20 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  26 MARCH 2013 at 6:30 PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEE ATTACHED AGENDA


 

Ordinary Meeting - 26 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.

(26/03/2013)

 

7.               Confirmation of Minutes of Council/Committees

 

Ordinary Meeting - 12/03/2013

Ashfield Youth Committee – 18/02/2013

 

8.               Mayoral Minutes

 

MM12/2013  17TH CARNIVAL OF CULTURES

 

 

9.               Notices of Motion

 

NM8/2013    ASHFIELD IS WHERE WE LIVE, THIS IS WHAT WE STAND FOR - BETTER TRANSPORT CONNECTIONS

 

NM9/2013    ASHFIELD , THIS IS WHERE WE WORK AND LIVE. THIS IS WHAT WE STAND FOR; SAFE COMMUNITIES

 

 

9A.        Notices of Rescission

 

NR2/2013     OUTDOOR DINING AND FOOTPATH TRADING

 

 

10.            Staff Reports

 

10.1     DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2013.018.1
204 LIVERPOOL ROAD ASHFIELD

10.2     RESPONSIBLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER'S MONTHLY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2013

 

10.3     INVESTMENT REPORT FEBRUARY 2013

 

10.4     RISK MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

 

10.5     USING TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE COUNCIL'S RESPONSE REGARDING FOOTPATHS, DUMPED RUBBISH AND GRAFFITI

 

10.6     COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT GRANT SCHEME Initiative

 

10.7     MAIN ROAD LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS

 

 

11.            Closed (Public Excluded) Committee

 

Nil

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 26 March 2013 MM12/2013

Events

MAYORAL MINUTE

 

17TH CARNIVAL OF CULTURES

       

 

I was honoured to open Ashfield’s premier community event the 17th Ashfield Carnival of Cultures on Sunday, 17 March 2013, coinciding with the Irish and Christian celebrations for St Patrick’s Day.

 

The Carnival has gone from strength to strength and on my first Carnival as Mayor I was pleased to welcome the Premier of NSW Hon Barry O’Farrell MP, Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Member for Grayndler Hon Anthony Albanese MP and Member for Strathfield Charles Casuscelli MP, along with a number of other community leaders.

 

Congratulations to the organisers of the Carnival for providing a wonderful day of entertainment on the stage and around the park. The stall holders were very pleased with the number of people in attendance throughout the day. The community stalls were very informative with the wide range of social topics they encompassed. Council’s stall had a particularly high request for information from our local community in relation to sustainability, waste reduction and recycling.

 

Many Council staff volunteered during the day to support the Council’s stalls. The volunteers were professional and supported council’s staff in providing quality customer service support across the Carnival.

 

Thank you to all our sponsors:

 

-     Government Partner

o NSW Government through the Community Relations Commission

-     Supporter Sponsors

o Wests Ashfield Leagues Club

o Veolia Environmental Services

o Ashfield Mall

o The Vision China Times

o The Inner West Courier

o La Fiamma

-     Supply Partners

o Eco Design Eco Print

o Festival Hire

o Coates Hire

-     Prize Donees

o Bunnings Ashfield

o Ashfield Cycles

 

The Carnival was a very successful and enjoyable community event and feedback from those attending was very positive.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That letters of appreciation be sent to the sponsors for their support and letters of thanks be sent to staff and volunteers who organised the event.

 

 

 

 

    

Mansour

 

COUNCILLOR M MANSOUR

Mayor

 

 

  


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 26 March 2013 NM8/2013

Transport

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

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

 

 

ASHFIELD IS WHERE WE LIVE, THIS IS WHAT WE STAND FOR - BETTER TRANSPORT CONNECTIONS

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM8/2013

 

Ashfield and Croydon trains stations lack a zone for the legal and safe drop-off and pick-up of passengers close to the entrance of the stations. This can be remedied by establishing “kiss and ride” zones.

 

The ABS 2011 census showed that over 31% of Ashfield residents travel to work by train. This puts residents of Ashfield amongst the best users of the train system. Many of us also use the trains just to get around town.

 

Ashfield Council should do what we can to make it easy for us to get to the train station and use public transport. Whilst we don’t want to encourage greater car traffic to the train station we recognise that some of us need to be dropped off at the station and we should be able to do this legally and safely.

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

Accordingly, we move:-

 

That the General Manager furnish a report to Council on the most effective way to facilitate “kiss and ride” zones on both sides of Ashfield and Croydon Stations.

 

Drury.jpg                                           McKenna.jpg

_________________                                                         ___________________

Mark Drury                                                                          Lucille McKenna

 

 

Wang.jpg                                             Lofts.jpg

________________                                                  _________________

Jeanette Wang                                                                   Alex Lofts

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 26 March 2013 NM9/2013

Ashfield Fire & Rescue

NOTICE OF MOTION OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY

 

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

 

 

ASHFIELD , THIS IS WHERE WE WORK AND LIVE. THIS IS WHAT WE STAND FOR; SAFE COMMUNITIES

     

 

To move Notice of Motion No. NM9/2013

 

There has been much publicity over recent times about State Government budget cuts to Education and many other services. The effect on our fire services has been a part of local conversation and concern.

 

Ashfield Fire station has been partially closed on a number of occasions (see attached news articles) The effect is that Ashfield fire officers are transferred to other stations, when personnel are absent and the fire station is closed, to reduce overtime payments Ashfield is a highly dense LGA, with many boarding and half-way houses, nursing homes, high care nursing homes, retirement villages, schools and hospital facilities . When Ashfield Fire Station is closed, fire apparatus has to come as far away as Riverwood to attend local emergencies.

 

Even an extra response time of 6 minutes, the added time it would take a fire vehicle to reach Ashfield from Burwood, on a good run, is crucial and could mean the difference between life and death.

 

The community expects fire stations to be open on a 24 hour basis. Emergencies do not occur to budget induced schedules.

 

It is simply unacceptable for the Government to reduce the safety of our community.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Under Fire

2 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Fire service cuts put lives at risk

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

The Fighters' Union

1 Page

 

 

 


 

Accordingly, we move:-

 

1/4    Ashfield Council expresses its grave concern over fire station closures.           Particularly, Council considers it to be unacceptable for Ashfield fire           station not to be fully operational 24 hours a day.

 

2/4    That Council is especially concerned that the increased response times,           resulting from fire apparatus having to travel from other suburbs, pose an           unacceptable safety risk for our residents.

 

3/4    It is imperative that such a dense urban area, with many boarding houses,           halfway houses, high care nursing homes, retirement villages, highly           developed streets schools and hospital facilities, has a permanently           operational fire station.

 

4/4    That the above concerns be directly expressed to The Hon Barry O’Farrell           Premier of NSW, with copies to Mr Charles Casuscelli MP, Member For           Strathfield and the Hon Linda Burney MP, Member For Canterbury .

 

 

 

 

 

Drury.jpg                                           McKenna.jpg

_________________                                                         ___________________

Mark Drury                                                                          Lucille McKenna

 

 

Wang.jpg                                             Lofts.jpg

________________                                                  _________________

Jeanette Wang                                                                   Alex Lofts

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Under Fire

 


 


Attachment 2

 

Fire service cuts put lives at risk

 


Attachment 3

 

The Fighters' Union

 


 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 26 March 2013 NR2/2013

Outdoor Dining

NOTICE OF RESCISSION BY

 

COUNCILLORS Edward Cassidy, Max Raiola, Adriano Raiola and Julie Passas

 

 

OUTDOOR DINING AND FOOTPATH TRADING

     

 

That Council rescind the previous resolution in relation to Minute No. 106/13, Item 10.11 passed at the Ordinary meeting of Council held on 12 March 2013, namely:

 

1/4    That Council notes the enforcement action steps outlined in the report and that officers will commence these actions immediately.

 

2/4    That no amendments be pursued to the Outdoor Dining and Footpath Trading Policy in relation to Smith Street, Summer Hill.

 

3/4    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 related maps be amended to reflect this change with the exception of the recommendation in relation to 1 – 11 Charlotte Street. That advice be brought back to Council as to whether the seats could be placed further down Charlotte Street before the seats are removed.

 

 4/4   Council notes the issues regarding outdoor dining on the pavement in Smith St Summer Hill. Council also notes that a‘brief for the appointment of a consultant to examine cost effective streetscape improvements for our village centres is expected to be finalised shortly.’  Footpath dining, by        businesses already trading in Smith Street, Summer Hill,      should be allowed to continue on the kerbside where a trafficable path of 1.5 metres can be maintained, pending advice from the appointed  consultant. The further matter of trading in Smith St can then be considered by Council.

 

 

If successful, we intend to move:

 

 

(1) That the Outdoor Dining and Footpath Trading policy be referred back to the General Manager for review and revision of the unfair, inequitable, unsafe, and illogical provisions embedded in the Draft Policy considered by Council on 12th March 2013 namely:-

 

·    Clause 3 of the Draft policy is contrary to Objectives 1, 2 and 5 of Clause 1.1 of the Draft Policy.

 

·    The Draft Policy requires outdoor dining must be located on the kerbside but allows footpath trading to be located either kerbside or against the shopfront contrary to the primary aim of the Policy that is, to ensure that pedestrians and persons with sight disability are able to navigate a safe pedestrian passage using shopfronts as a guide.

 

·    The Draft Policy is illogical, and contradictory.  It is unfair and is contrary to objectives 1, 2 and 5 of Clause 1.1 of the Draft Policy in that the requirement that outdoor dining must be located kerbside to ensure a clear safe pedestrian passage and guidance adjacent to shopfronts for persons with sight disability, while in Ramsay Street Haberfield, Liverpool Road Ashfield and Lackey Street Summer Hill, such safe pedestrian passage for pedestrians and persons with sight disability is not possible with the recent construction of electricity pillar boxes adjacent to shopfronts.  There is no indication in the Draft Policy or advice from the Electricity Authority as to the removal of the electricity pillar boxes

 

·    The Draft Policy does not clearly spell out the reason or logic as to why footpath trading is permitted either kerbside or adjacent to the shopfront and why outdoor dining must be located on the kerbside.

 

(2   That the revised Draft policy be referred back to Council within one month of adoption of this motion

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

 

That Minute No. 106/13 be rescinded

 

 

 

                                               

________________                                                           ______________

Edward Cassidy                                                                Max Raiola

 

 

                                                      

_____________                                                                  _________________

Adriano Raiola                                                                             Julie Passas


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 26 March 2013    CM10.1

Subject                            DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 10.2013.018.1
204 LIVERPOOL ROAD ASHFIELD


 

File Ref                            DA 10.2013.018.1

 

Prepared by                   Daisy Younan - Development Assessment Officer       

 

Reasons                          Matter referred to Council for determination via 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 alterations and additions to Ashfield Hotel including:

 

1.   Extending the gaming room into existing courtyard;

2.   Internal reconfiguration of gaming room;

3.   The construction of a new roof over the existing gaming room;

4.   Modification to the Liverpool entry closest to adjoining property located at 198 Liverpool Rd; and

5.   Replacement of existing retractable awning located above bistro doors fronting internal courtyard with fixed metal clad awning.

 

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                               :         Macnmah Architects

Owner                                    :         Meerlen Pty Ltd

Value of work                       :         $180,000

Lot/DP                                   :         LOT: 100 DP: 1069001

Date lodged                          :         05/02/2013

Date of last amendment     :         N/A

Application Type                  :         Local

Construction Certificate     :         No

Section 94A Levy                :         Yes


 

 

4.0    Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Liverpool Road, bounded by Holden Street to the west and Queen Street to the east.  The site area is approximately 854.2 square metres.  The property is known as Ashfield Hotel which is essentially a social operation as it has no residential accommodation. It operates a bottle shop, dining facilities, drinking and socialising facilities, a function room and a gaming room. Surrounding development comprises retail, commercial, residential, educational uses and a religious establishment.  Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.

 

5.0    Development History

 

Previous building and development applications submitted to Council in the last 10 years for the subject site include:

 

NO.

DATE

PROPOSAL

DECISION

10.2011.176

22/11/2011

Alts and adds to existing hotel

Approved

2009.81

12/08/09

The erection of signage and the installation of a pedestrian barrier on the footpath in front of the Ashfield Hotel.

Withdrawn

2008.160

11/11/08

Alts and adds to existing hotel

Approved

2006.297

12/02/07

Alts and adds to existing hotel

Approved

2004.42

15/06/04

Subdivision and re-adjustment of boundary alignment.

Approved

2003.76

22/05/03

Extension to the hours of operation of parts of Ashfield Hotel.

Approved

 

Assessment

 

6.0    Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

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

·    The property is a heritage item.

·    The property is located within the vicinity of a heritage items at 1 and 2A Holden Street.

·    The property is located within the Ashfield Town Centre.

 

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)

 

1.   Clause No. 17B (Development of Ashfield Business Centre—Zone No 3 (a) floor space ratio)

 

Clause No 17B of Ashfield LEP states that the Council must not grant consent for buildings on land to which this clause applies if the floor space ratio of the buildings 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). Subclause (3) allows the gross floor area of the buildings on the site to be greater than that allowed by the base floor space ratio by no more than an amount equivalent to the site area, subject to subclause (4).

 

However, the proposed development does not qualify for any additional gross floor area as provided by subclause (4) of Ashfield LEP 1985 as the additional floor area is not for residential purposes.

 

As such, the maximum gross floor area permitted would be only the base floor space ratio shown for the land on Sheet 2 of the map marked “Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 1985 (Amendment No 72)” which is 2:1.

 

The Proposal involves an extension to the existing gaming room so that the existing gross floor area is increased by approximately 19.465m² resulting in a total gross floor area of approximately 1112.195m² and a floor space ratio (FSR) of approximately 1.3:1. The proposed FSR complies with the maximum FSR permitted by Clause 17B of Ashfield LEP 1985.

 

2.   Clause No. 32 (Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics)

 

Clause No 32 of Ashfield LEP requires development consent for alterations of a heritage item by making structural or non-structural changes to its exterior. It requires Councils to assess the heritage significance of the heritage item, and take into consideration the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item.

 

A heritage impact statement has been submitted as part of this application stating that the proposed development will not have any adverse impact on the heritage significance of the property and no heritage issues have been raised by Council’s heritage adviser.


 

 

3.   Clause No. 37 (Development in the vicinity of heritage items, heritage conservation areas, archaeological sites or potential archaeological sites)

 

Clause No 37 of Ashfield LEP requires Council to assess and take into consideration the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of a heritage item, heritage conservation area, archaeological site or potential archaeological site, and on its setting, when determining an application for consent to carry out development on land in its vicinity.

 

The proposed development, with the exception of the proposed modifications to the Liverpool entry, will  not  be visible from Holden Street or Liverpool road and as such will not have any adverse impact on the heritage significance of the heritage items located in the vicinity of the subject site at 1 and 2A Holden Street.

 

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

 

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

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

 

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

 

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

 

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

 

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


 

 

Draft Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

Summary Compliance Table

Clause No.

Subject

Standard

Proposed

Compliance

1.2

Aims of Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

2.2

Zoning

Zone B4 (Mixed Use)

 

Yes

4.3

Height of buildings

12m

Ashfield Draft LEP 2012 defines building height as follows:

 

“building height (or height of building) means the vertical distance between ground

level (existing) and the highest point of the building, including plant and lift overruns,

but excluding communication devices, antennae, satellite dishes, masts, flagpoles,

chimneys, flues and the like”.

 

The modifications proposed for the roof of the gaming room will not result in any modifications to the existing building height.

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

3.0:1 (300%)

Given that the definition of GFA in the draft LEP 2012 takes measurements from the internal face of the external inclosing walls, the proposed GFA would be less than 1.3:1 (130%).

Yes

5.10

Heritage Conservation

 

 

Objectives

 

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 (a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Ashfield,

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

 conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

 (c) to conserve archaeological sites,

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

5.10(5)

 

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed development has been reviewed by Council’s heritage adviser and the proposed development will not have any adverse impact on the heritage significance of the property or of the area.

Yes

 

In general, the proposed development achieves the aims and objectives of the provisions of Ashfield draft LEP 2012.

 

7.3    The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

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

 

 

C1

ACCESS AND MOBILITY

As part of the proposed development, it is proposed to modify the Liverpool entry closest to adjoining property located at 198 Liverpool Rd to provide an access to people with disabilities in compliance with the relevant Australian Standard.

 

The proposed development has been reviewed by Council’s building surveyor - no issues were raised and conditions of consent have been recommended.

C2

ADVERTISEMENTS AND ADVERTISING STRUCTURES

The proposal does not include any advertising structures or any advertisements.

C3

ASHFIELD TOWN CENTRE

 

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

The proposed development involves minor modifications to the Liverpool Road entry to improve its accessibility.

 

In general, the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of Part 6 of section 2 – Part C3 of Ashfield DCP 2007.

C10

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Refer to comments provided under clause 7.1.1 of this report.

C11

PARKING

Part C11 of Ashfield DCP 2007 provides that no additional parking is required in the Ashfield Town Centre for development that involves existing gross floor area or comprises a change of use of existing gross floor area.

 

The proposed development will result in an increase to the existing gross floor area by extending into the court yard area which is not considered to be gross floor area as defined by Clause No. 4 of environmental planning and assessment model provisions 1980.

 

Considering Mr Moore’s view in Meerlen Pty Limited v Ashfield Municipal Council [2012] NSWLEC 1264, the additional floor area, is not likely to require the provision of or increase the demand for public amenities or public services. As such, the proposed development is unlikely to require additional car parking spaces given that the number of the gaming machines is not proposed to be increased.

 

 

 

C12

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

See Clause No. 7.7 of this report

ASHFIELD TOWN CENTRE STRATEGY

 

The proposed development will have no adverse impact on the streetscape or the heritage significance of the existing building and hence will not compromise the character of the Ashfield town centre. The proposed development is consistent with the planning principles of the Ashfield Town Centre Strategy.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application.

 

The proposed development involves the removal of the retractable awning above the two doors, located near the south west corner of the existing court (within which the existing gaming room is proposed to be extended).  The retractable awning is proposed to be replaced by a fixed metal clad awning extended above the two doors mentioned above. It is noted that the new awning is proposed to be constructed in front of an existing glass brick neighbouring window (2A Holden Street) with 900mm setback.


 

 

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 11th February 2013 until 28th February 2013.

 

7.7.1          Summary of submissions

 

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

 

7.8    The public interest

 

The proposal satisfies amenity considerations with respect to both site and the neighbouring properties and will have no significant adverse impact on the streetscape. Given the above and the proposal’s compliance with the aims and objectives of ALEP 1985 and ADCP 2007, it is not considered that the proposal is acceptable.

 

8.0    Referrals

 

8.1    Internal

 

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

 

The application has been referred to Council’s heritage adviser - no issues have been raised.

 

Building

 

The application was referred to Council's building surveyor who advises that the technical aspects of compliance with the deem to satisfy provisions of the BCA and other Australian Standards is the responsibility of the PCA at the CC stage and hence relevant conditions of consent have been provided.

 

Environmental Health

 

The application has been referred to Council’s Health and Environment Officer - no issues have been raised to the proposed development and conditions of consent have been recommended.


 

 

8.2    External

 

NSW Police

 

The application has been referred to NSW Police - no issues have been raised. Comments from Ashfield Police are included at Attachment 4.

 

9.0    Other Relevant Matters

 

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

 

10.0  Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

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

 

Financial Implications

 

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

 

Other Staff Comments

 

See Section 8.1 of this report.

 

Public Consultation


See Section 7.7 of this report.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

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

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Plans of Proposal

5 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

Heritage Advice

1 Page

 

Attachment 4View

Comments from Ashfield Police

1 Page

 

Attachment 5View

Conditions

8 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) approve Development Application No. 10.2013.18.1 for alterations and additions to Ashfield Hotel including:

 

1.   Extending the gaming room into existing courtyard;

2.   Internal reconfiguration of gaming room;

3.   The construction of a new roof over the existing gaming room;

4.   Modification to the Liverpool entry closest to adjoining property located at 198 Liverpool Rd; and

5.   Replacement of existing retractable awning located above bistro doors fronting internal courtyard with fixed metal clad awning.

 

on Lot 100 in DP: 1069001, known as 204 Liverpool Rd, Ashfield, subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Plans of Proposal

 


 


 


 


 


Attachment 2

 

Locality Map

 


Attachment 3

 

Heritage Advice

 


Attachment 4

 

Comments from Ashfield Police

 


Attachment 5

 

Conditions

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 26 March 2013    CM10.2

Subject                            RESPONSIBLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER'S MONTHLY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2013

 

File Ref                            RAO/FEB'13

 

Prepared by                   Myooran Vinayagamoorthy - Chief Financial Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          To evidence that Council’s budgetary controls are operating and whether any material differences have been identified.

 

 

 


Overview of Report
This is a standard report containing a certification from the Responsible Accounting Officer that the monthly budget review has occurred and to report any material differences.

 

Background

Clause 202 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 states:

The responsible accounting officer of a council must:

(a) establish and maintain a system of budgetary control that will enable the council’s actual income and expenditure to be monitored each month and to be compared with the estimate of the council’s income and expenditure, and

(b) If any instance arises where the actual income or expenditure of the council is materially different from its estimated income or expenditure, report the instance to the next meeting of the council.

 

Although the Regulations only require a report if a material difference exists, Council’s Chief Financial Officer provides a monthly report certifying that a budgetary review has occurred to provide Council with a higher degree of confidence that the system of budgetary controls are operating effectively.

 

Certification by the Responsible Accounting Officer:

A comparison of Council’s actual income and expenditure with its estimated income and expenditure for the period 1 February to 28 February 2013 has been performed and there were no material differences to report.

 

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications from this report.

 

Other Staff Comments

Nil

 

Public Consultation

Nil

 


 

Conclusion

The monthly budgetary review has been performed and there are no material differences to report.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That this report be noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 26 March 2013    CM10.3

Subject                            INVESTMENT REPORT FEBRUARY 2013

 

File Ref                            Financial Management/Investment Report/Investments

 

Prepared by                   Myooran Vinayagamoorthy - Chief Financial Officer       

 

 

Reasons                          Legislative Requirement

 

Objective                         To report the balance of investments as at 28 February 2013

 

 

 


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

28 February 2013.

 

Background

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

 

Investment Balances

Council’s cash at bank and investments as at 28 February 2013 amounted to $22,360,845.35. It should be noted that the amount currently invested represents all of Council’s external and internal restrictions (i.e. grants, section 94 funds, loans, etc) as well as cash flow requirements.

 

The movement of cash and investments during the month of February 2013 is as follows:

 

Cash at Bank and Investments as at 31 Jan 2013                                             $20,279,542.38

Increase/ (Decrease) during the month of Feb 2013                                        $  2,081,302.97

Cash at Bank and Investments as at 28 Feb 2013                                            $22,360,845.35

                                                                                              

Represented By:

Book Value          of Investments                                                                               $20,544,234.15

Cash at Bank                                                                                                      $  1,816,611.20 

                                                                                                                            $22,360,845.35

 

Receipts for the month of February exceeded payments because the third instalment of Rates and Annual Charges was due on 28 February 2013. Council also received the third instalment of the Financial Assistance Grant of $142,657.


 

 

Return on Investment

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

 

Date

Monthly Return*

Quarterly Return*

Annual Return*

Two Years Return*

Three Years Return*

28/02/2013

3.62%

4.24%

4.70%

5.36%

5.73%

31/01/2013

4.70%

4.44%

4.89%

5.38%

5.79%

31/12/2012

4.45%

4.53%

4.91%

5.44%

5.80%

30/11/2012

4.16%

4.49%

5.06%

5.63%

5.82%

31/10/2012

5.03%

4.41%

5.09%

5.65%

5.82%

30/09/2012

4.30%

4.34%

5.03%

5.60%

5.77%

31/08/2012

3.94%

5.25%

5.21%

5.77%

5.79%

31/07/2012

4.90%

5.77%

5.27%

5.76%

5.75%

30/06/2012

7.18%

5.59%

5.21%

5.50%

5.69%

31/05/2012

5.13%

4.98%

5.54%

6.40%

4.83%

30/04/2012

4.04%

5.21%

5.66%

6.38%

4.78%

31/03/2012

5.69%

5.51%

6.01%

6.38%

4.79%

29/02/2012

5.75%

5.72%

6.20%

6.33%

4.85%

 

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

 

The average yield on the short term portfolio for February 2013 was 4.31% whilst the comparative benchmark yield for 90 days bank swap rates was 2.97%.

 

The interest on investments as at 28 February 2013 is $591,528.

 

The market value of Aphex Pacific Capital CDO as at 28 February 2013 as per the reports provided by Australia and New Zealand Group Limited is $137,088. This is an increase of $7,528 from the previous month market value.

 

Other Staff Comments

Nil

 

Public Consultation

Nil

 

Conclusion

I certify that the investments have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 (as amended), the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and the Council’s Investment Policy adopted 23/08/2011 at the Budget and Operations Review Committee meeting.


 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Investment Portfolio February 2013

2 Pages

 

Attachment 2View

Investment Graph Feb2013

1 Page

 

Attachment 3View

ANZ CDO Report Feb2013

10 Pages

 

Attachment 4View

Interest Income Feb2013

1 Page

 

 RECOMMENDATION

 

That the investment report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Investment Portfolio February 2013

 



Attachment 2

 

Investment Graph Feb2013

 


Attachment 3

 

ANZ CDO Report Feb2013

 











Attachment 4

 

Interest Income Feb2013

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 26 March 2013    CM10.4

Subject                            RISK MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

 

File Ref                            Risk Management

 

Prepared by                   Nellette Kettle - Director Corporate & Community Services       

 

 

Reasons                          To update Council’s risk management framework

 

Objective                         To adopt revised Risk Management Procedures

 

 

 


Overview of Report
This report seeks the adoption of revised Risk Management Procedures.

 

 

 

Background

Council adopted its first risk management framework, incorporating a Risk Management Policy and Risk Management Procedures in September 2011.

 

Since then organisational efforts have focused on educating and skilling Council staff in the application of the Risk Management Procedures including the identification and analysis of risks.

 

Arising from this experiential learning and the application of the risk management framework through the internal audit program, a number of opportunities to further tailor and simplify our risk management approach have presented.

 

Accordingly, some changes to the Risk Management Procedures are proposed.  The changes concern the Risk Analysis section of the Procedures, specifically tables 1-5, which provide detailed guidance on how to analyse and assess risks.

 

The proposed changes have been endorsed by the Internal Audit Committee.

 

Financial Implications

Nil

 

Other Staff Comments

Council’s Internal Auditor has assisted in the review of the Procedures.

 

Public Consultation

N/A

 

Conclusion

The revised Risk Management Procedures are presented to Council for adoption as part of Council’s formal Risk Management Framework.


 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Risk Management Procedures

20 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the revised Risk Management Procedures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Risk Management Procedures

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 26 March 2013    CM10.5

Subject                            USING TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE COUNCIL'S RESPONSE REGARDING FOOTPATHS, DUMPED RUBBISH AND GRAFFITI

 

File Ref                            Smart Phone Application

 

Prepared by                   Mary Haroulis - Manager Information & Communications Technology       

 

 

Reasons                          To respond to a Council resolution for information.

 

 

 


Overview of Report
To respond to Council’s resolution of 27 November 2012 (NM51/2012) seeking information on the development of a smart phone application to be used by residents and others in the community to communicate instances of dangerous footpaths, dumped rubbish, graffiti and other pressing issues.

 

 

Background             

 

The following table shows the use of smart phone applications by SSROC councils.

 

COUNCIL

APP

COMMENTS

Ashfield

 

Snap Send Solve

Currently receive 7-10 reports per week from the app.

Bankstown

 

Snap Send Solve

Currently receive 10-20 reports directly from the app and numbers are increasing

Botany Bay

 

Snap Send Solve

Currently receive SSS reports, not sure of number. 

Burwood

 

 

Use eServices online CRM System.

Canada Bay

 

 

Corporate Web Form ECM (Dataworks using web forms only) auto task created

Canterbury

 

Canterbury Connects – custom built app

Have developed an iPhone and Android app.  Cost approximately $10,000 for iPhone software development and $5,000 for Android software development. Provides up-to-date information on Council events, allows residents to report incidents (like SSS functionality) and includes a directory to Council services, facilities and Councillor’s information.

Sydney City

 

Snap Send Solve

Currently receive 20 reports per day.

Hurstville

 

custom built app

Have developed an iPhone app.  Cost approximately $3,000 with ongoing annual maintenance.  This app offers the same functionality as SSS and also pushes council calendar events, information on garbage collection days, Councillor names & contacts and council facilities i.e. parks and halls open for hire.  Also receive SSS reports but number received is unknown.

Kogarah

 

Snap Send Solve

When the app was first released were receiving approximately 5 or more reports per week.  Now, they are receiving a couple of reports every couple of weeks.

Leichhardt

 

Snap Send Solve

Currently receive an average of 2 reports per day and is slowly increasing.  They also have a form on the web to lodge a request.


 

COUNCIL

APP

COMMENTS

Marrickville

 

Snap Send Solve

Use Form on the Web to lodge a request.  Number of SSS reports received is unknown.

Randwick

 

 

My Randwick

 

Online CRM system in place. Have developed a Smart phone app for iPhone downloadable from the app store “My Randwick” downloads location services and will look at all DA’s within a certain radius, shows days of waste collection etc.  Approximate Cost of  software development - $104,000. This includes the push of calendar events, councilor information etc.  An additional $6,000 was required to write an integration link with Council’s Masterview System allowing information for garbage cleanup dates, Development Application status update enquiries etc.

Some download usage stats for this month are: 4,026 in total - 2,215 upgraded to latest version - 1,100 new users from the start of the year – other, general info download. (last year July 2012 – 996 download app, August 2012 - 903, September- December average around 294).  January 2013 there was a letterbox drop and have now received 858 new subscriptions.

Rockdale

 

 

No online reporting of issues.

Sutherland

 

Report it – in house app

Developed iPhone app called “Report It” downloaded from Apps Store.  This was resourced in-house at no additional external costs.  The app allows you to report on pre-identified categories including a General Request category which covers other items not listed. This online Request then comes in as an email to Records who then create a CRM if required.  The next stage of development will be to integrate the web services with their corporate Property and CRM Systems.

Waverly

 

Snap Send Solve

Currently receive SSS reports, not sure of number. 

Woollahra

 

Snap Send Solve

Use  eServices and online CRM system.  SSS -  unsure of number of reports received.

 

Of the 16 SSROC councils, 9 currently use the Snap Send Solve app and 4 others have developed their own apps.

 

Snap Send Solve

Snap Send Solve is a freeware application which can be downloaded from the Internet and installed on any smart phone (iPhone or Android).  This app allows users to take a photo of an issue (e.g. dumped rubbish, parking issues, street cleaning, trees etc.) with GPS location positioning and to instantly send this information to Council.  The information comes in as an email to the Council Records Department and is then processed through the CRM system.

 

A similar freeware application on the market is NeatStreet, which offers similar functionality as the Snap Send Solve app but the request is sent to the NeatStreet service centre  before being forwarded to the relevant authority.

 

Financial Implications     

 

The applications Snap Send Solve and NeatStreet are free applications which and can be recommended to residents and customers at no direct cost to Council.  Snap Send Solve is a ‘passive’ app in terms of ongoing resources as it does not require any additional administration.


 

 

Development of a more Ashfield specific app would cost anywhere from $5k to upwards of $100k, and in order to have an app that ‘pushes’ more information we would need to undertake a detailed scoping of requirements including not only the cost of developing the app but the resource implications of ‘administering’ the app (i.e. the app equivalent of a ‘webmaster’ role).

 

Other Staff Comments

 

Public Consultation

Nil

 

Conclusion

 

The majority of SSROC councils are using the free Snap Send Solve app, including Ashfield Council.  It is recommended that Council undertake a more active campaign to promote this technology to residents.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the information be noted and that Council more widely publicise the availability of the Snap Send Solve app.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 26 March 2013    CM10.6

Subject                            COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT GRANT SCHEME INITIATIVE

 

File Ref                            Community Programs - Grants

 

Prepared by                   Christina O'Hagan - Social Outcomes Project Officer       

 

 

 Reasons                         To provide Council with information regarding applications   

                                       received under the Annual Community and Environment Grants                                  

 

Objective                         To recommend an equitable distribution of Council’s Annual Community and Environment Grants 2012-13. 

 

 


Overview of Report
Ashfield Council funds and administers an annual Grants Scheme for local non-profit community groups for community services, community development, community cultural development, social welfare and other community purposes. Most grants are for one–off projects and are non-recurrent.

 

Council’s Annual Community and Environment Grant Scheme is an opportunity to provide tangible assistance to local community projects, many of which have few reliable avenues for raising much needed funds. Included are projects to address the social isolation of seniors, recreational activities for carers and people with disabilities and support for playgroups and families.

 

Overall, total funds of $44,852 were allocated, $39,852 under the Community Programs and Services budget and $5000 under the Planning and Environmental Services Budget.

 

Forty Two (42) applications were received in total, thirty three (33) of these were community focused and eight (8) were environment focused.

 

Twenty seven (27) of the community projects are recommended for funding and three (3) for Environmental funding.

 

Background

This year, forty two (42) applications were received requesting a total of $74,133.50 under the Ashfield Council Community and Environment Grant Scheme. The amount available for distribution is $39,852 from the Community Programs and Services budget and $5000 from the Planning and Environmental Services Budget. Whilst not every project is recommended for funding, most are proposed to receive some assistance from Council staff or services.

 

 

A schedule of the applications received and the funding recommendations are contained in Attachment 1.


 

 

Objectives: of Council’s Annual Community and Environment Grant scheme are as follows:

 

1.   To encourage the development of services that meet major community needs.

2.   To promote the active participation of local people in community initiatives and the development of their skills, knowledge and opportunities.

3.   To provide funding that takes into account the need for equality of access to services and the need to target particular groups that are under-serviced.

4.   To ensure the focus of services is to bring people into a network of supportive relationships.

 

Environmental Objectives:

 

The overarching Environmental objective states that: ‘Initiatives must make a positive contribution to the environment or sustainability within the Ashfield Council area;’ and to achieve this, projects should for example address one or more of the following key issues:

 

·       Resource Recovery initiatives: reuse, waste minimization or diversion from landfill.

·       Sustainable food systems and community gardening

·       Sustainable water use and management

·       Saving energy or reducing greenhouse emissions

·       Improving local biodiversity

·       Education for sustainable living

·       Sustainable transport

·       Fostering environmentally sustainable behaviour

 

 

The Process

Applications for the Grant Scheme were called for in October 2012. Interested groups were invited to attend an information session at the Civic Centre to assist them in preparing for the application process. 

Applicants were required to submit an application form either on line or via post, in addition to financial statements and a report detailing the previous year’s project, if a Council grant had been awarded. 

A ranking committee was formed to assess the applications. The committee comprised of three Council members from Community Services, Sustainability and Governance and an external committee representative from the Metro Migrant Resource Centre.

The committee held an initial meeting on Thursday 24th January 2013 and based on the objectives and guidelines of the grant scheme developed a specific set of ranking criteria which assessed the applications.


 

 

Each committee member received a pack with a copy of each application and independently, ranked the projects according to the specific criteria. The committee then re-convened on Thursday 7th February 2013 to discuss their independent scores, concluded the results and a report was then finalised with recommendations for Council’s considerations. 

 

 

Results

Forty Two applications were received in total, with one being withdrawn due to the project leader leaving the organization. Of the forty two applications received, thirty three (33) were Community focused, while eight (8) were Environmental focused.

 

Twenty seven (27) of the community projects are recommended for funding ranging from $600 to $2000. The types of projects received are illustrated in the table below.

 

Snapshot of Community applications received & funding recommendations

 

Type of Projects

No. of Applications

No. recommended for funding

Seniors

15

13

Families

5

3

Playgroups

4

4

Disability

4

3

Multiculturalism

4

3

Aboriginal Culture

1

1

Total

33*

27

 * One community application was withdrawn.

 

                        

Six (6) community applications are not recommended for funding because they did not meet the specific criteria of the grants scheme. However, these groups will be provided with Council staff support with the aim of strengthening their project concepts for the next round of funding.

 

 

The committee ranked the eight (8) environmental projects against each other based on an assessment of which projects would make ‘the most positive impact within Ashfield LGA’. The top three scoring projects are recommended for funding.


 

 

Snapshot of Environmental applications recommended for funding

 

Organisation

Type of Projects

Amount recommended for funding

Summer Hill Community Garden

Community Compost Facility

2000

Australian Foundation for Disability

Training for disabled people on sustainable gardening

2000

Haberfield Community Garden

Education Classes for children on growing healthy food

1000

         

 

 

Financial Implications

Overall the Community and Environmental Grant Scheme Initiative 2012/ 2013 will allocate a total sum of $44,852 for funded projects.

 

$39,852 was awarded to community projects under the Community Programs and Services budget.

 

$5000 was awarded to Environmental and sustainability projects under the Planning and Environment Services budget.

 

Costs associated with the Cheque Presentation morning tea will be drawn from the existing Community Programs and Services budget.

 

 

Other Staff Comments

A ranking committee was set up, as detailed in the report, to assess the applications. The committee comprised three Council members from Community Services, Sustainability and Governance and an external committee representative from the Metro Migrant Resource Centre.

 

 

Public Consultation

The Grant Scheme was advertised throughout Ashfield LGA using a wide range of mechanisms including Council staff networks, the distribution of flyers and posters to local organizations and local advertisements placed in the local media.

 

Two information sessions were also held in the Civic Centre Activity Rooms. These sessions provided an opportunity for interested community groups to learn more about Ashfield Councils grants process, get tips on grant writing skills, clarify the financial roles and responsibilities of applicants, discuss and develop project ideas and build one to one relationships with Council staff. This was particularly important for new and emerging local community groups.

 


 

 

Conclusion

Overall the Community and Environmental Grant Scheme Initiative 2012/ 2013 has a total sum of $44,852 for distribution to local Community groups who will deliver a range of projects within Ashfield LGA. The proposed projects will address major community needs including social isolation of seniors, the promotion of multiculturalism and community connectiveness and assisting playgroups to provide better facilities and programs.  Other projects aim to stimulate learning and inclusion for disabled people and promote the well being of carers residing in Ashfield.

The recommended Environmental projects will collectively provide training and education to people of all ages and abilities to improve their skills and knowledge in more sustainable living.

 

The applications highlighted a number of the issues and challenges experienced by some of our residents living in Ashfield and Council staff will continue to actively network with and support a range of these capacity building community development programs.
Council staff have also identified a number of emerging issues in the community which need further investigation such as homelessness, health and cultural diversity and
supporting newly arrived residents living in high-rise apartments, especially mothers with young children.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1View

Attachment 1: Table 1: 2012/2013 Community and Environmental Projects

5 Pages

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the recommendations for funding for the 2012- 2013 Annual Community and Environmental Grants as outlined in Attachment 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Attachment 1: Table 1: 2012/2013 Community and Environmental Projects

 






Ashfield Council – Report to Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday 26 March 2013    CM10.7

Subject                            MAIN ROAD LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS

 

File Ref                            Street lighting

 

Prepared by                   Peter Cormican - Director Works & Infrastructure       

 

 

Reasons                          To advise Council on Ausgrid’s proposal for Accelerated Deployment of Active Reactor High Pressure Sodium Lighting on Main Roads

 

 

 


Overview of Report

This report serves to advise Council on Ausgrid’s proposal for Accelerated Deployment of Active Reactor High Pressure Sodium Lighting on Main Roads.

 

 

Background

 

By letter dated 6 February 2013 Ausgrid seeks Council advice on whether it wishes to participate in the subject accelerated deployment of Active Reactor High Pressure Sodium Lighting on Main Roads.

Additional advice has been received from SSROC Street Lighting Improvement Program recommending to replace mercury vapour lighting with high pressure sodium lighting on Council’s network. This applies to lighting on Main Roads only.

 

SSROC have provided the following recommendation to all Councils:

 

a)      accept Ausgrid’s proposal for accelerated deployment of Active Reactor HPS;

 

b)      note to Ausgrid that Council intends to quarantine selected shopping and entertainment precincts where there would be clear socio-economic benefit of high quality white light at some future stage (eg when LEDs for main roads are adopted); and

 

c)      note to Ausgrid that, Council reserves the right to suspend accelerated installations of Active Reactor HPS lighting should the NSW Energy Savings Scheme pricing fall appreciably or the scheme be substantially modified or terminated for any reason.

 

SSROC SLI have provided indicative costing for Ashfield should it wish to take up the Ausgrid offer.  The financial implications of this  proposal in year one would require an adjustment to Councils budget by, up to, an additional $75,274. Note that as timing for the start of the project is not yet confirmed by Ausgrid, the years in which the budget be impacted are not absolute.


 

 

On behalf of participating Councils SSROC propose to apply for  NSW Energy Saving Scheme (ESS) credits.  If approved these would be applied to reduce the impact on Council’s budget, these cannot be guaranteed, in the first instance. The potential impact for next year is therefore a maximum  increase of $75,274.  However, in year 2+ Council would anticipate a net cost saving of 24% ($45,029) per annum.

 

SSROC are promoting the immediate replacement of 700w lamps at a cost to Ashfield of $1,666.28. This is supported and may be implemented from the current 2012/13 street lighting budget allocation. 

 

An alternative exists to not participate in the upgrade and wait for LED technology to replace 250w and 400w mercury vapour luminaries, SLI advice is that it is likely to be some years before Ausgrid adopts  LED lighting for main roads, and in the meantime most of the existing  lamps would be replaced at 10-15% p.a. due to age.

 

Financial Implications

 

The risk to Council is that there is a material possibility of substantive changes or even discontinuation of key energy efficiency funding programs (including the Energy Saving Scheme and the Commonwealth CEEP program). As noted above, from a risk management perspective, and as Council’s 2013/2014 budget makes no allowance for the current proposal, an additional $75,274 would need to be allowed to cover this eventuality.

 

SSROC offer to co-ordinate a joint application for NSW Energy Saving Scheme credits from the deployment of the new lamps to help cover the undepreciated residual asset cost on the old lighting to be removed. (Current amount owing $96,098 for 250W and 400W and $1,666.28 for 700w lamps).

 

Should that application be successful, based on the projections provided by SSROC SLI Program for ESS credits at the current spot price of $26/ESSC, an overall positive payback would occur in year 1, saving $77,685. Even at a reduced ESSC of $20 /credit a positive payback would occur in year 1, saving $42,387.  Should Council be unsuccessful in obtaining ESS credits the year 1 result would be an additional cost to Council of $75,274 as noted above. However in future years this initiative would return a net cost saving of $45,029 per annum plus a net GHG reduction of  519.7 tonnes Co2/year. 

 

SSROC Street Lighting Improvement Program advisor Mr. Graham Mawer (from Next Energy) reported that each Council has a different financial situation, but generally Councils are supporting the proposal.  Some Councils like Marrickville Council are deciding to quarantine shopping precincts and wait for LED technology to be developed for these precincts.   The key future challenge of ESS credits is that Councils will be exposed to spot (market) prices.  Graham is suggesting that SSROC Councils may collectively wish to engage him to monitor the market to ensure the best price is received for the credits sold.

 

In addition, and as an aside, Council receives a Traffic Route Lighting Subsidy (TRLS) for Main Road lighting from RMS.  The RMS has been reviewing the model for funding and one option was for them to completely take over the lighting on Main Roads.  By advice dated 11 February 2013 RMS has decided to set the subsidy at broadly 50% of the total cost of eligible main road lights which will take the subsidy back to the level it was historically at. 

A study conducted for the RMS in 2011 suggested that the average TRLSS payment had been progressively eroded in recent years and was down to 43% of total lighting costs in 2010/11.  The relative contribution of the TRLSS has fallen further with recent sharp street lighting price increases.  While the benefits of taking funding back up to the 50% level will vary widely by LGA, SSROC estimates that several million dollars a year in additional funding will flow to Councils by the time this change is implemented next year.

 

Comments from Sustainability Team Leader

 

The proposal is supported due to the favourable greenhouse implications of Active Rector HPS, which includes an estimated reduction of 519.7t CO2/year and the improved energy efficiency resulting from the updated globes. Statistically this represents an immediate 52% reduction in energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions within the Ashfield LGA for lighting on Main Roads.

 

The work that the SSROC street lighting project has achieved on behalf of Councils, not only within the SSROC region, but from Sutherland up to Port Stephens, in terms of regional collaboration and negotiation with Ausgrid, is recognised nationally. This initiative is a great step forward in reducing not only the running costs of street lighting that are passed through to Councils, but also greenhouse gas emissions resulting from energy demand in the region as annual charges for the Active Reactor HPS lighting are 23-39%  lower than the current, old mercury vapour lights.

 

ATTACHMENTS

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1/2    That Council proceed with the Ausgrid proposal  to replace Mercury Vapour lamps with High Pressure Sodium lamps on Main Roads in accordance with SLI recommendations as follows:

 

a)     Council accept Ausgrid’s proposal for accelerated deployment of Active Reactor HPS;

 

b)     note to Ausgrid that Council intends to quarantine selected shopping and entertainment precincts where there would be clear socio-economic benefit of high quality white light at some future stage (eg when LEDs for main roads are adopted); and

 

c)     note to Ausgrid that, Council reserves the right to suspend accelerated installations of Active Reactor HPS lighting should the NSW Energy Savings Scheme pricing fall appreciably or the scheme be substantially modified or terminated for any reason.

 

2/2    That the financial implications be noted, with a worst case scenario requiring the payment of undepreciated residual values of $96,098 for 250W and 400W lanterns and $1,666.28 for 700 W lanterns. 

 

   PETER CORMICAN

Director Works & Infrastructure