This report provides a summary of the outcomes from the SSROC Waste mattress collection and processing tender.  A report provides recommendations for the best value for money and environmentally sustainable tender for Ashfield Council, which can be found in the Confidential Attachment 1.

 

 

Background

The Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) Waste Managers Group identified a need to tender for the collection and processing of mattresses from Council’s various collection services including dumped mattresses.

 

It is estimated that  Ashfield Council collects over 2,000 mattresses per year.   These include mattresses put out in the two general clean ups, phone in collections and illegally dumped mattresses.  Avoiding sending these mattresses to landfill  would serve not only to reduce environmental impact and provide social benefits to the broader community, but also provide Council with a cost effective alternative processing solution.

 

It was determined that due to the high cost of the disposal of mattresses and the current individual “casual arrangement” that SSROC Councils had in the collection and processing of mattresses, that there was a potential financial saving in undertaking a collective agreement amongst the region.

 

SSROC publically called for tenders, on behalf of it’s member Councils on 26 June 2012.

 

 

Financial Implications

The current cost of this service is based on a “casual rate arrangement”, subject to change at any time.  The new collection and processing costs will only decrease slightly from Council’s current arrangement but the certainty of this fee structure is set for a year, and is subject only to CPI increases of the term of the contract, providing greater budget certainty.


 

Other Staff Comments

The Works and Infrastructure department who will be administering this contract are satisfied with the outcome of the tender process and the findings in this report and attachment.

 

Public Consultation

Not applicable

 

Conclusion

That the Tender Panel recommendations be adopted.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Attachment 1- SSROC Tender evaluation report Mattress Collection and processing tender -  - CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT - Confidential - It is recommended that the Council resolve into closed session with the press and public excluded to allow consideration of this item, as provided for under Section 10A(2) (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.

7 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council accept the SSROC recommendation to appoint both Mission Australia and Landsavers as the preferred supplier of the collection and processing of mattresses. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 

 


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

Subject                            SSROC TENDER PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT

 

File Ref                            21/2012

 

Prepared by                   Lyn Blain - Strategic Procurement Coordinator       

 

 

Reasons                          Council adopt the recommendation contained in the CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 1

 

 


Overview of Report
SSROC (Southern Sydney Region of Councils), on behalf of its member Councils, held a tender to select a panel of supplier to design, supply and deliver Playground Equipment.  A report on the results of the assessment of the received tenders can be found in CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 1.

 

 

 

Background

As there was no regional contract for playground equipment in place, it was decided by the SSROC Supply Group that a regional tender could be expected to achieve better rates than individual councils could achieve on their own.

 

Councils that agreed to participate in the arrangement were:

 

·    Ashfield Council

·    City of Botany Bay

·    Burwood Council

·    City of Canada Bay

·    City of Canterbury

·    Kogarah City Council

·    Leichhardt Municipal Council

·    Marrickville Council

·    Randwick City Council

·    Rockdale City Council

·    Sutherland Shire Council

·    Waverley Council

·    Woollahra Municipal Council

 

Advertisements for the tender were placed in the Local Government Tender section of the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 June 2012.  The tender was also advertised on Tenders Online.  The tender closed at 2.00 pm on 24 July 2012 and ten tenders were received.

 

Discussion

Tenders were evaluated strictly in accordance with the Request for Tender document and the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.


 

A Review Panel was established under the auspices of SSROC, consisting of:

 

·                Burwood Council

·                Canterbury & Botany Bay Councils

·                Ashfield & Marrickville Councils

·                SSROC

 

Assessment Criteria

·        Proven capacity to meet contract based on past performance including capacity to       meet current service commitments

·        Delivery and performance standards

·        Proposed service methodology and customer service strategies

·        Implementation plan

·        Appropriate consideration of sustainability issues

·        Range of playground equipment offered

·        Quality Assurance systems

·        Spare parts, warranty and maintenance

·        Price

 

Financial Implications

The adoption of the proposal is expected to result in cost savings for Council.

 

Other Staff Comments

The Director of Works & Infrastructure commented:

The tender is supported as it  provides Council with an opportunity to gain a competitive price for playground equipment purchases based on the buying power of the SSROC group.

 

Public Consultation

None required

 

Conclusion

That the recommendations of the SSROC Panel be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

SSROC Confidential Attachment Playground Equipment -  - 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.

6 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the SSROC recommendation and appoint the panel of successful tenderers as advised in the SSROC Confidential Playground Equipment Report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 CM10.12

Subject                            SSROC TENDER- PROVISION OF ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT SERVICES

 

File Ref                            Waste Management Material Disposal Special

 

Prepared by                   Erin White - Senior Sustainability Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          To accept the SSROC recommendations detailed in the Confidential Attachment 1 and 2 on the Provision of Advanced Waste Treatment Services tender.

 

 

Objective                         To secure a value for money service for the processing of general solid waste. In addition, to assist in meeting Council’s responsibilities for the NSW Government waste recovery target, improve environmental and economic performance of waste services, provide a long term waste management solution at a predictable cost and meeting community expectations for managing waste as a resource.

 

 


Overview of Report
This report provides a summary of the outcomes from the SSROC Advanced Waste Treatment Service tender.  The confidential attachments detail the tender process and the preferred supplier for Ashfield Council and the SSROC region.

 

 

Background

 

Advanced Waste Technologies (AWT) are processing systems aimed at diverting household and other solid waste from landfill by mechanically recovering recyclable materials and by biologically converting food and garden organic materials into energy, compost or other soil amendment products.

 

A presentation regarding the various types of AWT technologies and the SSROC procurement process for this project was presented to the Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting held on the 20th November 2012.

 

In 2009 General Mangers of participating SSROC Councils delegated authority to SSROC to manage a process to procure an AWT waste service on their behalf, and to negotiate with the preferred proponent to contract documentation stage.

 

Councils had a number of objectives when making the decision to procure an AWT service, these were:

 

•        assist Councils in meeting the NSW Government’s waste recovery target of 66% by 2014


 

•        improve the environmental performance of the waste service by reducing landfill demand and greenhouse gas emissions

•        improve economic performance in view of the escalating waste levy on landfill disposal and introduction of the carbon tax

•        provide a long term waste management solution at a predictable cost

•        better comply with community expectations for managing waste as a resource.

 

The suggested AWT process would adequately process food and organic materials and is actually required for the AWT to operate effectively.  The current separation and separate processing of garden organics to compost can continue with the option of it going to AWT in the future if required or viable (see Confidential Attachment 3).

 

A decision was made by the General Managers of SSROC in late 2008 to begin to look at a regional solution to the increasing financial and community pressure of waste disposal. Waste volumes from multiple participating Councils now make it more viable for companies to begin investing capital in a Southern Sydney regional resource recovery solution.

 

More specific information is detailed in the confidential attachments.  All 8 participating Councils have approved or are currently considering the AWT tender recommendations.

 

Note also that Councils in 2007 resolved to pursue a Food and Garden Organics option (FOGO) via a tender process facilitated by the Inner Sydney Waste Managers Group (ISWMG).  This process is discussed in Attachment 3 with the appropriate recommendation for Council to consider.

 

Financial Implications

 

A price per tonne set out in Attachment 2 will increase with CPI, calculated annually, over the ten (10) year life of the contract.  As at 2012/13 the AWT processing costs less than 2% per tonne more than landfill, with landfill costs anticipated to rise.

 

Councils are currently paying a volume based charge for their disposal to landfill and in addition a further Waste Levy is imposed by the NSW State Government.  The levy places an additional charge on all waste to landfill and is currently set at $95.20 a tonne (2012-13).  The Waste Levy is currently under review by the Minister of Environment and Heritage - on writing this report there has been no announcement on the outcome of the Waste Levy review, which is due for release in early 2013. 

 

Using an AWT for processing of general solid waste, Council will no longer be subject to the uncertainty of the Waste Levy, as the waste or final product from the processing is not going to landfill. 

 

All financial details, including projected costs, can be found in the confidential attachments to this report.


 

Other Staff Comments

 

Works and Infrastructure

 

The SSROC Advanced Waste Treatment Service tender represents a significant resource sharing effort by member Councils.  Waste disposal costs are a significant component of council expenditure and the SSROC tender provides the only available way forward to achieve the NSW Government target of 66% diversion of waste from landfill.

 

Public Consultation

 

N/A

 

Conclusion

 

AWT is the only current prospect available for SSROC Councils to achieve their NSW State Government target of 66% diversion from landfill by 2014.  Moving to an AWT processing solution would see no change to the current collection system.  Residents would still be required to separate their recycling from the general waste, and a garden organics collection would still be offered.

 

The price stated in Attachment 2 produces a level of certainty to Council in budgeting for cost of waste disposal over the next 10 years. The tendering process undertaken has been thorough and will deliver environmental and economic benefits to Council.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Recommendation Report- Provision of Advanced Waste Treatment Services -  - 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.

20 Pages

 

Attachment 2

Advanced Waste Treatment Contract- Memorandum of Understanding -  - 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.

6 Pages

 

Attachment 3

Status of the Food Organics and Garden Organics (FOGO) Tender Process -  - 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.

1 Page

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/6    That Council accept, receive and note the SSROC Report regarding the preferred AWT Waste Provider.

 

2/6    That Council keep confidential all matters and information in accordance with Section 10A(2)(D) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

3/6    That Council, under Regulation 178 (1) (a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, accept the tender submission offered by the preferred supplier for the provision of an Advanced Waste Treatment Service.

 

4/6    That Council agree to the Memorandum of Understanding with the preferred supplier (Confidential Attachment 2) setting out the principles for developing a contract, contingent on final price (which will change if any of the eight participating Councils do not enter into the Contract).

 

5/6    That Council delegate to the General Manager the authority to agree the contract terms on behalf of Council.

 

6/6    That to support recommendations 1-6, Council accept the recommendation in Attachment 3 regarding the processing of Food and Garden Organics.

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 CM10.13

Subject                            SSROC TENDER - SUPPLY OF GENERAL HARDWARE AND ASSOCIATED PRODUCTS

 

File Ref                            04/2012

 

Prepared by                   Lyn Blain - Strategic Procurement Coordinator       

 

 

   Reasons                       Council adopt the recommendation contained in the CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 1

 

 


Overview of Report

SSROC (Southern Sydney Region of Councils), on behalf of its member Councils, held a tender to select a supplier(s) of General Hardware and Associated Products.  A report on the results of the assessment of the received tenders can be found in CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 1.

 

Background

The existing SSROC contract for the supply of General Hardware and Associated Products expired on 30 June 2011 and it was decided there was an ongoing requirement for the continuation of this service for member councils.  Accordingly SSROC decided to invite public tenders for the provision of this service.

 

Councils that agreed to participate in the arrangement were:

 

·    Ashfield

·    Botany Bay

·    Burwood

·    Canada Bay

·    Canterbury

·    City of Sydney

·    Hurstville

·    Kogarah

·    Leichhardt

·    Marrickville

·    Randwick

·    Rockdale

·    Sutherland Shire

·    Waverley

·    Woollahra

 

Advertisements for the tender were placed in the Local Government Tender section of the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 September 2011.  The tender closing date was at 10.00 am on 1 May 2012.  A total of three (3) tenders were received.


 

Discussion

Tenders were evaluated strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

A Review Panel was established under the auspices of SSROC, consisting of:

 

·    Procurement Officer, City of Sydney Council

·    Tendering Manager, City of Sydney Council

·    Purchasing Coordinator, Woollahra Municipal Council

·    Procurement Coordinator, Sutherland Shire Council

 

It was proposed that a panel of contractors be selected and the tenders were evaluated using the following Assessment Criteria:

 

·    Competitive pricing and price basis

·    Ability and capacity to service the contract

·    Proven track record

·    Delivery and performance standards

·    Environmental consideration

·    Quality plan

·    Reporting

 

Financial Implications

The adoption of the SSROC proposal is expected to achieve cost savings for Council.

 

Other Staff Comments

The Director of Works & Infrastructure commented:

 

Participating in this Tender takes advantage of the buying power of the SSROC group.

 

This complies with Council’s Procurement Policy requirements.

.

 

Public Consultation

None required.

 

Conclusion

That the recommendations of the SSROC Tender Panel be adopted and the selected tenderers be appointed for a period of three (3) years subject to satisfactory performance with an option to extend for a further two one (1) year periods.


 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

SSROC Confidential Attachment General Hardware -  - 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.

0 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the SSROC recommendation and adopt the panel of successful tenderers as advised in the SSROC General Hardware and Associated Products Recommendation Report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PETER CORMICAN

Director of Works & Infrastructure

 

 

 

 


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

Subject                            TREE POLICY UPDATE

 

File Ref                            Trees

 

Prepared by                   Peter Cormican - Director Works & Infrastructure       

 

 

Reasons                          To report back on Council’s resolution from 9th October regarding  the exercise of discretion in issuing permits for tree removal and the preparation of a new Tree Preservation Policy.

 

Objective                         To answer questions put by council and provide a status report on development of a new TPO.

 

 

 


Overview of Report
This report provides an update on the development of a new Tree Preservation Order and Policy.

 

 

Background

At the Council meeting 9th October 2012, Council resolved (reference: NM39/2012) that a report be brought back to Council within 8 weeks which discusses what changes, if any, are needed to allow our officers the discretion to permit the removal of trees which are causing obvious damage, without the need for residents to commission an Arborists or Engineers report.

 

Upon application, the existing practice and procedure allows, where necessary, for Council Arboriculture staff to request that the applicant / property owner prepare inspection holes, trenches to examine roots or demolish the damaged structures (provided no other permit or consent is required to be issued), so that Council staff can then re-inspect the property, tree, any tree roots or the below ground soil conditions. Council staff offer residents the opportunity to undertake such investigation works and will return to site for re-inspections when necessary.  Council clearly states to the applicant what action on their behalf is to be carried out before again approaching Council with their application.

 

Council officers currently exercise considerable discretion where obvious structural damage is evident and this practice is expected to continue with the new Tree Preservation Order (TPO).  Requests by Council for a detailed Structural Engineers or Arborists report are made for various reasons, including:

a)   the expertise required to resolve the issue exceeds the specialist knowledge or qualifications of Council staff,

b)   where it is not obvious the structural damage is related to a tree,

c)  where advice from Council’s Arborists is not accepted by the applicant - where health of a tree is disputed, and when Council staff may consider there is an alternative to removal.


 

In other circumstances reports are required, for example, when the applicant is not the owner of the tree and Council seeks to avoid a civil dispute between neighbours.  The report  provides an opportunity for Council to make an decision after consideration of expert professional advice.

 

Other circumstances requiring a report may be when the viewing of the excavated hole, trench or the ground conditions following demolition of the structure is inconclusive, or when the tree is significant by way of its heritage or habitat and the decision to remove needs to be weighed against the ecological value of the tree and the cost and impact the works may have on the surrounding environment. 

 

The approval for the removal of a tree is issued when the tree is considered dangerous and when all other reasonable tree protection alternatives have been tried or are not available to the applicant.

 

In summary, Council officers seek the provision of specialist reports, as a last resort, to help resolve conflicts and to gather independent expert advice when required. 

Significant progress has been made in development of a new Tree Preservation Order and Policy.  The format of the new policy is user friendly, provides more detail and general advice than previously available to applicants.  It is based on a number of TPO documents accepted in other Council areas and includes a glossary of terms, photographs and helpful advice to residents.

 

The new policy improves on the previous TPO by:

a)   clarifying what tree work may be done without a permit or DA consent,

b)   identifying clearly the responsibilities of tree owners

c)   explaining dispute mechanisms available for decisions to be reviewed

d)   reasons which, in the normal course of events, would not be considered sufficient to justify tree pruning or removal.

 

The new draft tree policy & TPO has been forwarded to Council’s solicitors for review to ensure that it is robust to allow successful legal prosecution, and to ensure the process to be implemented for adoption meets the appropriate statutory requirements.

 

We expect to bring the draft Tree Policy and TPO to Council for consideration in February 2013.

 

Financial Implications

This policy has been developed internally by staff in the Parks & Trees and Regulatory Services areas.  Some costs will be associated with the legal review however it is considered essential from a due diligence point of view.

 

Other Staff Comments

This policy has been developed internally by Parks and Trees staff with input from Regulatory Services area staff and the Sustainability team.


 

Public Consultation

This policy is subject to statutory public exhibition.  The details of this process will be outlined when the full report and draft Policy comes before council in February.

 

 

 

Conclusion

The new TPO provides the opportunity for Council policy to be clarified and communicated to residents in an improved user friendly format.  It reduces the areas of uncertainty for residents as well as strengthens the requirements for the protection of trees.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Cormican

Director Works & Infrastructure

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 CM10.15

Subject                            TRAFFIC AND PARKING STUDY - RESIDENT PARKING SCHEME

 

File Ref                            Traffic and Parking>Investigations>Studies

 

Prepared by                   Tony Giunta - Senior Engineer - Infrastructure Management       

 

 

Reasons                          To provide Council with an update on the progress with the Traffic and Parking Study, Resident Parking Scheme

 

Objective                         That the information be noted

 

 

 


Overview of Report

This report provides a brief update and timeline of the work which will be undertaken by Council’s Consultant, Lyle Marshall & Associates in order to implement a Resident Parking Scheme for the following locations within a 750m radius from Ashfield Station:

                                             - Ashfield CBD South of Elizabeth Street

                                             - Ashfield CBD North of Elizabeth Street

 

 

Background

In February 2012, Council engaged the services of Lyle Marshall & Associates to prepare a Traffic and Parking Study Scope for the entire Ashfield LGA. This holistic approach was considered necessary in order to clearly understand the overall situation and to collectively address the issues which are relevant to the LGA.

 

As a result of the work undertaken by Lyle Marshall & Associates, an Ashfield Traffic and Parking Study Scope report was prepared which identifies a number of key issues that need addressing. One of the critical issues identified is the need for a Resident Parking Scheme, particularly to deal with rail commuters around the CBD areas.  In particular, the Ashfield CBD, due to the introduction of the Ashfield Mall’s paid parking which will come into effect in early December 2012.  It is anticipated that the commuters who use the all day parking facility in the Mall will revert to street parking, and as a result reduce the available street parking for residents.

 

In order to address this issue Council has already commenced the process of the Resident Parking Scheme in the vicinity of the Ashfield CBD, and in doing so Lyle Marshall and Associates have been engaged to undertake this work. A critical part of their work is to identify peak parking demands for the area being considered. That is whether the street is predominately parked out at different times of the day. ie Weekdays (10am to 2pm) or Night-time (9pm to mid night).


 

The extent of area/streets being included as part of this Resident Parking Scheme is as shown in the plan in attachment 1. This area is based on a 750m radius from Ashfield Station which represents a maximum walking time of approximately a 10-15 minutes from Ashfield Station. Some of the streets close to the CBD that have not been included, currently have “time restricted parking”, or will be considered for “time restricted parking”. This will be of greater benefit than RPS controls as these streets are close to commercial areas. Furthermore the Scheme area has been divided into two priority areas. These being:    

- Priority 1:          Ashfield CBD South of Elizabeth Street

- Priority 2:          Ashfield CBD North of Elizabeth Street

 

It should be noted that Resident Parking Schemes for other areas within the LGA (as identified in the Traffic and Parking Study Scope) requiring consideration for the introduction of a resident parking scheme, will be prioritised accordingly and will involve a similar process as detailed in the timeline below.

 

TimeLine

The following table gives a timeline for the various milestones that need to be achieved in order to have everything in place, including ground works, for the effective implementation of the Resident Parking Scheme both South and North of the Ashfield CBD.

 

 

Major Task Milestone

Priority 1: Area south of Elizabeth St

Priority 2: Area north of Elizabeth St

Start Date

Finish Date

 

Prepare scope of work for Consultant’s engagement

8/10/12

19/10/12

 

Engage Consultant

12/11/12

14/11/12

 

Undertake study survey work

Mid November 2012

End December 2012

 

Summary report of survey findings

End December 2012

Early January 2013

 

Community Consultation;

Prepare Resident letter detailing the scheme and seek residents comments

End January 2013

Mid February 2013

 

Internal consultation and analyse resident responses

-

Mid March

 

Report to Local Traffic Committee (April meeting)

-

5/4/2013

 

Report to Council on the residents feedback and details of the scheme including a draft Resident Parking Policy

-

Early May 2013

 

Exhibition Period (28 days) for the Scheme

Mid May 2013

Mid June 2013

 

Assess Submissions received

Mid June 2013

End June 2013

 

Further Report to Council to endorse the scheme, allocate the budget for implementation and adopt policy

End June 2013

July 2013

 

Prepare work schedules for on ground works and undertake works

July 2013

August 2013

 

Effective start date for the scheme

-

September 2013

 


 

Financial Implications

The cost to prepare the Traffic and Parking Study, Resident Parking Scheme for the area around the Ashfield CBD, including an allowance for some contingencies is approximately $21,000. Funding for this cost is available.

 

Other Staff Comments

N/A

 

Public Consultation

Community consultation will be undertaken as part of the study process in preparing the Resident Parking Scheme. Also once the details of the scheme and the policy are prepared they will be exhibited for public comment.

 

Conclusion

The Traffic and Parking Study, Resident Parking Scheme for the Ashfield CBD area being prepared by Lyle Marshall & Associates, will provide Council with necessary information and documentation required to implement the Resident Parking Scheme within the area defined in this report.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Resident Parking Scheme Plan, Ashfield CBD-750m radius from Ashfield Station

1 Page

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the information in this report be noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Cormican

Director Works & Infrastructure

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Resident Parking Scheme Plan, Ashfield CBD-750m radius from Ashfield Station

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 CM10.16

Subject                            UTS UNION LIMITED LEASE AGREEMENT

 

File Ref                            Properties>lease

 

Prepared by                   Gabrielle Rennard - Manager Corporate Services       

 

 

Reasons                          To inform and update the Council on the status of the UTS Union Ltd lease agreement for the Robson Park Reserve Trust, for the property known as the UTS Haberfield Club Ltd.

 

Objective                         To seek Council agreement to undertake a temporary Licence agreement.

 

 


Overview of Report
This report is to inform Council on the status of the UTS lease agreement for the Robson Park Reserve Trust, for the property known as the UTS Haberfield Club Ltd and to seek Council approval to undertake a long term lease agreement pending Ministerial approval. 

 

 

Ashfield Council is the Reserve Trust Manager of the Robson Park Reserve Trust and may enter, with Ministers’ consent into leases and licences.

 

Ashfield Council first entered into a lease agreement with Haberfield Rowing Club (as it was then known) in July 1962. Since this time, Council has continued to have a lease agreement with Haberfield Rowing Club and the UTS Union Ltd as controlling entity of UTS Haberfield Club Ltd. Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) also has a lease with UTS Union Ltd, where there is a condition precedent that there be a lease between UTS Union Ltd and Ashfield Council for the adjoining premises.

 

UTS Union Ltd, with Owners Consent lodged a development application with Ashfield Council for the refurbishment of the rowing club. This development application was referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) for determination and was approved in April this year.

 

On 26 June 2012 Council adopted the following resolution:-

 

1/2    That the General Manager be authorised to finalise a temporary licence           agreement with the UTS Union Ltd as the Reserve Trust Manager of the Robson Park Reserve Trust in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and upon final approval of Councils lawyers.

 

2/2    That the temporary licence agreement be sent to the Department of Primary Industries, Crown Land Division to seek the Minister’s approval.


 

The Department of Primary Industries, Crown Lands division (Crown Lands), RMS and the UTS, determined to enter into a Deed of Agreement to Lease for a period of 18 months (1 July 2012 -   31 December 2013) whilst the $8.5million redevelopment is being undertaken. The purpose of the Deed of Agreement to Lease, is to permit UTS Union to take a limited licence (rent free) to enable it to commence demolition and construction of the Premises. Works are due to commence January 2013.

 

Meanwhile, since the June Council meeting, Council staff have had discussions with Officers from RMS and held several meetings with the UTS Union Ltd to further discuss both the temporary agreement and a longer term lease arrangement.

 
Due to the significant capital infrastructure funds that the UTS are about to undertake on the site it is perhaps understandable the UTS are seeking assurity from both Council and the RMS prior to UTS Union commencing works that a long term lease is imminent.

It would also appear logical that the UTS is seeking for the terms of the lease that it enters with RMS matches that of Ashfield Council. Noting that there needs to be a commonality of purpose and structure in the lease arrangements, having regard to the fact that the building straddles two areas, with two lessors.


Accordingly such documents have been drafted of which would appear to give both Ashfield Council the necessary protective clauses noting that Council is fully indemnified and released and has full insurance coverage. and also provide UTS Union the level of accountability needed for it to commence works. To enable the project to proceed UTS Union is of the view that both leases need to recognise the interdependency of each other and be largely in similar terms.  As such the Deed of Agreement to Lease and the Draft Lease attempt to achieve this.

The terms of the draft lease are identical noting 15 years plus 3 options of 5 years. However it is noted that the initial feedback Council has received from Crown Lands notes, “it would be preferred that the Crown Lands component be restricted to 20 years (15 + 5 year option)”.

 

 

Financial Implications

At the request of the UTS Union Ltd Council granted a waiver of the rent for the period 1 January 2013 – 31 December 2013. For the following reasons:-

-     the club will cease trading as of December 2012 whilst undergoing construction

-     need to find alternative housing for the rowers during the period of closure

-     the construction period is anticipated to take twelve months

-     the UTS Union is undertaking significant capital infrastructure to the premises to the tune of $8.5 million of which will be of significant benefit to the Ashfield community.

 

The Rent is currently nominated as $15,000 per annum, plus CPI adjustment. It is suggested that this be an area of further negotiation with the UTS as the Draft Lease is progressed.


 

Other Staff Comments

Director, Corporate and Community Services – the UTS Union have a long history of operating a successful rowing club from the Haberfield site.

 

It is appreciated that the UTS have made a significant contribution by way of sports and the provision of a community facility to the Ashfield community over many years. It is believed that the significant redevelopment of the site to be undertaken by the UTS that includes a purpose built rowing facility, licensed restaurant and kiosk will be a welcome addition to the area and no doubt to people utilising the ‘bay walk’. Council is appreciative of these contributions and the history of UTS in Ashfield local government area.

 

Officers are endeavouring to provide within the scope of the relevant legislation the ‘best fit’ lease arrangement for the UTS and the broader Ashfield community. As it is believed that the community and Council will at the end be provided with a modern state of the art multi-purpose community asset.

 

Bearing in mind that any lease or licence agreement for the site in question is contingent upon approval from the Minister of the Department of Primary Industries, Crown Land Division.

 

 

Public Consultation

Council continues to liaise with the UTS officials in developing the draft lease.

 

The Council is required to advertise any proposed lease over Community Land that exceeds a 5-year period.

 

 

Conclusion

It is appreciated that the UTS Union Ltd has made a significant contribution to the Ashfield community over a long period of time. It is further noted that UTS Union Ltd will have contributed significant funds to the upgrade of a local community asset of which Ashfield Council is the Reserve Trust Manager.


 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

UTS Overview to Council - November 2012

2 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/4    That Council agree to enter into a lease with UTS Union Limited for a           minimum of 15 years plus 5 year option.

 

2/4    That Council agree to the terms of the lease with UTS Union Limited to be           consistent with the lease the UTS is concurrently developing with the           Roads and Maritime Services noting that there needs to be a commonality    of purpose and structure in the lease arrangements, having regard to the    fact that the  building straddles two areas, with two lessors.

 

3/4    That  the General Manager be granted delegation to finalise a lease           agreement with the UTS Union Ltd as the Reserve Trust Manager of the    Robson Park Reserve Trust in accordance with the provisions of the Local         Government Act 1993 and upon final approval of Councils lawyers.

 

4/4    That any agreement or lease for the Robson Park Reserve Trust be sent to           the Department of Primary Industries, Crown Land Division to seek the    Minister’s approval.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

UTS Overview to Council - November 2012

 



Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012 CM10.17

Subject                            AUSTRALIA DAY REPORT

 

File Ref                            AUSTRALIA DAY

 

Prepared by                   Nicola Feltis - Communications Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Council is to determine the recipients of Ashfield Council’s Australia Day Awards for 2013

 

Objective                         For Council to determine the recipients of Ashfield Council’s Australia Day Awards 2013, including the Citizen of the Year, Young Citizen of the Year, Young Artist of the year and Young Sportsperson of the Year

 

 

 


Overview of Report
Each year Ashfield Council runs an Australia Day Awards Program for its Citizen of the Year, Young Citizen of the Year and Young Artist/Sportsperson of the Year.  Ashfield Council has received 15 nominations for the 2013 awards.  These awards have been initially assessed by Council staff according to the selection criteria advertised for the 2013 Awards (provided by the Australia Day Council of NSW).  Council must determine the winners in each category.  The Awards will be presented on Australia Day – Saturday 26 January 2013 at a special ceremony to be held in the Ashfield Civic Centre.

 

 

Background

Each year Ashfield Council participates in the local NSW Citizen of the Year Awards, run by the Australia Day Council of NSW, a subsidiary of the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet.  The Awards recognise outstanding personal achievement or contribution to the community by an individual and are an integral part of the national Australia Day celebrations.

 

Ashfield Council conducts awards in the following categories:

 

-     Citizen of the Year - Recognising an outstanding contribution to the community by an Ashfield citizen.  To be eligible, the person must be 26 years or older on 26 January 2013

-     Young Citizen of the Year - Recognising outstanding achievement or contribution to the community by a young Ashfield citizen. To be eligible, the person must be under 26 years of age on 26 January 2013

-     Young Artist/Sportsperson of the Year - Presented for contribution to the Arts/Sport in the local area.  The nominee’s approach and efforts to advance their chosen activity and their performance over the past year will be considered.

To be eligible, the person must be under 26 years of age on 26 January 2013


 

As per previous years, Ashfield Council may present Australia Day Achievement Awards to those nominees who did not win in their nominated category, but are worthy of recognition for their efforts. 

 

Call for Nominations

 

Award nominations opened on 23 October 2012.  Nominations for the awards closed on Friday 23 November 2012. 

 

Promotion of Awards

 

The call for nominations, encouraging our community to nominate was promoted via the following means:

§ Media release sent to local print and electronic media

§ Regular advertising in Council’s weekly ad in the “Inner-West Courier”

§ Posters on Council’s Community Noticeboards, Ashfield Library and Haberfield Library

§ Link from the home page of Council’s website at www.ashfield.nsw.gov.au

§ Editorial coverage in the “Inner West Weekly”

§ Council’s homepage news item.

§ Mayor’s column in Council’s weekly ad.

 

Distribution of Nomination Packs

 

Nomination packs were revised in line with the most recent information and branding provided by the Australia Day Council of NSW.  Nomination packs were distributed in October to groups including:

 

§ Local community groups and organisations

§ Local high schools

§ Local community leaders

§ Business organisations

§ Major clubs and sporting organisations

§ Council staff, including Community Services and Library

 

Nomination packs were also made available on Council’s website, at Council’s Customer Service Centre, Ashfield Library, Haberfield Library and the Ashfield Aquatic Centre.

 

Award Criteria

 

In assessing a nomination, the judging panel may consider:

§ Whether the nominee is a resident of the Ashfield Council area.  (Particularly outstanding and significant contributions to the municipality by a non-resident will be considered if received)

§ The number of hours of work over and above normal employment duties

§ The benefit to the Ashfield community from the nominee’s service or contribution

§ Other outstanding achievements by the nominee

§ Other recognition of the nominee’s contribution or work, including publicity


 

§ Whether the nominee worked as part of a team and their role within the team

§ Whether the nominee has had assistance from Council, government or other grants.

§ Whether the nominee has had to overcome any particular difficulties or hurdles

§ Who has benefited most from the work of the nominee

§ Whether the work was voluntary (i.e. no direct or indirect monetary or material gain)

 

In the event of two or more nominees equally satisfying the above criteria, the Judging Panel has the option of giving preference to the nominee who has received less public recognition.

 

2013 Nominees

 

Ashfield Council received 14 nominations for its Australia Day Awards 2013. Please refer to attached spreadsheet for a synopsis and initial analysis of these applications.  The submissions are included as Attachments.

 

Initial Nomination Review

 

The initial review of applications was collated by the Communications Officer.

 

 

Financial Implications

Nil

 

Other Staff Comments

Nexhmije Shala – Manager Community Services

 

This year’s nominees represent a broad range of activities that have aimed at assisting and building upon the resilience and community well being of Ashfield. It is fitting that Council should recognise and celebrate these purposeful contributions and highlight their work and achievements within the local community.

 

 

Public Consultation

Community participation was encouraged with an extensive advertising process. In addition to this nomination forms were made available at Council’s Customer Service Counters, at Ashfield and Haberfield Library and packs were distributed to community groups and local schools, a dedicated column in Council’s weekly ad calling for nominations and details of the awards ran on the front page of Council’s website.

 

 

Conclusion

Ashfield Council's Australia Day Awards program has attracted a wide range of worthy nominees who are all "local heroes" in their own way, contributing their skills and time to the local community, or inspiring others through their outstanding personal achievements.  It is envisaged each nominee will be acknowledged with a Certificate of Achievement at Ashfield Council's Australia Day Awards 2013.


 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Nominees for Citizen of the Year -  - 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

 

Attachment 2

Nominees for Young Citizen of the Year -  - 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 3

Applications for Australia Day Awards -  - 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.

79 Pages

 

 

 

 RECOMMENDATION

 

1/5    That Council determine the recipient of the Citizen of the Year Award

 

2/5    That Council determine the recipient of the Young Citizen of the   Year           Award

 

3/5    That Council determine the recipient of the Young Sportsperson of the                    Year Award

 

4/5    That Council determine the recipient of the Young Artist of the Year Award

 

5/5    That Council determine recipients of any additional Australia Day           Achievement Awards

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services