7 March 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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  12 MARCH 2013 at 6:30 PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEE ATTACHED AGENDA


 

Ordinary Meeting - 12 March 2013

 

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.

(12/03/2013)

 

7.               Confirmation of Minutes of Council/Committees

 

Extraordinary Meeting – 28/02/2013

Ordinary Meeting - 26/02/2013

Extraordinary Meeting – 21/02/2013

Aboriginal Consultative Commttee Meeting – 21/02/2013

Civic Centre Redevelopment Steering Committee – 19/02/2013

 

8.               Mayoral Minutes

 

MM10/2013  MAYORAL MORNING TEA TO LAUNCH SENIORS WEEK

 

MM11/2013  INTERNATIONAL WOMENS DAY

 

 

9.               Notices of Motion

 

NM5/2013    CIVIC FUNCTION COMMITTEE

 

NM6/2013    COUNCILLOR CONTACTS

 

NM7/2013    BRESCIA 202 PARRAMATTA ROAD ASHFIELD

 

 

10.            Staff Reports

 

10.1     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.160.2
33 TILLOCK STREET HABERFIELD

 

10.2     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2013.016.1
5 HERCULES STREET ASHFIELD

 

10.3     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2013.024.1
30 KING STREET ASHFIELD

 

10.4     SECOND QUARTER REVIEW AGAINST THE COUNCIL PLAN

 

10.5     NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

 

10.6     ADHOC DONATIONS

 

10.7     THIRNING VILLA ARTIST IN RESIDENCE PROGRAM - April 2013 to March 2014

 

10.8     REPORT ON FEAST OF FLAVOURS FESTIVALS

 

10.9     SUNDRY GRANT - REQUEST TO COUNCIL FOR FINANCIAL DONATION

 

10.10   ASHFIELD TRAFFIC COMMITTEE-MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 8 FEBRUARY 2013.

 

10.11   POLICY - OUTDOOR DINING AND FOOTPATH TRADING

 

 

11.            Closed (Public Excluded) Committee

 

Nil

 

12.            Close

 

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2013 MM10/2013

Seniors Week

MAYORAL MINUTE

 

MAYORAL MORNING TEA TO LAUNCH SENIORS WEEK

       

 

On Monday 4 March 2013 the Council opened Senior’s Week with a Mayoral Morning Tea.

I was joined at the function by Councillors Passas and Lofts.

 

It was a tremendous success with over 120 residents attending the function in the Town Hall.

 

It gave me great pride to see the happy faces of our senior residents enjoying morning tea with other members of the community while local violinist Ms Caroline Kelly provided a wonderful musical accompaniment.

 

A lot of preparation went into making the function such a success. I would like to acknowledge the Council staff and Metro Migrant Resource Centre staff for their hard work in organising the event. In particular, the service of tea and coffee by the Council staff and Metro Migrant Resource Centre staff contributed to the friendly atmosphere.

 

I received many comments from our residents who were grateful that the Council honoured them during Seniors Week.

 

Many residents also received tickets to the Royal Easter Show, donated to the Council for the distribution within the community.

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That letters of thanks be sent to the General Manager and the Manager of Metro Migrant Resource Centre for the support of their staff at the Senior’s Morning Tea.

 

 

 

    

Mansour

 

COUNCILLOR M MANSOUR

Mayor

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2013 MM11/2013

Events

MAYORAL MINUTE

 

INTERNATIONAL WOMENS DAY

       

 

It was with great pleasure that I attended the celebration of International Women’s Day along with Councillor McKenna and Commander David Johnson of Ashfield Police LAC at Ashfield Town Hall.

 

This was a joint event with Ashfield Council and Metro Migrant Resource Centre working together to send out invitations and organise speakers and entertainment.

 

It was extremely well attended by many different groups in the community.

 

The 2013 Theme is THE GENDER AGENDA: GAINING MOMENTUM.

 

Over time and distance, the equal rights of women have progressed. We celebrate the achievements of women while remaining vigilant and tenacious for further sustainable change. There is global momentum for championing women's equality.

 

Each year around the world International Women's Day (IWD) is celebrated on March 8.

 

Thousands of events occur not just on this day but throughout March to mark the economic, political and social achievements of women. Organisations, governments, charities, educational institutions, women's groups, corporations and the media celebrate the day.

 

Many groups around the world choose different themes each year relevant to global and local gender issues.

 

The Ashfield Boys High School Band performed for the entertainment of guests.

 

The Guest Speakers were:

-     Angela Vergopoulos, Crime Prevention Officer (Ashfield Police LAC)

-     Thelma Parker, Aboriginal Community Development Worker (Ashfield Council)

-     Patricia Blackman, Aboriginal Cultural Officer  (Ashfield Council)

 

An interview was conducted with Ms Dorothy Buckland-Fuller by Soheyla Gholamshahi.

 

The morning concluded with a theatre performance by the Older Women’s Theatre Group.

 

 


 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3    That the General Manager Vanessa Chan, Mr Lou Bacchiella be           congratulated on the success of the International Women’s Day Event

          along with the volunteers.

 

2/3    That Ashfield Boys High Band be thanked for providing the entertainment.

 

3/3    That the Older Women’s Network Theatre Group be thanked for their

           contribution to the success of the event.

 

 

 

 

    

Mansour

 

COUNCILLOR M MANSOUR

Mayor

 

 

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2013 NM5/2013

Events

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

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

 

 

CIVIC FUNCTION COMMITTEE

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM5/2013

 

 

In the short time since the last Council Election there have been a number of Civic Functions and Functions generated by the General Manager for various committees and staff.

 

It is evident to me and my colleagues that there needs to be a coordinating and overseeing of such functions as this would be the General Manager.

 

The new Council has an incredible wealth of talent that could assist in the organisation and value for money and in pursuing the best outcome for successful events.

 

While staff have had a valuable contribution to the success of functions I have attended, I believe it is important that a committee be established to ensure the high quality of our functions and pursue innovative initiatives.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, we move:-

 

1/2         That Council establish a Civic Functions committee chaired by the Mayor or his delegate and that the committee comprises of all interested Councillors.

 

2/2         That this committee convene and meet every two months from the date of the adoption of this motion or as requested by three Councillors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Julie Passas

 

 

 

Max Raiola

 

 

 

Vittoria Raciti

 

 

 

Adriano Raiola

 

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2013 NM6/2013

Publications

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLOR Julie Passas

 

 

COUNCILLOR CONTACTS

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM6/2013

 

Ashfield Council distributes a six A4 community leaflet with various informative articles. I have found that residents want to know who is their local Councillor and their contact details.

 

The majority of Councils publish photos and details of their Councillors which was the case of Ashfield Council in the past.

 

As a former newspaper employee I am well aware that the cost for our Newsletter with Councillors photos would not increase.

 

Officers Comments

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

That Councillors photos and contact details be published in all future

Newsletters and Reports.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Passas.jpg

Julie Passas

 

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2013 NM7/2013

Planning

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

COUNCILLOR Monica Wangmann

 

 

BRESCIA 202 PARRAMATTA ROAD ASHFIELD

     

To move Notice of Motion No. NM7/2013

 

A footbridge has been built at the corner currently adjacent to the burnt down Brescia building. This location is a major pedestrians route where primary school students at Haberfield Primary School to cross Parramatta Road. There are a range of traffic management devices to slow and direct traffic and to create good sight lines.

The Brescia development application at 202 Parramatta Road has been approved by Council some time ago but has not commenced.

Residents surrounding the site have asked Council to contact Mr Brescia, on the school children's behalf, to ensure that young pedestrians travelling along Bland Street and Parramatta Road, across the entries and exists to the site, can do so as safely as possible. Any proposed safety devices could be incorporated in to the future construction plans before works commence and should hopefully be a minor cost.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

email from Rachel Davis dated 4 March 2013

1 Page

 

 

Accordingly, I move:-

 

1/3    That Council write immediately to Mr Brescia and the property managers           of 202 Parramatta Road seeking their assistance with the construction of           appropriate traffic management devices to take into account the high           volume of young pedestrians crossing the Parramatta Road and Bland           Street entries and exists to their site.

2/3    That Council immediately contact Mrs Davies, Haberfield Primary School           and any other interested persons to advise them of the letter to Mr Brescia           and keep them informed about the process and progress of the proposed           traffic management devices. That any interested persons be provided with           a copy of the current conditions of consent.

 

3/3    That Council officers provide any assistance required to the land owners           at 202 Parramatta Road, to identify the most appropriate, feasible and           practical traffic management pedestrian safety device solutions for the           entries and exists to the Brescia site.

 

Monica Wangmann

  


Attachment 1

 

email from Rachel Davis dated 4 March 2013

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2013    CM10.1

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2012.160.2
33 TILLOCK STREET HABERFIELD

 

File Ref                            DA 10.2012.160.

 

Prepared by                   Daisy Younan - Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter referred to Council for determination

 

Objective                         For 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 modify development consent 10.2012.160.1 in the following manner:

 

1.   Deletion of condition A4 (Unauthorised work fee) which relates to the payment of an unauthorised work fee of $845.00;

 

The applicant has also requested that the S96 application fee of $145.80 for this application to be reimbursed.

 

2.0       BACKGROUND

 

In response to applicant’s submission dated 13th December 2012 (included as Attachment 2), Council has advised the applicant, by letter dated 21st December 2012 which is included in Attachment 3), that “Council introduced this fee some years ago in response to the considerable resources that are put towards inspection, follow up, assessment and determination of developments that have been carried out without the prior approval of Council”.

 

The applicant has also been advised that “this fee is consistent with Council’s current fees and charges policy” - refer to Clause 7.0 of this report for further comments.

 

3.0       SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

 

Council has been consistently applying this fee in instances where unauthorised works have occurred and a subsequent application is submitted for assessment. Consequently, there is no planning justification to waive the fee in this instance and the proposal to have the condition requiring payment of the fee deleted is not supported. However, it is open to Council to determine whether or not to support the request.


 

3.0    APPLICATION DETAILS

 

Applicant                               :         Mr L J Coote

Address                                 :         33 Tillock Street HABERFIELD  NSW  2045

Owner                                    :         Mr L J Coote & Ms L D Leibbrandt

Lot/DP                                    :         LOT: 20 SEC: 9 DP: 7508

Date lodged                          :         18/02/2013

Date of last amendment     :         N/A

Application Type                  :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

 

4.0    SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Tillock Street, bounded by Dobroyd Parade to the north and waratah Street to the south. The site area is approximately 678.03 square metres. An existing dwelling house is located on the site. Surrounding development comprises residential establishments.

 

5.0    DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

 

Development application for the use of a grey water treatment plant was approved on 21/09/2012.

 

6.0    ZONING/PERMISSIBILITY/HERITAGE

 

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

·    The property is located within the Haberfield Conservation Area;

·    The property is not a heritage item.

 

The proposed modifications are permissible with Council consent.

 

7.0    SECTION 79C and 96(1A) ASSESSMENT

 

S96 (1A) Modification Assessment

 

(1A) Modifications involving minimal environmental impact A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

(a) it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and

(b) it is 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), and

(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

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

Condition A(4) requires an unauthorised work fee of $845.00 to be paid prior to the release of a building certificate.

 

The applicant argues that:

 

1.   The motivation for the installation of the grey water system was to adopt contemporary and responsible environment practice to ensure that all available water is captured and reused (applicant submission is included in Attachment 2).

 

2.   The unauthorised work fee is somewhat unreasonable, particularly considering the full cost, time and effort involved in preparing, submitting and following up the development consent.

 

3.   The imposing of condition A(4) is contrary to Council’s policy to promote and support initiatives that reduces carbon emissions and water consumption.

 

Officer’s comments

 

The environmental benefit of the grey water system is acknowledged, however, the issue relates to the fact that the works were carried out without development consent.

 

The fee in question is consistent with and required under Council’s current fees and charges policy. It was introduced some years ago in response to the considerable resources that are put towards inspection, follow up, assessment and determination of development that has been carried out without the prior approval of Council.

 

Further, Council has consistently applied this fee to all applicants who have carried out unauthorised building works.

 

Whilst the proposed modification to the development consent is of minimal environmental impact and can be considered under Section 96(1A) of the Act it is not supported for the reasons outlined above.

 

 

 

SECTION 79C Assessment

 

7.1    The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

7.1.1 Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

The proposed modifications do not alter compliance with the LEP.


 

 

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

 

The proposed modifications do 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 from 27 June 2012 until 21 August 2012 and is a matter for consideration under S79C of the EPA Act 1979. The proposed modifications are not considered contrary to the provisions of the Draft ALEP 2012.

 

7.3       The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with relevant DCPs.

 

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

 

Not applicable.

 

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

 

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

 

7.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

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


 

 

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

 

The proposal did not require public notification.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

Not applicable.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

Matters of the public interest have been taken into consideration in the assessment of this application. The public interest would be best served by the consistent application of Council policies.

 

8.0    REFERRALS

 

Not applicable.

 

9.0    OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS

 

Not applicable.

 

10.0  BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA (BCA)

 

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

 

11.0  CONCLUSION

 

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

 

The proposal is not supported for reasons outlined in the report.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 2View

Applicant's Submission

2 Pages

 

Attachment 3View

Council Response to Applicant Submission

3 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Submitted for consideration.

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 2

 

Applicant's Submission

 


 


Attachment 3

 

Council Response to Applicant Submission

 


 


 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2013    CM10.2

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2013.016.1
5 HERCULES STREET ASHFIELD

 

File Ref                            DA 10.2013.016.1

 

Prepared by                   Atalay Bas - Manager Development Services       

 

 

Reasons                          Matter referred to Council for determination via a Councillor request

 

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:-

 

(i)      Removal of existing glass shopfront; and

(ii)     Installation of solid roller shutters to the ground floor shopfront.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

2.0    Recommendation

 

Inspection of the premises has revealed that the proposed works have already been completed. Council cannot issue retrospective development consent or a construction certificate approval for the completed work, however, it can issue approval for the ongoing use of the roller shutter and issue a building certificate.

 

It is important to note that the proposed shopfront treatment is not consistent with provisions of the Ashfield Town Centre DCP (Section 6, Clause 7 of Part C3) and will result in a negative streetscape impact. In this respect it is recommended that the unauthorised roller shutter should not be allowed to remain and the glazed shopfront should be reinstated. Alternatively, the applicant could consider an alternative treatment to the shopfront which provides the desired security but has a more appropriate visual impact.

 

3.0    Executive Summary

 

The gradual introduction of unsympathetic roller shutter installations is having a detrimental cumulative visual impact on the Ashfield Town Centre.


 

 

The commercial streetscape of the Ashfield Town Centre plays a major role in contributing to the vitality, safety, visual and aesthetic appearance of the urban environment. Commercial streetscapes with rows of solid roller shutters and bars do not make a positive contribution to the appeal of the business precinct and increase opportunities for graffiti. In addition, the ‘closed’ appearance of shopfronts with roller shutters does not create an environment which pedestrians perceive as safe and welcoming, particularly at night. 

 

The proposed roller shutter has a detrimental impact on the external appearance of the building given that it is not a compatible architectural form and also detracts from the heritage significance of the heritage item located at 11-13 Hercules Street, Ashfield.

 

Council officers have been working closely with property owners and business operators for a number of years to improve shopfront presentations when opportunities arise through the submission of development applications. Approval of this proposal would undermine this work and the integrity of Council’s controls and vision for improving the Town Centre.

 

Background

 

4.0    Negotiations with applicant

 

Prior to the lodgement of the application, discussions were held with the applicant to explore other alternatives and options which could be supported, however, no compromise was reached.

 

The applicant was also informed that if the application was lodged in its current form it would not be recommended for approval. Notwithstanding this advice, the applicant indicated a preference for Council to determine the application in its current form.

 

5.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         Mr X He

Owner                                    :         Mr L & Mrs H Karanikolas

Value of work                       :         $ 3,500

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: E DP: 108117

Date lodged                          :         25/01/2013

Date of last amendment     :         N/A

Building classification        :         10b

Application Type                  :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

Section 94A Levy                :         No


 

 

6.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Hercules Street, bounded by Liverpool Road to the south and Brown Street to the north. The site area is approximately 97 square metres.

 

An existing two storey commercial building with ground floor used as a food shop is located on the site. Surrounding development comprises mainly of 2 storey commercial buildings.

 

Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.

 

7.0    Development History

 

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

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

B/A1977/470

7/12/1977

Internal alterations to fish shop

Approved

B/A 1968/6771

22/5/1968

New fish cooker

Approved

 

The previous building approvals show that the premises has a history of use as a food shop.

 

Assessment

 

8.0    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 item at 11-13 Hercules Street, Ashfield.

 

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

 

8.1    The Issues

 

It is recognised that security is an increasing concern for shop owners. By discouraging unsympathetic development and promoting good design it is possible to achieve a safer and more welcoming environment and reduce the opportunity for vandalism as well as crime generally.


 

 

The installation roller shutters in areas such as the Ashfield Town Centre only reinforces the impression of a precinct which is unsafe or a risk to pedestrians, particularly at night, when many businesses are not trading.

An open commercial shop front creates a safer street for pedestrians, provides casual surveillance of shops and allows some additional light spill on to the footpath at night. The proposal will not achieve these qualities or make a positive contribution to the amenity of the Town Centre.

 

9.0    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.

 

9.1    The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

9.1.1 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

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 17B

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

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

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

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

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

(a) the scale and character of the streetscape,

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

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

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

The FSR is not altered by the development.

CLAUSE 29

Provision for public amenities and services

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

CLAUSE 30

Heritage provisions – aims

The aims of this Part are:

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

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

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

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

Does not comply.

It is considered that the carrying out of the proposed development will not meet the aims of the heritage provisions of Ashfield LEP 1985 as it adversely affects the streetscape and the heritage significance of the heritage item at 11-13 Hercules Street, Ashfield.

 

CLAUSE 34

Notice to Heritage Council

Not applicable.

 

 


CLAUSE 36

Development of known or potential archaeological sites

Not applicable.

 

.


CLAUSE 37

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

Does not comply.

It is considered that the carrying out of the proposal will have an adverse impact upon the heritage significance of heritage items, conservation areas, archaeological sites or potential archaeological sites in its vicinity.

 

 

CLAUSE 37A

Conservation incentives

Not applicable.

 

 


 

 

CLAUSE 39B

Mixed development in commercial zones – generally

Complies.

CLAUSE 45

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

Not applicable.

 

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

 

9.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

The development is not visible from a waterway and therefore does not have an impact on the objectives of the SREP.

 

9.1.3 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.

 

9.2       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 B4 mixed development

New roller doors to shop front

The proposal use is consistent with the zoning

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

Not  specified

No change

N/A

4.3

Height of buildings

12m

No change

N/A

4.4

Floor space ratio

3.0:1

No change

N/A

5.10

Heritage Conservation

Not located in a 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.

Unsatisfactory as roller shutter will detract from the streetscape and Heritage Items in the vicinity.

No

 

9.3       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

Access is available to the shop and not changed as the development is only for the installation of roller shutters to the shop front.

C3

ASHFIELD TOWN CENTRE

Does not comply.

Please see section 9.4 below for detailed assessment.

C11

PARKING

No additional parking is required as the development is only for the installation of roller shutters to the shop front and there is no increase in FSR.

C12

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

The application has been notified as required by this part.

 

9.4    Ashfield Development Control Plan Part C3 Ashfield Town Centre

 

Section 6 of Part C3 reads as follows:-

 

“Shopfronts design

 

2.      Require attractive ground level shopfront facades in order to benefit the town centre’s

streetscape and character.”


 

 

Assessment Comments

 

The proposed roller shutter detracts from the architectural qualities of the existing building and results in an unattractive facade and an undesirable streetscape element in the Ashfield Town Centre.

 

“Shopfront composition

 

6.         The minimum amount of glazed area shall be as stipulated in Section 4 Objectives –Clause 3

 

7.         Shopfronts shall not have any “rolladoor” or grille, security shutters, except in the following circumstances:

- only security shutters which are predominantly transparent are permitted.

 

8.         Ground level shopfront composition shall be arranged in a way which complements the building style of the façade and enhances the streetscape.”

 

Assessment Comments

 

The minimum glazed area required pursuant to Section 4 objectives Clause 3 is 80% of the width of the shopfront. The glazed area is required to be transparent, so as to enable visibility of the street from the interior of the building. The proposal to have a solid roller shutter will not achieve this objective.

 

The proposed roller shutter is not transparent and is therefore not consistent with the above clause.

 

In this instance it is considered that the proposal does not comply with Part C3 of ADCP as indicated and ultimately does not achieve the aims and objectives of the Ashfield DCP.

 

9.5       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.

 

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

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application. It is considered that the proposed development will have an adverse environmental impact upon the locality. The development detracts from the visual amenity of the shopping precinct.


 

 

9.7       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 not considered suitable in the context of the locality for reasons outlined in the report.

 

9.8       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 30 January 2013 until 15 January 2013.

 

9.8.1          Summary of submissions

 

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

 

9.9    The public interest

 

Matters of the public interest have been taken into consideration in the assessment of this application. The proposal does not warrant support and is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

10.0  Other Relevant Matters

 

Stormwater Pipes –

 

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

 

11.0  Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

As the work has been completed a construction certificate cannot be issued, however, a building certificate application could be submitted for the work.

 

Financial Implications

Nil.

 

Other Staff Comments

See Section 8.1 of this report.

 

Public Consultation

See Section 7.7 of this report.


 

 

Conclusion

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

 

The proposal is unacceptable for reasons outlined in the report and the applicant should be encouraged to consider another shopfront treatment which provides appropriate security but can also make a positive contribution to the streetscape.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

1 Page

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) refuse Development Application No.2013.16 for removal of shop glass and installation of roller shutters to shop front on Lot E in DP: 108117, known as 5 Hercules Street Ashfield, for the following reasons:-

 

Reasons for Refusal

 

1.         The proposal does not comply with Section 6 clause 7 of Part C3 of Ashfield Development Control Plan.

 

2.         The proposed roller shutter will have a detrimental visual impact on the streetscape and the character of the Ashfield Town Centre.

 

3.         The proposed roller shutter does not provide adequate visual permeability or contribute positively to the amenity of the locality.

 

4.         The proposed external shutter will detract from the external appearance of the building in that it is not a compatible architectural form and detracts from the heritage significance of the heritage item located at 11-13 Hercules Street, Ashfield.

 

5.         The proposal does not comply with the aims and objectives of Clause 2 of Ashfield Local Environmental Plan which promotes orderly and economic development.

 

6.         The proposal is not in the public interest.

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 


Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2013    CM10.3

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2013.024.1
30 KING STREET ASHFIELD

 

File Ref                            DA 10.2013.024.1

 

Prepared by                   Luma Araim - 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 replacement of a side boundary timber paling fence, between 28 and 30 King Street.

 

Plans of the proposal are included at Attachment 1.

 

2.0    Summary Recommendation

 

The development is recommended for conditional approval.

 

Background

 

3.0    Application Details

 

Applicant                               :         James Honan

Owner                                    :         Mr J W & Mrs N M Honan

Value of work                       :         $3,535.00

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: 42 DP: 112361; LOT: 3 DP: 263; LOT:0 SP30139

Date lodged                          :         07/02/2013

Date of last amendment     :         Not applicable

Building classification        :         10b

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 King Street, bounded by Norton Street to the north and Arthur Street to the south.  The site area is approximately 780.44 square metres.  An existing two storey dwelling house is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises residential development of varying densities. Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.


 

 

5.0    Development History

 

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

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

6.1995.147.1

11/07/1995

Alterations and additions to dwelling and a new garage

Approved

 

The previous consent has been noted in the assessment of this application.

 

Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

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

·    The property is located within the Hampden and King Street Conservation Area.

·    The property is a heritage item.

·    The property is located within the vicinity of number of heritage items being 2A, 4, 10, 7, 11, 15 King Street, 48 Arthur Street and 1 Shepherd Street.

 

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

 

7.0    Section 79C Assessment

 

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

 

7.1    The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

7.1.1 Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended)

 

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

Refer to Attachment 3 for ALEP compliance table.

 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

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


 

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

 

Not applicable.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

Given its residential history 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

 

The proposal to erect a side boundary fence in this instance is not exempt development due to the fact that the property is a heritage item and the work requires Council approval.

 

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

 

Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Draft ALEP 2012) was placed on public exhibition on 27 June 2012 and is a matter for consideration. The following table summarises the compliance of the application.

 

Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

Summary Compliance Table

Clause No.

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Compliance

2.2

Zoning

Zone R2 Low Density Residential

Boundary fencing to existing dwelling house

Yes

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

500m2

780.44 m2

Yes

4.3

Height of buildings

8.5m

No changes to the dwelling-house

N/A

4.4

Floor space ratio

0.5:1

No alterations to the gross floor area of the dwelling house

N/A

5.10

Heritage Conservation

C6 Hampden Street and King Street Conservation Area

The property is a Heritage Item I172

 


 

 

5.10(4)

Effect on heritage significance

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

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

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

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

 

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

Council's Heritage Adviser did not raise any concerns with the proposal and it is not expected to detract from the character or significance of the heritage conservation area, the heritage item or heritage items in its vicinity.

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:

 

C10

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Complies.

C11

PARKING

The subject site accommodates a garage to the rear of the premises and vehicular access is via King Street.

C12

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

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council’s notification policy.

C15

HOUSES & DUAL OCCUPANCIES

The proposal seeks to install a timber side boundary fence along the north property boundary.

 

The proposed fence consists of two parts, the first part is 1.2m in height from the street to the front building line. This section is tapered to the building line.

 

The second section is 1.8m in height starting from the building line to the rear.

 

Clause 3.9 of the DCP requires front and side fencing forward of the front building line not to exceed 1200mm in height. The proposal complies with the height requirements of this Clause.

 

Clause 4.1 of the DCP requires the maximum height for a side boundary fence, which does not extend forward of the predominant line, to be 1.8m. The proposal complies with the requirement of this Clause.

 

 

It is considered the proposal 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.

 

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 11 February 2013 until 28 February 2013.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

No submissions were received.

 

7.8    The public interest

 

The proposal warrants support.

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

Heritage Adviser

 

No objections raised. Comments from Council’s Heritage Adviser are included at Attachment 4.

 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

Stormwater Pipes

 

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

 

Financial Implications

 

Section 94A Contributions is not applicable due to the value of work being under $100,000.00.

 

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

2 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Heritage Advice

1 Page

 

Attachment 4View

Conditions

4 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. 10.2013.24.1 for the replacement of a side boundary fence with a timber paling fence along the northern boundary between 28 and 30 King Street on Lot 42 in DP: 112361; and Lot 3 in DP: 263, known as 30 King Street and Lot 0 in SP: 30139 known as 28 King Street , Ashfield, subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPLIANCE TABLE - ASHFIELD LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1985

 

CLAUSE 2

Aims, objectives etc.

This plan aims to:

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

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

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

 

 

CLAUSE 10

Zoning

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

CLAUSE 10A

Development consent required for change of building use and subdivision

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 11

Dwelling houses – residential allotment size

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

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

(b) in any other case –

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

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

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

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

Complies.

Allotment Size                 = 780.44m2

Width of front alignment = 17.07m

 

 

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         =  (1) storey

 

 

CLAUSE 13

Dwelling houses – dual occupancy

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 17

Floor space ratios

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

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

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 17A

Height of residential flat buildings

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

(2) In this clause –

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 17B

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

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

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

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

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

(a) the scale and character of the streetscape,

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

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

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

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 18

Development for the purpose of advertisements

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 20

Clubs

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 21

Motor showrooms

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 22

Industrial uses 4(b)

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 23

Setbacks 4(b)

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 24

Parking in Zone 4(b)

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 25

Development of land within Zone No. 6(a)

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 27

Acquisition of land

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 28

Suspension of certain laws

Noted.

CLAUSE 29

Provision for public amenities and services

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

 

 

CLAUSE 29A

Classification and reclassification of public land as operational

Not applicable.

CLAUSE 30

Heritage provisions – aims

The aims of this Part are:

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

CLAUSE 32

Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics

 

 

 

 

1.

Requirement for development consent

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

2.

Development consent not required

Not applicable.

3.

Assessment of impact on heritage significance

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

 

 

4.

Requirement for conservation plan or heritage impact statement

Not applicable.

 

 

5.

Assessment criteria for development of land within heritage conservation areas.

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

CLAUSE 34

Notice to Heritage Council

Not applicable.

 

 

CLAUSE 35

Haberfield Heritage Conservation Area

 

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

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

(f) the application includes dormer or gablet windows.

Not applicable.


CLAUSE 36

Development of known or potential archaeological sites

Not applicable.

 

 


CLAUSE 37

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

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

 

 

CLAUSE 37A

Conservation incentives

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 38

Development of land known as 476 Parramatta Road Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 38A

Multiple dwellings on certain land

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 38B

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 39

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

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

CLAUSE 39A

Temporary car park–Liverpool Road and Elizabeth Avenue, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 39B

Mixed development in commercial zones – generally

Not applicable.

 


CLAUSE 40

Mixed development on certain land – floor space concessions

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 41

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 42

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 43

Development of community centre at Smith Street, Summer Hill

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 44

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 45

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 48

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 49

Development of land known as 191 Ramsay Street, Haberfield

 

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 51

Development of land known as 93 Milton Street, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 52

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

 

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 53

Development of land known as 3 Carlton Crescent, Summer Hill

 

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 54

Development at 11–13 Hercules Street, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 55

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

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 56

Development of certain land at Queen Street, Ashfield

Not applicable.

 

CLAUSE 57

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

Not applicable.

 

MODEL PROVISIONS

 

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

The appearance of the fence is acceptable.

 

 

 

 

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 12 March 2013    CM10.4

Subject                            SECOND QUARTER REVIEW AGAINST THE COUNCIL PLAN

 

File Ref                            Governance>Council Plan

 

Prepared by                   Gabrielle Rennard - Manager Corporate Services       

 

 

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

 

Objective                         To update Council on progress towards delivery of the actions in the 2012/2016 Council Plan

 

 


Overview of Report

The report (attachment 1) reflects actions and achievements undertaken during the second quarter (October - December 2012) in relation to performance targets as determined in the Council Plan 2012/2016.

 

 

Background

In 2009, the State Government passed legislation requiring each council in NSW to implement a new Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) framework, incorporating the following elements:-

·    a Community Plan, with a minimum 10 year outlook adopted by Council on 10 April 2012;

·    a Resourcing Strategy, incorporating a Long Term Financial Plan (minimum 10 years), Workforce Management Plan (minimum 4 years), and Asset Management Plan/s (minimum 10 years);

Council adopted the suite of Resourcing Strategy documents on 22 May 2012.

·    a 4 year Council Plan – adopted 26 June 2012; and

·    a 1 year Operational Plan - provides more detailed information on projects and services that will be undertaken in the 2012/13 financial year.

 

This is the second quarterly review presented against the Council Plan 2012/2016.

 

Detailed information on performance against each initiative listed in the Council Plan is provided for this quarter in the attachment to this report. The report indicates that, overall, good progress has been made towards the delivery of programs/initiatives that Council committed to for the 2012/2013 year.

 

The Council Plan sets out the strategic actions that will be undertaken by Council over the 4 year period, to help achieve the community’s vision as defined in the Community Plan, Ashfield 2022 - Our Place, Our Future. It also includes relevant performance indicators and service levels.

 


 

 

Financial Implications

The financial details have been outlined in the second quarter Budget review report that is being presented to Council in correlation with this report.

 

 

Other Staff Comments

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

 

 

Public Consultation

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

 

 

Conclusion

This second quarter review provides detail regarding each of the actions associated with the first year in the delivery of the Council Plan and reflects the performance against each initiative listed as undertaken over this period.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Second Quarter 2012/13

33 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council's performance over the Second Quarter 2012/13 be noted and the report be published on Council’s website.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Second Quarter 2012/13

 


































Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2013    CM10.5

Subject                            NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

 

File Ref                            Governance>>Conferences

 

Prepared by                   Gabrielle Rennard - Manager Corporate Services       

 

 

Reasons                          To advise Council of the call for motions for the 2013 National General Assembly of Local Government.

 

 

 


Overview of Report

This report advises Council that the National General Assembly of Local Government is to be held on 16 – 19 June 2013 at the National Convention Centre in Canberra. The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) is calling for motions under the theme Foundations for the Future: Twenty 13 with the deadline for submissions noted as 26 April 2013.

 

 

Background

 

The 2013 National General Assembly (NGA) of Local Government will be held between Sunday 16 June 2013 and Wednesday 19 June 2013 in Canberra.  The theme for the 2013 General Assembly is Foundations for the Future: Twenty 13.

 

The NGA provides an opportunity for Councils to influence the national policy agenda by:

 

a)      identifying national priorities that ALGA might be able to pursue at the national level; and;

 

b)      identifying priorities that are shared by all Councils, regardless of state differences, that relate to federal matters.

To assist Councils in preparing motions, a Discussion Paper has been prepared which provides background information on the theme, and is attached for information.

To be eligible for inclusion in the NGA Business Papers motions must follow the principles:

1.   Fall under the NGA theme

2.   Be relevant to the work of local government nationally; and

3.   Complement or build on the policy objectives of state and territory associations.

Financial Implications

Not applicable


 

 

Other Staff Comments

Not applicable

 

Public Consultation

Not applicable

 

Conclusion

Should Council wish to submit any motions to the General Assembly, the deadline for submission with ALGA is 26 April 2013.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Discussion Paper

10 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1/3       Note the report;

 

2/3       Nominate any delegates to attend the 2013 National General Assembly of Local Government in Canberra between 16 and 19 June 2013; and

 

3/3       Determine any motions that are to be submitted on behalf of Council.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services


Attachment 1

 

Discussion Paper

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2013    CM10.6

Subject                            ADHOC DONATIONS

 

File Ref                            Donations

 

Prepared by                   Nexhmije Shala - Group Manager Community Programs & Services       

 

 

Reasons                          Donation for Natural Summer Disasters

 

Objective                         Donate to the relief funds

 

 

 


Overview of Report

 

That a donation of $5,000  be made to the Australian Red Cross disaster relief appeal funds as per Council’s ad-hoc donation policy for the Summer Natural Disasters Appeal in relation to the Mayoral Minute MM 8/2013 at Council meeting held on 12 February 2013 .

 

 

Background

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


 

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

·    Will gain a personal financial benefit from the grant.

 

Current request

 

Australia has once again endured a summer of natural disasters with bushfires and floods plaguing struggling Australians across the country, particularly in Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania and New South Wales. Our thoughts and prayers are with those who have lost loved ones and friends and we empathise with the many people whose lives have been thrown in disarray by these disasters.

 

We acknowledge and appreciate the very difficult work of the dedicated volunteers, emergency services personnel, government workers, and the army among others who have been assisting in the rescue and recovery operations. Ashfield Council can contribute to this effort by making a donation that will help to restore normality to the lives of those affected.

 

Council at its meeting on Tuesday 12th February resolved that a donation of $5,000 be made to the Disaster Relief Funds as per Council’s Adhoc Donations Policy.  This donation falls within the parameters of the policy.


 

 

Financial Implications

 

This donation can be made from the existing sundry grants vote in the 2012/13 budget.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That a donation of $5,000 be made to the Australian Red Cross Disaster relief funds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2013    CM10.7

Subject                            THIRNING VILLA ARTIST IN RESIDENCE PROGRAM - APRIL 2013 TO MARCH 2014

 

File Ref                            Community Programs

 

Prepared by                   Anthia Hart - Community Development Worker - Arts, Culture & Recreation       

 

 

Reasons                          To provide an update of the call for expressions of interest for the Thirning Villa Artist in Residence program

 

Objective                         To obtain Council endorsement for the artists recommended for the period April 2013 to March 2014

 

 

 


Overview of Report

The Thirning Villa Artist in Residence Advisory Group and Council Community Development Worker reviewed applications received from artists to undertake residency at Thirning Villa during April 2013 to March 2014.

 

Background

The Artist in Residence program is open to performing, visual and literary artists from regional and remote areas in Australia and overseas artists.  Selected artists reside at Thirning Villa in Pratten Park, Ashfield for approximately 3 months.  With a focus on Community Arts Development, the artist assists Ashfield residents to express their aspirations through the arts.

 

The Thirning Villa Artist in Residence Advisory Group consisting of Ms Debbie Lennis, Ms Mary-Jane Field and Council Officer Anthia Hart met to review applications received from twenty one artists to undertake the residency from April 2013 to March 2014.  Ms Barbara Konkolowicz was unable to attend but provided feedback by email.

 

There were twelve applications from Australian artists and nine applications from International artists to undertake the residency from April 2013 to March 2014.  Since 2007 Council has accepted one international artist in each twelve month period.

 

As a result of the meeting, the Advisory Group selected the following artists:

 

1.   Aboriginal artists, Mr Scott Towney and Ms Irene Ridgeway, from Peak Hill NSW,

   27 March 2013 to 7 June,

 

2.   Elizabeth Slottje, from Black Springs NSW, 11 June to 30 August,

 

3.   Lara Scolari from Dubbo NSW, 3 September to 13 December,

 

4.   Ossi Yalon from Israel, 16 December to 28 March 2014.


 

 

The residency of Aboriginal artists Mr Scott Towney and Ms Irene Ridgeway is a result of the recently established ‘Sister Community’ partnership that Council has entered in to with Peak Hill Aboriginal Working Party and Parkes Shire Council.  This relationship aims to:

 

·    strengthen relationships, understanding and appreciation between the two communities,

 

·    increase cultural awareness and respect

 

·    develop ties of friendship through regular communication and

 

·    build a broader perspective within each community.

 

This program will be shared by the two artists who will offer art workshops for the community.  This residency will be a valuable tool to develop linkages to other sectors of the community creating bridges between diverse groups.  There are two art projects that are already proposed that the artists will be invited to assist with.  These are the tree trunk artwork in Ashfield Park, and the bollards in the Sculpture Garden at Thirning Villa.  A considered approach to these two projects will result in an authentic response in the creation of artwork that can affect cultural pride and self esteem.   

 

Artist Ms Elizabeth Slottje is an experienced choir master and plans to hold community workshops to work toward an end-of-residency concert.  The program will include performances of songs from cultural backgrounds selected by workshop participants.  Existing choir leaders, those already practising in Ashfield, will be invited to contribute to the process.

 

Ms Lara Scolari has proposed an exhibition that will celebrate over thirty artists who have visited Ashfield in the residency program since the inaugural artist, Andrew Hull from Burke came to stay at Thirning Villa in 2003.  There will also be a series of workshops designed to engage community members in the creation of large scale paintings and drawings investigating the complexities and undercurrents of relationships. 

 

Ossi Yalon, the one international artist for this round, plans on creating a conflict resolution circle that will be a sculptural work influenced by community members. 

Ms Yalon is also a fashion designer and will be offering workshops to teach art and clothing design.  The possibilities of what this artist can best offer to the Ashfield community is yet to be explored although the design component is well suited to young people.

 

Financial Implications

There will be no financial implications beyond Council’s existing budget allocations.

 

 

Other Staff Comments

There are no comments from other staff in this report.


 

 

Public Consultation

The Thirning Villa Artist in Residence Advisory Group was consulted in the process of selection of potential artists for the period April 2013 to March 2014.

 

The Aboriginal Consultative Committee was also consulted in the development of the ‘Sister Community’ program with Peak Hill Aboriginal Working Group and Parkes Shire Council.

 

Conclusion

The Artist in Residence program continues to develop and expand with the highest response this round to calls for expressions of interest since 2003.  Once again, the response to the invitation for residency applications was of a high standard with a range of arts practices represented.

 

The program offers many opportunities as Ashfield provides a rich environment for artists to develop meaningful cultural exchange in a diverse community.  

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

A list of the applications received

1 Page

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse the offers of residencies to Mr Scott Towney, Ms Irene Ridgeway, Ms Elizabeth Slottje, Ms Lara Scolari and Ms Ossi Yalon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

A list of the applications received

 

 

2013 - 2014                                                                SELECTED ARTISTS

Peak Hill Artists Scott Towney
& Irene Ridgeway

 

 

Elizabeth Slottje

 

 

Lara Scolari

 

 

Ossi Yalon

 

 

 

 

 

SHORTLIST ARTISTS

AUSTRALIAN

Linda Swinfield

 

 

Grace Bailey

 

 

Lauren Carroll Harris

 

 

Malcolm Whittaker

 

 

Emma Anna Baxter

 

 

Dr Josh Wodak

 

 

Patricia Choueiri-Beuhalt

 

 

Cunde Wang

 

 

SHORTLIST ARTISTS

INTERNATIONAL

Julio Pacheco-Rivas

 

 

Jozef Kapustka

 

 

Syed Faraz Ali

 

 

Damien Croce & Daniela Quilici

 

 

Luca di Luzio

 

 

Ellen Maybe

 

 

Mostafa Alktifan

 

 

Abiodun Ogunfowodu

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2013    CM10.8

Subject                            REPORT ON FEAST OF FLAVOURS FESTIVALS

 

File Ref                            Business Relations>Food Festivals

 

Prepared by                   Robert Richardson - Business Liaison and Events Coordinator       

 

 

Reasons                          Inform Council of the delivery of the Feast of Flavours Festivals run in October 2012

 

 

 


Overview of Report
The Feast of Flavours Festivals for 2012 were successfully delivered with total audience estimated at 20,000.  Innovations including shifting the Haberfield Primavera to a Sunday, seeking sponsors outside the LGA in partnership with a media company and including more entertainment options delivered positive outcomes in terms of funding and participant feedback.

 

Background

 

Aim: The Festivals are run each year by Ashfield Council to promote the dining and specialty food outlets in the LGA to local residents and visitors from outside the LGA. 

 

Timing: Ashfield Feast of Flavours Festivals were again held as part of the Crave Sydney International Food Festival in October 2012.  Summer Hill Neighbourhood Feast was held on Sunday 7 October, Ashfield’s Tastes of Asia on evening of Friday 12 October and Haberfield Primavera was held on Sunday 14 October.  The Feast of Flavours events have previously all been held on one weekend, with Ashfield on Friday night, Haberfield on Saturday and Summer Hill on Sunday.  The Saturday option created problems for some Haberfield retailers, as Saturday is regularly a prime shopping day when people from many parts of Sydney come to the precinct to buy quality Italian food stuffs.  There has been a strong view amongst some retailers that the event would be better held on a Sunday, so this year the event was scheduled for the Sunday following the festival in Summer Hill.  Overall the change to a Sunday was a significant success.  Visitor numbers were reportedly up by 100% or more on the previous year and feedback from retailers was about the change was positive.  It is recommended that the Haberfield Primavera be held on Sundays in future years.

 

Numbers of visitors and stalls:  The weather was good for all events and overall visitor numbers were estimated to be around 20,000, with about 8000 at Haberfield, 8000 at Summer Hill and 4000 at Ashfield.  The total number of local businesses and community groups taking stalls was 63, with 22 at Haberfield, 15 at Ashfield and 26 at Summer Hill, including 6 local environmental groups.

 

Budget: For 2012/13 Council allocated a budget of $29500 for the festivals, $25,000 from the Business Relations budget and $4500 from the Environmental Budget.  $13395 was raised from hire of stalls, tables and public space and $10,700 was raised in sponsorships for the festival.  This provided funding from all sources of $53,595.  The cost of the festivals for 2012/13 was $52,951.  An additional $6160 was incurred for production of the Ashfield Good Food Guide and distribution of the Guide during the festivals.   


 

 

Good Food Guide: Council partnering with Big Splash Media to produce the first edition of the Ashfield Good Food Guide, a listing of restaurants and specialty food outlets in the LGA with features on local chefs and suburbs and advertising.  The Guide was launched at the festivals and about 5000 copies were distributed to festival visitors.  

 

Sponsors: The recruitment of sponsors is a key task to extend Council’s budget for the festivals.  In 2012 sponsorship was also required in order to cover costs for publishing the Ashfield Good Food Guide, so a joint program was launched with Big Splash Media to recruit sponsors for both the Festivals and the Guide.  This approach secured a major sponsor, Westfield Burwood, who contributed $20,000 to the joint project; and three other sponsors, Lamonica IGA Haberfield, AMF Bowling and Taronga Zoo.  The opportunity to take advertising space in the Good Food Guide enabled sponsors to deliver an on-going message to local consumers and the festivals themselves provided good opportunities for direct interactive marketing to consumers, ie the opportunity to design some type of fun experience in which consumers can engage.  Westfield, with a fashion style tent; AMF Bowling, with bowling games and an amusing bowling pin character; and Taronga Zoo, with an animatronic baby T-Rex, all took advantage of this interactive marketing approach. 

 

Entertainment: This year early invitations were made to local schools and dance and music groups to provide entertainment.  Several of these responded and their participation added low cost community entertainment to the festival program and attracted good audiences of parents, relatives and friends of the performers.  Another innovation was the decision to support a fashion show by local Haberfield clothing boutiques.  Additional children’s activities were also provided, through the hire of street space to an amusement rides company.

 

Social Media: In 2012 social media was used to attract audience to the Feast of Flavours was used for the first time.  A social media firm was engaged to produce a Facebook page and twitter account for the festivals and participating retailers and sponsors were encouraged to place content on the Facebook page.  To attract interest  a Facebook competition was launched, with participants being asked to provide a brief description of what they love about food in Ashfield, Haberfield and Summer Hill to enter for a prize of a $300 meal at a restaurant in one of these suburbs.  The Facebook page attracted over 200 likes and a similar number of competition entrants. 

 

Sustainability: Funding was obtained from the Environment section to support sustainability initiatives at the events.  These included incorporation of messages about using sustainable transport to get to the festivals, a reduction in the number of letterbox leaflets delivered by use of social media marketing, the provision of bio-degradable food plates and utensils to stall holders, the inclusion of a number of environmental information stalls at Summer Hill Neighbourhood Feast  and the preparation of an assessment on the environmental impact of the festivals.

 

Feedback: A formal feedback process on the festivals will be undertaken in 2013 to assist planning with next year’s events.  However extensive verbal feedback was obtained which indicated:


 

 

•        The attendance at the events was generally assessed as being as good or better  than previous years, with a significant increase in numbers at Haberfield Primavera.

•        The Ashfield Business Chamber considered all the events to be successful and expressed appreciation of the work done by Council in delivering the Festival program.

•        Stallholders and attendees welcomed the inclusion of more children’s activities and diversity of entertainment.

•        The inclusion of fashion activities and at Haberfield was a welcome addition to activities and the local fashion retailers were very positive about the outcomes of their activity.

•        The major sponsor Westfield Burwood was pleased with the outcomes of the festivals and will consider participating again.

•        Stallholders at Haberfield were concerned with a clash with another neighbouring festival and requested greater cross council consultation to avoid this occurring (Consultation did take place but the month was crowded with local festivals making it difficult to avoid a clash)

•        Many individual stallholders assess the success of the festivals according to their financial returns on the day, rather than viewing their participation as a marketing excercise which may involve a net cost.  Thus there is a significant variation in stall holder feedback responses according to financial returns achieved on the day.  However positive stallholder responses significantly outnumbered negative responses.

•        One shop keeper in Summer Hill requested that Council use a different footprint for the festival, involving closure of the Summer Hill car park for festival activities.  This would bring the festival into better proximity to her shop.  Consideration of this option can be given in 2013. 

 

Some pictures of the Festivals follow

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Council note the outcomes of the Feast of Flavours festivals. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

Summer Hill

Summer Hill festival  photo Amanda James-13 (800x532)

 

Kids entertainment in Smith St

 

Summer Hill festival  photo Amanda James-102 (800x532)

 

Local Dance School Performance in Lackey St


Summer Hill festival  photo Amanda James-84 (800x532)

 

Food stall holder family

 

Summer Hill festival  photo Amanda James-70 (800x532)

 

Launching the Ashfield Good Food Guide

 

 

 

 

Ashfield

Taste of Asia 2012-64Taste of Asia 2012-13 - Croc Farm

 

Food tables on Liverpool Rd


Taste of Asia 2012-29

 

Activities in Civic Plaza


Haberfield

 

Ac Haberfield 2012-11

 

Fashion Show at Ramsay St & Dalhousie St

 

Ac Haberfield 2012-22

 

Kids line up for the AMF Zorb Ball


Ac Haberfield 2012-30

 

Westfield Style Lounge

 

Ac Haberfield 2012-77

 

Taronga Park T Rex


Ac Haberfield 2012-103

 

Crowd on Ramsay St

Ac Haberfield 2012-129

 

Wine Tasting in Ramsay St


Taste of Asia 2012-70

 

We can grow


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2013    CM10.9

Subject                            SUNDRY GRANT - REQUEST TO COUNCIL FOR FINANCIAL DONATION

 

File Ref                            Community Programs

 

Prepared by                   Anthia Hart - Community Development Worker - Arts, Culture & Recreation       

 

Objective                         To provide Council with information

 

 


Overview of Report

 

The purpose of this report is to assess Council’s consideration to make a donation of $1,000 to the “Angel Flight” charity.

 

 

Background

At its meeting of Tuesday 13 November 2012 Council considered a Mayoral Minute concerning “Angel Flight’.  The recommendation adopted as a result of the Mayoral Minute was:

 

“That Council consider supporting the fantastic efforts of Angel Flight with a donation of $1,000 and this be referred for assessment under Council’s ad hoc donation policy.”

 

Angel Flight Australia (AF) is a charity organisation providing assistance to people who need to travel to major centre for medical purposes.  The mode of transport is by volunteer private aircraft.  The charter of AF is to help fill the gap between aero medical providers such as Care Flight and the Royal Flying Doctor Service, and normal forms of transport such as self driving or public transport.

 

The service is a charity that co-ordinates non-emergency flights for financially and medically needy people.  All flights are free and assist country patients or carers travelling to or from medical facilities anywhere in Australia.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 


 

 

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

 

Preference for funding will generally be given to groups/organisations with limited sources of funding or fund-raising.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

·    Will gain a personal financial benefit from the grant.

 

Conclusion

In the case of supporting Angel Flight with a donation of $1,000, it is considered to be consistent with ‘Donations towards humanitarian or community concerns consistent with Council’s social and/or other policies’.

 

 

Financial Implications

Sundry donations such as those recommended in this report will be sourced from available funds within the existing Councillors’ Donations vote. There is currently $13,200 remaining within this vote.


 

 

Other Staff Comments

n/a

 

Public Consultation

n/a

 

 

 

Conclusion

In the case of supporting Angel Flight with a donation of $1,000, it is considered to be consistent with ‘Donations towards humanitarian or community concerns consistent with Council’s social and/or other policies’.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Angel Flight briefing paper

2 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Newspaper article

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Brochure

1 Page

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council note the information contained in the report

 

That Council provide $1,000 to assist with the worthwhile work carried out by the Angel Flight charity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Angel Flight briefing paper

 


 


Attachment 2

 

Newspaper article

 


Attachment 3

 

Brochure

 



Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2013  CM10.10

Subject                            ASHFIELD TRAFFIC COMMITTEE-MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 8 FEBRUARY 2013.

 

File Ref                            Traffic and Parking> Traffic Committee

 

Prepared by                   Boris Muha - Engineer Traffic and Projects       

 

 

Reasons                          To Provide the Council with Minutes of the Ashfield Traffic Committee held on 8 February 2013.

 

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

 

 

 

 


Overview of Report

To present the Minutes of the Ashfield Traffic Committee Meeting held on 8 February 2013 and detail Committee recommendations requiring determination by Council.

 

 

Report

 

Attached are the minutes of the Ashfield Traffic Committee Meeting held on 8 February 2013.

 

The following Committee recommendations are submitted to Council for determination.

 

ITEM NO.001:   Temporary 15 minute pick-up/drop-off zone outside the Infant’s Home in Henry Street, Ashfield.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

The Committee raises no objection to providing, as a temporary measure, 10 spaces of “15 minute parking 7.30am- 9.30am and 3.30pm-5.30pm Mon-Fri” to the frontage of the Infant’s Home on the northern side of Henry Street, east of Frederick Street, Ashfield, until the off-street car parking area is complete.

 

ITEM NO.002:   Request to relocate Bus zone south of 146 Prospect Road, Summer Hill.   

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

No Objection is raised to relocating the Bus Stop further south from No. 146 to 148 Prospect Road,     Summer Hill, subject to the owner of No. 148 agreeing to the relocation of the Bus stop and the consequential loss of parking to the front of his /her property.    


 

 

ITEM NO.003:  Introduction of ¼ hour period parking outside the shop premises 61-63 Waratah Street, and extension time limit for ¼ hour period parking outside 53-55 Waratah Street, Haberfield. 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

1.    That no action be undertaken to implement ¼ hour or other timed period parking restrictions  outside No.61-63 Waratah Street, Haberfield.

 

2.    That “No Stopping” restrictions be introduced to regulate and control the parking around the extended kerb of the eastern corner of Waratah Street at Boomerang Street, outside No. 63 Waratah Street, Haberfield.

 

3.    That the times of operation to the 1/4 hour period parking outside the shop 53-55 Waratah Street, Haberfield, be extended to read 7am-8pm Mon-Sun.

 

ITEM NO.004:   Provision of a disabled parking zone in Ormond Street, Ashfield.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

No objection is raised to allocate a disabled parking zone, 8 metres in length, on the northern side of Ormond Street, just east of Pembroke Street, Ashfield.

 

ITEM NO.005: Request by GO-GET for “Car Shared” parking spaces in the Ashfield Council Area                

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

No objection is raised for the following locations being allocated for car share parking, subject to community consultation in accordance with Council’s Supporting Car Share Parking Policy.

1.    Charlotte St, Ashfield – near Webbs Ave, between 22 and 24 Webbs Avenue.

2.    Chandos St, Ashfield – intersection of Loftus St, side of 28 Loftus St.

3.    Kensington Rd, Summer Hill - in front of Park/Reserve, between 62- 66 Kensington Rd.

4.    Carrington St, Summer Hill – in front of the Carrington St Playground/reserve.

5.    Drynan St, Summer Hill – in front of apartments at 22 Drynan St.

6.    Herbert St, Summer Hill – side of 45 Herbert St.


 

 

ITEM NO.006:  Proposed (amended) road safety treatment at intersection of Hawthorne Parade and Lord  Street, Haberfield.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

1.    That Council monitor and enforce the area of the intersection of Lord Street and Hawthorne Parade, Haberfield.

 

2.    That Council undertake centre-line marking in Lord Street in approach to Hawthorne Parade, and Give-way signposting and marking in Lord Street, and centre line marking in Hawthorne Parade in approaches to Lord Street, as shown in the drawing Annexure 6 in these minutes.

 

3.    That Council remove the 'silent cop' in Lord Street at the intersection of Hawthorne Parade, as shown in the drawing Annexure 6 in these minutes.

 

ITEM NO.007:   Parking restrictions outside 2A Brown Street, Ashfield

         

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

1.    That no action be undertaken to implement other forms of restricted parking (apart from the construction works zone) on the western side of Brown Street, Ashfield, outside 2A Brown Street, prior to the completion of the development.  

2.    That Council Officers investigate the potential for ½ hour period parking (8.30am-6pm, Mon-Sun) within Foxes Lane, Ashfield.

 

ITEM NO.009:   Traffic and safety issues around Summer Hill Public school.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:   

1.    No objection is raised to implementing the following, subject to resident consultation:

 

a.    That the kerbspace area containing the existing 5 minute parking and unrestricted parking on the western side of Moonbie Street, just north of Herbert Street, be converted to read “No Parking 8.00am-9.30am., 2.30pm-4.00pm School Days”. The 5 minute parking restrictions in this location will be removed.

 

b.    That one (1) disabled parking space be allocated on the western side of Moonbie Street, north of the school gates.

 

c.    That a drop off and pick up zone of 6-7 spaces be allocated along the school frontage on the southern side of Junction Road, and that the area be signposted to read as “No Parking 8.00am-9.30am, 2.30pm-4.00pm School Days”.

 

d.    That full-time “No Parking” be signposted across the Bartlett Street driveway gate access off Herbert Street in lieu of “No Stopping”.


 

 

e.    That a road centreline be marked around the corner of Herbert Street and Moonbie Street, and that raised flap markers be installed along the centreline.

 

f.     That the south eastern corner of Junction Road at Moonbie Street be signposted as No Stopping 10m in from the intersection.

 

g.    That a children’s crossing be placed just south of the school gates within the midblock section of Moonbie Street in accordance to RMS Technical Directions.

 

2.    That it be noted that removable bollards will be placed across Bartlett Street at the junction of Herbert Street.

 

ITEM NO.010:  Pedestrian safety at existing marked foot crossing at the intersection of Grosvenor Crescent and Sloane Street, Summer Hill.  

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

1.    That Council Officers write to Railcorp to remove or redesign the brick column at the station entry at the intersection of Grosvenor Crescent and Sloane Street, Summer Hill.

 

 

2.    That Council install a rubber speed cushion directly before the intersection of Grosvenor Crescent and Sloane Street at the pedestrian refuge in Grosvenor Crescent, south of Sloane Street, Summer Hill, as shown in the drawing Annexure 10 in these minutes.

 

ITEM NO.011: Intersection of Alt Street and Church Street, Ashfield – STOP control treatment of intersection.

         

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

No objection is raised to implementing the following, subject to resident consultation:

1.    That Council install No Stopping signs on the corners of Church 10m in from the intersection of  Alt Street and 15m on the corners of Alt Street in from the intersection of Church Street.

2.    That Council install two rubber speed cushions in Alt Street in both directions on the approach to Church Street, as shown in the drawing Annexure 11 in these minutes.

3.   That Give-way signs and markings be implemented in Church Street at the intersection of Alt Street to reinforce the Give-way control in Church Street. 

4.    That centre line markings of short length be implemented in all approaches to the intersection in Church Street and Alt Street.  


 

 

ITEM NO.012:   “No Stopping Rail Corp Vehicles Excepted” to front of driveway accesses to Rail land properties, Ashfield.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:  

That no objection is raised to implement “No Parking” signs across the four gate entrances to Railcorp land, as follows:

1.    Brown Street, Ashfield-  on the southern side of Ashfield Station and to the northern side of Brown Street, just west of the Rail Commuter carpark access.

2.    Station Street, Ashfield- on the northern side of Ashfield Station where Station Street meets Wood Street.  

3.    Cavill Avenue, Ashfield- on the southern side of the railway line at the end of Cavill Avenue.

4.    Nixon Avenue- Ashfield- on the northern side of the railway line at the end of Nixon Avenue.

 

ITEM NO.013:   Further consideration to kiss and ride zone in Summer Hill.

            

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

1.    That Council discuss the matter with The NSW Taxi Council to request and seek its agreement in the removal of the Taxi Rank on the eastern side of Lackey Street, Summer Hill, so as to provide in place a Kiss and Ride (No Parking) zone, as shown in the drawing Annexure 13 in these minutes.

2.    That no action be undertaken to relocate the school special bus service from Summer Hill to Ashfield Station.     

 

 

 

Financial Implications

 

N/A

 

Other Staff Comments

 

N/A

 

Public Consultation

 

As applicable per relevant items.


 

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Ashfield Traffic Committee Minutes held on 8 February 2013

42 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the minutes of the Ashfield Traffic Committee Meeting held on 8 February 2013, and that Council adopt the recommendations contained in the minutes. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Cormican

Director Works & Infrastructure

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Ashfield Traffic Committee Minutes held on 8 February 2013

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2013  CM10.11

Subject                            POLICY - OUTDOOR DINING AND FOOTPATH TRADING

 

File Ref                            Outdoor dining and footpath trading

 

Prepared by                   Maurice Morsanuto - Manager Regulatory Services       

 

 

Reasons                          Resolution of Council

 

Objective                         To implement and action the Policy in the provision of outdoor dining and footpath trading

 

 

 


Overview of Report
To reaffirm Council’s proposed implementation of the current Outdoor Dining and Footpath Trading Policy and provide an update on other related matters.

 

 

Background

 

Council at its meeting of 23 October 2012, resolved as follows:

 

1/5    That Council continue to implement all outstanding matters listed above from the original motion MM25/2011 minute number 221/11.

2/5    That Council relocate any street furniture, garbage bins and other structures, which would hinder the location of dining tables on the kerb, adjacent to businesses wanting to establish outdoor dining (formerly 7/9 of Item 10.5 of 28/2/2012).

3/5    That Council relocate all other street furniture to the kerbside of the footpath’ (formerly 8/9 of Item 10.5 of 28/2/2012).

4/5    That Council officers investigate with a report returned to Council within 4 weeks, the following:

a)      amendments to the policy needed to allow outdoor dining on Smith St Summer Hill, including , for example: the elimination of the requirement for 600 mm setback from the kerb where Council approved pedestrian fencing, or suitable barriers are installed.

b)      A review of ‘high traffic’ classification’ of the footpath on the western side of Lackey St Summer Hill, (near the corner of Carlton Crescent).

5/5      That a report on health inspection fees be bought back to Council within 4 weeks noting the following:

a)   Previous report to Council on the matter

b)   Current charges and frequency

c)   Whether it is cost neutral or subsidised by Council


 

 

Status of resolution 1/5

 

The Policy has been amended in accordance with previous Council resolutions.  All shops and businesses that were identified as using Council’s footpath for any purpose were issued with a copy of the Policy as well as an information sheet advising of the requirements.  This process took place in April/May 2012.

 

Staff have spoken to many of the businesses, explained necessary processes to obtain approval and the impact and/or intent of the Policy as adopted.  As a whole the response and compliance has been disappointing.  Of the 62 premises that have goods, tables, A-frame signs or other materials on the footpath, only 16 have a development consent (a number of these approvals were obtained some years ago).  Of those that have sought consent only 6 consents currently remain valid with the remaining having lapsed.  This is because the Roads Act requires Council to limit the period that a consent remains in force.  The consents that are issued are in force for a maximum of 6 years (if the owner/operator wishes to continue the use a new consent needs to be obtained).  During the notification period last year only two business operators lodged ‘new’ applications to regularise their use of the footpath.  Both applications were approved.

 

So, in overall terms, a significant majority of business operators are continuing to use the footpath without consent or not using the footpath in accordance with an existing consent.

 

The current cost of the annual licence fee for the occupation of the footpath is $163.00 pa per square metre – for the past few years the budget has included an amount of around $20k as projected income, however, with the moratorium in place for a number of years the collection of income has been much less than this amount.  The Footpath Licence Processing Fee is $97.20.

 

A brief for the appointment of a consultant to examine cost effective streetscape improvements to our village centres is expected to be finalised shortly and will be reported to Council for consideration.

 

Status of resolution 2/5 and 3/5

 

Council’s Works and Infrastructure Services Directorate has advised that they have completed an audit of street furniture that may hinder the location of tables on the kerb and instructions have been issued for furniture to be relocated.  It is expected that the relocation of furniture will be completed by the end of April this year.

 

Furniture that cannot be relocated in the same area may need to be removed.  This will be required where existing footpaths are not of sufficient width to achieve a ‘pedestrian clear’ trafficable path of 1.8 metres with the street furniture in place and other alternatives are not available.

 

Bus stops and pedestrian crossings are exempt from the policy and relocation of this type of furniture will not be required.  In particular locations such as in front of the fruit shop at 270 Liverpool Road the three bus seats are recommended to be retained due to safety and practical limitations in any relocation.  Where relocation is not practical alternate measures such as tactile indicators may be considered.


 

 

The relocation of street furniture does not include the electricity pillar boxes that have recently been installed in a number of locations including Ramsay Street, Liverpool Road and Lackey Street.  Council will consult with Australia Post to consider the relocation Post Office boxes as required.

 

Attached are a series of images showing specific examples for Ashfield, Haberfield and Summer Hill (refer to Attachments 1, 2 and 3).

 

Status of resolution 4/5

 

In theory dining in Smith Street is already permitted by the Policy, as adopted.  However, as the average width of the footpath in this area is approximately 2.4m this has a limiting affect in the following ways.

 

Where vehicle parking is available in front of the proposed dining area

 

Where vehicle parking is available in front of the proposed dining area a pedestrian barrier is required to be 600mm from the kerb to ensure that the passenger doors of vehicles can be opened.  Because the footpath is only 2.4m and the Policy requires a clear passageway of 1.8m this means there is no available space for tables against the kerb where street vehicle parking is also available.

 

Where vehicle parking is not available in front of the proposed dining area

 

Where vehicle parking is not available in front of the proposed dining area tables located against the kerb have a slightly wider area of footpath available.  There are a number of existing properties in Smith Street that have an existing Council pedestrian barrier.  The barriers are located where no parking is permitted so that the minimum setback off the kerb is not required to accommodate the opening of passenger doors.  On average the Council barriers are setback off the kerb by approximately 300mm.

 

This means that if a table were to be located against the kerb in such a location on a 2.4m wide footpath the available space would be as follows: 2.4m minus 0.3m for the existing barrier = 2.1m minus 1.8m minimum pedestrian access, leaving only 300mm available for a table and chairs.

 

The existing tables in these areas are approximately 500mm to 600mm square.  This means that if the same tables are relocated against the kerb the available pedestrian footpath width would only be approximately 1.5m.  The Policy requires a minimum pedestrian trafficable width of 1.8m.

 

As widening of the footpath in Smith Street does not appear feasible without losing more on-street parking spaces there are limited options in terms of use of the footpath for dining purposes.

 

a)      Allow tables against the shop front – not in accordance with the Policy

b)      Allow a narrower minimum trafficable pedestrian area (i.e. 1.5m) – not preferable for the general public but a possible beneficial compromise for shop keepers in this location.  If Council were to consider such an option it would need to be mindful of precedent arguments for the rest of the LGA.


 

 

(c)     Confirm that dining is not feasible in this location due to the narrowness of the footpath.

 

The high traffic area on the western side of Lackey Street

 

The policy, when drafted, identified both sides of Lackey Street as high traffic areas.  To ensure that pedestrians at peak times were not inconvenienced the minimum trafficable footpath widths were increased from 1.8m to 2.8m.

 

An informal observation of pedestrian habits and movements in this location does not suggest that numbers of pedestrians are so high that a wider trafficable area is required to avoid conflicts between pedestrian and diners.  This is, however, predicated on the assumption that businesses and the public comply with reasonable etiquette and common sense as well as with any approval in place for dining in these areas.

 

Experience has shown that there is a natural and ongoing tendency for footprint areas for dining and trading to leak out into pedestrian passageways.

 

Should Council wish to consider the reduction of the minimum pedestrian passageway from 2.8m to 1.8m its success will depend on a number of factors including diligence by business owners to ensure that their customers do not encroach on pedestrian passageways.  Clear marking of trading areas and enforcement of breaches would also need to be implemented should a reduction be proposed.

 

Status of resolution 5/5

 

A separate report on health inspection fees has been prepared for Council’s consideration and was provided to Councillors with the 2013/14 budget papers distributed at a recent workshop.

 

Implementation and enforcement of the policy

 

Businesses, the community and interested parties have been extensively notified and consulted and Council has resolved to adopt and proceed with the current policy.

 

The extensive length of time to implement this policy, the change in direction of the adopted policy in regard to the location of outdoor dining, and the extensive moratorium has resulted in a situation where the entrenched position of some business operators has been difficult to change.

 

It is strongly urged that Council show clear leadership and consistency in affirming its resolution in regard to the details of the policy.  In particular, businesses and the community need to have confidence that enforcement of the policy will proceed professionally, impartially and, of course, efficiently.

 

The issues in regard to compliance are simple and with the support and clear guidance of Council enforcement is expected to proceed in an orderly manner.  Hopefully, once Council’s intent is clear all businesses will either obtain a valid approval or cease using the footpath where no valid approval is in place.


 

 

Council’s Enforcement Policy is a detailed document that stipulates the circumstances and methods that Council is to consider when considering breaches or actions that require compliance with the spectrum of legislative and regulatory requirements.

 

In the case of the Outdoor Dining & Footpath Trading Policy the following is a guide as to the anticipated steps that officers will pursue when advising businesses of their obligations in obtaining relevant approvals or when in breach of any exiting approval/policy. The steps will include some or all the following actions, depending on the response from individual properties:

·    Follow up individually delivered (where possible, otherwise by mail) information sheets advising businesses what they need to do

·    Offer of assistance in understanding the requirements of the policy including the processes to obtain any approval within an agreed timeframe.

·    Inspection and confirmation of the circumstances (in each and every case where the footpath is being used for dining, trading or other purposes).

·    Where non-compliances are confirmed verbally advising the business owner/operator on site of the circumstances and what is required to cease the breach or to obtain an approval. This will include an agreed time frame for compliance.

·    Follow up in writing to the registered business owner/operator advising of the non-compliance with details of what actions are required to bring the matter into compliance. This may include the ramifications of not complying with the advisory letter e.g. issue of infringements, impounding of materials, issuing of notices and orders and prosecution/injunction proceedings as a last resort.

·    Issue of infringements with an explanatory letter.

·    Issue of Notice of Intent to issue an Order – this is the first legal requirement of issuing an order. This would typically require compliance within 14 to 21 days.

·    Issue of an Order to cease an activity or to carry out works stipulated within nominated time frames. Time frames vary depending on circumstances and may be extended should a proprietor indicate that they are cooperative and wish to obtain an approval.

·    Consideration of impounding goods including tables and chairs. This is not particularly desirable but may need to be considered where the public footpath is blocked or restricted excessively and the proprietor has not immediately complied with verbal and written requests.

·    Issue of infringements for not complying with the Oder (separate to the initial breach itself).

·    Follow up discussions and advice with the proprietor of the implications of not complying with Council’s Order.

·    Sending a show cause letter why Council should not commence proceedings.

·    Request to Council’s solicitor to commence legal action appropriate to the circumstances.


 

 

Financial Implications

 

Estimates are not able to be calculated accurately because income from the use of footpaths ultimately will depend on the formal take up rate of licences/permits. What is known is that Council is currently receiving very little income from footpath occupation - $1,621.00 actual year to date income for 2012/13 against a budget estimate of just under $21k. 

 

 

Other Staff Comments

Comments from Council’s Works and Infrastructure Directorate have been included above as well as the images of furniture locations and modifications required.

 

 

Conclusion

The Outdoor Dining and Footpath Trading Policy was under review for several years whilst various options were canvassed on where to and under what circumstances to allow outdoor dining and footpath trading in the LGA. In February last year the Council finally came to a decision to support outdoor dining against the kerb and allow footpath trading both against the shopfront and kerb with restrictions. Information and copies of the revised policy were distributed to all affected business operator and traders during April/May last year so there is widespread knowledge within the business community of Council’s decision.

 

There has been divergent opinion by various community members, some strongly in support of the policy as adopted and some still in strong opposition. The needs of individual businesses have been considered through the various consultation processes Council undertook in coming to a final policy position. We have now reached the stage where formal enforcement action needs to be pursued to bring certainty and credibility to Council’s intent in relation to the policy.

 

Council officers are in the process of moving seats and other structures off shopfront locations to facilitate a clear and unimpeded path for pedestrians. This work is expected to occur and be finalised over the next few months.

 


 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Footpath diagrams Ashfield

8 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Footpath diagrams Haberfield

7 Pages

 

Attachment 3View

Footpath diagrams Summer Hill

5 Pages

 

Attachment 4View

Outdoor Dining and Footpath Trading Policy

42 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/3    That Council note the enforcement action steps outlined in the report and that officers will commence these actions immediately.

 

2/3    That no amendments be pursued to the Outdoor Dining and Footpath Trading Policy in relation to Smith Street, Summer Hill.

 

3/3    That the Outdoor Dining & Footpath Trading Policy be amended to reduce the trafficable pedestrian area width on the western side of Lackey Street, Summer Hill from 2.8 to 1.8 meters and that related maps be amended to reflect this change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Footpath diagrams Ashfield

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Attachment 2

 

Footpath diagrams Haberfield

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Attachment 3

 

Footpath diagrams Summer Hill

 


 


 


 


 


Attachment 4

 

Outdoor Dining and Footpath Trading Policy