NOTICE OF Regulatory Council MEETING

 

 

 

The Meeting of Parramatta City Council will be held in the Council Chamber, Fourth Floor, 2 Civic Place, Parramatta on Monday, 14 April 2008 at 6:45pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sue Coleman

Acting General Manager

 

 

 Parramatta – the leading city at the heart of Sydney

 

30 Darcy Street Parramatta NSW 2150

PO Box 32 Parramatta

 

Phone 02 9806 5050 Fax 02 9806 5917 DX 8279 Parramatta

ABN 49 907 174 773  www.parracity.nsw.gov.au

 

“Think Before You Print”



COUNCIL CHAMBERS

 

 

Clr Paul Barber, Lord Mayor – Caroline Chisholm Ward

Sue Coleman, Acting General Manager - Parramatta City Council

 

 

 

 

Acting Group Manager City Services

 

 

 

Assistant Minutes Clerk – Michael Wearne

 

 

Stephen Kerr –  Group Manager Corporate

 

 

 

Minutes Clerk – Grant Davies

 

Marcelo Occhuizzi –Acting Group Manager Outcomes & Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clr Omar Jamal – Arthur Philip Ward

 

 

Clr Lorraine Wearne - Lachlan Macquarie Ward

 

Clr Anita Brown – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward

 

 

Clr John Chedid – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward

 

Clr David Borger – Macarthur Ward Elizabeth

 

 

Clr Andrew Wilson – Lachlan Macquarie Ward

 

Clr Paul Garrard – Woodville Ward

 

 

Clr Tony Issa, OAM – Woodville Ward

 

Clr Julia Finn – Arthur Philip Ward

 

 

Clr Brain Prudames – Caroline Chisholm Ward

 

Clr Chris Worthington – Caroline Chisholm Ward

Clr Pierre Esber, Deputy Lord Mayor  Lachlan Macquarie Ward

Clr Maureen Walsh – Wooville Ward

Clr Chiang Lim – Arthur Phillip Ward

Text Box:   Press

 

Staff

 

 

Staff

 

GALLERY

 


Regulatory Council

 14 April 2008

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM                                                         SUBJECT                                              PAGE NO

 

1        CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council - 25 March 2008

2        APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

3        DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST - COUNCILLORS AND STAFF

4        PETITIONS

5        PUBLIC FORUM 

6        DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION

7        DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REFERRED FOR ON-SITE MEETINGS

8        DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD

9        Reports - Domestic Applications

9.1     281 Church Street, Parramatta
(Lot 3 DP 610555) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

9.2     G8 & G7B, 162 Church Street, Parramatta
(
Lot 1 in DP 731780) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

9.3     122 The Trongate Granville (crn Charles Streets)
(Lots 5A & 6A DP 159581) ( Woodville Ward)

9.4     10 Purchase Street Parramatta
(
Lot E DP 172693)

10      Reports - Development Applications

10.1   16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS (Proposed Lot 18)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

10.2   16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS (Proposed Lot 19)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

10.3   16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS (Proposed Lot 20)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

10.4   16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS (Proposed Lot 10)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
(Location Map - Attachment 3)

10.5   16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS (Proposed Lot 11)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
(Location Map - Attachment 3)

10.6   16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS (Proposed Lot 12)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
(Location Map - Attachment 3)

10.7   16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS (Proposed Lot 13)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

10.8   153 Woodville Road Merrylands
(Sec 6 Lot 5 DP 947) (
Woodville Road)

10.9   Church Street Mall (between Macquarie and Darcy Streets Parramatta)

10.10  215 - 217 Church Street, Parramatta
(
Lot E DP 15013) (Arthur Philip Ward)

10.11  289-291 Church Street, Parramatta
(
Lot 4 DP25055 & appt row, Lot 3 Sec 24 DP 25055)
Location Map - Attachment 2

10.12  2B Fleet Street, North Parramatta (Arthur Phillip Ward)

10.13  McCoy Park, 26 Mimosa Avenue, Toongabbie
Lots 17-20 in DP 8408, Part Portion 144 and
Lot A in DP 29128 (Caroline Chisholm)

10.14  33-35 Wigram Street and 31 Allen Street Harris Park (Lots 2-5 DP 13579 and Lots 1 & 3 DP 315922) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward) Location Map - Attachment 1

10.15  3-7/52 George Street, Parramatta
(Lot 3 SP 21427, Lot 7 SP 32000) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

10.16  73 Marion Street, Harris Park
(Lot 8 DP 2114) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

10.17  2 Stewart Street (corner Marsden Road), Ermington

10.18  19 Buller Street, NORTH PARRAMATTA
(Lot 1 DP 115081) (Arthur Philip Ward)

10.19  44 Lakeside Road, Eastwood
(
Lot 77 DP 8424) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)   

11      DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION

12      Closed Session

12.1   Tender No. 3/2008 - Construction of Marsden Weir Fish Lock.

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

  

13      QUESTION TIME

 

 


Regulatory Council

 14 April 2008

 

 

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         9.1

SUBJECT                   281 Church Street, Parramatta
(Lot 3 DP 610555) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Proposed new signage, shopfront doors and windows and outdoor dining for an existing restaurant

REFERENCE            DA/1069/2007 - Submitted 11 December 2007

APPLICANT/S           Designcorp Australia

OWNERS                    Dr M F Lai and Mrs G J Lai

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

1.         To determine Development Application No. 1069/2007, which seeks approval for exterior modifications including new signage, shopfront doors and associated outdoor dining for an existing use as a restaurant.

 

The application has been referred to Council as 281 Church Street is listed as a heritage item in Schedule 5 of the Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Development Application No. 1069/2007, which seeks approval for exterior modifications including new signage, shopfront doors with associated outdoor dining to continue an exisiting use as a new restaurant, be approved subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions.

 

i)     Prior to the placement of the tables, chairs, and safety   barriers on Council's footpath, a licence agreement    between the proprietors of the business and Council    must be entered into.  Please contact Property      Management Officer, Parramatta City Council on 9806        5000. This consent does not operate until the licence     agreement has been entered into.

 

ii)  At all times, the placement of furniture and the operation           of the facility are to comply with the licence agreement,         and Council's Outdoor Policy. A copy of the Policy is           available from Council.

 

            iii)  A public liability insurance policy is to be taken out in      accordance with the terms of Council's licence           agreement.  The policy is to remain current for the full   term of the operation of the facility on Council's footpath.         A copy of the policy shall be provided to Council prior to the use of the area.

 

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.     The site is known as 281 Church Street, Parramatta and is located on the corner of Church & Philip Street. The site is located on the western side of Church Street with a frontage of approximately 5.8m to Church Street and 20.3m to Philip Street. The immediate area is characterised by shops, restaurants and Places of Public Entertainment.

 

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.      Development Application No. 1069/2007 seeks approval for           the following:

 

          2.1    Ornamental changes to external walls which include grey                  stone tiles to the wall of the ground floor and plywood                  lining on the top hamper.

 

          2.2    Signage comprising of block letters on the wall of the                        ground floor façade and awning fascia signage.

 

          2.3    Outdoor dining area comprising of 13 tables and 44                         seats

 

          2.4    External alterations which include the provision of two             new entry doors.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Unauthorised Works

 

3.         The development application does not propose internal alterations which would require the consent of Council. However it has been bought to the attention of Council that significant internal works have been undertaken which involved the removal of the kitchen area and the relocation of the internal staircase. The site was inspected by Council Officers and the applicant was advised to immediately cease work within the kitchen area until a determination of the development application had been granted. As a result the applicant has advised that the new kitchen fitout will be consistent to the original layout as shown on the submitted plans. The application has been referred to Council’s Health Officer who has no objection to the proposal subject to the incorporation of conditions. The matter has also been referred to Council’s Development Control Unit for further action in relation to the unauthorised work.

 

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28

 

4.         At the time of lodgement of the development application the site was zoned as Retail Core Zone (City Centre Precinct) under the provisions of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 28 – Parramatta. The proposal is permissible within the zone with the consent of Council.

 

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

 

5.         Subsequent to lodgement, the Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 was gazetted. Under the provisions of this Plan the site is zoned B4 Mixed Use and the proposal for external alterations, signage & outdoor dining is permissible.

 

Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan 2001

 

6.         The provisions of the Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan 2001 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the plan.

 

Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan 2007

 

7.         The provisions of the Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the plan.

 

Outdoor Dining Policy

 

8.         The proposal seeks approval for outdoor dining comprising of 13 tables and 44 chairs. The outdoor dining area has a width of 3.5 metres and is setback 900mm from the kerb. A 2.7 metre wide pedestrian path is provided for safe pedestrian egress. The proposal complies with the Outdoor Dining Policy.

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

9.         In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between the 16 January 2008 and 30 January 2008. No submissions were received.

 

 

 

10.      The application was referred to Councils Property Manager as the proposal seeks approval for outdoor dining comprising of 13 tables and 44 chairs. The application has the support of Councils Property Manager, subject to the incorporation of standard conditions.

 

ISSUES

 

 

Heritage

 

11.      The development application was referred to Councils Heritage Advisor for assessment as the site has been identified as an item of heritage significance in Schedule 5 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2007. The comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor include:

 

            In my opinion, the impact of the proposed works on the heritage values of the place, the adjacent heritage items, and the area in general is acceptable.

 

12.      Accordingly, there are no objections to the proposal on heritage grounds.

 

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

2View

Plans and Elevations

2 Pages

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 2

Plans and Elevations

 


 


Regulatory Council

 14 April 2008

 

 

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         9.2

SUBJECT                   G8 & G7B, 162 Church Street, Parramatta
(
Lot 1 in DP 731780) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Use of existing premises as an educational facility and erection of signage. Location Map - Attachment 3

REFERENCE            DA/1083/2007 - Submitted 14 December 2007

APPLICANT/S           GL Education Pty Ltd

OWNERS                    Parramatta City Council

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 1083/2007 that seeks approval to use of the existing premises as an educational facility, including the erection of signage.

 

The application has been assessed by an independent consultant town planner and referred to Council due to Council being the owner of the site.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 1083/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions.

 

Signage

The proposed signage on the 1st floor above the balcony facing Darcy Street is not approved under this consent.

Reason:        This signage is considered excessive and would detract from the streetscape given the large fascia signs proposed on the awning to this frontage and the number of other signs along this frontage.

 

Disabled Access

Access for people with disabilities is to be maintained within the suites, with the internal fitout layout to be designed to ensure appropriate door clearances and door handle design in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia Part D3 “Access for People with Disabilities” and Australian Standard AS1428.1 (2001) - Design for Access and Mobility - Part 1 General Requirements for Access - Buildings.

 

As a minimum, an accessible path of travel is required to the library, office, teacher’s tea room, interview room and at least one training room. Certification that the existing fitout complies with this condition, or has been altered to comply with this condition is to be provided prior to occupation.

Reason:        To ensure the provision of equitable and dignified access for all people in accordance with disability discrimination legislation and relevant Australian Standards.

 

 

(b)       Further, that the applicant be advised that the existing advertising structure on the 1st floor of the Darcy Street frontage is to be removed within 1 month of the date of this consent.

 

 

PROPOSAL

 

1.         DA/1083/2007 seeks approval for the use of an existing premises as an educational establishment for tuition of school students between Years 1 and 12. This tuition includes English, Maths and Science subjects. The proposed hours of operation are between 12pm to 7.30pm Monday to Friday and 10am to 5.30pm Saturday and Sunday. A total of 8 staff are proposed, with a maximum of 40 students at any one time.

 

2.         It is also proposed to replace the existing signage of the previous users of the premises with signage related to the tuition business. The proposed signage is detailed as follows:

 

·    Lightbox sign 1.050m x 0.45m to be located on the ceiling of the walkway of the shopping centre outside suite G8

·    Illuminated sign 0.3m x 0.5m at the Church Street and Darcy Street entrance

·    Lightbox sign 2.4m x 0.5m at the Darcy Street entrance

·    Lightbox sign 2.85m x 1.1m on the first floor above the balcony facing Darcy Street

·    Banner 5.5m x 1.4m on the exterior window of suite G7B facing Darcy Street

·    Sign 7.5m x 0.5m on the awning to Darcy Street.

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

3.         The site is known as 162 Church Street, Parramatta (Lot 1 in DP 731780), “The Connection Arcade”, and has frontages to both Church Street and Darcy Street. The suites to be occupied are G8 and G7B and are located on the first floor level. The site is surrounded by a mix of uses and building types, typical of its location within the retail centre of Parramatta.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 - Parramatta

 

4.         The site is zoned part Retail Core Zone and part City Core Zone and is located within the City Centre Precinct under SREP28.

 

5.         The gazettal of Parramatta City Centre Plan Local Environmental Plan 2007 repealed Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta (SREP 28) on 21 December 2007. However that Plan contains a savings provision at clause 8, which indicates that development applications lodged but not determined prior to the commencement of the instrument are to be assessed as if the instrument had been exhibited but not adopted. Accordingly, SREP 28 still applies to this application and is addressed as follows.

 

6.         The proposed use as an educational establishment is consistent with the aims of the City Centre Precinct and the objectives of the two zones. None of the building design requirements are of relevance given the proposal is for occupation, with the exception of the Church Street controls, which are addressed following.

 

7.         The Church Street controls of relevance seek to ensure that Church Street provides for a diverse range of retail and cultural activities to revitalize the central role of Church Street in the public life of the city. The proposed educational establishment satisfies this requirement.

 

8.         Clause 70 applies to outdoor advertising and signage. The proposed signage is of appropriate size and scale and allows easy location of the business, with the exception of the proposed signage on the first floor above the balcony of the Darcy Street frontage.

 

9.         This signage is considered excessive given the large fascia sign proposed on the awning to this frontage, the number of other signs and the lack of other such signage in the locality. Therefore a condition of consent recommending the deletion of this sign is proposed.

 

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

 

10.       The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use under Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 and the use of an educational establishment is permissible with consent.

 

11.       The gazettal of Parramatta City Centre Plan Local Environmental Plan 2007 repealed Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta (SREP 28) on 21 December 2007. However that Plan contains a savings provision at clause 8, which indicates that development applications lodged but not determined prior to the commencement of the instrument are to be assessed as if the instrument had been exhibited but not adopted. Accordingly, Parramatta City Centre Plan Local Environmental Plan 2007 is addressed following as if it is a draft instrument.

 

12.       The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone. The only other controls of relevance are those related to signage. The proposed sign at the second level of the building would be prohibited as it is located higher than the first floor window sill level and as such is not exempt development.

 

Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan

 

13.       The relevant provisions relate to signage and waste management. The proposed signage (other than that discussed in relation to SREP 28 above) is considered appropriately designed.

 

14.       As has been discussed in relation to SREP 28, the number of signs is considered excessive and unnecessary and as such the inappropriately located signage above the awning level is to be deleted. Due to the location of the signage it is unlikely to affect residential amenity and as such no curfew is required.

 

15.       The proposal incorporates a satisfactory waste management plan and will provide bins for recycling of appropriate materials

 

CONSULTATION

 

16.       The application did not require notification under Council’s Notification DCP.

 

ISSUES

 

Disabled Access

 

17.       The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) requires that Council consider whether adequate accessibility is available when assessing a development application. In order to ensure an appropriate level of accessibility, a condition of consent is recommended requiring the fitout design to provide accessible paths of travel to a range of facilities provided within the education establishment in compliance with AS1428.1.

 

Signage

 

18.       As has been discussed above, the proposed number of signs to the Darcy Street frontage is considered to be excessive and the location of signage above the awning is considered to be inappropriate. In order to minimise the visual clutter created by signage, the sign at the first floor level is recommended to be deleted.

 

Car Parking

 

19.       The suites were previously being used as a gym and the new proposal is for tutoring of up to 40 children (school age). It is considered the car parking generation by the new use is likely to consist of “drop offs” compared to the “park and stay” usage of gym use. As such parking demand is likely to fall.

 

20.       Further, the site is located adjoining the railway station which provides for excellent access by public transport.

 

Works Completed

 

21.       It appears that internal fitout works have been carried out to the premises and the banner and the internal signage has already been erected. The use has not yet commenced. The internal works would constitute Exempt Development under SREP 28, and requires no further consideration and does not form part of any approval granted to this DA. Since the signage has already been erected, retrospective approval cannot be given for works already carried out. As such, the signage must also be excluded from any approval granted.

 

 

 

 

Louise Connolly

Manager Development Services

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Table of Compliance

1 Page

2View

Plans and Elevations

5 Pages

3View

Locality Map

1 Page

4View

Photograph of subject site

1 Page

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Table of Compliance

 

 


Attachment 2

Plans and Elevations

 





 


Attachment 3

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 4

Photograph of subject site

 

 


Regulatory Council

 14 April 2008

 

 

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         9.3

SUBJECT                   122 The Trongate Granville (crn Charles Streets)
(Lots 5A & 6A DP 159581) ( Woodville Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising construction of an awning, enclosed toilet and ensuite. In addition, the application proposes alterations to the existing hairdressing salon to incorporate a sliding door to the northern elevation of the building.

REFERENCE            DA/603/2007 - Submitted 7 August 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mrs A Khoury

OWNERS                    Mrs A Khoury

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

1.         To determine Development Application No. 603/2007 which seeks consent for the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising construction of an awning, enclosed toilet and ensuite. In addition, the application proposes alterations to the existing hairdressing salon to incorporate a sliding door to the northern elevation of the building.

 

2.         The application has been referred to Council due to four submissions received during the notification period.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council grant consent to Development Application No.603/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

                  

1. The main bedroom located on the upper level of the dwelling is not to be used as a separate dwelling as defined in Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2001. In this regard the sink located in the bedroom is to be removed, as indicated in red on the approved plans.

Reason:        To ensure the room is not used as a separate dwelling 

 

2. The 2 new first floor bathroom windows located along the southern elevation of the dwelling are to be frosted/opaque glass. Details are to be submitted to the satisfaction of the nominated PCA prior to release of the Construction Certificate.

              Reason:        To protect the amenity of the area

 

(b)     Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.         The subject site is located on the western side of The Trongate. The site is rectangular in shape, has a frontage of 20.4m, a depth of 30.6m, and an area of 624m². A two storey dwelling house with an attached shop is currently located on the site. Development Consent 137/2003 was granted on 6 June 2003 to the fitout and use of the existing premises as a hair dressing salon in conjunction with the existing residence. Approval to the use of the property as a hairdressing salon was granted pursuant to cl43(2) of PLEP2001.

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.         The applicant is seeking approval to alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising of the following:

2.1.  Construction of an awning

2.2.  Installation of an ensuite and additional toilet

2.3. Installation of a sliding gate within the existing brick fence along the northern boundary (Charles Street frontage)

2.4.  Installation of new windows and door on the northern elevation

In addition, the applicant proposes alterations to the existing hairdressing salon to incorporate a sliding door along the northern elevation for access to Charles Street.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

3.         The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The proposed alterations are permissible with development consent.

 

CONSULTATION

 

4.         The application was notified to adjoining property owners/occupiers between 24 September 2007 and 8 October 2007.  A petition with 12 signatories and three additional submissions were received.

 

5.         A request for additional information was sent on 18 October 2007 requesting additional details regarding the deep soil zone, easement and further information on the changes which could result in a granny flat being created. As a result of the additional information submitted by the applicant, a further petition was received dated 2 November 2007 signed by 11 persons withdrawing their objection. Therefore there are 3 submissions and one signatory objecting to the proposed development. Issues raised in the submissions are discussed below. 

 

Traffic issues due to the proposed sliding door to the northern elevation of the hairdressers and the awning at the rear of the dwelling

 

6.         Concern is raised over the potential increase in traffic which may arise from additional customers visiting the salon. Of particular concern to the residents is the proposed sliding door on the northern (Charles Street) elevation of the hairdressing salon and the rear awning which residents feel will increase the number of customers.

 

7.         The sliding door will provide access to an existing shop and does not increase the floor area of the hairdresser shop. Accordingly the proposed sliding door will not increase traffic generation or on-street parking demand beyond that which is already associated with the site.

 

8.         The size of the hairdressing salon will not increase thereby there is no likelihood that the number of customers is to increase.

 

Noise due to the size of the awning

 

9.         Concern is raised regarding the size of the awning located within the rear area of the site and the potential for noise to increase in the rear yard area.

 

10.      The applicant has modified the plans and reduced the size of the awning to minimise impacts on the adjoining neighbours. In addition the proposed awning is to be used for residential purpose associated with the dwelling and not the hairdresser shop and noise levels expected are those associated with the residential use of the rear yard.

 

Existing easement

 

11.      Concern is raised over an existing easement between 122 The Trongate and 2 Charles Street.

 

12.      The following Easements and Positive Covenant apply to these parcels of land:

- Right of Footway

- Easement to Permit Encroaching Structures to Remain Variable Width

- Positive Covenant to allow existing fencing to remain

Issues between the property owners regarding easements are private matters as stated in the Instrument setting out the terms of the easements and positive covenant created pursuant to Section 88b of the Conveyancing Act 1919. These documents state the only people allowed to release, verify or modify Easements and Positive Covenant are the owners of 122 The Trongate. Notwithstanding this, the proposed awning will be located approximately 4metres from the existing easement, and as such the proposed development will have no impact on the existing easement.

 

Potential dual occupancy

 

13.      Concern is raised that the proposed internal works to the dwelling may result in an unauthorised dual occupancy.

 

14.      A condition of consent will be placed on the consent to ensure that the main bedroom located on the upper level of the dwelling is not used as a separate dwelling. The deletion of the bar area as required in a condition of consent will reduce the opportunity to utilise the area as a separate occupancy.

 

Incorrect details and issues regarding previous unauthorised works not noted on plans

 

15.      Concern is raised that the plans sent out during the notification period do not accurately represent the existing dwelling and that previous unauthorised works (construction of bathrooms) are not clearly detailed.

 

16.      The plans submitted with the DA and those notified provide the required level of detail, and are sufficient to enable a full and proper assessment of the application to be made. Whilst it is acknowledged that works to the bathroom had commenced, upon compliance investigating the matter, they ceased work and lodged a Development Application.

 

Work hours

 

17.      Concern is raised that the proposed works may be constructed during evening hours

 

18.      A standard condition of consent will limit construction work, between the hours of 7.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Saturday, with no works on Sundays or public holidays.

 

19.      The proposal is compliant with all relevant controls under DCP2005 and will have no undue impacts on adjoining sites or surrounding environment.

 

 

 

Nicholas Clarke

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

2View

Application history

1 Page

 

3View

Plans and elevations

4 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 2

Application history

 

 


Attachment 3

Plans and elevations

 




 


Regulatory Council

 14 April 2008

 

 

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         9.4

SUBJECT                   10 Purchase Street Parramatta
(
Lot E DP 172693)

DESCRIPTION          Addition to the rear of the existing heritage listed dwelling.
Locality Map - attachment 2

REFERENCE            DA/823/2007 - Submitted 2 October 2007

APPLICANT/S           Ms R E Evans

OWNERS                    Ms R E Evans

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 823/2007, which seeks approval for an addition to the rear of the existing dwelling.

 

The application is being referred to Council as the site is listed as a Heritage Item in Schedule 6 – Part 2 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council grant consent to Development Application 823/2007, subject to standard conditions.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.   The site is known as 10 Purchase Street, Parramatta. The site is located on the eastern side of Purchase Street with a frontage of 11.2m and a total area of approximately 433m². The area is characterised by single and two storey residential development comprising of single dwellings and town house development. 

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.   The proposal includes the following:

 

2.1       Demolition of the existing laundry located at the rear of the dwelling and construction of a new laundry inside the dwelling next to the existing bathroom.

2.2       A 5.6m x 4.2m addition located at the rear comprising a living and dining room and an extension to the existing kitchen.

2.3       Timber steps from the rear living/dining area to the rear yard.

2.4       The proposed colours and materials are off-white cladding and a red iron roof, which will match the existing dwelling.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta

 

3.   The site is zoned Residential 2(a) (Harris Park Precinct) under the provisions of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta. Alterations and additions are permissible within the zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of SREP 28.

 

Parramatta Harris Park Precinct Development Control Plan

 

4.   The proposal is consistent with the controls & objectives of the Harris Park Precinct Development Control Plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

5.   In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 17th October 2007 and 31 October 2007. No submissions were received.

 

ISSUES

 

Heritage

 

6.   The development application was referred to Councils Heritage Advisor for assessment as the existing dwelling is part of 5 timber cottages along Purchase Street and is identified as a Heritage Item in Schedule 6 (Part 2) of SREP 28 – Parramatta. The comments of Councils Heritage Advisor are:

 

“The proposal seems relatively simple, reasonably well designed and in keeping with the general provisions of the Harris Park Precinct DCP. The proposal is not considered to have an adverse impact on the heritage item or on the Area of National Significance.”

 

7.   Accordingly, there are no objections to the proposal on heritage grounds.

 

8.   The proposal will not result in any undue scale, bulk, overshadowing or privacy impact.

 

 

 

Ashleigh Matta

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans and elevations

2 Pages

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

3View

History of Development Application

1 Page

 

4View

Heritage Inventory Sheet

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 

 


Attachment 1

Plans and elevations

 


 


Attachment 2

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 3

History of Development Application

 

 


Attachment 4

Heritage Inventory Sheet

 

  


Regulatory Council

 14 April 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         10.1

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS (Proposed Lot 18)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Further Report - Construction of a 2 storey dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision on proposed Lot 18.

REFERENCE            DA/710/2007 - Submitted 31 August 2007

APPLICANT/S           Defence Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defence Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To provide Councillors with further information as requested in the Council resolution on 10 March 2007 and determine Development Application 710/2007 that seeks consent approval for the construction of a two-storey attached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas on proposed Lot 18.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 710/2007 subject to standard conditions.

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.         At the regulatory meeting on 10 March 2007, Council considered a report which recommended approval to the construction of an attached dual occupancy with Torrens Title subdivision. The following resolution was made by Council:

 

            That the applications DA/710/2007, DA/711/2007 and DA/712/2007 be deferred so that the applicant can supply Council and residents with a site plan which shows all existing buildings (the school and the Paul Street residences) and all proposed buildings on the total 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas”.

 

2.         In accordance with this resolution, the applicant was notified on 11 March 2008 that further plans were required.

 

ADDITIONAL PLANS

 

3.         In response to Council’s resolution, the applicant submitted a site plan on 18 March 2008 showing all existing buildings which include the school and the Paul Street residences and all the proposed buildings proposed on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Refer to attached site plans).  

 

4.         The applicant has complied with Council’s resolution, the application is returned to Council with the additional information as requested for determination.   

 

 

 

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Site Plans

2 Pages

 

2View

Previous Report including all attachments DSU 31/2008 to Council 10/03/2008

23 Pages

 

3View

Approved Applications on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Site Plans  /

 


 


Attachment 2

Previous Report including all attachments DSU 31/2008 to Council 10/03/2008 /

 























 


Attachment 3

Approved Applications on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas

 

 


Regulatory Council

 14 April 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         10.2

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS (Proposed Lot 19)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Further Report - Construction of a 2 storey dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision on proposed Lot 19.

REFERENCE            DA/711/2007 - Submitted 31 August 2007

APPLICANT/S           Defense Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defense Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To provide Councillors with further information as requested Council resolution on 10 March 2007 and to determine Development Application 711/2007 that seeks approval for the construction of a two-storey attached dual occupancy with Torrens Title subdivision on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas on proposed Lot 19.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 711/2007 subject to standard conditions.

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.         At the regulatory meeting on 10 March 2007, Council considered a report which recommended approval to the construction of an attached dual occupancy with Torrens Title subdivision. The following resolution was made by Council:

 

            That the applications DA/710/2007, DA/711/2007 and DA/712/2007 be deferred so that the applicant can supply Council and residents with a site plan which shows all existing buildings (the school and the Paul Street residences) and all proposed buildings on the total 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas”.

 

2.         In accordance with this resolution, the applicant was notified on 11 March 2008 that further plans were required.

 

ADDITIONAL PLANS

 

3.         The applicant submitted a site plan on 18 March 2008 showing all existing buildings which include the school and the Paul Street residences and all the proposed buildings proposed on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Refer to attached site plans).  

 

4.         Given that the applicant has complied with Council’s resolution, the application is returned to Council with the additional information as requested for determination.

 

 

 

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Site Plans

2 Pages

 

2View

Previous Report including all attachments DSU 32/2008 to Council 10/03/2008

24 Pages

 

3View

Approved Development Applications

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Site Plans

 


 


Attachment 2

Previous Report including all attachments DSU 32/2008 to Council 10/03/2008

 























 


Attachment 3

Approved Development Applications

 

 


Regulatory Council

 14 April 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         10.3

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS (Proposed Lot 20)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Further Report - Construction of a 2 storey dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision on proposed Lot 20

REFERENCE            DA/712/2007 - Submitted 31 August 2007

APPLICANT/S           Defense Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defense Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To provide Councillors with further information as requested in the Council resolution on 10 March 2007 to determine Development Application 712/2007 that seeks consent approval for the construction of a two-storey attached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas on proposed Lot 20.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 712/2007 subject to standard conditions.

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.         At the regulatory meeting on 10 March 2007, Council considered a report which recommended approval to the construction of an attached dual occupancy with Torrens Title subdivision. The following resolution was made by Council:

 

            That the applications DA/710/2007, DA/711/2007 and DA/712/2007 be deferred so that the applicant can supply Council and residents with a site plan which shows all existing buildings (the school and the Paul Street residences) and all proposed buildings on the total 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas”.

 

2.         In accordance with this resolution, the applicant was notified on 11 March 2008 that further plans were required.

 

ADDITIONAL PLANS

 

3.         The applicant submitted a site plan on 18 March 2008 showing all existing buildings which include the school and the Paul Street residences and all the proposed buildings proposed on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Refer to attached site plan).  

 

4.         Given that the applicant has complied with Council’s resolution, the application is returned to Council with the additional information as requested for determination.   

 

 

 

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Site Plan

2 Pages

 

2View

Previous Report including all attachments DSU 33/2008 to Council 10/03/2008

24 Pages

 

3View

Approved Applications on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Site Plan

 


 


Attachment 2

Previous Report including all attachments DSU 33/2008 to Council 10/03/2008

 
























 


Attachment 3

Approved Applications on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas

 

 


Regulatory Council

 14 April 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         10.4

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS (Proposed Lot 10)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
(Location Map - Attachment 3)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a 2 storey dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision on proposed Lot 10.

REFERENCE            DA/778/2007 - Submitted 19 September 2007

APPLICANT/S           Defense Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defense Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 778/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of an attached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision on Lot 10.

 

The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 778/2007 subject to standard conditions.

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.         The subject site is Lot 10 of a 27 lot subdivision approved under DA/993/2004 at 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas. The overall site initially formed part of the St Patrick’s Marist Brother’s School, located immediately to the north of the site, and has since been subdivided from the school site.

 

2.         The proposed dual occupancy development is to occur on Lot 10 of that subdivision which is located to the south of the new road within the subdivision. Lot 10 is regular in shape, with a southern frontage to the new road of 20.34 metres, a length of 29.50 metres and a total site area of 600m2. The site generally slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 3 metres from the northern boundary to the southern boundary. The site is currently vacant with no significant vegetation.

 

PROPOSAL

 

3.         Approval is sought for the construction of an attached dual occupancy development on Lot 10. Torrens title subdivision of the dual occupancy is also sought to create Lot 1 to have an area of 300 square metres and Lot 2 to have an area of 300 square metres.

 

BACKGROUND

 

4.         Development Consent No. 993/2004 was approved by Council on 2     September, 2005 for 27 lots in a community title, plus common areas including the central road network. A Section 96(1)(a) Modification was     approved on 25 November 2005 to increase pad height levels of Lots 2 to 12        between  0.3m and 1.3m.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

5.         The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and dual occupancy developments are permissible within the Residential 2(b) zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

6.         It is noted that, Clause 38(4A) of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 allows the subdivision of lots where approval for a dual occupancy has been obtained.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

7.         The provisions of PDCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

8.         In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 8 October 2007 to 22 October 2007. A total of nine individual submissions and one petition with 22 signatures were received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

Overshadowing of residential properties in Paul Street

 

9.         Council asked the applicant to provide shadow diagrams illustrate overshadowing impacts on the southern properties located on Paul Street. Due to the orientation of the proposed dual occupancy development on Lot 11, the southern properties located on Paul Street would only experience overshadowing from 3pm onwards. PDCP 2005 prescribes a minimum of 3 hours of solar access to affected properties and their respective courtyards. In this regard, the proposed development exceeds compliance with Council requirements and it is unlikely that the proposed development would result in any adverse amenity impacts to neighbouring properties.

 

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

 

10.      After a meeting between the applicants and the residents of Paul and Dorahy Street, it was agreed that to minimise the affects of overlooking on to the properties on Paul Street from the rear of the proposed development, privacy screens to the rear patio were to be added together with increased sill heights for the first floor windows located to the rear. Council has received amended plans illustrating these changes. In combination with a rear building setback of 10.948 metres, the proposed measures are acceptable and the development will not result in adverse privacy impacts.

 

11.      The proposal responds appropriately in design to site levels and the dwellings and associated windows and patios are not unduly elevated so as to afford outlook over properties fronting Paul Street beyond that which could be reasonably expected a suburban setting and that which is anticipated under the DCP controls.

 

Increase traffic volume and parking demands

 

11.      The new subdivision approved on 16 Dorahy Street will have a new internal road to access the site. On-street parking on Dorahy Street will be limited due to the provision of visitor parking bays inside the new subdivision. In addition, each new dwelling is to provide 2 parking spaces to comply with Council requirements and therefore reducing the likelihood vehicles parking along Dorahy Street. It is considered that the local road network has the ability to cater for the additional traffic that will be generated by this dual occupancy development.

 

12.      Additional comment was sought from Council’s traffic engineer to quantify the total effects of multiple dual occupancy developments on 16 Dorahy Street. Council’s traffic engineer has stated that upon the “…analysis and calculation of the Environmental Capacity (EC), it is considered that the proposed subdivision and the traffic generated by the proposed dwellings (14 dual occupancy dwellings and 11 single dwellings)…will not have significant traffic impact on the road such as Paul and Dorahy Streets”.

 

13.      The development on Lot 10 provides 2 on-site parking spaces and complies with DCP requirements.

 

Pad Levels

 

14.      The current pad levels were approved under a previous application to Council.       The current development application is for a dual occupancy development and         does not vary or propose any further filling. However, it is noted that Council         

Compliance Officers have visited the site to inspect compliance with the approved pad levels. Council’s Compliance officers have found the pad levels to be in compliance with the approved plans.

 

Increase in Noise

 

15.      At a meeting held between Council officers and the applicant on 26 October 2007, rear setbacks of the proposed developments which back on to the Paul Street residents were discussed. The applicant was asked to increase the rear setbacks to reduce privacy, acoustic and overshadowing impacts on the Paul Street residents. This resulted in the rear setback increasing from 9.628 metres to 10.948 metres. However, the proposed dual occupancy development on Lot 10 is not expected to generate noise that would be deemed excessive as it is a residential use within a residential setting and zone. Should excessive noise be generated, Council and the NSW Police Service have the ability to address it in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operation Act.

 

Excessive Height

 

16.      The proposed dual occupancy development at Lot 10 is two-storeys with a maximum floor-to-ceiling height of 2.995 metres and the maximum building height at its highest point is 7.2 metres. PDCP 2005 stipulates that the maximum building height of dual occupancy developments are to be 2 storeys with a maximum building height of 9 metres. Therefore, the proposed dual occupancy development complies with Council requirements and is considered to be of an appropriate height especially having regards to the site’s topography. The development is also compliant with rear setback controls and accordingly, there will be no adverse imposition of building bulk upon adjoining properties.

 

17.      It is noted that under DA/993/2004 for the original subdivision, Lot 10 was     approved with pad levels of RL43.3 to the rear and RL43.8 to the front. Under       Section 96 modification DA/993/2004/B that approved modifications to the pad        height levels, the only changes to the pad heights in regards to Lot 10 was     to the front which modified the original pad height from RL 43.8 to RL44.10   which is an increase of 650mm. The pad levels to the rear of the site in closer   proximity to residential properties in Paul Street were not amended under     DA/993/2004/B.

 

18.      This means that the height of the rear elevation and patios is taken from        existing ground level and has not been previously modified. This DA proposes     minor cut and fill (500mm) commensurate with that ordinarily associated residential development and will not result in an unduly elevated building.             Accordingly, minor adjustments to the ground levels associated with the rear          patios in particular, will not unduly compromise the privacy of adjoining sites         fronting Paul Street. 

 

Bulk and scale

 

19.      The proposed development considers the site constraints and has addressed these constraints with an appropriate design response. Amended plans show a maximum 700mm excavation into the site, a stepped down garage and articulation to the front façade of the development which all minimise the perception of bulk. The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 0.6:1 which complies with the floor space ratio for dual occupancy development per Clause 40 of the PLEP 2001. In addition, the proposed dual occupancy complies with other Council requirements such as articulation, rear setbacks and building height which ensure that the proposed dual occupancy does not result in the overdevelopment of the site. Accordingly, the proposed dual occupancy is of an appropriate bulk and scale relative to the size of the site.

 

Profit making exercise

 

20.       This is not a consideration under Section 79C of the Act.

 

On-site Meeting

 

21.       Council at its meeting on 9 July 2007 resolved that all development applications with 5 or more objections be subject to a site inspection prior to them being considered at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

22.       In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 9 February 2008 commencing at 1:30pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Walsh, Councillor Wearne, Team leader Brad Delapierre, Assessment Planner Denise Fernandez, 18 residents and two representatives for the applicant. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Pad Heights and the original subdivision

 

23.       Concern was raised that the pad heights on the southern (lower) lots were too high. The residents explained that they were initially content with the initial pad height levels when it was first approved under the original subdivision application. However, the Section 96 Modification approved on September 2006 increased the pad heights by 0.3 to 1.3 metres. The residents feel that this was excessive and expressed their wishes for it to be lowered.

 

24.       Council in response acknowledged the concerns, but as the pad heights have been approved, Council does not have the capacity to revoke the consent. However, the applicant can at any time lodge a Section 96 Modification application to lower the pad heights.

 

25.       A representative for the applicant indicated that they cannot lower the pad heights because of the driveway gradients already planned for the lots. The option to redesign the garage and the driveways at this stage would not be economically viable given the amount of work already undertaken.

 

26.       In respect of this site, it is noted that pad heights at the rear of the site are the same as approved by the original subdivision application.

 

Initial understanding of future development for Dorahy Street to be single dwellings on the southern (low) side

 

27.       A resident was adamant that they were misled by the applicant when the original application for the subdivision was lodged with Council. Residents were assured by Defence Housing that only single dwellings would be developed on the southern (lower) sites and the dual occupancy developments would be restricted to the northern (higher) sites.

 

28.       A representative for the applicant explained that during the Council assessment process for the subdivision, tree retention for a number of lots on the northern side had become an issue. This resulted in fewer but bigger lots on the northern side. In addition, the representative for the applicant explained that on the concept plan, indicative building footprints showing two garages and two driveways were present. Hence, the intention to develop the lots for dual occupancy dwellings was clear. The size of the individual lots which range between 937 square metres to 550 square metres, were indicative of its development potential.

 

Privacy / Overlooking issues

 

29.       Due to the pad height levels and the added impact of the two-storey dual occupancy developments, the residents showed concern that those developments on the southern side of 16 Dorahy Street would infringe on their privacy as the proposed developments would create overlooking opportunities into their private open space and their homes.

 

30.       A representative for the applicant explained that at an earlier meeting with the residents’ various options were explored to limit overlooking opportunities by the proposed dual occupancy developments on the southern side. The option to increase screen-planting along the boundary was rejected by the residents as maintenance of the leaves discarded on their property once the trees reach maturity would be too demanding. In addition, any vegetation along the boundary would be ill-advised due to the presence of the drainage swale. The option to use lattice fencing surmounted on top of the boundary fence was also rejected as residents felt that the increase in fence height would be an imposing presence.

 

31.       The preferred option was to add privacy screens to the rear patio and increase the sill heights to the rear windows. 

 

32.       Council has since received amended plans showing the proposed dual occupancy on Lot 11 with privacy screens to the rear patio and an increase in sill heights.

 

Change from dual occupancies to single dwellings

 

33.       The residents asked whether the applicants would change the development proposed on the south side from dual occupancy developments to single dwellings.

 

34.       In response, the applicant indicated that in order to develop the site economically and having regards to the sensitive design response proposed, they wished Council to continue to assess the applications for dual occupancy developments as modified following discussions with neighbours.

 

Compliance Issues

 

35.       Concern was held in regards to the construction hours of the work that is currently being undertaken. Residents are concerned with the approved construction hours as they are being inconvenienced when works are in progress.

 

36.       In regards to the approved work hours, it was advised that the standard work hours are Monday to Friday 7am to 8pm, Saturday from 8am to 8pm with no work to occur on Sunday or Public Holidays. In addition, residents were advised that if there are works outside of these hours that they contact Council’s Rangers.

 

Structural stability of the rear retaining wall

 

37.       Concern was raised that the retaining wall along the southern lots of 16 Dorahy Street may collapse in the future. The resident wanted to know what the Council’s role would be in ensuring that the structural stability of the retaining wall is maintained.

 

38.       Council advised the residents that while Council would be aware of the fence through the covenants imposed on the land, any damages or maintenance required for the fence will need to be raised by the residents themselves as a civil matter between private property owners.

 

39.       The meeting concluded at 3:00pm with all parties being advised that the applications for the dual occupancy developments on the northern side may be considered at a Council meeting on 10 March 2008 with the remaining developments on the southern side to possibly be considered at the Council meeting on 14 April 2008.

 

ISSUES

 

Ceiling Height

 

40.      The rear portion of the dwellings containing the dining and kitchen has a ceiling height of 2.4m which does not comply with the minimum 2.7m requirement of Section 4.3.4 ‘Solar Access and Cross Ventilation’ of DCP 2005.

 

41.      State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) states that controls within development controls plans which aim to improve the thermal performance of buildings have no effect with regard to BASIX affected developments.

 

42.      The objectives of Section 4.3.4 relate to the thermal performance of buildings having regard to issues such as thermal comfort, solar access, cross ventilation and overshadowing.

 

43.      The proposed dual occupancy is a BASIX affected development and the 2.7m minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect.

 

Front Setback

 

44.      The front setback proposed varies between 3.941m to 6.440m. The minimum front setback does not comply with the minimum 5m to 9m requirement of Section 3.1 ‘Preliminary Building Envelopes’ of DCP 2005.

 

45.      At a meeting held between Council officers and the applicant, rear setbacks of the proposed developments which back on to the Paul Street residents were discussed. The applicant was asked to increase the rear setbacks to reduce privacy, acoustics and overshadowing impacts on the Paul Street residents. As a result, compliance with Council’s front setback requirements could not be achieved. 

 

46.      However, the DCP requirement also states that the setback is “to be consistent with the prevailing setback along the street”. Given that the proposed development will be constructed on a new subdivision, there is no prevailing street setback. The front setback varies between 3.941m and 6.440m with only a small portion of the proposed development non-complying. In addition, this minor non-compliance is due to the articulation of the building to avoid a mirror image design.

 

47.      The non-compliance will have no impact on street the presentation or compliance with other requirements such as rear setback, private open space and landscaping requirements.   

 

Soft Soil

 

48.      The proposed soft soil for the proposed development is 174m2 (29.5%) of the site. 72.1% of soft soil is provided at the rear and 48.54 m2 (27.9%) is provided to the front of the site.

 

49.      PDCP 2005 prescribes a soft soil requirement of 30% of the site for dual occupancy developments. The proposed development on Lot 10 varies this control by 0.5% which is considered to be minor. Given the minor compliance, the variation is considered to be acceptable. In addition, that the proposed development also achieves the 40% landscape requirement.

 

Privacy

 

50.      The rear patio is raised to a height of 600mm from the natural ground level. In this regard, concerns are held for the impacts of overlooking on the properties fronting Paul Street. 

 

51.      To mitigate the impacts of overlooking on the properties fronting Paul Street,         Council had asked the applicant to increase the rear setback from 9.628    metres to 10.948 metres. In addition, the applicant has added privacy screens           to the rear patio and increased the sill heights of the first floor windows to the       rear.

 

52.      It is noted that under DA/993/2004, Lot 10 was approved with pad levels of   RL43.3 to the rear and RL44.50 to the front. Under DA/993/2004/B to modify    the pad height levels, the only changes to the pad heights in regards to Lot 10          was to the front which modified the original pad height from RL43.8 to             RL44.50. The pad levels to the rear were not amended under DA/993/2004/B.

 

53.      Accordingly, the patio to the rear will have no adverse impacts beyond what would be expected in an urban setting.

 

 

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Numerical Compliance Table

1 Page

 

2View

Plans and Elevations

16 Pages

 

3View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

4View

History of Development Application

1 Page

 

5View

Approved developments on 16 Dorahy St, Dundas

1 Page

 

6View

Site Plan

2 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Numerical Compliance Table

 

 


Attachment 2

Plans and Elevations

 
















 


Attachment 3

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 4

History of Development Application

 

 


Attachment 5

Approved developments on 16 Dorahy St, Dundas

 

 


Attachment 6

Site Plan

 


 


Regulatory Council

 14 April 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         10.5

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS (Proposed Lot 11)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
(Location Map - Attachment 3)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a 2 storey dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision on proposed Lot 11.

REFERENCE            DA/777/2007 - Submitted 19 September 2007

APPLICANT/S           Defense Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defense Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 777/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of an attached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision on Lot 11.

 

The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 777/2007 subject to standard conditions.

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.         The subject site is Lot 11 of a 27 lot subdivision approved under DA/993/2004 at 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas. The overall site initially formed part of the St Patrick’s Marist Brother’s School, located immediately to the north of the site, and has since been subdivided from the school site.

 

2.         The proposed dual occupancy development is to occur on Lot 11 of that subdivision which is located to the south of the new road within the subdivision. Lot 11 is regular in shape, with a southern frontage to the new road of 20.34 metres, a length of 29.50 metres and a total site area of 600m2. The site generally slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 3 metres from the northern boundary to the south-western corner. The site is currently vacant with no significant vegetation.

 

PROPOSAL

 

3.         Approval is sought for the construction of an attached dual occupancy development on Lot 11. Torrens Title subdivision of the dual occupancy is also sought to create Lot 1 to have an area of 300 square metres and Lot 2 to have an area of 300 square metres.

 

BACKGROUND

 

4.         Development Consent No. 993/2004 was approved by Council on 2nd September, 2005 for 27 lots in a community title, plus common areas including the central road network. A Section 96(1)(a) Modification was approved on 25 November 2005 to increase pad height levels of Lots 2 to 12 between  0.3m and 1.3m.  

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

5.         The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and dual occupancy developments are permissible within the Residential 2(b) zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

6.         It is noted that, Clause 38(4A) of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 allows the subdivision of lots where approval for a dual occupancy has been obtained.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

7.         The provisions of PDCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

8.         In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 8 October 2007 to 22 October 2007. A total of seven individual submissions and one petition with 22 signatures were received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

Overshadowing of residential properties in Paul Street

 

9.         Council asked the applicant to provide shadow diagrams that illustrate overshadowing impacts on the southern properties located on Paul Street. Due to the orientation of the proposed dual occupancy development on Lot 11, the properties located in Paul Street would only experience overshadowing from 3pm onwards. PDCP 2005 prescribes a minimum of 3 hours of solar access to affected properties and their respective courtyards. In this regard, the proposed development exceeds compliance with Council requirements and it is not likely that the proposed development would result in any adverse amenity impacts to neighbouring properties.

 

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

 

10.      After a meeting between the applicants and the residents of Paul and Dorahy Street, it was agreed that to minimise the affects of overlooking on to the properties on Paul Street from the rear of the proposed development, privacy screens to the rear patio were to be added together with increased sill heights for the windows on the first floor located to the rear. Council has received amended plans illustrating these changes. In combination with a rear building setback of approximately 10.948 metres, the proposed privacy measures are acceptable and the development will not result in adverse privacy impacts.

 

11.      The proposal responds appropriately by design to site levels and the dwellings, associated windows and patios are not unduly elevated so as to outlook over properties fronting Paul Street beyond that which could be reasonably be expected in a suburban setting and that which is anticipated under the DCP controls. 

 

Increase in traffic volume and parking demands

 

12.      The new subdivision approved on 16 Dorahy Street will have a new internal road to access the site. On-street parking within the site is catered for by the provision of visitor parking bays inside the new subdivision. In addition, each new dwelling provides 2 parking spaces that complies with Council requirements and therefore reduces the likelihood of vehicles parking along Dorahy Street. It is considered that the local road network has the ability to cater for the additional traffic that will be generated by this dual occupancy development.

 

13.      Additional comment was sought from Council’s traffic engineer to quantify the total effects of multiple dual occupancy developments on 16 Dorahy Street. Council’s traffic engineer has stated that upon the “…analysis and calculation of the Environmental Capacity (EC), it is considered that the proposed subdivision and the traffic generated by the proposed dwellings (14 dual occupancy dwellings and 11 single dwellings)…will not have significant traffic impact on the road such as Paul and Dorahy Streets”.

 

14.      The development on Lot 11 provides 2 on-site parking spaces per dwelling and complies with DCP requirements.

 

Pad Levels

 

15.      The current pad levels were approved under a previous development application for the subdivision of land. The current development application is for a dual occupancy development on each proposed lot and does not vary or propose any further filling of the site. Compliance Officers have visited the site to determine compliance with the approved pad levels. Council’s Compliance officers have found the pad levels are compliant with the approved plans.

 

Increase in Noise

 

16.      At a meeting held between Council officers and the applicant on 26 October 2007, the rear building setbacks to properties Paul Street were discussed. The applicant was asked to increase the rear building setback to reduce privacy, acoustic and overshadowing impacts on the Paul Street properties. This resulted in an increase to the rear setback from 9.508 metres to 10.948 metres. Notwithstanding this increase in setback, the proposed dual occupancy development on Lot 11 is not expected to generate noise that would be deemed excessive as it is a residential use with a residential setting and zone. Should excessive noise be generated Council and the NSW Police Service have the ability to address it in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operation Act. 

 

Excessive Height

 

17.      The proposed dual occupancy development at Lot 11 is two-storeys with a maximum floor-to-ceiling height of 2.995 metres on each floor and the maximum building height at its highest point is 8.5 metres.

 

18.      Council controls stipulate that the maximum building height of dual occupancy developments are to be 2 storeys with a maximum building height of 9 metres. Therefore, the proposed dual occupancy development complies with Council requirements and is considered to be of an appropriate height especially having regards to the site’s topography. The development is also compliant with the rear setback controls and accordingly, there will be no adverse imposition of building bulk upon adjoining properties.

 

19.      It is noted that under DA/993/2004 for the original subdivision, Lot 11 was approved with pad levels of RL42.6 to the rear and RL43.25 to the front. Under the Section 96 modification DA/993/2004/B that approved modification to the pad height levels, the only changes to the pad heights in regards to Lot 11 was to the front which modified the original pad height from RL 43.25 to RL44.10 which is an additional 850mm. The pad levels to the rear of the site in closer proximity to residential properties in Paul Street were not amended under DA/993/2004/B.

 

20.      The height of the rear elevation and patios is taken from existing ground level and has not been previously modified. This DA proposes minor cut and 500mm fill commensurate with that ordinarily associated with residential development and will not result in an unduly elevated building. Accordingly, minor adjustment to ground levels associated with the rear patios, in particular, will not unduly compromise the privacy of adjoining sites fronting Paul Street.

 

Bulk and scale

 

21.      The proposed development respects the site constraints and has addressed these constraints with an appropriate design response. Amended plans show a maximum 200mm excavation into the site, a stepped down garage and articulation to the front façade of the development which all minimise the perception of bulk. The proposed development has floor space ratio of 0.6:1 which complies with the floor space ratio for dual occupancy development per Clause 40 of the PLEP 2001. In addition, the proposed dual occupancy complies with other Council requirements such as articulation, rear and side setbacks and building height which ensure that the proposed dual occupancy does not result in the overdevelopment of the site.  Accordingly, the proposed dual occupancy is of an appropriate bulk and scale relative to the size of the site.

 

Profit making exercise

 

22.       This is not a matter of consideration under Section 79C of the Act.

 

ON-SITE MEETING

 

23.       Council at its meeting on 9 July 2007 resolved that all development applications with 5 or more objections be subject to a site inspection prior to them being considered at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

24.       In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 9 February 2008 commencing at 1:30pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Walsh, Councillor Wearne, Team Leader Brad Delapierre, Development Planner Denise Fernandez, 18 residents and two representatives for the applicant. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Pad Heights and the original subdivision

 

25.       Concern was raised that the pad heights on the southern (lower) lots were too high. The residents explained that they were initially content with the initial pad height levels when it was first approved under the original subdivision application. However, the Section 96 Modification approved on September 2006 increased the pad heights by 0.3 to 1.3 metres. The residents feel that this was excessive and expressed their wishes for it to be lowered.

 

26.       Council in response acknowledged the concerns, but as the pad heights have been approved, Council does not have the capacity to revoke the consent.

 

27.       A representative for the applicant indicated that they cannot lower the pad heights because of the driveway gradients already planned for the lots. The option to redesign the garage and the driveways at this stage would not be economically viable given the amount of work already undertaken.

 

28.       In respect of this site, it is noted that pad heights at the rear of the site are the same as approved by the original subdivision application.

 

Initial understanding of future development for Dorahy Street to be single dwellings on the southern (low) side

 

29.       A resident was adamant that they were misled by the applicant when the original application for the subdivision was lodged with Council. Residents were assured by Defence Housing that only single dwellings would be developed on the southern (lower) sites and the dual occupancy developments would be restricted to the northern (higher) sites.

 

30.       A representative for the applicant explained that during the Council assessment process for the subdivision, tree retention for a number of lots on the northern side had become an issue. This resulted in fewer but bigger lots on the northern side. In addition, the representative for the applicant explained that on the concept plan, indicative building footprints showing two garages and two driveways were present. Hence, the intention to develop the lots for dual occupancy dwellings was clear. The size of the individual lots which range between 937 square metres to 550 square metres, were indicative of its development potential.

 

Privacy / Overlooking issues

 

31.       Due to the pad height levels and the added impact of the two-storey dual occupancy developments, the residents showed concern that those developments on the southern side of 16 Dorahy Street would infringe on their privacy as the proposed developments would create overlooking opportunities into their private open space and their homes.

 

32.       A representative for the applicant explained that at an earlier meeting with the residents’ various options were explored to limit overlooking opportunities by the proposed dual occupancy developments on the southern side. The option to increase screen planting along the boundary was rejected by the residents as maintenance of the leaves discarded on their property once the trees reach maturity would be too demanding. In addition, any vegetation along the boundary would be ill-advised due to the presence of the drainage swale. The option to use lattice fencing surmounted on top of the boundary fence was also rejected as residents felt that the increase in fence height would be an imposing presence.

 

33.       The preferred option was to add privacy screens to the rear patio and increase the sill heights to the rear windows. 

 

34.      Council has since received amended plans showing the proposed dual occupancy on Lot 11 with privacy screens to the rear patio and an increase in sill heights.

 

Change from dual occupancies to single dwellings

 

35.       The residents asked whether the applicants would change the development proposed on the south side from dual occupancy developments to single dwellings.

 

36.       In response, the applicant indicated that in order to develop the site economically and having regards to the sensitive design response proposed, they wished Council to continue to assess the applications for dual occupancy developments as modified following discussions with neighbours.

 

Compliance Issues

 

37.       Concern was held in regards to the construction hours of the work that is currently being undertaken. Residents are concerned with the approved construction hours as they are being inconvenienced when works are in progress.

 

38.       In regards to the approved work hours, it was advised that the standard work hours are Monday to Friday 7am to 8pm, Saturday from 8am to 8pm with no work to occur on Sunday or Public Holidays. In addition, residents were advised that if there are works outside of these hours that they contact Council’s Rangers.

 

Structural stability of the rear retaining wall

 

39.       Concern was raised that the retaining wall along the southern lots of 16 Dorahy Street may collapse in the future. The resident wanted to know what Council’s role would be in ensuring that the structural stability of the retaining wall is maintained.

 

40.       Council advised the residents that while Council would be aware of the fence through the covenants imposed on the land, any damage or maintenance required for the fence will need to be raised by the residents themselves as it is a civil matter between private property owners.

 

41.       The meeting concluded at 3:00pm with all parties being advised that the applications for the dual occupancy developments on the northern side may be considered at a Council meeting on 10 March 2008 with the remaining developments on the southern side to possibly be considered at the Council meeting on 14 April 2008.

 

ISSUES

 

Ceiling Height

 

42.      The rear portion of the dwellings containing the dining and kitchen has a ceiling height of 2.4m which does not comply with the minimum 2.7m requirement of Section 4.3.4 ‘Solar Access and Cross Ventilation’ of DCP 2005.

 

43.      State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) states that controls within         development controls plans which aim to improve the thermal performance of     buildings have no effect with regard to BASIX affected developments.

 

44.       The objectives of Section 4.3.4 relate to the thermal performance of buildings        having regard to issues such as thermal comfort, solar access, cross          ventilation and overshadowing.

 

45.      The proposed dual occupancy is a BASIX affected development and the 2.7m minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect.

 

Front Setback

 

46.      The front setback proposed varies between 3.920m to 6.560m. The minimum front setback does not comply with the minimum 5m to 9m requirement of Section 3.1 ‘Preliminary Building Envelopes’ of DCP 2005.

 

47.      At a meeting held between Council officers and the applicant, rear setbacks of the proposed developments which back on to the Paul Street residents were discussed. The applicant was asked to increase the rear setbacks to reduce privacy, acoustics and overshadowing impacts on the Paul Street residents. As a result, compliance with Council’s front setback requirements could not be        achieved due to the relocation of the buildings. 

 

48.      However, the DCP requirement also states that the setback is “to be consistent with the prevailing setback along the street”. Given that the proposed development will be constructed on a new infill subdivision site, there is no prevailing street setback. The front setback varies between 3.941m and 6.440m with only a small portion of the proposed development non-complying. In addition, this minor non-compliance is due to the articulation of the building to avoid a mirror image design.

 

49.      The non-compliance will have minimal impact on the street presentation and compliance with other requirements such as rear setback, private open space and landscaping requirements.   

 

Deep Soil Zone

 

50.      The proposed soft soil for the proposed development is 168m2 (28.8%) of the       site. 73.8% of soft soil is provided at the rear and 44 m2 (26.2%) is provided to           the front of the site.

 

51.      PDCP 2005 prescribes a soft soil requirement of 30% of the site for dual      occupancy developments. The proposed development on Lot 11 varies this        control by 2.2% which is considered to be minor. Given the minor compliance,         the variation is considered to be acceptable. It is noted, that the proposed development achieves the 40% landscape requirement.

 

Privacy

 

52.      The rear patio is raised to a height of 900mm from the natural ground level. In         this regard, concerns are held for the impacts of overlooking on the properties           fronting Paul Street. 

 

53.      To mitigate the impacts of overlooking on the properties fronting Paul Street,         Council had asked the applicant to increase the rear setback from 9.508    metres to 10.948 metres. In addition, the applicant has added privacy screens           to the rear patio and increased the sill heights of the first floor windows to the       rear.

 

54.      It is noted that under DA/993/2004, Lot 11 was approved with pad levels of   RL42.6 to the rear and RL43.25 to the front. Under DA/993/2004/B to modify    the pad height levels, the only changes to the pad heights in regards to Lot 11          was to the front which modified the original pad height from RL 43.25 to             RL44.10. The pad levels to the rear were not amended under DA/993/2004/B.

 

55.       Accordingly, the patio to the rear will have no adverse impacts beyond what               

            would be expected in an urban setting.

 

 

 

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Numerical Compliance Table

2 Pages

 

2View

Plans and Elevations

14 Pages

 

3View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

4View

History of Development Application

1 Page

 

5View

Approved Developments on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas

1 Page

 

6

Site Plan

2 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Attachment 1

Numerical Compliance Table

 

 

TABLE OF COMPLIANCE

ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

 

PLEP 2001

 

 

 

 

Site Area

600m2 (min)

600m2

YES

FSR

0.6:1

0.60:1

YES

Subdivision

600m2 (min) - resulting in equal area portions.

Lot 1 = 300m2

Lot 2 = 300m2

YES

Height

2 storey (max)

2 storeys

YES

Frontage

15m

20.345m

YES

 

PDCP 2005

 

 

 

 

Car Parking

1 space - <125m2

2 spaces - >125m2

Lot 1 – 2 spaces provided (1 space in garage, 1 space on driveway).

Lot 2 – 2 spaces provided (1 space in garage, 1 space on driveway).

YES

Car Space Widths

6.3m or 50% (max)

6.0m

YES

Solar Access

3 hours to 50% of private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June (min)

Adjoining properties will receive greater than the 3 hours minimum solar access required to habitable rooms and private open spaces of adjoining properties to the east and west between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

YES

Soft Soil Zone (30%)

180m2 (min)

176m2

NO

 

See report for further comments

Private Open Space

100m2 each unit

Lot 1 – 120.5m2

Lot 2 – 109.82m2

YES

Building Line Setback

5-9m

3.941m to 6.440m

NO

 

See report for further comments

Side Setbacks

1.5m (min)

1.8m

YES

Rear Setback

30% of length of site

Required – 8.85 m

Proposed – 10.948 m

YES

Floor to Ceiling Height

2.7m & 2.4m

No – 2.4m (minimum)

Yes – 2.4m

See report for further comments

 

 

ThIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK


Attachment 2

Plans and Elevations

 














 


Attachment 3

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 4

History of Development Application

 

History of Development Application

16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 11)

(DA/777/2007)

 

19 September 2007 – Development Application lodged

 

16 October 2007 – Meeting held between Council and the applicant over outstanding issues as previously discussed for DA/710/2007, DA/711/2007 and DA/712/2007 due to similar    issues identified on DA/777/2007.

 

26 October 2007 – Further meeting held between Council and the applicant over outstanding issues.

 

29 October 2007 – Letter sent to the applicant requesting additional information such as the following:

 

·         Garage encroachments – amended plans required to comply with Council requirements

·         Mirror Image – amended plans required to comply with Council requirements

·         Overshadowing

 

10 October 2007 to 24 October 2007 – Development was notified to surrounding properties.

 

15 January 2008Received amended plans

 

1 February 2008Received engineering comments

 

9 February 2008 – On-site meeting held

 

14 March 2008 – Letter sent to the applicant requesting additional information in regards to the minutes taken between the meeting held with the applicant and the residents of Paul and Dorahy Streets to resolve privacy issues. 

 

18 March 2008Received site plans showing all proposed buildings on 16 Dorahy Street, adjoining buildings situated on the school grounds and the residences of Paul and Dorahy Street.

 

 


Attachment 5

Approved Developments on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas

 

 


Attachment 6

Site Plan

 


 


Regulatory Council

 14 April 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         10.6

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS (Proposed Lot 12)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
(Location Map - Attachment 3)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a 2 storey dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision on proposed Lot 12.

REFERENCE            DA/780/2007 - Submitted 19 September 2007

APPLICANT/S           Defense Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defense Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 780/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of an attached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision on Lot 12.

 

The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 780/2007 subject to standard conditions.

 

(b)     Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.         The subject site is Lot 12 of a 27 lot subdivision approved under DA/993/2004 at 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas. The overall site initially formed part of the St Patrick’s Marist Brother’s School, located immediately to the north of the site, and has since been subdivided from the school site.

 

2.         The proposed dual occupancy development is to occur on Lot 12 of that subdivision which is located to the south of the new road within the subdivision. Lot 12 is irregular in shape, with a southern frontage to the new road of 17.428 metres, a length of 29.50 metres and a total site area of 600m2. The site generally slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 4 metres from the northern boundary to the south-western corner. The site is currently vacant with no significant vegetation.

 

PROPOSAL

 

3.         Approval is sought for the construction of an attached dual occupancy development on Lot 12. Torrens title subdivision of the dual occupancy is also sought to create Lot 1 to have an area of 300 square metres and Lot 2 to have an area of 300 square metres.

 

BACKGROUND

 

4.         Development Consent No. 993/2004 approved by Council 2 November, 2005       for 27 lots in a community title, plus common areas including the central        road network. A Section 96(1)(a) Modification was approved on 25 November 2005 to increase pad height levels of Lots 2 to 12 between 0.3m and 1.3m.  

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

5.         The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and dual occupancy developments are permissible within the Residential 2(b) zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

6.         It is noted that, Clause 38(4A) of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 allows the subdivision of lots where approval for a dual occupancy has been obtained.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

7.         The provisions of PDCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

8.         In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 8 October 2007 to 22 October 2007. A total of seven individual submissions and one petition with 22 signatures were received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

Overshadowing of residential properties in Paul Street

 

9.         Council asked the applicant to provide shadow diagrams that illustrate overshadowing impacts on the southern properties located on Paul Street. Due to the orientation of the proposed dual occupancy development on Lot 12, the properties located in Paul Street would only experience overshadowing from 3pm onwards. PDCP 2005 prescribes a minimum of 3 hours of solar access to affected properties and their respective courtyards. In this regard, the proposed development exceeds compliance with Council requirements and it is unlikely that the proposed development would result in any adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties.

 

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

 

10.      After a meeting between the applicants and the residents of Paul and Dorahy Street, it was agreed that to minimise the affects of overlooking on to the properties on Paul Street from the rear of the proposed development, privacy screens to the rear patio were to be added together with increased sill heights for the first floor windows located to the rear. Council has received amended plans illustrating these changes. In combination with a rear building setback of 9.628 metres, the proposed privacy measures are acceptable and the development will not result in adverse privacy impacts.

 

11.      The proposal responds appropriately by design to site levels and the dwellings and associated windows and patios are not unduly elevated so as to outlook over property fronting Paul Street beyond that which could be reasonably be expected in a suburban setting and that which is anticipated under the DCP controls.

 

Increase traffic volume and parking demands

 

12.      The new subdivision approved on 16 Dorahy Street will have a new internal road to access the site. On-street parking which the site caters for by the provision of visitor parking bays inside the new subdivision. In addition, each new dwelling provides 2 parking spaces that comply with Council requirements and therefore reduces the likelihood of vehicles parking along Dorahy Street. It is considered that the local road network has the ability to cater for the additional traffic that will be generated by this dual occupancy development.

 

13.      Additional comment was sought from Council’s traffic engineer to quantify the total effects of multiple dual occupancy developments on 16 Dorahy Street. Council’s traffic engineer has stated that upon the “…analysis and calculation of the Environmental Capacity (EC), it is considered that the proposed subdivision and the traffic generated by the proposed dwellings (14 dual occupancy dwellings and 11 single dwellings)…will not have significant traffic impact on the road such as Paul and Dorahy Streets”.

 

14.      The development on Lot 12 provides 2 on-site parking spaces per dwelling and complies with DCP requirements.

 

Pad Levels

 

15.      The current pad levels were approved under a previous development application for the subdivision of land to Council. The current development application is for a dual occupancy development on each proposed lot and does not vary or propose any further filling of the site. However, it is noted that Council Compliance Officers have visited the site to determine compliance with the approved pad levels. Council’s Compliance officers have found the pad levels are compliant with the approved plans.

 

Increase in Noise

 

16.      At a meeting held between Council officers and the applicant on 26 October 2007, the rear building setbacks to the properties in Paul Street were discussed. The applicant was asked to increase the rear building setbacks to reduce privacy, acoustic and overshadowing impacts on the Paul Street properties. This resulted in an increase to rear setback from 8.548 metres to 9.628 metres.

 

17.      Notwithstanding this increase in setback, the proposed dual occupancy development on Lot 10 is not expected to generate noise that would be deemed excessive as it is a residential use within a residential setting and zone. Should excessive noise be generated, Council and the NSW Police Service have the ability to address it in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operation Act. 

 

Excessive Height

 

18.      The proposed dual occupancy development at Lot 10 is two-storeys with a maximum floor-to-ceiling height of 2.995 metres on each floor. The maximum building height at its highest point is 8.7 metres.

 

19.      Council controls stipulate that the maximum building height of dual occupancy developments are to be 2 storeys with a maximum building height of 9 metres. Therefore, the proposed dual occupancy development complies with Council requirements and is considered to be of an appropriate height especially having in regards to the sites topography. The development is also compliant with the rear setback controls and accordingly, there will be no adverse imposition of building bulk upon adjoining properties.

 

20.      It is noted that under DA/993/2004 for the original subdivision, Lot 12 was approved with pad levels of RL42.6 to the rear and RL43.25 to the front. Under Section 96 modification DA/993/2004/B that approved modifications to the    pad height levels, the only changes to the pad heights in regards to Lot 11 was to the front which modified the original pad height from RL 43.25 to RL44.10         which is an increase of 850mm. The pad levels to the rear of the site in closer    proximity to the residential properties in Paul Street were not amended under DA/993/2004/B.

 

21.      The height of the rear elevation and patios is taken from the existing ground level and has not been previously modified. This Development Application proposes minor cut and fill (500mm) commensurate with that ordinarily associated with the residential development and will not result in an unduly elevated building. Accordingly, minor adjustments to ground levels associated with the rear patios in particular, will not unduly compromise the privacy of adjoining sites fronting Paul Street. 

 

Bulk and scale

 

22.      The proposed development respects the site constraints and has addressed these constraints with an appropriate design response. Amended plans show a maximum 700mm excavation into the site, a stepped down garage and articulation to the front façade of the development which all minimise the perception of bulk. The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 0.59:1 which complies with the floor space ratio for dual occupancy development per Clause 40 of the PLEP 2001. In addition, the proposed dual occupancy complies with other Council requirements such as articulation, rear setbacks and building height which ensure that the proposed dual occupancy does not result in the overdevelopment of the site.  Accordingly, the proposed dual occupancy is of an appropriate bulk and scale relative to the size of the site.

 

Profit making exercise

 

23.       This is not a matter of consideration under Section 79C of the Act.

 

On-site Meeting

 

24.       Council at its meeting on 9 July 2007 resolved that all development applications with 5 or more objections be subject to a site inspection prior to them being considered at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

25.       In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 9 February 2008 commencing at 1:30pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Walsh, Councillor Wearne, Team Leader Brad Delapierre, Development Planner Denise Fernandez, 18 residents and two representatives for the applicant. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Pad Heights and the original subdivision

 

26.       Concern was raised that the pad heights on the southern (lower) lots were too high. The residents explained that they were initially content with the initial pad height levels when it was first approved under the original subdivision application. However, the Section 96 Modification approved on September 2006 increased the pad heights by 0.3 to 1.3 metres. The residents feel that this was excessive and expressed their wishes for it to be lowered.

 

27.       Council in response acknowledged the concerns, but as the pad heights have been approved, Council does not have the capacity to revoke the consent.

 

28.       A representative for the applicant indicated that they cannot lower the pad heights because of the driveway gradients already planned for the lots. The option to redesign the garage and the driveways at this stage would not be economically viable given the amount of work already undertaken.

 

29.       In respect of this site, it is noted that pad heights at the rear of the site are the same as approved by the original subdivision application.

 

Initial understanding of future development for Dorahy Street to be single dwellings on the southern (low) side

 

30.       A resident was adamant that they were misled by the applicant when the original application for the subdivision was lodged with Council. Residents were assured by Defence Housing that only single dwellings would be developed on the southern (lower) sites and the dual occupancy developments would be restricted to the northern (higher) sites.

 

31.       A representative for the applicant explained that during the Council assessment process for the subdivision, tree retention for a number of lots on the northern side had become an issue. This resulted in fewer but bigger lots on the northern side. In addition, the representative for the applicant explained that on the concept plan, indicative building footprints showing two garages and two driveways were present. Hence, the intention to develop the lots for dual occupancy dwellings was clear. The size of the individual lots which range between 937 square metres to 550 square metres, were indicative of its development potential.

 

Privacy / Overlooking issues

 

32.       Due to the pad height levels and the added impact of the two-storey dual occupancy developments, the residents showed concern that those developments on the southern side of 16 Dorahy Street would infringe on their privacy as the proposed developments would create overlooking opportunities into their private open space and their homes.

 

33.       A representative for the applicant explained that at an earlier meeting with the residents’ various options were explored to limit overlooking opportunities by the proposed dual occupancy developments on the southern side. The option to increase screen planting along the boundary was rejected by the residents as maintenance of the leaves discarded on their property once the trees reach maturity would be too demanding. In addition, any vegetation along the boundary would be ill-advised due to the presence of the drainage swale. The option to use lattice fencing surmounted on top of the boundary fence was also rejected as residents felt that the increase in fence height would be an imposing presence.

 

34.       The preferred option was to add privacy screens to the rear patio and increase the sill heights to the rear windows. 

 

35.      Council has since received amended plans showing the proposed dual         occupancy on Lot 12 with privacy screens to the rear patio and an increase in       sill heights.

 

Change from dual occupancies to single dwellings

 

36.       The residents asked whether the applicants would change the development proposed on the south side from dual occupancy developments to single dwellings.

 

37.       In response, the applicant indicated that in order to develop the site economically and having regards to the sensitive design response proposed they wished Council to continue to assess the applications for dual occupancy developments as modified following discussions with neighbours.

 

Compliance Issues

 

38.       Concern was held in regards to the construction hours of the work that is currently being undertaken. Residents are concerned with the approved construction hours as they are being inconvenienced when works are in progress.

 

39.       In regards to the approved work hours, it was advised that the standard work hours are Monday to Friday 7am to 8pm, Saturday from 8am to 8pm with no work to occur on Sunday or Public Holidays. In addition, residents were advised that if there are works outside of these hours that they can contact Council’s Rangers.

 

Structural stability of the rear retaining wall

 

40.       Concern was raised that the retaining wall along the southern lots of 16 Dorahy Street may collapse in the future. The resident wanted to know what the Council’s role would be in ensuring that the structural stability of the retaining wall is maintained.

 

41.       Council advised the residents that while Council would be aware of the fence through the covenants imposed on the land, any damages or maintenance required for the fence will need to be raised by the residents themselves as a civil matter between property owners.

 

42.       The meeting concluded at 3:00pm with all parties being advised that the applications for the dual occupancy developments on the northern side may be considered at a Council meeting on 10 March 2008 with the remaining developments on the southern side to possibly be considered at the Council meeting on 14 April 2008.

 

ISSUES

 

Ceiling Height

 

43.      The rear portion of the dwellings containing the dining and kitchen has a        ceiling height of 2.4m which does not comply with the minimum 2.7m          requirement of Section 4.3.4 ‘Solar Access and Cross Ventilation’ of DCP      2005.

 

44.      State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) states that controls within         development controls plans which aim to improve the thermal performance of     buildings have no effect with regard to BASIX affected developments.

 

45.       The objectives of Section 4.3.4 relate to the thermal performance of buildings        having regard to issues such as thermal comfort, solar access, cross          ventilation and overshadowing.

 

46.      The proposed dual occupancy is a BASIX affected development and the 2.7m                minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect.

 

Front Setback

 

47.      The front setback proposed varies between 3.920 metres to 7.520 metres.   The   minimum front setback does not comply with the minimum 5m to 9m        requirement of Section 3.1 ‘Preliminary Building Envelopes’ of DCP 2005.

 

48.      At a meeting held between Council officers and the applicant, rear setbacks of                the proposed developments which back on to the Paul Street residents were                    discussed. The applicant was asked to increase the rear setbacks to reduce                   privacy, acoustics and overshadowing impacts on the Paul Street residents.            As a result, compliance with Council’s front setback       requirements could not be           achieved due to the relocation of the buildings. 

 

49.      However, the DCP requirement also states that the setback is “to be    consistent with the prevailing setback along the street”. Given that the proposed development will be constructed on a new infill subdivision site,    there is no existing prevailing street setback. The front setback varies     between 3.920 metres to 7.520 with only a small portion of the proposed         development non-complying. In addition, this minor non-compliance is due to   the articulation of the building to avoid a mirror image design.

 

50.      The non-compliance will have minimal impact on street the presentation or             compliance with other requirements such as rear setback, private open space             and landscaping requirements.   

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

51.      The proposed side setbacks vary between 1.341 metres and 3.592 metres.           PDCP 2005 prescribes a side setback requirement of 1.5 metres                                  for a    dual occupancy development.

52.      However, the proposed side setbacks are considered to be appropriate given      that the      minimum side setback of 1.341 metres is a result of the 3.592 metre side setback to the north-eastern boundary to accommodate the angled                                     nature of the site.

 

Privacy

 

53.      The rear patio is raised to a height of 900mm from the natural ground level. In         this regard, concerns are held for the impacts of overlooking on the properties           fronting Paul Street. 

 

54.      To mitigate the impacts of overlooking on the properties fronting Paul Street,         Council had asked the applicant to increase the rear setback from 9.508    metres to 9.628 metres. In addition, the applicant has added privacy screens        to the rear patio and glazed windows to the first floor windows to the rear.

 

55.      It is noted that under DA/993/2004, Lot 12 was approved with pad levels of   RL41.8 to the rear and RL42.4 to the front. Under DA/993/2004/B to modify      the pad height levels, the only changes to the pad heights in regards to Lot 12          was to the front which modified the original pad height from RL42.4 to             RL43.37. The pad levels to the rear were not amended under DA/993/2004/B.

 

56.       Accordingly, the patio to the rear will have no adverse impacts beyond what

            would be expected in an urban setting.

 

 

 

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Numerical Compliance Table

1 Page

 

2View

Plans and Elevations

16 Pages

 

3View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

4View

History of Development Application

1 Page

 

5View

Approved Development on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas

1 Page

 

6View

Site Plan

2 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Numerical Compliance Table

 

 


Attachment 2

Plans and Elevations

 
















 


Attachment 3

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 4

History of Development Application

 

 


Attachment 5

Approved Development on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas

 

 


Attachment 6

Site Plan

 


 


Regulatory Council

 14 April 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         10.7

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS (Proposed Lot 13)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a 2 storey dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision on proposed Lot 13
(Location Map - Attachment 3)

REFERENCE            DA/779/2007 - Submitted 19 September 2007

APPLICANT/S           Defense Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defense Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 779/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of an attached dual occupancy with Torrens Title subdivision on Lot 13.

 

The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 779/2007 subject to standard conditions.

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.         The subject site is Lot 13 of a 27 Lot subdivision approved under DA/933/2004 at 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas. The overall site initially formed part of the St Patrick’s Marist Brother’s School, located immediately to the north of the site, and has since been subdivided from the school site.

 

2.         The proposed dual occupancy development is to occur on Lot 19 of that subdivision which is located to the south of the new road within the subdivision. Lot 13 is irregular in shape, with a southern frontage to the new road of 14.825 metres plus a 5.983 metre splay, a length of approximately 30.06 metres and a total site area of 636m2. The site generally slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 4 metres from the northern boundary to the south-western corner. The site is currently vacant with no significant vegetation.

 

PROPOSAL

 

3.         Approval is sought for the construction of an attached dual occupancy development on Lot 13. Torrens Title subdivision of the dual occupancy is also sought to create Lot 1 to have an area of 300 square metres and Lot 2 to have an area of 336 square metres.

 

BACKGROUND

 

4.         Development Consent No. 993/2004 was approved by Council on 2 September, 2005 for 27 lots in a community title, plus common areas including the central road network. A Section 96(1)(a) Modification was approved on 25 November 2005 to increase pad height levels of Lots 2 to 12 between  0.3m and 1.3m.  

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

4.         The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and dual occupancy developments are permissible within the Residential 2(b) zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

5.         It is noted that, Clause 38(4A) of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 allows the subdivision of lots where approval for a dual occupancy has been obtained.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

6.         The provisions of PDCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

7.         In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 10 October 2007 and 24 October 2007. A total of nine individual submissions and one petition with 22 signatures were received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

Overshadowing of residential properties in Paul Street

 

8.         Council asked the applicant to provide shadow diagrams that illustrate overshadowing impacts on the southern properties located on Paul Street. Due to the orientation of the proposed dual occupancy development on Lot 13, the properties located in Paul Street would only experience overshadowing from 3pm onwards. PDCP 2005 prescribes a minimum of 3 hours of solar access to affected properties and their respective courtyards. In this regard, the proposed development exceeds compliance with Council requirements and it is unlikely that the proposed development would result in any adverse amenity impacts to neighbouring properties.

 

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

 

9.         After a meeting between the applicants and the residents of Paul and Dorahy Street, it was agreed that to minimise the affects of overlooking on to the properties on Paul Street from the rear of the proposed development, privacy screens to the rear patio were to be added together with increased sill heights for the first floor windows located to the rear. Council has received amended plans illustrating these changes. In combination with a rear building setback between 8.224metres and 9.868 metres, the proposed privacy measures are acceptable and the development will not result in adverse privacy impacts.

 

10.      The proposal responds appropriately by design to site levels and the dwellings, associated windows and patios are not unduly elevated so as to outlook over properties fronting Paul Street beyond that which could be reasonably be expected in a suburban setting and that which is anticipated under the DCP controls. 

 

Increase traffic volume and parking demands

 

11.      The new subdivision approved on 16 Dorahy Street will have a new internal road to access the site. On-street parking within the site is catered for by the provision of visitor parking bays inside the new subdivision. In addition, each new dwelling provides 2 parking spaces that complies with Council requirements and therefore reduces the likelihood of vehicles parking along Dorahy Street. It is considered that the local road network has the ability to cater for the additional traffic that will be generated by this dual occupancy development.

 

12.      Additional comment was sought from Council’s traffic engineer to quantify the total effects of multiple dual occupancy developments on 16 Dorahy Street. Council’s traffic engineer has stated that upon the “…analysis and calculation of the Environmental Capacity (EC), it is considered that the proposed subdivision and the traffic generated by the proposed dwellings (14 dual occupancy dwellings and 11 single dwellings)…will not have significant traffic impact on the road such as Paul and Dorahy Streets”.

 

13.      The development on Lot 13 provides 2 on-site parking spaces per dwelling            

and complies with DCP requirements.

 

Pad Levels

 

14.      The current pad levels were approved under a previous development application for the subdivision of land. The current development application is for a dual occupancy development and does not vary or propose any further filling of the site. Compliance Officers have visited the site to determine compliance with the approved pad levels. Council’s Compliance officers have found the pad levels are in compliance with the approved plans.

 

Increase in Noise

 

15.      At a meeting held between Council officers and the applicant on 26 October 2007, the rear building setbacks to properties in Paul Street were discussed. The applicant was asked to increase the rear building setback to reduce privacy, acoustic and overshadowing impacts on the Paul Street properties. This resulted in an increase to rear setback from 8.809 metres to 9.868 metres.

 

16.      Notwithstanding this increase in setback, the proposed dual occupancy development on Lot 10 is not expected to generate noise that would be deemed excessive as it is a residential use with a residential setting and zone. Should excessive noise be generated Council and the NSW Police Service have the ability to address it in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operation Act.

 

Excessive Height

 

17.      The proposed dual occupancy development at Lot 10 is two-storeys with a maximum floor-to-ceiling height of 2.995 metres on each floor. The maximum building height at its highest point is 7.2 metres.

 

18.      Council controls stipulate that the maximum building height of dual occupancy developments are to be 2 storeys with a maximum building height of 9 metres. Therefore, the proposed dual occupancy development complies with Council requirements and is an appropriate height especially having regards to the site’s topography. Accordingly, there will be no adverse imposition of building bulk upon adjoining properties.

 

19.      It is noted that Lot 13 was not included in the modification application (DA/993/2004/B) to amend pad height levels. The modifications approved under DA/993/2004/B only related to Lots 2-12.

 

20.      This Development Application proposes minor cut and fill (400mm) commensurate with that ordinarily associated with residential development and will not result in an unduly elevated building. Accordingly, minor adjustments to ground levels associated with the rear patios in particular, will not unduly compromise the privacy of adjoining sites fronting Paul Street.

 

Bulk and scale

 

21.      The proposed development respects the site constraints and has addressed these constraints with an appropriate design response. Amended plans show a maximum 800mm excavation into the site and articulation to the front façade of the development which all minimise the perception of bulk. The proposed development has a proposed 0.59:1 floor space ratio which complies with the floor space ratio for dual occupancy development per Clause 40 of the PLEP 2001. In addition, the proposed dual occupancy complies with other Council requirements such as articulation and building   height which ensure that the proposed dual occupancy does not result in the overdevelopment of the site. Accordingly, the proposed dual occupancy is of an appropriate bulk and scale relative to the size of the site.

 

Profit making exercise

 

22.       This is not a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Act.

 

On-site Meeting

 

23.       Council at its meeting on 9 July 2007 resolved that all development applications with 5 or more objections be subject to a site inspection prior to them being considered at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

24.       In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 9 February 2008 commencing at 1:30pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Walsh, Councillor Wearne, Team Leader Brad Delapierre, Development Planner Denise Fernandez, 18 residents and two representatives for the applicant. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Pad Heights and the original subdivision

 

25.       Concern was raised that the pad heights on the southern (lower) lots were too high. The residents explained that they were initially content with the initial pad height levels when it was first approved under the original subdivision application. However, the Section 96 Modification approved on September 2006 increased the pad heights by 0.3 to 1.3 metres. The residents feel that this was excessive and had expressed their wishes for it to be lowered.

 

26.       Council in response acknowledged the concerns, but as the pad heights have been approved, Council does not have the capacity to revoke the consent.

 

27.       A representative for the applicant indicated that they cannot lower the pad heights because of the driveway gradients already planned for the lots. The option to redesign the garage and the driveways at this stage would not be economically viable given the amount of work already undertaken.

 

28.       In respect of this site, it is noted that pad heights at the rear of the site are the same as approved by the original subdivision application.

 

Initial understanding of future development for Dorahy Street to be single dwellings on the southern (low) side

 

29.       A resident was adamant that they were misled by the applicant when the original application for the subdivision was lodged with Council. Residents were assured by Defence Housing that only single dwellings would be developed on the southern (lower) sites and the dual occupancy developments would be restricted to the northern (higher) sites.

 

30.       A representative for the applicant explained that during the Council assessment process for the subdivision, tree retention for a number of lots on the northern side had become an issue. This resulted in fewer but bigger lots on the northern side. In addition, the representative for the applicant explained that on the concept plan, indicative building footprints showing two garages and two driveways were present. Hence, the intention to develop the lots for dual occupancy dwellings was clear. The size of the individual lots which range between 937 square metres to 550 square metres, were indicative of its development potential.

 

Privacy / Overlooking issues

 

31.       Due to the pad height levels and the added impact of the two-storey dual occupancy developments, the residents showed concern that those developments on the southern side of 16 Dorahy Street would infringe on their privacy as the proposed developments would create overlooking opportunities into their private open space and their homes.

 

32.       A representative for the applicant explained that at an earlier meeting with the residents’ various options were explored to limit overlooking opportunities by the proposed dual occupancy developments on the southern side. The option to increase screen planting along the boundary was rejected by the residents as maintenance of the leaves discarded on their property once the trees reach maturity would be too demanding. In addition, any vegetation along the boundary would be ill-advised due to the presence of the drainage swale. The option to use lattice fencing surmounted on top of the boundary fence was also rejected as residents felt that the increase in fence height would be an imposing presence.

 

33.       The preferred option was to add privacy screens to the rear patio and increase the sill heights to the rear windows. 

 

34.       Council has since received amended plans showing the proposed dual occupancy on Lot 13 with privacy screens to the rear patio and an increase in sill heights.

 

Change from dual occupancies to single dwellings

 

35.       The residents asked whether the applicants would change the development proposed on the south side from dual occupancy developments to single dwellings.

 

36.       In response, the applicant indicated that in order to develop the site economically and having regards to the sensitive design response proposed, they wished Council to continue to assess the applications for dual occupancy developments as modified following discussions with neighbours.

 

Compliance Issues

 

37.       Concern was held in regards to the construction hours of the work that is currently being undertaken. Residents are concerned with the approved construction hours as they are being inconvenienced when works are in progress.

 

38.       In regards to the approved work hours, it was advised that the standard work hours are Monday to Friday 7am to 8pm, Saturday from 8am to 8pm with no work to occur on Sunday or Public Holidays. In addition, residents were advised that if there are works outside of these hours that they can contact Council’s Rangers.

 

Structural stability of the rear retaining wall

 

39.       Concern was raised that the retaining wall along the southern lots of 16 Dorahy Street may collapse in the future. The resident wanted to know what Council’s role would be in ensuring that the structural stability of the retaining wall is maintained.

 

40.       Council advised the residents that while Council would be aware of the fence through the covenants imposed on the land, any damage or maintenance required for the fence will need to be raised by the residents themselves as a civil matter between private property owners.

 

41.       The meeting concluded at 3:00pm with all parties being advised that the applications for the dual occupancy developments on the northern side may be considered at a Council meeting on 10 March 2008 with the remaining developments on the southern side to possibly be considered at the Council meeting on 14 April 2008.

 

ISSUES

 

Ceiling Height

 

42.      The rear portion of the dwellings containing the dining and kitchen has a ceiling height of 2.4m which does not comply with the minimum 2.7m requirement of Section 4.3.4 ‘Solar Access and Cross Ventilation’ of DCP 2005.

 

43.      State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) states that controls within development controls plans which aim to improve the thermal performance of buildings have no effect with regard to BASIX affected developments.

 

44.      The objectives of Section 4.3.4 relate to the thermal performance of buildings having regard to issues such as thermal comfort, solar access, cross ventilation and overshadowing.

 

45.      The proposed dual occupancy is a BASIX affected development and the 2.7m minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect.

 

Front Setback

 

46.      The front setback proposed varies between 3.941metres and 5.546. The minimum front setback does not comply with the minimum 5m to 9m requirement of Section 3.1 ‘Preliminary Building Envelopes’ of DCP 2005.

 

47.      At a meeting held between Council officers and the applicant, rear setbacks of the proposed developments which back on to the Paul Street residents were discussed. The applicant was asked to increase the rear setbacks to reduce privacy, acoustics and overshadowing impacts on the Paul Street residents. As a result, compliance with Council’s front setback requirements could not be achieved due to the relocation of the buildings. 

 

48.      However, the DCP requirement also states that the setback is “to be consistent    with the prevailing setback along the street”. Given that the proposed development will be constructed on a new infill subdivision site, there is no existing prevailing street setback. The front setback varies between 3.941metres and 5.267 with only a small portion of the proposed development non-complying. In addition, this minor non-compliance is due to the articulation of the building to avoid a mirror image design.

 

49.      The non-compliance will have no impact on street the presentation or compliance with other requirements such as rear setback, private open space and landscaping requirements.   

 

Side Setbacks

 

50.      The proposed side setbacks vary between 1.420 metres and 4.173 metres.           PDCP 2005 prescribes a side setback requirement of 1.5 metres for a dual      occupancy development.

51.      However, the proposed side setbacks are considered to be appropriate given      that the             minimum side setback of 1.420 metres is a result of the 4.173 metre side setback to the north-eastern boundary to accommodate the angled                             nature of the site.

 

Rear Setback

 

52.      The proposed rear setbacks vary between 8.224 metres and 9.868 metres.                    PDCP 2005 prescribes a 30% rear setback of the length of the site. The rear                           setback required for the proposed development is a minimum of 8.53 metres. 

 

53.       However, the proposed rear setback is considered to be a minor non-     compliance

            given that the minimum rear setback is measured from the patio.     The rear setback

            when measured from the rear wall of the building is 9.868 metres which would                 comply with Council’s rear setback requirements. The minor non-compliance                                              

            is therefore considered to be appropriate. In addition, the rear setback was increased

            from 8.224 metres and 8.809 metres on the initial application to minimize any

            opportunities for overlooking to the private   open space of the Paul Street residents.

 

Privacy

 

54.      The rear patio is raised to a height of 400mm from the natural ground level. In this regard, concerns are held for the impacts of overlooking on the properties fronting Paul Street. 

 

55.      To mitigate the impacts of overlooking on the properties fronting Paul Street, Council had asked the applicant to increase the rear setback from 8.809 metres to 9.868 metres. In addition, the applicant has added privacy screens to the rear patio and increased sill heights to the first floor windows to the rear.

 

56.      It is noted that Lot 13 was not included in the modification application (DA/993/2004/B) to amend pad height levels. The modifications approved under DA/993/2004/B only related to Lots 2-12.

 

57       Accordingly, the patio to the rear will have no adverse impacts beyond what      would

            be expected in an urban setting.

 

 

 

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Numerical Compliance Table

2 Pages

 

2View

Plans and Elevations

16 Pages

 

3View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

4View

History of Development Application

1 Page

 

5View

Approved Developments on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas

1 Page

 

6View

Site Plan

2 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL