Agenda of Regulatory Council

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 1^st 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 1^st 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

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

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

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 2^nd 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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Pad Heights and the original subdivision

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.

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

Privacy / Overlooking issues

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.

Compliance Issues

Structural stability of the rear retaining wall

ISSUES

Ceiling Height

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.

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

Regulatory Council	14 April 2008

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 10.9

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

DESCRIPTION Use of the Church Street Mall between Macquarie Street and Darcy Street on Saturdays for a public market (defined as community facility)

REFERENCE DA/708/2007 - Submitted 30 August 2007

APPLICANT/S Krisari Farmers Markets Pty Ltd

OWNERS Parramatta City Council

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine development application No. 708/2007 that seeks approval for the use of the Church Street Mall between Darcy Street and Macquarie Street as farmers markets (defined as community facility).

The application has been assessed by an independent planning consultant, Andrew Martin Planning Pty Ltd, and is referred to Council for determination as is relates to land that Council owns.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That development application No. 708/2007 be approved subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions;

1. The market operator shall enter into a Market Operator Agreement (MOA), with such agreement being generally in accordance with Appendix C of the tender documents. A copy of Appendix C is to be attached to the development consent when issued by Council.

2. In respect of that part of the market site shown as public road on the site plan, and subject always to the obtaining of the required development consent, the relationship between the parties will be regulated by any street vending consent and activity approval granted by Council. Appendix “B” of the tender document sets out the minimum conditions likely to be imposed by Council when granting the street vending consent and the Tenderer acknowledges that if such a consent is granted the Council reserves the right to impose further conditions or conditions different than those in Appendix “B”

3. The maximum number of stalls shall be 46.

4. The operator shall notify Parramatta Police Local Command by certified mail of the intention to operate the markets at least 14 days prior. An annual list of dates for the market operation shall be provided to NSW Police along with the specific contact details of the Market organiser including a mobile telephone number.

5. Council requires the Mall for Civic duties during the year which may require all or part of the Mall to be used for up to 3 days a year. At least one months notice will be provided to the market operator by Council regarding these specific dates during the year.

6. All stalls where fresh food is handled shall be operated by a person with the appropriate safe handling experience.

7. Council may as the need arise be required to undertake emergency repairs to infrastructure whilst the Mall is being used by the operator. By activating the consent the operator accepts that Council or contractor intervention may be required to fix infrastructure that may interrupt market proceedings. The operator by activating the consent absolves Council from all losses or damages that may result from repair or emergency works.

8. That the consent is valid for two (2) years in line with the tender acceptance. A further development application is required to be submitted should the market wish to continue operations.

9. Prior to the operation of the markets a promotional plan and communications plan shall be approved by Council dealing with the following:

9.1 Advertising and promotion of the market and,

9.2 Contact protocols between the market operator and Council’s relevant staff plus provision for inclement weather

10. No promotional material or signage is approved under this application.

11. A number of food stall types listed deal with high risk foods such as seafood, poultry and dairy wholesalers/processing. These are subject of specific licensing requirements under food safety schemes by the NSW Food Authority. A copy of the relevant approval is to be submitted to Council prior to operation of the Markets.

12. Market operator is to provide written confirmation that staff training has occurred on site regarding the directions to be given to emergency services. The local ambulance officer shall be requested to attend that induction training.

13. Traffic marshals are to be provided in accordance with updated Traffic Management Plan as submitted 28^th March 2008.

14. The market operator is responsible for the collection and emptying of all recycling and general rubbish bins (including existing Council bins). The bins are to be provided in accordance with the waste management plan submitted 28^th March 2008 and must be of a type that allows for re lining. All waste shall be separated and recycled and removed entirely from the site by 4.00pm each Saturday. All stall holders are to remove rubbish from the stalls and dispose at approved waste centre. Confirmation of the waste disposal shall be provided by each stall holder to the market operator.

15. The sink, toilet and generator shall be relocated so they do not project past any point westward of the shopfront of the adjacent 7 11 store. An amended plan shall be submitted to Council and approved showing the appropriate changes prior to operating the Markets.

16. An amended plan showing the minor realignment of stalls referred to as 50 to 57 in the plans submitted with the development application so that the stalls do not extend further westward than the awning of the adjacent 7 11 store at No. 1/188 Church Street. The amended plan is to be approved by Council prior to the markets operation.

17. A maximum of six (6) stalls will be permitted to sell food for immediate consumption.

18. No liquor shall be sold unless the appropriate approvals or licenses are obtained from the Liquor Licensing Board if required. No liquor sold from any stall if permitted by the LAB shall be consumed on site.

19. Public liability of no less than $20 million and a certificate of currency is to be provided to Council prior to market operations commencing.

20. Each stall holder to have a public liability of no less than $10 million and the individual certificate of currencies forwarded to the market operator and handed to Council as a complete document prior to commencement of market operations.

21. All seven (7) staff members including the manager of the markets is to be present at 6.00am, during the set up and remain until all stalls and clean up is completed following market closure.

22. The market operator shall comply with the waste and traffic management plan details as submitted to Council on the 28^th March 2008. A copy of the plans shall be provided to each stall holder by the operator.

23. A Market employee shall be positioned at the vehicle entry point at all times to ensure no unauthorised entry. The market operator is to issue entry permits having vehicle registrations or drivers licence numbers identifying market operators.

24. The emergency response plan prepared by the market operator authorised by the NSW Ambulance Service is to remain feasible at all times and all staff and stall holders are to be familiar with the existence and terms of the plan.

25. The stalls are to have a uniform colour that being white. No reflective colours, banners or signs shall be used. All stalls are to be of a high quality and kept clean at all times.

26. Market operator to provide the location and type of ‘fast food’ stalls, and confirm adequacy of provision of space for storage, preparation, cleansing and display activities associated with these stalls, as distinct from market stalls where no food preparation is intended. Amended details are required for Council approval prior to commencement of operations.

27. A food safety management plan prepared by a suitably qualified and competent person, identifying risks to food safety, the role of food businesses, market operator and other agencies and actions to address these risks.

28. No amplified music at any time.

29. The appropriate licenses issued by the NSW Food Authority shall be obtained and provided to Council for the sale of high risk poultry, meats and seafood’s prior to the commencement of the market operations.

30. In order to preserve the amenity of St Johns Church stalls 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 are to be deleted. An amended plan confirming the change is required to be submitted to Council and approved prior to market operations commencing on site.

31. In order to ensure the markets are principally farmers markets a maximum of 6 stalls shall be dedicated to fast food items (ie. foods designed to be eaten upon purchase eg drinks, pies, kebab, sushi, hot chips or the like). A plan showing the exact location of the 6 stalls shall be provided to Council prior to commencement of the markets.

32. The Mall area is to remain accessible and safe at all times.

33. No spruikers shall operate at the Markets.

34. The proposed generator shall have a sound proof enclosure having the appropriate ventilation so that it is not audible within the Church. The enclosure shall be designed by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer.

35. A separate facility shall be provided for the washing of hands over and above the original 500litre washing device so as to avoid cross contamination issues.

36. The operator is to at a minimum carry out the requirements of the Food Safety Management Plan submitted with the application.

37. There are to be no tables or chairs set up adjacent to any stall.

38. A security guard or staff member shall be positioned in the area adjacent to the St John’s Church so as to minimise any adverse impacts on the Church grounds.

39. The farmers markets shall engage a person to walk continuously through the markets area collecting wind blown and pavement rubbish from 8.00am to 2.00pm.

39. All trucks over 3m are to be directed through Civic Lane around the rear of the library and through the drop down chain into Civic Place car park prior to the markets commencing.

40. All additional stock required during the days trade is to be transferred by trolley.

41. Any stall holder not complying with the terms and conditions of the consent must be directed to leave the markets.

42. All trucks used in association with the markets shall park strictly in accordance with the parking plan provided for Civic Place car park. The applicant is to obtain approval from Council’s Property Section for the use of part of the car park for the purposes of truck parking prior to the commencement of the markets.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site is known as the Church Street Mall (the “Mall”) which is the paved area bounded by Macquarie Street to the north and Darcy Street to the south.

2. The subject sites are legally described as Part Lot 1 DP 1104477 (closed Road) and Part Lot 1 DP 791300 (in front of Town Hall). The Mall is a well known retail and commercial shopping strip offering a range of goods and services to the public in a casual environment. There are a number of café type eateries at the southern and northern ends of the Mall. Other businesses include retail operations such as shoe and clothing outlets, cafes as well as commercial operations.

3. The area has a number of key features which attract people to the Mall during the day. Council has previously undertaken street improvements comprising paving, street furniture, lighting, water fountains, amphitheatre and garden beds. The Mall has a tranquil ambience where the public including the local workforce relax and socialise. The civic buildings within the area include the Town Hall and Council Chambers which are heritage listed. The St Johns Church grounds are located to the west of the subject area and also have heritage significance. The Mall is serviced by public toilets located just to the north of the Town Hall.

PROPOSAL

4. Council awarded Krisari Markets P/L tender approval to operate a farmer’s street market (defined as community facility) on Church Street Mall on the 30 July 2007.

5. The proposed development involves the temporary use of part of Church Street Mall as a farmers market with the following particulars:

5.1 Each stall has typical dimensions of 3m x 3m.

5.2 Stalls operate every Saturday between 8.00am and 2.00pm.

5.3 Each stall erected on the day and removed following closure of the markets at 2.00pm.

5.4 Early arrival at 6.00am to allow erection of stalls.

5.5 Late departure permitted until 4.00pm to allow stalls to be dismantled and litter removed

5.6 Portable toilet, generator and triple bowl sinks with 500l water tank.

5.7 Total of 7 staff provided on site at all times (condition requires 7 staff at all times).

5.8 Principally sale of fresh foods such as vegetables, dairy products, nuts, breads, honey, etc as take home items for consumption off site.

5.9 A maximum of 46 stalls (as opposed to original application for up to 60 stalls)

6. The stalls are operated by individual contractors selling fresh produce and cooked food designed to be taken off site and used in the home. The focus of the markets is to provide a range of fresh food not typically available at retail outlets in the vicinity of the site. The applicant proposes that up to 12 stalls will provide food to be consumed immediately.

7. A detailed retailers list is provided with the application and it is essential that the approved use is maintained as a fresh food farmers market. For example, it is considered highly inappropriate for any retail items such as clothing, footwear or the like to be sold at the markets as the markets are principally ‘produce’ markets.

8. The application also includes for completeness an application for activity under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 and application for street vending under the Roads Act 1993.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

9. This section of the report considers the proposed development under the relevant heads of consideration prescribed by section 79C of the EP and A Act 1979. This assessment satisfies a Part 4 Assessment for use of zoned lands under SREP 28. A Part 5 Assessment applies to the unzoned land being the majority of land subject of the application. It is noted that the subject development application was lodged prior o the gazettal of the City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 and the savings provision of this plan apply.

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

10. The site is identified as being unzoned land by the recently gazetted Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of this Plan.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 (SREP 28)

11. The majority of the land is unzoned comprising road & footpath and therefore a majority of the development falls under Part 5 of the EP and A Act 1979 (that is no development application is technically required). Other smaller parts of the site are zoned Retail Core and that assessment falls under Part 4 of the EP and A Act 1979.

12. Legal advice confirms that the definition of markets is not suitable:

“Markets means land, a building or a place used on a temporary basis for the purpose of selling, exposing or offering for sale by retail or hire, goods, merchandise, material or services.”(emphasis added)

13. The definition of markets is not a preferred classification given that the stalls are not temporary structures that being that they will be used for periods greater the 28 days in a calendar year. Cl 66 of SREP 28 permits use of land for a temporary purpose for a maximum period of 28 days, whether consecutive or not, in any one calendar year. Clearly the proposed use is to occur every Saturday (except the 3 days per year the Mall is required by Council) and is not temporary within the terms of SREP 28.

14. The site is unzoned except for a small portion of Retail Core land. No portion of the site (identified by black dotted lines on the site plan) is zoned Open Space.

15. The definition of community facility could be applied for the use of land zoned Retail Core for market purposes on the basis of the following definition:

“Community facility means a building or place owned or controlled by the Council, another public authority or a religious organisation, or associated body of persons, for the physical, social, cultural, economic, intellectual or religious welfare of the community, which may consist of or include:

(a) a public library, rest rooms, meeting rooms, recreation facilities, a child care centre, cultural activities, social functions or any similar building, place or activity, or

(b) a community club, being a building or place used by persons sharing like interests, but not a registered club, whether or not that building or place is also used for another purpose.”

16. A community facility is permissible within the Retail Core zoned lands and therefore a merit assessment may proceed. The proposal does not hinder the attainment of the stated objectives of the plan.

Aims of Part 3 – Building Design Controls

17. The proposal achieves environmental management best practice so as to protect and promote the natural assets of the Parramatta City Centre. The markets will attract families and people of all ages. Farmers markets are typically casual and offer an opportunity to purchase goods for consumption off site. The markets offer increased trading opportunities to existing retailers resulting from additional passing trade. Our investigation of the site during the Saturday midday period indicates a very under utilised shopping strip.

Objectives of the Retail Core zone

18. Given that part of the land has a Retail Core zoning it is appropriate to consider the objectives of that zone in the assessment of the application. The principal focus of the farmers markets is to provide retail sales of items that are to be taken off site. There are to be no tables or chairs set up outside the stalls (see special condition 37). The maximum number of stalls selling items such as drinks and food (eg chips, hamburgers, pies, kebab, chicken, hot dogs and the like) is limited to 6 (see special condition 31). This ensures the focus of the farmers market remains as a produce market. The proposed farmers market reasonably satisfies the stated objectives provided it complies with all conditions of consent.

Objectives of the Special Uses zone

19. Given that the land is unzoned it is appropriate that the markets do not unreasonably hinder the achievement of Special Uses objectives under SREP 28. Detailed conditions of consent ensure that the area is supervised with a guard or staff member appropriately identified and positioned at the edge of the Church land (see special condition 38).

Special Areas Objectives

20. The proposed farmers markets satisfy the stated objectives given that:

20.1 Pedestrian links are maintained through the Mall

20.2 The market increases the range and variety of fresh produce which is essential for general well being.

20.3 The markets sell items not generally available in the local area.

20.4 The markets will generate additional demand for tenancies in the area due to the concentration of people.

20.5 Adequate provisions are provided in relation to amenities which are located in close proximity to the stalls.

20.6 Additional management services will ensure that the impacts are minimised as far as possible.

20.7 The markets are not permanent and will not have lasting adverse impacts on the adjacent heritage items.

20.8 The proposal supports the objectives which are to provide a diverse range of goods to the public.

20.9 The proposal does not unreasonably impinge on the adjoining development and is an appropriate use of the public domain.

20.10 The markets add to the vitality and vibrancy of an area and appeal to all sectors of the community.

21. The site area is principally unzoned land in accordance with the zoning map. The adjoining lands to the east are zoned Retail Core. The assessment has regard to the objectives of the adjoining zone as a rule of thumb given that there are no specific objectives that would typically apply to unzoned lands.

Parramatta City Centre DCP 2007

22. Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan 2007 (PDCP 2007) applies to the subject application. The development satisfies the requirements of this plan.

Parramatta Notification Development Control Plan 2004 (PDCP 2004)

23. The subject application was notified in the Parramatta Advertiser on the 19.9.07. The adjoining land owners and tenants were notified individually by mail. All parties were invited to make submission to the development between Wednesday the 19^th September 2007 and Wednesday 10^th October 2007. In total 143 notification letters have been issued by Council and a total of 6 submissions have been received. All objectors who requested additional time to make submissions were granted that request. Council advised that a sign was erected on the site advising of the proposal.

24. The revised plans and information does not require re-notification in accordance with Section M of the DCP 2004 which states that if the amended application is substantially the same development and does not result in a greater environmental impact the Manager of Development Services has the discretion as to whether the application is notified. We have deemed that the amendments are substantially the same and have less impact.

25. As a courtesy the revised details were emailed to Planning Direction Pty Ltd offering a 7 day period in which to comment or add to the previous objection. The additional comments submitted by Planning Direction Pty Ltd by email have been addressed in section 4.1.2.4 of this report.

CONSULTATION

26. The development application was notified in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act 1979) and Council’s policies. A number of submissions have been received to the proposal as summarised below.

Keith Wager of proprietor of Suite 16/181 Church Street Parramatta and lessee of Suite 28/181 Church Street Parramatta.

27. Mr Wager has no objection to the proposal provided vehicle access is maintained across the Mall into 181 Church Street. If indeed Mr Wager has a legal right to currently drive across the Mall then there will be no restriction for this activity to be continued. The stalls do not prevent entry to 181 Church Street.

Objections Prepared by Persons Representing the Cathedral Church of St. John Parramatta

28. The following issues were raised by persons Representing The Cathedral Church of St. John Parramatta:

28.1 Concern that the original notification was not received by Council;

28.2 Very serious impact on the Church and ability to make use of the Church on Saturdays;

28.3 Mall not an appropriate place to hold markets;

28.4 Noise generated from traffic, pedestrians and generator will be unacceptable;

28.5 Unauthorised parking on Church grounds already a problem and markets will exacerbate problem;

28.6 Excessive pedestrian traffic and pedestrians will be funnelled into a 3m wide avenue;

28.7 No formal consultation with the Cathedral;

28.8 Impacts on the Saturday wedding ministry would be significant;

28.9 Cathedral has played an important role in the lives of many people and we must be sure that the impact in not a negative one.

28.10 All church street mall pedestrians will be diverted into the church grounds

28.11 The church grounds are not to be used as a public domain;

28.12 Cathedral parking will be used by market users;

28.13 The SEE has completely ignored the Church in its assessment of heritage impact.

29. The objections have been adequately addressed by the reduction in the number of stalls, realignment of a number of stalls and special conditions of consent designed to preserve amenity. The applicant has provided a heritage assessment of the proposal. Having considered the objections and relevant provisions of SREP 28 and the PDCP 2007 we find the application satisfactory with regard to potential heritage impacts. Special conditions deal with noise, litter and management of vehicles entering the mall. A two year time limited consent allows Council the opportunity to review the approval and analyse any unforseen impacts.

Planning Direction Pty Ltd on behalf of the St Johns Church

30. Planning Direction Pty Ltd has submitted a detailed objection to the development. The objection is quite lengthy and for clarity the issues have been grouped as follows:

31. Inadequacy of Documentation (site plans 1:100 or 1:200; external finishes and materials; owners consent; registered survey plan and waste management plan; Heritage Impact Statement and social and cultural statement.

32. Comment: The site plan is at 1:500 which is sufficient in this circumstance given that the site is quite large. The Church grounds, surrounding road network, town hall and retail shops are clearly identified on the plan when printed at A3. It is clear as to the area (ie. inside the thick dotted line) to which the application relates. The amended information, subsequently provided to Planning Direction Pty Ltd, includes general survey information. The survey information has been extrapolated onto the site plan to determine zone boundaries.

33. A special condition is imposed requiring the stalls to be non reflective and of a uniform white colour. The revised Statement of Environmental Effects includes a heritage assessment as to the potential impacts on surrounding heritage items. We concur with the report in that the temporary stalls will not degrade the heritage significance of the items. A number of stalls will need to be deleted directly in front of the Church for amenity reasons which also assists in reducing perceived heritage impacts. No social or cultural statement is necessary in this instance.

What is the subject land?

34. The development application comprises of plans and a written statement included on the notification documentation that the site is Church Street Mall bounded by Macquarie Street to the north and Darcy Street to the south. The site plan shows a number of key sites so that a person making a submission could easily orientate themselves. The addendum to the application indicates that the Mall is formally known as Part Lot 1 DP 1104477 (closed Road) and Part Lot 1 DP 791300 (in front of Town Hall).

Whether correct owners consent is provided and who the adjoining land owners are.

35. Council staff with the appropriate authority provided land owners consent to the application. Vehicles accessing the site can do so over Council owned lands. Adequate area exists between the amphitheatre and St John’s Park to do this and therefore no additional owners consent is required. The notification was quite extensive and sufficient for the application. All adjoining land owners including the Department of Conservation Land Management (owners of St John’s Park) were notified of the application.

What are the impacts on Properties?

36. This report anticipates that the impacts will be generally limited to increased vehicles from stall owners, litter and noise. The positive impacts out weight the negative impacts of the development. We agree that some form of relief is required to the Church and a number of stalls (stall numbers 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24) are to be deleted. A special condition requiring amended plans is imposed as condition 30. This condition ensures that Church services are not unduly affected and amenity impacts are minimised. Special conditions of consent relate to cleaning, bins, litter and noise controls.

Site Plan/Deficiencies in Proposed Market Layout:

37. The proposed stalls numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4 are acceptable in this location. Sufficient area exists for pedestrian movement between the stalls and the curb. The crossing is controlled by two sets of lights that are synchronised and therefore a significant area is available for pedestrians to cross Macquarie Street.

38. In addition to existing Council bins two waste disposal units each containing 3 bins are proposed. A condition is imposed relating to the collection of all bins at the end of the markets. A condition of consent is imposed requiring that neither the sink, toilet nor generator shall extend any further westward than the shop front of the adjacent 711 store. Stalls 5, 6, 18, 23, 25, 26 have been deleted by the applicant to address the concerns raised to the original application. The proposed stalls are located so as not to intrude on sites like Deli France. The 711 store does not provide outdoor dining and in this regard the position of stalls will not detrimentally affect the amenity of the property. No other shop owner has objected to the proposal as most would agree that the stalls offer greater exposure to passing trade.

Heritage Impacts:

39. The revised Statement of Environmental Effects addresses the potential for heritage impacts on the surrounding items. Given the temporary nature of the stalls we find that the stalls will not adversely affect the heritage significance of the items. The Church in particular has a substantial grassed and paved curtilage and no stall is to be located on Church grounds. Deletion of additional stalls has a two fold positive for the Church. Deletion of stalls 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 facilitates a more open view of the Church and secondly preserves the amenity of the Church and its grounds. It is fair and reasonable that the public domain be used for activities that stimulate and underpin social well being. A casual fresh produce market is a positive use of the public domain. The relevant heritage provisions of the SREP No. 28 are contained within the body of this report. Having considered those matters the proposal is considered reasonable.

Planning Controls and SREP 28:

40. As with most Council zoning maps there requires an extrapolation of the zoning colouring over the site plan. We have determined that the land is only subject to SREP 28. The Mall is for the most part unzoned (no limitations). Other smaller parts of the Mall are zoned Retail core.

41. The subject use is defined as a community facility and is a permissible use in the Retail Core zone. Part 5 applies to unzoned lands and there are no limitations on use. For the lands zoned by the SREP No. 28 we find that a community use is permissible with consent and therefore Council may determine the application. The proposal satisfies the retail Core Objectives as described in the body of this report. The Council has undertaken an extensive mail out to all residents and occupiers as per the list attached to the file. No objections have been submitted by adjoining businesses. Most would welcome the additional passing trade resulting from the markets.

42. The market use is permissible. The stalls themselves are not located within the Open space zone and even if that was the case a community facility or kiosk is permissible in the zone. The legal advice discards the markets definition as a suitable definition for the use. A Part 5 assessment is contained in the body of this submission and relies, in part, on the discussion and assessment of environmental impacts contained within the Part 4 assessment under Section 79C of the EP and A Act 1979.

Retail Impact:

43. There have been no submissions from any adjoining retail owner or operator objecting to the development. We expect that the markets will attract more people who will in turn use surrounding shops. Goods sold at the markets are substantially fresh foods to be consumed off site. The maximum number of fast food stalls is limited to 6 as opposed to the original request for 12 stalls. This is to ensure existing businesses are not adversely affected.

44. We concur with the channelling concern caused by the positioning of stalls 50 – 57. Special condition 17 requires an amended plan which straightens out the stalls so that stall 57 does not project further westward than the alignment of the adjacent 711 awning. This will allow greater flow between the markets and either side of the fountain. People using the public domain and seats in front of eateries facing the amphitheatre will have an improved view and visual connection to the stalls under this amended layout.

Traffic and Car Parking Management:

45. The proposal as recommended for approval is for 46 stalls which is significantly less than the initial 60 stalls. The setup and removal of the stalls occurs outside peak time and therefore traffic conflicts are minimised. At 6.00am to 8.00am Macquarie Street has minimal traffic flow on a Saturday. The revised statement submitted by the applicant confirms the existence of some 7000 spaces. Weekend demand for CBD public parking spaces is not as great as weekdays. In our opinion there are sufficient spaces to cater for the expected parking demands on Saturdays. An inspection of the Smith Street (Civic Place) public car park at midday on Saturday indicated only moderate demand.

46. The market operator and general public have access to 106 spaces in this car park alone. Once those spaces are filled then other operators or the public will need to use other public parking readily available in the CBD. It is desirable to have market operators occupy the car park as there will be limited movements generally between 8.00am and 2.30 pm which assists in pedestrian safety in an around the market site. The seven nominated staff will assist in the arrival of stall holders and the erection of the stalls. A condition requires that all staff are present at 6.00 am to assist in management of the site and remain until 4.00pm when all stalls, equipment and rubbish is removed.

47. On street 1 hour time limited parking is available along Macquarie Street and therefore turnover of spaces will occur. Spaces within Civic Place are limited to a greater extent which assists shoppers finding a car space close to the markets and making a quick purchase.

48. The proposal is recommended for approval at 46 stalls which equates to 414sqm of retail area. Whether this form of development was intended to be captured by SEPP 11 is questionable in that the defined land use is not a shop and is best defined as a community facility. Nevertheless the total floor area yield is less than the 500sqm maximum area that potentially triggers a SEPP 11 assessment.

Waste Management Issues:

49. Conditions of consent have been imposed regarding waste management. The non Council bins are to be removed completely from the site. The Mall is to be swept clean and any spills cleaned. Recycling receptacles are to be provided by the market operator.

Impacts on Adjoining Owners:

50. Based on our independent assessment we propose that a market having a total of 46 stalls and with the suggested revised locations will not detrimentally impact neighbouring properties. Appropriate conditions have been imposed to protect amenity and the public domain.

Procedural Issues:

51. Planning Direction Pty Ltd has raised issues regarding the re-notification of the revised details supporting the application. Amended details submitted by the applicant attempt to appease some concerns. Theses details were emailed to Planning Direction Pty Ltd. Planning Direction Pty Ltd objected to the lack of time available to respond and requested additional time be granted in the form of an official 14 day notification.

52. Notification of the revised details was not necessary as the notification DCP states that, 'if the amended application is substantially the same development and does not result in greater environmental impact, the amended application need not be notified, such decision being at the discretion of the Manager Development Services'.

53. Clearly the amended development has less impact and results in substantially the same development as the original development. The main change under the amended application is the applicant’s agreement to delete stalls 5, 6, 18, 23, 25 and 26. There is simply no requirement to renotify the revised plan as clearly the impacts (whilst unacceptable to the Church) do not result in greater environmental impact.

Legal Advice

54. An independent legal advice was requested as a result of the issues raised by objectors regarding the ability of Council to approve structures and land uses over public roads where that land appeared to be unzoned. The objections raised issues regarding permissibility and that discussion is contained within Section 3.1.1 of this report.

55. A copy of the legal advice is attached to the Councillors business paper. There is no legal impediment to Council making a determination of the application. There is a reasonable argument that the use does not even require consent under the EP and A Act 1979. For surety and transparency an application is made and assessed under the normal heads of consideration under Section 79C of the EP and A Act 1979.

56. J. H. H. Blackman AO - 4 Perry Street Wentworthville raised the following issues

56.1 Stalls will cause adverse conditions for pedestrians given the already congested nature of the Mall;

56.2 Stalls offer additional obstructions and increase conflicts between those coming to the St John’s Church;

56.3 No order or pattern whilst customers are walking between stalls;

56.4 Not enough space to have markets of this size;

56.5 Markets create traffic and parking problems;

56.6 Blocking of parking for stall holder will exacerbate parking problems;

56.7 Noise from spruikers and musicians;

56.8 Noise from the generators will be unacceptable.

57. Comment: The concerns raised have been sufficiently addressed by the revised plans and the special conditions of approval. The request for a trial period is partly achieved in that the approval operates for a 2 year period. The maximum number of stalls is 46 and special conditions require the generator to be sound proofed and rubbish removed from the site. The reduced number of stalls enables access to the Church grounds and the mall.

ISSUES

Emergency Services

58. The applicant had contacted local ambulance services in this regard. The ambulance service has no objection to the proposal.

59. The applicant advises that they were given minimum clearance widths for standard ambulances and advised that the ambulance service does not ordinarily expect to take ambulances into crowded pedestrian areas and that officers would probably use trolley type stretcher beds in a crowded situation subject to the exercise of their discretion, depending on the circumstances they were called upon to deal with.

60. The largest ambulance vehicle is 2.6m x 5.5m which requires a minimum of 3.5m width for safe clearance. The current proposal envisages adequate standing areas for an ambulance to park off Macquarie Street or Civic Place (requiring the deletion of four stalls and two stalls respectively) and Darcy Street. From these two vantage points, ambulance officers have relatively easy access by foot into the market area within a range of approximately 50m to the most distant point. We understand that this arrangement will provide adequate response times and is acceptable to the NSW Ambulance Service. A special condition is imposed requiring the Market operator to write to the local area ambulance service by certified mail advising of the commencement of the markets and the annual dates of the markets.

61. The applicant proposes to train staff on site to co-ordinate direction and identification of emergency paths in order to respond to emergency calls efficiently.

INTERNAL REFERRALS

Property Services

62. Plans and reports submitted with the application have been assessed by Council’s Property Manager. Accordingly conditions of consent have been imposed dealing with certain aspects such as emergency repair of Council’s assets and the need to enter into agreements.

Environmental Health Officer

63. The application was referred to Councils Environmental Health Officer. Additional information and conditions of consent are recommended to satisfy the concerns raised by the Environmental Health Officer.

Section 68 of the LGA 1993

64. Section 68(F7) of the Local Government Act 1993 requires any person using a standing vehicle or any item for the sale of any article in a public place to obtain the prior approval of the Council.

65. The applicant seeks consent required under Part F item 7 of Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 for the sale of goods from street stalls at the Church Street Mall.

Roads Act 1993

66. The application seeks consent for street vending under Division 3 of Part 9 of the Roads Act 1993.

67. The amended plans and those conditions requiring the deletion of additional stalls reduces potential conflicts. A traffic management plan has been submitted along with particulars of CBD parking available to the public. Guidelines for Street vending Control are relevant but do not have statutory weight. The guidelines are useful in either a Part 4 or 5 assessment.

68. The main consideration is to determine the likely impacts associated with this type of use. Not all uses of public land lead to traffic, pedestrian conflicts and congestion. The markets occur outside peak times and all set up occurs before and after peak times. Farmers markets are a casual affair where pedestrian conflicts are minimised given that the set up and removal occurs before and after shoppers arrive. Saturday afternoon in this part of Parramatta (outside the Christmas period) is relatively low key. Based on the proposed amendments pedestrians will be able to move freely and unobstructed through the mall. Pedestrian access will not be denied to the mall at any time and an appropriate special condition applies.

69. In support of the application is the applicant’s comments contained within the original Statement of Environmental Effects on pages 15 – 17. We agree with the conclusions reached in the statement provided the special conditions are complied with.

Part 5 Assessment

70. Part 5 of the EP and A Act 1979 is a ‘catch all’ provision and applies to an activity occurring on unzoned lands. This effectively captures most of the site. We have spent considerable time on the Part 4 assessment given that there are numerous provisions which must be assessed under Section 79C. Under Part 5 the assessment is somewhat streamlined and under Section 111 of the EP and A Act 1979 Council as the determining authority are required to :

“..take into account to the fullest extent possible all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of [the proposed] activity.”

71. The Part 4 assessment is quite detailed and there is no utility in repeating the same arguments again. The main issues relate to the environmental impacts of the development being litter, vehicle parking and noise. There are a number of conditions which specifically deal with these matters. The applicant has prepared waste management and traffic management plans in support of the proposal. An investigation of the site and surrounds indicates that the markets can operate with minimal impact on the natural and built environment. The site requires no alteration in terms of levels or tree removal to accommodate the markets. The space can be easily controlled by staff that are required to be present from 6.00am to 4.00pm. Waste is to be removed by contractors and the Mall cleaned after each market.

72. Having considered those matters identified under Part 4 we are of the opinion that all relevant matters potentially affecting the environment as required under Part 5 have been duly considered.

CONCLUSION

73. The subject application has been considered under the provisions of Section 79(c) of the EP&A Act 1979, including consideration of SREP 28 and PDCP 2007 and is considered satisfactory subject to conditions.

74. It is considered that the proposed farmers markets positively contribute to the vibrancy and vitality of the area without compromising the use of adjoining sites subject to conditions of consent. Issues raised by the objectors have been addressed by amended plans and conditions of consent. Special conditions have been imposed requiring the deletion of stalls 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 and the maximum number of fast food type stalls limited to 6.

75. On balance the farmers markets are a positive outcome for the city having no significant adverse impacts.

Andrew Martin Planning Pty Ltd

Independent Planning Consultant

Attachments:

1View	Site Plan	1 Page
2View	Legal Advice	5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council	14 April 2008

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 10.10

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

DESCRIPTION Use of a Heritage Listed premises as a Hotel
Location Map - Attachment 2

REFERENCE DA/398/2007 - Submitted 25 May 2007

APPLICANT/S Kelly Liquor Group

OWNERS Mr Sid Arida, Mr Joseph Arida, Mr George Arida and Mr Tony Arida

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 398/2007 which seeks consent to use the existing Heritage item as a licensed Hotel.

The application is being referred to Council as the site is a Heritage Item of Regional significance under Schedule 6 of SREP 28.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 398/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

1. The Hotel shall operate in accordance with the approved Noise Assessment Report prepared Far West Consulting Engineers dated 13 February 2008.

Reason: To minimise the impact on the amenity of the area.

2. An Amended Plan of Management shall be submitted to Council prior to the release of the Construction Certificate. The Plan of Management approved through this consent shall be amended to reflect all conditions of consent.

Reason: To provide appropriate management of the Hotel.

3. The maximum number of patrons shall not exceed 200 at any time.

Reason: To ensure the development does not expand beyond that approved.

4. The days and hours of operations are restricted to 11:00am to 11:00pm Monday to Wednesday, 11:00am to 3:00am Thursday to Saturday and 11:00am to 10:00pm Sunday. Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

Reason: To minimise the impact on the amenity of the area.

5. Music on the premises shall not exceed 85dBA at any given time. Reason: To minimise the impact on the amenity of the area.

6. Hotel Management is to ensure that all staff are aware of all complaints received from adjoining / nearby residents and that measurements are to be implemented to minimise any disturbance to the amenity.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

7. Closed circuit video surveillance cameras shall be installed so as to provide coverage of the entry area to the premises from Church Street and the Right of Way area to the north of the premises and the laneway to the west of the premises.

The cameras shall be selected so as to provide images of a quality satisfactory to the Commander of the Parramatta Local Area Command of the NSW Police Service.

The cameras shall record continuously while the Hotel is open for trade and for, at least, 30 minutes after the cessation of trading.

The surveillance system shall display images in real time on screens where staff, security personnel and / or patrons can see them.

All recording made by the system shall be kept for one month before being erased.

All recordings shall be made available to the NSW Police Service and either Council within 36 hours of any request received either in writing or electronically for access to them.

Signs shall be displayed to the effect that the area is under video surveillance.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

8. The Management of the Hotel shall enter into an arrangement with an independent contractor for the provision of security personnel at and around the Hotel. That arrangement will include a provision that the contractor will supply additional personnel within 1 hour at any time if it is requested to do so by the licensee or the duty manager at the Hotel.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

9. Security personnel must be present at the Hotel from 8:00pm on any evening until, at least, 30 minutes after the Hotel ceases to trade or all patrons have left the Hotel.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

10. The number of security personnel present at the Hotel shall be a minimum of two staff after 10:00pm and one prior to 10:00pm each evening.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

11. The licensee shall contact local taxi companies when requested by patrons and request them when picking up passengers from the Hotel to do so outside the front of the premises on Church Street. No charge shall be made for this service.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

12. Patrons should be requested, by appropriate signage, not to take liquor in open containers off the licensed premises. Staff and security personnel should take all reasonable measures to prevent patrons leaving the licensed premises with open containers.

Reason: To comply with licensing requirements.

13. Each night after the closure of the Hotel, staff and security personnel should be assigned to gather any debris or litter which appears to be due to the Hotel.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

14. No approval is given under this Development Application for any gaming machines as Council is not the consent authority for gaming machines.

Reason: To comply with legislative requirements.

15. The proposal does not grant approval for any outdoor seating along the Church Street frontage. Any outdoor seating within Church Street requires further approval of Council.

Reason: To ensure compliance with this consent.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is known as No. 215 – 217 Church Street Parramatta (Lot E DP 15013). The site is located on the western side of Church Street between Macquarie and George Streets within the Parramatta CBD. The site has an area of 1068sqm. The site is within the portion of Church Street that has recently re-opened to vehicular traffic. A 3.05sqm right of way is provided at the north east corner providing vehicular access to Marsden Street.

2. The site is currently occupied by a part one, two and three storey Inter-War Stripped Classical sandstone bank building which is heritage listed. The surrounding area is characterised by commercial buildings. Approval has been granted at the adjoining site at 211 – 213 Church Street for the use as a Hotel. The current application is for the use of the two storey building directly fronting onto Church Street. The remaining tenancies are currently unoccupied.

PROPOSAL

3. Approval is sought for the following:

3.1 Occupation of the existing Heritage Listed building for use as a Hotel;

3.2 The proposed hours of operation are 11:00am to 11:00pm Monday to Wednesday. 11:00am to 3:00am Thursday to Saturday and 11:00am to 10:00pm Sunday

3.3 The proposed Hotel includes a main bar/lounge, area available for 16 gaming machines, kitchen, bathrooms, store room on the ground floor and a bar/lounge with dance floor, bathrooms, office, store room and plant room on the first floor

3.4 The existing first floor balcony will be utilised for outdoor seating

3.5 The proposed Restaurant and Bar proposes to have a maximum of 200 patrons

3.6 The proposed Restaurant and Bar will cater for lunch and dinner as well as for privately booked functions

3.7 The proposal seeks approval for use of a DJ nightly from 7:00pm

3.8 It is also noted that the applicant will be seeking a “Hoteliers licence” from the NSW Liquor Administration Board.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan

4. The site is zoned Retail Core under the provisions of SREP 28. Hotels are permissible development within this zone. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone which encourage Parramatta’s role and growth as a focus within the greater Metropolitan Region for finance, commerce, tourism, cultural activities, entertainment and government services.

City Centre Local Environmental Plan – Parramatta

5. The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use under the provisions of the City Centre Local Environmental Plan – Parramatta. Hotels are permissible development within this zone. The application was submitted on 25 May 2007. Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan Parramatta 2007 came into effect on 21 December 2007. Accordingly the LEP is a matter for consideration once the LEP was exhibited. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the mixed use zone which encourage tourism, leisure and recreation facilities.

City Centre Development Control Plan

6. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and controls of the City Centre Development Control Plan as the proposed use facilitates in the conservation and protection of the heritage item. In addition Church Street functions as a retail and civic spine which encourages a wide range of retail and entertainment options to assist in Parramatta’s economy.

CONSULTATION

7. The application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notification DCP between 14 May and 28 May 2007. One submission was received. The issues raised in the submission include:

Concerns are raised the premises provides no on site parking and has time limited parking adjacent on Church Street

8. A Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Hyder Consulting has been submitted with the application. The report states “there will be a reduction in traffic in comparison to the current use of the site for fashion retail. There is no off street parking provided by the site. However a large percentage of patrons are expected not to arrive by car, particularly during the periods of the day when parking spaces are in high demand. In summary, therefore, as the retail facility traffic generation and parking requirements, are greater that for the bar restaurant, and that there are currently no parking spaces on site, it is reasonable that this existing situation remains unchanged with no additional parking required.”

Concerns are raised the pedestrian areas surrounding the Hotel are alcohol free zones

9. The pedestrian areas adjacent to the premises on Church Street as designated Alcohol free zones until 11 April 2010. All alcohol is required to be consumed within the premises, therefore complying with this requirement. Hotel staff will be in place to assist in the monitoring of patrons entering and exiting the premises to ensure alcohol does not exit the premises. No objections are raised to the location of the Hotel and its proximity to the Alcohol free zones on Church Street.

Concerns are raised inadequate documentation has been submitted including the lack of an acoustic report, traffic and parking study, plan and management.

10. A request for additional information was sent to the applicant on 24 July 2007 requesting the submission of a traffic and parking study, plan of management and an acoustic report. These documents have been submitted and are considered satisfactory.

Concerns are raised the proposed Hotel will have an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the premises.

11. The former Bank Building is listed as an Item of State Significance in Schedule 5 of LEP Parramatta 2007. The application has been referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor and NSW Heritage Office for comments, whom both raised no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions enabling all works carried out to be of a reversible nature should the use cease. It is not considered the propose use will impact upon the heritage significance of the building.

Concerns are raised the premises does not have sufficient loading / unloading facilities

12. The site has provision of a 3.05 metre right of way to Marsden Street which provides access to the loading / unloading area. It is considered the proposed arrangements are satisfactory. All deliveries will be made utilising the right of way. The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Environment and Health officers who have raised no objections to the arrangements.

Concerns are raised regarding the limited disabled access to the first floor.

13. The proposal complies with the Building Code of Australia with regards to disabled access. The subject building is a Heritage item; as such a lift can not be installed without significant impacts to the Heritage fabric of the building. To provide access to the first floor the applicant proposes to install a chair lift which will allow the less mobile access to the first floor.

ISSUES

Heritage

14. The site is listed as an item of state heritage significance under SREP 28 - Parramatta. The site is significant as it demonstrates the commercial role of Parramatta in the twentieth century and the site possesses potential to contribute to an understanding of early urban development in Parramatta.

15. A Heritage Impact Statement has been prepared by Wayne McPhee and Associates and submitted with the development application. The report concludes:

“the proposed change of use from retail outlet to liquor sale and public bar is assessed as having minimal effect on the heritage value of the property. Minor alterations and additions are proposed as part of the change of use and include interior work and modifications to the Church Street façade including new in-context doors and a 2.1 metre wide balcony with in-context balustrade. This work is considered low impact. The modification works, if reversible and executed in a manner which minimises fabric change, will augment the Inter-War Free Classical style of the building. As no excavation works are proposed not necessary, the potential for archaeological disturbances are nil”.

16. Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the proposal and has raised no objections to the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the protection of the existing heritage fabric. In addition, it is noted that the NSW Heritage Office raises no objections to the proposed alterations and additions and occupation of the building. Accordingly no objections are raised on heritage grounds.

Acoustic

17. A Noise Assessment Report prepared by Far West Consulting Engineers has been submitted with the application. The report concludes:

“The noise measurements and assessment results carried out for the ambient background noise for the commercial zone; indicated that the measured existing noise levels are lower than the acceptable noise levels of 65 dBA. The proposed development will not have likely noise impacts on the environment and will not be out of the existing ambient noise levels of the area”.

18. Council at its meeting 29 October 2007 resolved: “That future development applications for bars, hotels, nightclubs, and other licensed premises have noise controls imposed at a suitable decibel limit for the site, rather than limiting live music specifically”. The submitted acoustic report demonstrates the predicted noise emission form the proposal shall not exceed 63dBA. To assist in protecting the amenity of the area windows shall be provided with an acoustic seal and an Rw not less than 35, and an indoor music system which shall not exceed 85dBA.

19. Given the location of the site, being within the Parramatta CBD and that the site is surrounded by commercial premises including an approved hotel at 211 - 213 Church Street, it is considered the proposed use as a Hotel will not result in any adverse impacts on the surrounding properties. It is considered two similar uses adjoining will integrate and compliment each other and lead to revitalising this area of Church Street particularly after hours. Accordingly, no objections are raised to the proposal on acoustic grounds.

Car parking

20. SREP 28 encourages the use of public transport within the Parramatta CBD, as such a maximum car parking rate is imposed. Under the provisions of SREP 28 the proposed use would require a maximum 12 car parking spaces. No on-site car parking is provided on the site.

21. It is considered that despite no on-site provision of car parking, the proposal achieves compliance with the objectives of the SREP 28, which encourages public transport to become the most important and efficient means of moving people to and within the Parramatta City Centre.

22. Due to the location of the site, and its close proximity to public transport as well as car parking stations, it is considered adequate levels of car parking is provided within the CBD to accommodate the proposed Hotel. Accordingly no objections are raised on car parking grounds.

NSW Police

23. Comments were sought from NSW Police (Licensing Department) in regard to potential social and alcohol impacts. The NSW Police advised:

“They have no objection and have no matters to raise in respect to the subject Development Application”.

Hours of operation

24. The applicant seeks approval for operating hours from 11:00am to 11:00pm Monday to Wednesday, 11:00am to 3:00am Thursday to Saturday and 11:00am to 10:00pm Sunday to allow for lunch and dinner with evening entertainment via a DJ arrangement. It is considered the proposed hours are appropriate. The site is located within the centre of the Parramatta CBD, adjoining existing commercial premises. The immediate locality is not surrounded by residential dwellings. The proposed hours of operation are consistent with the hours for similar premises.

25. It is considered the hours of operation are appropriate in this instance as the proposed use will enhance and vitalise the CBD area of Parramatta and provide for the daily needs of workers, visitors and residents.

Social Impacts

26. The applicant seeks approval for an area which is to accommodate 16 poker machines. Council is not the consent authority for gaming machines and the applicant will be required to obtain all necessary licences from the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing (OLGR). As part of that application process the applicant will be required to provide a social impact report which will be referred to Council by the Liquor Administration Board (LAB) for comment.

27. The applicant has submitted a Management and Security Plan which identifies the premises will be conducted in accordance with New South Wales Liquor and Gaming Industry Code of Practice. This includes the provision on site of signage for responsible use and serving of alcohol and use of gaming machines. In addition the Plan demonstrates how the premises will assist to minimise any anti social behaviour including the use of security personnel to prevent loitering once patrons leave the premises. It is not considered approval of this premises will lead to an increase in anti social behaviour and approval of the premises is recommended.

Sara Matthews

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Plans and Elevations	5 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Heritage Inventory	1 Page
4View	History of Development Application	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council	14 April 2008

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 10.11

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

DESCRIPTION Section 96(1A) modification to an existing restaurant to install under awning heating devices to an outdoor dining area.

REFERENCE DA/623/2006/A - Submitted 22 October 2007

APPLICANT/S Mr F Criniti

OWNERS Parramatta City Council

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

1. To determine an application under Section 96(1A) to modify Development Consent No.623/2006. The modifications include the installation of under awning heating devices to the outdoor dining area.

2. The application has been referred to Council as the site contains a building listed within Schedule 5 Environmental Heritage of Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council modify Development Consent No. 623/2006 in the following manner;

1. Condition 1 is to be amended to read as follows:

1. The development is to be carried out in accordance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:

Document	Dated
Plans 1 to 11 Job No. 27328
Drawing 1/2 Site/floor plan prepared by idraft plans Pty Ltd	17 October 2007
Drawing 2/2 Church Street elevation prepared by idraft plans Pty Ltd	17 October 2007

No construction works (including excavation) shall be undertaken prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

Reason: To ensure the work is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

2. The following conditions are to be added to the development consent:

32. The two under awning gas heaters are to be connected to a removable gas cylinder, which is to be located within the existing outdoor dining area and is to be removed from public land and appropriately stored when not in use. Details are to be submitted to the PCA prior to the issue of the amended construction certificate.

Reason: To comply with the Outdoor Dining Policy 2006

33. Details of the type, location and design of all heating devices are to be submitted to the PCA prior to the issue of the amended Construction Certificate.

Reason: To comply with the Outdoor Dining Policy 2006

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site is known as 289–291 Church Street, Parramatta. The site is located on the western side of Church Street with a frontage of approximately 10.4m to Church Street. The immediate area is characterised by shops, restaurants and a car park.

BACKGROUND

2. DA/623/2006 was determined by way of approval on 26 October 2006 for alterations and additions to 2 existing restaurants to create 1 tenancy that will be used as a 184 seat restaurant. Outdoor dining formed part of this approval.

PROPOSAL

3. Consent is sought to modify Development Consent DA/623/2006 dated 26 October 2006. The modifications to install under awning heating devices to the outdoor dining area include:

3.1 installation of 2 dual lights pointing up into the umbrella

3.2 installation of 8 electric heaters attached to the underside of the

existing umbrellas

3.3 installation of 2 fixed under awning gas heaters connected to the gas

mains

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

4. Section 96 of the EP&A Act allows applicants to make an application to modify a development consent issued by Council. It also states that a consent authority must be satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for consent was originally granted.

5. The proposed modifications will result in substantially the same development as that originally approved and can be dealt with pursuant to S96 of the Act.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 28 (Parramatta)

6. At the time this DA was lodged, the site was zoned Retail Core Zone (City Centre Precinct) and the proposal is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone.

City Centre LEP 2007

7. Since lodgement of this application, the site has been rezoned to Mixed Use B4 and the proposal remains permissible with the consent of Council. The application was submitted on 22 October 2007. Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 was gazetted on 21 December 2007 the plan contains a savings provision in Clause 8 which states that if a development application has been made before the commencement of the plan and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement the application is to be determined as if this plan had been exhibited but had not commenced. The proposal is consistent with Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan.

8. The building is listed as an item of local heritage significance in Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the LEP.

City Centre Development Control Plan

9. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and controls of the City Centre Development Control Plan.

CONSULTATION

10. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP the proposal was notified between 23 November 2007 and 7 December 2007. No submissions were received.

ISSUES

Heritage

11. The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment as the site contains a Heritage Item listed in Schedule 5 Environmental Heritage of Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007. Council’s Heritage Advisor provided the following comment:

‘…having reviewed the application, I am of opinion that it will have an acceptable impact on the heritage values of the place.’

OUTDOOR DINING POLICY

12. The development application was referred to Council’s Strategic Asset Management Unit for assessment as the outdoor dining area is located on Council property. Council’s Property Manager - Leasing has made the following comments:

‘The Outdoor Dining Policy does NOT allow for Gas heaters to be connected to the Gas mains, therefore the possibility of connecting the Gas Heaters to bottles and not the Gas mains would suitably satisfy the policy.’

13. It is proposed to connect the 2 under awning heaters to the gas mains however the Outdoor Dining Policy states direct access to the gas mains and use of electrical extension cords are not permitted. Accordingly, subject to the extraordinary conditions as previously discussed in regards to connecting the heaters to a removable gas bottle, there are no objections to the proposal.

Nicholas Clarke

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Application History	1 Page
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevation	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council	14 April 2008

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 10.12

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

DESCRIPTION Development Application No. 713/2007 that seeks approval for the demolition of a two storey hostel (hospital) and construction of a new three storey hostel in two separate buildings.

REFERENCE DA/713/2007 - Submitted 6 September 2007

APPLICANT/S Resitech (Department of Housing)

OWNERS NSW Land & Housing Corporation

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 713/2007 that seeks approval for the demolition of a two storey hostel and construction of a new three storey hostel in two detached buildings.

The application is referred to Council due the number of objections received.

The development application is a Crown application and is subject to the provisions of Part 5A (Development by the Crown) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That, subject to the written approval of the Department of Housing or the Minister and in accordance with Part 116C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the application be approved subject to standard, and the following extraordinary, conditions:

1. Cameras (CCTV) are to be installed allowing a view of all entry and exit points from both buildings and the carparking area. The cameras are to monitor activities 24 hours per day and digital technology shall be utilised. The control area shall be strategically placed within the building in order to maximise surveillance opportunities. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the Surveillance and Privacy Act are adhered to.

Reason: For safety purposes and crime deterrence.

2. Security access or swipe cards are to be used for all secure areas within the premises.

Reason: For the safety of staff.

3. A monitored intruder alarm system shall be installed upon the premises and shall be designed to the Australian Standard (Domestic & Commercial Alarm Systems). Movement detection devices (with lights) shall be strategically located around the premises.

Reason: To enhance safety.

4. All lighting on the site shall be designed to ensure no adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential area by light overspill. Lighting shall comply with Australian Standard 4282-1997: Control of the Intrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.

Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

5. The design of the facility must permit effective, appropriate, safe and dignified use by all people, including those with disabilities and must be in accordance with:

- NSW Health Facility Guidelines, in particular Part B – Design for Access, Mobility, OH&S and Security.

- DDS32 Improved Access for Health Care Facilities.

- AS1428

- The Building Code of Australia

- Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992

- NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

Reason: To ensure equity.

6. An operational management plan in one complete document shall be submitted prior to the use commencing and submitted to Council to form part of this consent, addressing such matters as:

- minimisation of anti-social behaviour

- visitor and staff safety

- site security

- noise management

- lighting

- procedures when the premises is fully occupied

- fire safety

Reason: To promote the safety for residents, visitors and staff.

7. At any time, the hostel is limited to a maximum of 48 adults (some flexibility should be provided for accompanied children sharing rooms with parents/guardians) for accommodation purposes.

Reason: To comply with the terms of this consent.

8. A notice is to be permanently affixed in a public location that is readable from a public footpath, specifying a 24 hours contact telephone number of the manager/ supervisor on duty.

Reason: To advise the public of an appropriate contact number in the event of an incident.

9. The existing footpath adjacent to the site in Fleet Street shall be extended to the gap in the stone wall in Fleet Street at no cost to Council, but in accordance with Council’s specifications. No structures are to be erected on the land between the site’s western boundary and the heritage-listed stone wall, nor between the northern boundary and the same wall in Albert Street without the prior approval of Council and owner’s consent being obtained.

Reason: To improve pedestrian access.

10. The BBQ area and courtyard located adjacent to the southern boundary of the site shall be limited in use to the ours of 7.00am – 7.00pm daily (8.00pm during daylight savings time).

Reason: In order to avoid impact on the amenity of adjoining residents.

11. Delivery vehicles using the service driveway shall be restricted to the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm, Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays.

Reason: In order to avoid impact on the amenity of adjoining residents.

12. The service driveway shall have a lockable gate in order to restrict access to this area to staff and contractors only. Details to be submitted to Council prior to work commencing.

Reason: For safety and to avoid adverse impacts on adjoining residents.

(b) That the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.

SITE AND LOCALITY

1. The subject site is known as No. 2B Fleet Street, North Parramatta (Lot 1 in DP 810533). The site is located on the corner of Fleet and Albert Streets, on the eastern side of Albert Street and comprises a two storey hostel in one building. The immediate area is characterised by residential development and health-care related facilities.

2. The site is located at the south-eastern corner of the intersection of Albert and Fleet Streets and has an area of approximately 2,790m².

3. The building sits within an institutional setting that has little visual appeal and is in need of modernisation.

BACKGROUND

4. There is no background of relevance to this proposal.

PROPOSAL

5. Approval is sought for the following works:

5.1 To demolish the existing two storey facility on the site

5.2 To construct 2 x 3 storey buildings

5.3 Building A (northernmost building adjacent to Albert Street) would be used predominantly for accommodation, containing 3 units on each floor (2 x 1 bedroom and 1 x 2 bedroom), with a total of 9 units and potential accommodation for 24 persons

5.3 Building B (to the south and adjacent to the nursing home), would contain the clinical, support, counselling, office and communal areas at ground floor level, with 2 levels of 12 bedrooms per floor above, each with single beds and with a total capacity for 24 persons. The upper floor of Building B would also provide communal areas and laundry facilities

5.4 A minimum of 5 staff will be in attendance on the premises at any time, with a day shift of 8 and evening/overnight shifts of 5 apiece (18 employed staff)

5.5 A 1.8 metres high colourbond perimeter fence to the side boundaries

5.6 Landscaping of the site and new fencing to the side boundaries.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

6. The site is zoned Special Uses 5 and the proposed hostel is permissible with the consent of Council (as a ‘hospital’ within the definition prescribed by the Dictionary to PLEP 2001) and subject to the objectives of the zone. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the Special Uses zone.

7. Parramatta LEP 2001 defines ‘Hospital’ as:

“means a building or place (other than an institution) used for providing professional health care services (such as preventative or convalescent care, diagnosis, medical or surgical treatment, care for people with developmental disabilities, psychiatric care or counselling and services provided by health care professionals) to people admitted as in-patients (whether or not out-patients are also cared for or treated there) and includes:

(a) ancillary facilities for the accommodation of nurses or other health care workers, ancillary shops or restaurants, and ancillary accommodation for persons receiving health care or for their visitors,

(b) facilities situated in the building or at the place and used for educational or research purposes, whether or not they are also used by hospital staff or health care workers, and whether or not any such use is a commercial use.”

8. The proposed use is not a hospital in the everyday or common use of the word. In this case the buildings will be used for two distinct but related purposes – the treatment and care for persons adversely affected by drugs, alcohol and domestic violence.

9. An ‘institution’ is defined by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Model Provisions 1980 as a “penal or reformative establishment.”

10. Having regard to the definition of hospital and the exclusion of the premises as an institution, it considered that the site will continue to be classified as a hospital, in particular that it will continue to:

- provide health care services

- provide counselling

- provide ancillary accommodation of a temporary nature

- provide recovery areas

- provide ancillary facilities for nursing staff, case workers and the on-site manager.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

11. The adjoining perimeter fence to Fleet Street (stone wall), and fully located on Council land, is listed as an item of local significance in LEP 1996. The wall continues down the length of the eastern side of Fleet Street. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the LEP.

12. The description and significance of the heritage item is described in the inventory form within Attachment 1.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

13. The provisions of Parramatta DCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the DCP.

CONSULTATION

14. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 26 September and 17 October 2007. Seven submissions have been received. In addition, the NSW Police provided some input into possible conditions of consent.

15. The matters raised in the submissions are outlined below:

Safety and security

16. The objectors have raised concerns in relation to the character of the building occupants and visitors, especially in respect of safety, drugs, alcohol and loitering.

17. This is part of a broader social concern that is not limited to persons associated with hostels. The facility is permissible within most zones throughout the Parramatta City LGA. In this regard, it would be difficult to provide a location where the negative perception raised by surrounding property owners and occupiers is not an issue.

18. The premises is to accommodate persons requiring specialist levels of care and counselling, often people with intellectual disabilities or dependencies, as well as women and children who have been victims of domestic violence. Trained staff would assist in managing the behaviour of occupants of the facility. The difficulty (in terms of what Council may be able to do under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979) arises in what goes on outside of the site, on adjoining land and in surrounding streets.

19. The NSW Police are aware of the use of the site as well as the current proposal. It makes a number of recommendations and notes that increasing the availability of accommodation on th site will reduce the incidence of loitering. The comments of the NSW Police are outlined below.

19.1 “A benefit of the development is a higher capacity for accommodation and social services for at-risk persons. The referral/accommodation of women, couples and families are beneficial as crisis accommodation services for families are lacking within the Parramatta area.

19.2 Currently, the use of the hostel is temporary accommodation for intoxicated males, when beds are available. Intoxicated females are required to be conveyed to Sydney where facilities are available. The development would see 6 beds from 8.00pm onwards allocated for intoxicated persons, both male and female.

19.3 In relation to the security of the facility, it is noted that Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) will be present throughout the facility. Details of the CCTV placement is not elaborated upon, therefore it is recommended that CCTV is installed at all entry and exit points of each block and carpark. Furthermore, quality locks should be installed to all external doors, balconies and windows to assist in preventing possible break and enter incidents.

19.4 If cash is handled and stored on-site, a safe is recommended for safe keeping. Security combination codes or swipe card access should be installed to doors leading into secure areas.

19.5 It is noted that the perimeter of the hostel is clearly defined by a stone wall at the front, a 1.8 metres high colourbond fence along the sides and a natural cliff at the rear. These may assist in reducing trespass incidents. Due to the large trees lining Fleet Street, lighting is relatively poor during hours of darkness. Appropriate lighting should be installed through the exterior of the facility.”

20. Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation, dealing with matters relating to public safety and general security.

Lack of parking

21. The site is located in the Northern Precinct under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 28 (Parramatta). The following table outlines the maximum requirement for hostels and nursing homes prescribed by Clause 57 of the REP (‘Hostel’ being is the closest definition within the REP, as the REP does not prescribe a requirement for hospitals), as well as the number proposed by the applicant.

*Parking*	*Maximum rate*	*Proposal*	*Comments*
Patients/clients	1 space per 10 beds	36 beds = max 3.6 spaces	Satisfactory
Employees	1 space per 2 employees	18 employees = 9 spaces	Satisfactory
Ambulance	Space to be provided in suitable location	Space to be dedicated by way of condition of consent.	Satisfactory
Total	Max 13 + ambulance	12.6 (say 13) + turning bay area to be utilised as an ambulance bay	Complies with the maximum requirements of the REP

22. The anticipated additional vehicle movements throughout the day will not have a significant impact on traffic movements nor parking within the area.

23. It is considered the proposal achieves compliance with the objectives of SREP 28 (Parramatta) and provides sufficient parking on-site to cater for the needs of residents, staff and visitors.

The provision of a footpath is required in front of the property

24. The submitted plans depict a footpath for the full length of the property on the existing nature strip of Fleet Street. A condition will be prepared seeking such work to be to Council’s specifications and to no cost to Council.

Overshadowing

25. Concerns are raised that the proposal will result in unacceptable levels of solar access to the courtyard of the nursing home to the south of the site.

26. The application was accompanied by shadow diagrams which demonstrate that there would be some overshadowing of the nursing home to the south of the site during various stages of the day at a varying extent depending on the time of day and year. The shadow diagrams identify overshadowing of the private open space of the nursing home will occur during morning hours. It is considered that the levels of solar access to adjoining properties, including the courtyard of the adjoining nursing home, is acceptable and the extent of overshadowing is not sufficient to warrant refusal or further modification of the proposal and parts of the nursing home’s courtyard area will receive greater than 3 hours sunlight even at the winter solstice. This courtyard extends approximately 9.5 metres into the site and Block B (three storeys) on the development site would have a setback of six metres from the southern boundary.

Screening between the site and the nursing home

27. Concern has been raised by the adjoining nursing home that the screening of the development needs to be undertaken utilising fully-grown species.

28. The objector claims that the trees and shrubs proposed to be planted are represented to depict fully grown specimens. The plans depict the dimensions of the vegetation at mature height, but do not suggest that they will be planted at that stage of development. No objection is raised to the planting of mature specimens in this location, capable of growing to a height in accordance with the landscape schedule.

29. It is proposed to plant 8 native trees and 24 shrubs adjacent to the southern boundary. In combination with the existing Lilly Pilly trees on th adjoining site, this is considered to be a sufficient visual buffer between the nursing home and the hostel.

Noise & anti-social behaviour

30. The objector is also concerned about possible anti-social behaviour and associated noise in this part of the site as well.

31. This part of the site will be used as a service driveway and garbage storage area, with a small BBQ area and courtyard to the east, partially perpendicular to the nursing home courtyard.

32. The service driveway will be infrequently used and therefore will create an unreasonable amenity impact on the adjoining nursing home. The BBQ area and courtyard in this location shall be limited in use to hours of 7.00am to 7.00pm (8.00pm during daylight savings), so as not to impact on the amenity of elderly residents next door.

33. Delivery vehicles using the service driveway shall be restricted to the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm, Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays and the area shall be restricted to access by staff and contractors only by way of a lockable gate.

No notification was received by Marian Nursing Home

34. According to Council’s records, a letter was sent to the Marian Nursing Home at 2A Fleet Street, North Parramatta, by way of letter dated 25 September 2007.

ON SITE MEETING

35. Council, at its meeting of 9 July 2007, resolved that all applications with 5 or more submissions be subject to a site inspection prior to them being determined at a Regulatory meeting.

36. In accordance with the above resolution, an on-site meeting was held on Tuesday 19 February 2008 at 6.00pm.

37. Present at the meeting were Clr Chris Worthington (chairman), Clr Paul Barber and Clr Maureen Walsh, approximately 13 residents, 9 representatives of the applicant and Council’s Team Leader Development Assessment. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

Parking

38. Objectors expressed concerns that this development will lead to an increase in parking along local streets having regards to the number of clients and staff on the premises. It was suggested that parking in the area was difficult at times and that there are issues associated with people parking vehicles for extended periods of time in the adjoining Department of Health site.

39. The applicant advised that 13 parking spaces were being provided within the basement carpark on site and that based on their experience with operating the current hostel, very few of the clients owned cars and that at shift change over time, around 7 staff vehicles would likely be parked within the basement.

Social Issues

40. Objectors raised concerns that increasing the number of residents on the site was likely to result in an increase in anti-social behaviour in the area. Residents advised that they currently experience significant problems with occupants that use nearby properties to drink, take drugs, leave needles, rubbish in the vicinity of their properties and so forth. Residents advised that they have been threatened and often have to call the police.

41. Residents requested that the pedestrian pathway that currently provides access to Fleet Street from to Albert Street to Fleet Street be closed. This would compartmentalise anti-social behaviour to along non-residential properties.

42. The issue of closure of this laneway is not directly related to this development application. However, the Lord Mayor’s Office is currently organising a meeting with Council’s Community Development Officers, Council’s Organisation Liaison Officers, interested Councillors and interested residents to discuss issues with the laneway and the precinct. Residents will be informed of the timing of this meeting in due course.

Footpath

43. Residents raised concern that the footpath along Fleet Street does not run along the entire length of the property frontage.

44. The applicant has submitted plans that indicate that as part of this application they would be prepared to construct a footpath along the entire frontage of the site. This footpath would connect to the pathway that is the extension of Albert Street.

Rubbish

45. Concern was raised about the amount of rubbish including needles and bottles discarded within the laneway and grass verge of Albert Street adjacent to the entrance to the laneway.

46. CRMs No. 376608, 376616 and 376618 have been created to organise for the rubbish to be removed, lawn to be mowed and street light to be fixed.

Bulk and Scale – loss of skylight views

47. The manager of the adjoining retirement complex at 2A Fleet Street raised concern that this development will be bulky and out of scale with current developments, resulting in overshadowing and loss of sky views from the building and the external courtyard.

48. The proposal provides an appropriate and consistent street edge to Albert Street and the scale and bulk of the development is not considered to be out of character with the scale and bulk of development in the locality.

49. The buildings between the adjoining lots (the nursing home and the proposed building) are sufficiently distant from each other (approximately 9 metres), such that this issue is not of significant concern in the assessment of the proposal.

Cats

50. It was advised that occupants of the site feed up to 50 feral cats in the area, causing them to congregate in the area. Residents asked whether Council could collect the cats.

51. Residents were advised that Council does not have the resources to collect cats.

52. Under the Companion Animals Act 1998, cats are known to have no boundaries and free to roam. It is because of this freedom that Parramatta City Council is unable to pick up ‘stray’ cats as often times it is very difficult to determine a stray from a domesticated pet.

53. Accordingly, residents are advised to hire and set a trap to humanely catch the stray cats. There are various commercial institutions that hire out such traps, but residents must be sure not to capture someone’s domesticated cat. If you catch what you believe to be a stray/feral cat it must be taken and surrendered to the nearest Animal Holding Facility for evaluation.

Complaints Hotline

54. Residents asked whether a complaint hotline could be set up to allow nearby residents to call the centre should there be any issues with clients of the centre. The manager from the adjoining Department of Health site indicated that they had a complaints register that recorded any feedback received in regards to the operation of their complex.

55. A condition of consent (subject to the approval of the Minister) requires that a sign visible from a public place be erected on the site providing a contact number for the supervisor on duty.

Security Patrols

56. Concern was raised that given issues in the past with clients of the premises that security patrols are needed in the area to mitigate anti-social behaviour. It was indicated that the Department of Health Complex has a security guard on site at various times

57. The applicant indicated that the services provided on site are provided for the Department of Community Services and that it costs Parramatta Mission an additional $1,000,000 to run the facility annually. The applicant is advised that should additional costs be imposed on the operation, DOCS would need to be lobbied to provide additional funds.

58. Councillors also advised that Council’s Rangers are unable to act as security guards.

Laneway

59. In addition to from the concern that the laneway provides inappropriate access to residential properties in Albert Street, residents also raised concern about the state of the laneway including whether the steps are safe to use, one of the street lights within the laneway does not work and the rubbish in the area.

60. To look at all issues associated with the laneway, including the possibility of it being closed, maintenance works and so on, Councillors requested that a meeting be arranged between Council’s Community Development Officers, Council’s Organisation Liaison Officers, interested Councillors and interested residents to discuss issues with the laneway and the precinct. The Lord Mayor’s Executive Assistant is organising this meeting.

ISSUES

Landscaping

61. Council’s Landscape Officer has assessed the proposal and found it to be satisfactory, providing the following comments:

61.1 “The proposed tree removal involves trees which are self-seeded, one near the front north-western corner and one adjoining the northern boundary. These trees have settled in inappropriate locations and should not be retained. I support the removal of these trees.

61.2 Other trees, proposed to be removed are one Brachychiton acerifolius (Illawarra Flame Tree) and one Brachychiton populneus (Kurrajong) located at the front south-western boundary. These trees have considerable contribution to the ecology of the site and wider area, but are in severe decline. I support the removal of these trees, if replacement planting of same species is undertaken.

61.3 Tree Protection Zones at canopy drip lines should be installed and any work proposed within these zones should be supervised by a qualified arborist.

61.4 The design is appropriate and will enhance the landscape character of the site. The submitted plan should be approved.”

62. Standard conditions are included in the recommendation.

Urban Design

63. The proposal was referred to Council’s Urban Designer who provided the following comments.

64. “The proposal provides a consistent street edge to Albert Street. This would strengthen this connection and provide an 'active frontage' to the open space and lane. The proposed orientation also reduces the potential perceived bulk and scale when viewed from Fleet St. If it were orientated the other way, the building could potentially dominate the corner/entry to the Cumberland Hospital. In addition, this orientation allows more rooms to gain light/solar access with north facing rooms.”

Engineering

65. The proposal was referred to Council’s Engineer for assessment in relation to stormwater, the driveway and the proposed footpath. No objections were raised, subject to standard conditions in relation to the on-site detention and re-use of stormwater, the location of the driveway and the construction of the new footpath.

Non-compliances

66. As the development falls upon land zoned Special Uses, there are no numerical controls prescribed by Parramatta LEP 2001, nor development controls under Parramatta DCP 2005. The proposal complies with the maximum carparking rate prescribed by SREP 28.

Works on Council land

67. That area between the heritage–listed stone wall and the site’s western boundary (a distance of 6.4 metres) is Council land.

68. Most of the works proposed to be undertaken in this area include an extended footpath, landscaping and the provision of benches. No objection is raised to the provision of these improvements, provided that public access is improved to enable access adjacent to the site as far as Fleet Street. No structures are to be erected on Council land without the prior approval of Council and owner’s consent being issued.

The public interest

69. The proposed development will fulfil a real community need by implementing a desirable and worthwhile support and temporary/crisis housing programme that it will have little or no negative social impact.

70. The facility is replacing an ageing structure that offers poor facilities for visitors and staff and does not contribute to the qualities of the streetscape. The new facilities will improve site conditions, as well as reducing the likelihood of loitering in the vicinity of the site (by being able to cater for a greater number).

71. The proposal is in the public interest.

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Plans and Elevations	8 Pages
3View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	2 Pages
4View	History of Development Application	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council	14 April 2008

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 10.13

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

DESCRIPTION Erection of 4 floodlight towers and use of park for sports training seven days a week until 10.00pm.

REFERENCE DA/490/2007 - Submitted 28 June 2007

APPLICANT/S Parramatta City Council

OWNERS Parramatta City Council

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 490/2007 that seeks approval to erect 4 floodlight towers and the associated use of the park for sports training and operation of the floodlights till 10pm, seven days a week.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 490/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following specific conditions.

Hours of Use

1. Sports training at the park shall cease by 9.00pm Monday to Saturday and by 8.00pm on Sundays and Public Holidays. The sports fields are not to be utilised for competition games under floodlighting.

Hours of Operation of Lighting

2. The floodlighting of the sports fields is to be turned off by no later than 9.00pm Monday to Saturday and by 8.00pm on Sundays and Public Holidays. The floodlighting is not to be used during daylight. The floodlighting is not to be turned on unless the sports fields are intended to be used that same day and is to be switched off as soon as the use is completed.

The lights are to be turned on by an automatic timing system controlled by Council staff, with lights turned off by users or Council staff and an automatic timing system is to be installed preventing use beyond the approved hours of use.

Car Parking

3. The car parking area accessed off McCoy Street is to be open and available for use by users of the park at all times of operation of the floodlighting.

Complaints Handling Procedure

4. A complaints handling procedure is to be prepared and provided to Council for approval prior to the first use of the floodlighting. The complaints handling procedure is to detail the process for handling complaints related to the extended hours of use of the park under floodlighting, including but not limited to nuisance from lighting, noise and patron behaviour. Details are to include:

4.1 a manned contact phone number for complaints;

4.2 specified timeframes for response to complaints;

4.3 appropriate methods of response (i.e. written or verbal); and

4.4 measures that may be used in response to complaints (such as the number of warnings given to organizations against which numerous complaints are received and likely penalties including banning use by the organization and/or limitations on the hours of use by such organisations).

4.5 A copy of the complaints handling procedure is to be provided to all organisations using the park under floodlighting. A letter summarizing the procedure and providing the contact number is to be sent to all residents notified of the development application prior to the commencement of the use of the park under floodlighting.

Flood Proofing the Lighting Tower Equipment

5. All electrical wiring and accessories related to the lighting poles are to be provided above 28.15m AHD. All underground cable/duck or similar are to be flood proofed. Details are to be provided prior to the commencement of works.

Specification of Lighting

6. The flood lighting to be installed is to be in compliance with the lighting design and report detailed in the letter dated 6 February 2006 by Sylvania Lighting Australasia. Details are to be provided prior to the commencement of works.

PROPOSAL

1. The development application seeks approval for the erection of four 28m high floodlighting towers. Two towers are to be erected on the western side of the playing fields and two are proposed on the eastern side of the fields. Each pole is to support 3 x 2kw luminaries.

2. The lighting is proposed to extend the hours of use of the playing fields until 10pm seven days a week by sporting bodies and groups for training.

3. Additional information sought from the applicant indicates that the users will be different sporting organizations for training, but predominantly for soccer training.

4. It is advised that the lights are to be on a timing system controlled by Council remotely and that hirers will have access to turn off the lights only by using a sms message (if they are regular users), but otherwise the settings will be made by Council staff.

SITE & LOCALITY

5. The site is known as McCoy Park, 26 Mimosa Avenue, Toongabbie, being Lots 17-20 in DP 8408, Part Portion 144 and Lot A in DP 29128 and is located to the north of the residential area including Edna Avenue, Highland Avenue, Paris Place, Mimosa Avenue and Woodlawn Drive. The park has vehicular access from McCoy Street through a driveway to an unmarked parking area. Pedestrian access is also available from the end of McCoy Street, the end of Edna Avenue and via a walkway between dwellings at the end of Highland Avenue.

6. The portion of the park involved in the proposal is the western end, which contains the abovementioned driveway and parking area, child play equipment, a facilities building and two sports fields, which are currently setup for soccer, with goal posts at each end.

7. The park is only adjoined by residential properties on the southern side. In particular the sports fields are adjoined by dwellings in Paris Place, Highland Avenue and Edna Avenue, with the car park adjoining residents in Edna Avenue. The surrounding residential development contains a mix of one and two storey detached dwellings, which back onto the park.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

8. The site is zoned Public Open Space 6(a) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The existing sports fields and any ancillary works such as the proposed lighting are defined as a recreation facility under the definition section of the LEP and are permissible uses with the consent of Council. It is also noted that any development in accordance with a plan of management (POM) adopted under the Local Government Act 1993 is also permissible subject to consent. The relevant POM is addressed later in this report.

9. The proposed installation of floodlighting and extended hours of use of the park is consistent with the objectives of the zone, which include allowing for the use of land for open space and recreational purposes.

10. The site is located on flood prone land and as such the provisions of clause 21 apply, which require the consent authority not to grant consent to the carrying out of works if the proposal would:

10.1 be inconsistent with any Council interim flood policy, floodplain management policy, development control plan or floodplain management plan or the Floodplain Development Manual; or

10.2 detrimentally increase the potential flood impact on other development; or

10.3 result in a substantial increase in risk to life; or

10.4 result in additional economic/social cost which could not be reasonably managed; or

10.5 adversely affect the environment of the floodplain.

11. Comments provided by Council’s Infrastructure and Drainage Engineers, who indicated the proposal is satisfactory subject to wiring being appropriately located and treated. As such the proposal satisfies the requirements of clause 21.

12. The provisions of clause 46 apply to all development in the Public Open Space 6(a) zone. Clause 46 requires that consent shall not be granted to development unless consideration has been made as to whether the development is consistent with any plan of management applying to the site. The relevant plan of management is addressed later in this report.

13. Further, clause 46 requires Council to take the following into consideration:

13.1 the need for the proposed development on that land,

14. The proposed lighting towers will allow for the extended use of the sports fields, increasing the usability of the fields and better providing for recreation opportunities in the area. The more efficient use of recreation facilities is needed given the increasing demand for such facilities in the area.

14.1 whether the impact of the proposed development will be detrimental to the existing or future use of the land,

15. The impact of the proposal will be to allow for more efficient and extended hours of use of the sports field, which is not detrimental to the existing and future use of the site for recreation purposes.

15.1 whether the proposed development will be secondary and complementary to the use of the land for recreation,

16. The proposed lighting towers are secondary and complementary to the use of the land for recreation, making the use more efficient by extending the hours during which the sports fields can be used.

16.1 whether the height and bulk of any proposed building or structure has regard to existing vegetation and topography,

17. The site is very flat and there is little vegetation in the vicinity of the sports fields. Whilst the lighting towers proposed are very high (ie 28m), they are very narrow and as such will not result in an unacceptable visual bulk or appearance.

17.1 in the case of public open space, whether the proposed development will significantly diminish public use and access to public open space,

18. The installation of lighting poles will increase the public use and access to the public open space by allowing for access and use for a longer period of time each day.

s18.1 whether the proposal is compatible with adjacent uses in relation to its height, bulk and noise generation and any other aspects that might conflict with surrounding land uses,

19. The narrow design of the lighting towers, despite their height, will ensure that there is minimal shadowing from the structures and their separation distance from the adjoining residential properties combined with their narrow design will ensure that shadow impacts are acceptable.

20. Another potential impact of the towers is intrusive light during the evening periods into the residential properties in Edna Avenue, Highland Avenue and Paris Place. A lighting diagram, prepared by Sylvania Lighting Australasia Pty Ltd indicates that the proposed lighting will comply with the relevant Australian Standard (AS 2560) in relation to the level of lighting at the nearby residential boundaries for pre-curfew hours until 10pm. Sylvania Lighting Australasia advise that pre-curfew hours are set by Council and as such would apply to the approved hours. Accordingly it is appropriate that the lighting not be used beyond the approved hours to ensure that the use of the lighting complies with the Australian Standard.

21. A further potential impact of the development upon the residential properties in Edna Avenue, Highland Avenue and Paris Place is loss of on-street parking in the evenings if the vehicular entrance to the car park from McCoy Street is not open for the extended hours of use. If the car park is closed it is likely that users of the sports fields will park in Edna Avenue, Highland Avenue and Paris Place as all of these streets give direct access to the sports fields. The use of these streets for parking by users of the sports fields would inappropriately impact on the amenity of those streets and as such a condition of consent is recommended requiring the vehicular access to the car park on the site to remain open for the duration of the use of the park under the floodlights.

22. A final potential impact of the development upon the residential properties in Edna Avenue, Highland Avenue and Paris Place is noise from the use of the sports fields and car park on the site. The extended hours of use proposed (to 10pm seven days a week) include times in which it is reasonable for the residents to expect to be able to quietly enjoy their homes.

23. Of particular concern is the use beyond 9pm on any evening or beyond 8pm on Sundays (being the day of the week on which noise is considered to be most intrusive). Given the potential for shouting, laughing and loud talking to occur due to the use of the sports fields and for noise from the use of the car park (shutting of doors, radio noise and noise from loud voices), it is considered likely that the amenity of the adjoining property owner’s will be disturbed during these extended hours. It is therefore recommended that a condition of consent limit use of the sports fields (and hence flood lighting) to no later than 9pm Mondays to Saturdays and 8pm on Sundays, with no floodlighting use in the mornings.

24. It is considered that subject to the imposition of the abovementioned conditions, the amenity of the adjoining residential area will be suitably protected.

24.1 whether the proposed development will impact on bushland and remnant bushland,

25. The site is used for sports fields and as such contains no bushland or remnant bushland on the portion of the site on which the lighting towers are proposed.

25.1 whether the proposed development will impact on stormwater flow.

26. The narrow design of the lighting towers is such that there would be minimal and acceptable impact on stormwater flow across the site.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

27. The DCP identifies general principles of development that apply to all types of development, the relevant ones of which are addressed following.

28. Section 4.1.1 deals with views and vistas and the design principles require that development preserve views of significance and reinforce public view corridors. Whilst the proposed lighting towers are tall (ie 28m), their slim design ensures that views from the adjoining residential areas and streets of the park are not significantly affected.

29. Section 4.3.3 deals with acoustic amenity and the relevant design principle requires that non-residential development is not to adversely affect the amenity of adjacent residential development as a result of noise and hours of operation. This issue has been addressed in relation to the controls contained within LEP 2001 at paragraphs 22-23 and is satisfactory subject to the imposition of conditions limiting the hours of use of the sporting fields under floodlights.

30. Section 4.4.1 deals with access for people with disabilities and as the proposal is for floodlighting only and does not involve any change to the access arrangements for the park, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to this section and in relation to the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act.

31. Section 4.4.2 deals with safety and security and the design principles include a requirement for effective lighting. The provision of floodlighting and the resultant extended use of the park is likely to reduce the use of the park for criminal activities such as graffiti and vandalism and improve the general safety of the area by increasing the times of use of the park and hence the casual surveillance of the area.

32. Section 4.5.1 deals with parking and vehicular access and the relevant design principles require parking to be provided onsite in sufficient number to cater for the use and minimize loss of on-street parking. The park has sufficient onsite parking spaces, however the access road to the car park was closed (ie gate shut and locked) at the time of the inspection. To ensure parking occurs onsite and not in the surrounding street network a condition of consent is recommended requiring that the gate to the access road to the car park is open at all times of use of the sporting fields under floodlights.

Sportsground Plan of Management

33. McCoy Park is community land and is categorized as a sportsground and a watercourse, with the portion of the site in which the lighting towers are proposed, wholly categorized as sportsground.

34. As such the provisions of the Sportsground Plan of Management (Sportsground POM) is relevant to the assessment of the application. The Sportsground POM identifies a series of management issues and Section 4.1 contains a matrix identifying objectives, performance targets, means to achieve the targets and prioritization for each management issue. The performance targets of relevance to the application are addressed following:

35. Sportsground facilities meet the needs of local communities – the means to achieve this target is to improve existing facilities provided the development is permissible under the objectives of the land category and the necessary approvals have been obtained. The use of the site as a recreation facility is permissible with consent and once the consent and construction certificate are obtained the second criterion will also be satisfied.

36. Minimal adverse impacts upon surrounding residents with Sportsground development and use – the means to achieve this target include monitoring of noise issues, restricting overdevelopment and unsuitable activities and facilitation of use of onsite car parks. The use of the sports fields in the evening introduces potential noise impacts due to both use of the sports fields and noise from persons coming to and leaving the park. These concerns have been addressed previously by recommending conditions that limit the hours of use to generally 9pm and 8pm on Sundays, requiring the access to the car park in the park not to be gated and locked during use of the sports fields under floodlighting and requiring the preparation of a complaints handling mechanism. Subject to the implementation of these conditions it is not anticipated that there will be unacceptable impacts on the surrounding residences, however if such impacts occur there will be a suitable mechanism with which to address the concern.

37. Maximise Sportsground usage through Australian Standard floodlighting whilst ensuring minimal adverse impacts upon residents and adjoining bushland – the means to achieve this target include allowing only floodlights that meet Australian Standards for lux and light spill, mound and landscape buffer zones to minimize the impact of light spill where appropriate, ensure floodlights are extinguished immediately following the conclusion of activities, investigate implementation of automated floodlighting controls and monitor the use to ensure the floodlighting is not used when the sports ground is not in use.

38. The light spill impact of the floodlights is address in paragraph 20 of this report and the light spill is acceptable without the need for landscape buffer zones or mounds. A condition of consent is recommended in relation to the use of the floodlighting and automation of the lighting.

CONSULTATION

External Consultation

39. In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was advertised between 1 August and 22 August 2007. No submissions were received at the time of writing this report.

Internal Consultation

40. The application was referred to Council’s Infrastructure and Drainage Engineers and the following comments were received.

40.1 The proposed light poles are located within Council's Sportsfields in the higher ground which adjoins McCoy Park Flood detention basin. Apparently the 1 in 100 year flood level with the basin would be 28.15mAHD.

40.2 All electrical wirings including accessories related to the proposed Light Poles have to be above the 1 in 100 year flood levels. Whilst other underground cable/duck or similar have to flood proofed.

40.3 A condition to this effect is included in the recommendation.

ISSUES

Impact on Amenity of Adjoining Residents

41. The potential impacts of the floodlighting on the residents within Edna Avenue, Highland Avenue and Paris Place are discussed at paragraphs 19-243 in relation to the considerations required under LEP 2001.

42. It is considered that subject to the imposition of conditions requiring:

42.1 the floodlit use of the sports fields to cease by 9pm on Mondays to Saturdays and 8pm on Sundays, and not to occur in the mornings,

42.2 the opening of the gates to the access road to the car park during the hours of use of the sports fields under flood lighting, and

42.3 the compliance with the submitted lighting report to prevent unacceptable lighting glare impacts upon the adjoining residential properties

42.4 that the provision of floodlighting will not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of surrounding residents. Notwithstanding this assessment, given the potential for noise impacts due to the use of the sports fields in the evening, a condition is recommended requiring a complaints handling process to be set-up and for information in relation to the process to be provided to the users of the sports fields and the surrounding residents.

Visual Impact

43. Whilst the proposed lighting towers are very tall (i.e. 28m), they are very slim in design and as such the towers will not be overly dominant features in the context of the park. The towers will be visible from a number of properties and surrounding streets and from those locations will not necessarily be seen in the context of the surrounding park, however it is considered that the towers will not be an unacceptably visually intrusive element.

Parking Availability

44. The final concern with potential impacts of the proposal to extend the use of the sports fields by the provision of floodlighting is that the users may inconvenience surrounding residents by parking in the residential streets of Edna Avenue, Highland Avenue and Paris Place.

45. In order to avoid this occurrence as far as possible, a condition of consent is recommended requiring the gates to the access road to the onsite car, which is accessed off McCoy Street, to remain open during use of the sports fields under lighting.

Kerry Gordon Planning Services

Independent Planning Consultant

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Aerial Plan	1 Page
3View	History of Development Application	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council	14 April 2008

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 10.17

SUBJECT 2 Stewart Street (corner Marsden Road), Ermington

DESCRIPTION Further report - Development Application No.43/2007 that seeks approval for demolition, tree removal, restoration of a heritage-listed building and the construction of a new building that will be used as a multi-purpose community facility.

REFERENCE DA/43/2007 - Submitted 25 January 2007

APPLICANT/S ProjectVision

OWNERS Vedanta Centres of Australia Limited

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To provide Councillors with a response to the resolution of Council dated 10 December 2007, where the development application was deferred, and to determine Development Application No. 43/2007 for demolition, tree removal, restoration of a heritage-listed building and the construction of a new building that will be used as a

multi-purpose community facility. A copy of the Manager Development Services Report to Council, and all of its attachments, is included at Attachment 1.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the application be approved subject to standard, and the following extraordinary, conditions:

1. The existing median island on Marsden Road is to be extended beyond the access point to prevent right turns from the driveway. The applicant shall discuss this matter directly with the RTA.

Reason: To satisfy the requirements of the RTA.

2. Provision must be made to accommodate all vehicles associated with demolition and construction activities as the use of Marsden Road and Stewart Street for this purpose is not permitted.

Reason: To ensure that traffic flow is not unduly affected.

3. Existing parking restrictions must be retained and existing ‘NO PARKING’ along the frontage of the development site is to be replaced with ‘NO STOPPING’ restrictions. This restriction shall be implemented prior to the commencement of any demolition works on site.

Reason: Safety purposes and to comply with RTA requirements.

4. The proposed deck adjacent to the western boundary of the site is to be used in association with the day to day needs of the residents of the premises and not to be used for gatherings, activities, entertainment or any other use associated with the community facility. The proposed timber screening of the deck shall have a height of no less than 1.5 metres above the finished floor level of the deck.

Reason: To protect the privacy of the adjoining residents.

5. The hours of operation of the proposed activities shall be limited to the following:

Group	Activity	Volume/Hours
Children	Story-telling & Indian music	25 children per week, between the hours of 8.00am and 8.00pm Sundays to Thursdays and 8.00am to 9.00pm Fridays and Saturdays.
Youth	Youth forums	20 persons per week between 8.00am and 8.00pm Sundays to Thursdays and 8.00am to 9.00pm Fridays and Saturdays.
Adults	Yoga	Twice weekly evening classes. 15 person maximum. 7.30pm to 9.00pm.
General	Yoga philosophy*	Once per week, 60 persons maximum. 7.30pm to 9.00pm.
General	Meditation	Every evening. 10-15 persons maximum from 7.30pm to 9.00pm.
General	Counselling	Daytime. Maximum 6 persons at any one time.
General	Birthday vigil*	4 times per year, 60 persons maximum. Residents within 100m radius of the site to be advised by letter-drop 2 weeks prior to the event detailing the theme of the event and the proposed duration.
General	External Amplified music	Only in association with the 4 x birthday vigils, but to no later than 9.00pm (8.00pm if on a Sunday)

* The Yoga Philosophy classes and birthday vigils are NOT to be held on the same day.

6. The bin store and store room adjacent to proposed Unit 9 are to be deleted. The bin store to be located in the basement carpark with details to be provided in the construction certificate.

Reason: To protect the heritage integrity of the dwelling.

7. The proposed gazebo structure shall be deleted from the proposal.

Reason: To protect views to and from the site.

8. No greater than 15 persons shall reside on the premises at any one time. ‘Residing’ shall include short term and long term accommodation.

Reason: To comply with the terms of this consent.

9. In relation to the removal of Tree No.1, the Ring-Tailed Possum currently residing in the tree shall be rescued and relocated by an experienced person or a group such as WIRES, prior to the removal of the tree.

Reason: To allow the possum to be relocated.

10. The premises is only to be used in association with the Community Facility and is not to be used as backpacker’s accommodation, a hotel or a boarding house.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the terms of this consent.

11. A permit under the Section 140 of the NSW Heritage Act (or an exemption from seeking that permit) shall be obtained prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason: Having regard to potential archaeological finds.

(b) That the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.

BACKGROUND

1. This development application was deferred by Council at its meeting of 10 December 2007, in accordance with the following resolution:

1.1 “That consideration of the application be deferred pending a further report addressing the following issues:-

- The erection of height poles on the premises denoting the proposed location of the new building and the possibility of a contact point being arranged to enable Councillors to view the poles.

- A methodology to ensure both aspects of the development application are carried out simultaneously, being the restoration of the heritage item and construction of the new building.

- The reasons for the huge industrial gas meter located on site.

1.2 That the applicant be required to lodge the requirements detailed in Conditions 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 of the Manager Development Services Report No. 230/2007 prior to the matter again coming before Council.

1.3 That in the meantime, the application be referred back to the Parramatta Traffic Committee for further consideration.

1.4 Further, that in the event of Council receiving similarly tardy replies from utilities, such as in this instance from the Roads and Traffic Authority, the General Manager be given delegated authority to pursue a response through the local Member of Parliament.”

2. The applicant was required to respond to Items 1.1 and 1.2 above. These issues are outlined below in the assessment undertaken by Council’s Heritage Consultant.

3. The proposal was referred to the Traffic Committee who met on 14 April 2008. At the time of preparing this report, the Committee had not met. Any comments in addition to those provided by the RTA and Council’s Traffic Engineer will be the subject of a memorandum to Councillors and extra-ordinary conditions of consent if necessary.

4. The concerns raised in relation to the timeliness of replies from external authorities has been noted.

5. The applicant and representatives met with the Lord Mayor and the Manager Development Services on-site on 22 January 2008 to discuss the resolution of Council and to view the height poles. A further meeting was held on 13 February 2008 where the Ward Councillors inspected the site and the height poles.

ISSUES

Heritage

6. The applicant has submitted amended plans and an additional report in response to recommended Conditions 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20. Council’s Heritage Consultant has undertaken an assessment of the amended plans and provided the following comments:

6.1 In general, I am supportive of the plan and program of the new use, alterations and additions to the property of 2 Stewart Street.

6.2 The current proposal has been subjected to careful scrutiny of details and some minor modifications. In its current form, in my opinion it has an acceptable level of impact on the overall heritage values of the place.

6.3 In my opinion, these major aspects of the proposal are positive:

- The renewed ongoing use of the currently vacant house,

- Subsequent regular occupation and maintenance,

- Proposed conservation works,

- Proposed restoration of the historic features, including verandah detailing.

6.4 The following major aspects of the proposal are of a generally acceptable level of impact:

- Proposed additions of the hall and residential units.

6.5 The following major aspects of the proposal are of generally neutral impact:

- Proposed enclosing of the verandah in glass and (partially) weatherboard.

6.6 The following major aspects of the proposal are of generally acceptable impact:

- The non-transparent sections of the property fence, particularly in places where it is above 1.2m high; however, this fence was modified to allow the applicants to achieve maximum of their request for privacy, while allowing majority of the building to remain visible from the public domain, and is thus acceptable in the overall outcome.

6.7 The following major aspects of the proposal were modified further to my earlier objections:

- It was agreed that the encroachment of parts of the additions to the line of lesser setback than that of the existing building shall be removed, and

- It was agreed that the gazebo structure shall be deleted from the proposal.

6.8 It is also noted that the following negative impact remains:

- the added basement level and the associated access ramp as a result of the additional demand for parking associated with the use.

6.9 The applicant’s architect has indicated that the basement addition is a breaking point of the project, and this point was taken into account. It is considered that the positive aspects of restoration and reconstruction works would mitigate the negative impact of this aspect of the proposal.

6.10 The applicants have recently submitted details of reconstruction and conservation works, including proposed works to the verandah, significant rainwater tank and fence, and the updated building plans, all of which I deem suitable to be accepted and included in the approval.

6.11 In my opinion, you should thus recommend approval of the proposed works subject to the following conditions:

- A permit under the Section 140 of the NSW Heritage Act (or an exemption from seeking that permit)shall be obtained prior to issue of the Construction Certificate;

- As discussed earlier, the proposed storeroom and garbage bins room facing Stewart Street (northwest site corner) should be deleted from the proposal; and

- As discussed earlier, the proposed gazebo structure shall be deleted from the proposal.

Height poles

7. The applicant has erected height poles on the site. These are shown on the attached submission prepared by the consultants acting for the applicant. An open invitation was extended to Council to view the height poles at any time. These are visible from the street.

8. It is understood that a number of Councillors undertook inspections of the site following installation of the height poles, including the Lord Mayor on 22 January 2008 and other Councillors on 13 February 2008, according to advice received from the applicant.

Methodology – preservation and construction

9. The applicant has submitted information outlining exactly what work needs to be undertaken to preserve the item and carry out the works. However, the methodology has not been completed as, according to the applicant:

9.1 Funds need to be raised for the project which is difficult prior to determination of the development application. In other words, without a “bankable development consent” funding is limited.

10. The attached brochure highlights the funding required to undertake restoration of the building and the amended plans clearly depict the extent of all new works proposed.

Condition 14

Condition 14 of the recommendation in the previous report states:

11. Prior to works commencing, the applicant is to furnish Council with detailed plans relating to the preservation and use of the cistern (well) adjacent to the northern and western boundaries of the site. The Engineer’s details and specifications stated on the plans are to be submitted to Council, as are details regarding fencing off this area and the protection of visitors to the site (particularly children).

12. The applicant has responded to this by amending the plans to show the proposed treatment of the existing well, which will be covered with restricted access for maintenance only. No fence is required around this area.

13. As this information has been subsequently provided, this condition is no longer required.

Condition 15

Condition 15 of the recommendation in the previous report states:

14. Prior to the issue of a construction certificate, a detailed Schedule of Works should be submitted to confirm the extent of all maintenance, conservation and reconstruction works that are to be undertaken.

15. The applicant has responded to this by submitting additional detail and amended plans highlighting the extent of work required. The works extend to the new roof, electrical works, plumbing & drainage, kitchen & bathroom fitout, light fittings, hardware (doors and windows), fireplaces and painting.

16. As this information has been subsequently provided, this condition is no longer required.

Condition 16

Condition 16 of the recommendation in the previous report states:

17. The detail of the proposed structure above the historic tank (aka cistern or “well”) should be submitted for the Council’s approval prior to the issue of a construction certificate. This will include appropriate measures to protect the historic tank fabric as per the recommendations of the archaeological report and the Structural Engineer.

18. The applicant has responded to this by submitting amended plans providing additional detail depicting the proposed treatment of the existing well, which will be covered with restricted access for maintenance only. No fence is required around this area.

19. As this information has been subsequently provided, this condition is no longer required.

Condition 17

Condition 17 of the recommendation in the previous report states:

20. The proposed masonry wall to Stewart Street and Marsden Road shall be deleted. A boundary fence of alternate design, materials and lower height, allowing better views to an from the item, would be considered by Council.

21. The applicant responded to this by revising the fence treatment around the perimeter of the site fronting Stewart Street and Marsden Road and providing further detail. The fence is proposed to be a series of brick panels behind a hedge type planting, with a low brick wall in front. These panels alternate forward and backwards, with the aim of providing visual interest and articulation as well as strength. The brick capping on the top will add a shadow line intended to add further interest.

22. The section of the fence which fronts the main garden area and also the Stewart Street entry has been lowered to 1.2 metres, while the only section proposed to remain at 1.8 metres is the section in front of the house itself, where issues of privacy and noise are critical due to the very close proximity to the street and the raised level of the footpath and carriageway. The covered entry gates have been deleted as the applicant suggests that these only make sense with having the 1.8 metres tall fence on either side, a situation no longer applicable.

23. As this information has been subsequently provided, this condition is no longer required.

Condition 19

Condition 19 of the recommendation in the previous report states:

24. Details of the proposed reconstructed and interpretively reconstructed verandah detailing should be submitted for Council’s approval prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

25. The applicant responded to this by submitting amended plan detail highlighting the proposed treatment of the verandah infills. This drawing provides the finer detail of the proposed verandah infill and indicates the separation between the original and added structure. This information was required under Conditions 19 and 20 of Council’s resolution

Condition 20

Condition 20 of the recommendation in the previous report states:

26. Details of the proposed verandah glassing (glazing) on all elevations, including details of contact areas between new and old fabric, shall be submitted for Council’s approval prior to the issue of the construction certificate. This part of the proposal should be fully reversible to allow for potential re-opening of the verandah in the future.

27. The applicant responded to this by submitting the detail described in Paragraph 33 and plans included at Attachment 2.

28. The submitted plans and documentation are satisfactory and are considered to address Council’s Resolution of 10 December 2007. Accordingly, this condition is no longer required.

Submission

29. Since the Manager Development Services previous report of 10 December 2007, a further submission has been received in relation to the proposal.

30. The submission is from Ryde City Council, is generally supportive of Parramatta Council officer’s recommendations and requires no additional comment, other than that the Council has been notified of the revised fencing detail as requested.

31. “Further to Council’s heritage comments on this matter, we support Parramatta Council’s development application recommendations numbers 17, 18, 19 and 20 regarding the restoration and curtilage of the heritage item at 2 Stewart Street, Ermington.

32. In our previous comments, we stated that the road reservation of Marsden Road and the contours of the site at 2 Stewart Street are such that the proposed works will have minimal visual impact on the ‘in the vicinity’ heritage items in Ryde Council’s area. As we noted, particularly the items at 135 Marsden Road and Brush Farm Park Conservation Area.

33. The recommendations to delete the proposed masonry wall around the Marsden Road-Stewart Street boundaries will ensure that the landscape of the precinct will be maintained. The alternate lower fence will protect the setting of the item at 135 Marsden Road, 2 Stewart Street and also the item at 146 Marsden Road (the Lauriston Reception Centre) and allow views in and out of the site. Please will you inform Council of the details of the proposed alternate fence for this location when this is submitted.”

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Manager Development Assessment's Report to Council 10 December 2007 (and attachments)	46 Pages
2View	Additional information and plans	22 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council	14 April 2008

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 10.19

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

DESCRIPTION Completion of the partially constructed dwelling additions including a new roof and the use of the building for residential purposes.

REFERENCE DA/413/2007 - Submitted 1 June 2007

APPLICANT/S Mr C C Wong and Mrs Y W Yi

OWNERS Mr C C Wong and Mrs Y W Yi

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application 413/2007 which seeks the approval for the completion of single storey dwelling additions previously commenced under Complying Development Certificate CDC/2007/010 issued by Paul Fitzgerald Building Certifiers.

This application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received by Council as a result of the notification process.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council grant consent to DA/413/2007 subject to standard conditions

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is known as Lot 77 DP 8424 No. 44 Lakeside Road Eastwood and is located on the Southern side of Lakeside Street. The allotment has dual frontage to Lakeside Rd and Central Avenue. The surrounding area consists primarily of single storey dwelling houses.

2. The site is located within the Epping/Eastwood Heritage Conservation Area with the majority of dwellings within the surrounding area demonstrating general compliance with the objectives of the Conservation Area controls.

3. The site contains a single storey, brick and tile dwelling in good condition. The construction of dwelling additions to the rear of the existing dwelling has commenced under a Complying Development Certificate issued by Paul Fitzgerald Building Certifiers, the legality and merit of which will be discussed in a later section of this report.

PROPOSAL

4. The proposed development consists of the construction of a pitched, tiled roof over the existing partially completed single storey structure as well as the completion of the structure to enable it to be used for residential purposes. The existing structural works consist of the construction of the slab and footings, the wall framing, installation of windows and construction of the external brick veneer cladding.

HISTORY

5. Paul Fitzgerald Building Certifiers issued Complying Development Certificate No CDC/2007/010 for ‘alterations and additions to the rear of an existing dwelling’. The applicant for the CDC was the builder for the project Mr Yulin Zhang. Council received DA/413/2007 for a second storey addition to the rear of the existing dwelling. Following a preliminary assessment of the application it was identified that the premises is located within the Epping/Eastwood Heritage Conservation Area and is such, the provisions of Complying Development do not apply.

6. Through a series of negotiations between Council and the applicant, as well as taking into consideration issues raised throughout the notification process, the original proposal underwent a series of amendments resulting in the proposal currently before Council.

7. The Complying Development Certificate, although incorrectly issued, remains valid until legally challenged. Paul Fitzgerald Building Certifiers were reported to the Building Professionals Board as a result of this issue.

8. A Building Certificate Application has also been lodged with Council for the partially completed structure. A decision on the Building Certificate Application will be made pending Council’s determination of this application.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

9. The site is zoned Residential 2(a) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and alterations and additions to dwelling houses are permissible within the zone with the consent of Council.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

10. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions prescribed by Clause 11 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). It is considered that given the history of the site and the existing works, the proposal will have no impact on the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area.

Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan

11. The relevant provisions of the Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 2001 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The subject site is located within the Epping/Eastwood Heritage Conservation Area and the proposal generally meets the objectives of this section of the DCP.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

12. The relevant provisions of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. With the exception of the side boundary setback, which will be addressed later in this report, the proposal generally achieves compliance with the numerical requirements of the DCP and is also consistent with the objectives of the plan. The specific numerical controls are outlined in the attached table.

CONSULTATION

13. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified to adjoining properties. Details of the Notification periods and the number of submissions received is outlined in the following table:

Notification Period	Proposal	No. of Submissions
15 June to 29 June 2007	Additions first floor to rear of existing dwelling	13
25 July to 8 August 2007	Amendment to delete the proposed first floor and construct roof over existing ground floor addition	12
12 November to 26 November 2007	Amendment to construct first floor addition consisting of attic as well as details on proposed fencing and shadow diagrams	Approx 39
18 January 2008 to 8 February 2008	Single storey dwelling additions including the deletion of the previously proposed attic, reduction in the bulk of the roof and changes to the materials of the proposed fence	34

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

Proposal is not in keeping with the Heritage Conservation Area Guidelines

The proposal has been assessed by Council’s Heritage Advisor and all relevant comments are included in this report.

The proposal allows the building to be used as a Dual Occupancy or Boarding House

The proposal has been modified at the request of Council to ensure that the existing use of a single dwelling is maintained. There are no additional facilities proposed which would allow separate occupation of the premises.

The bulk of the proposed roof is excessive and not in keeping with the streetscape

The design of the proposed roof has been modified at the request of Council to reduce the impact on the streetscape. The topography of the area and location of the proposed addition reduce the impact of the roof on the streetscape.

The proposed fence materials are not consistent with the existing fences and do not meet Heritage Conservation Area Guidelines

The proposed fence has been modified in accordance with Council’s requests following advice from Council’s Heritage Advisor. The proposed fence complies with the Heritage Conservation Area Guidelines.

The proposed roof is too high and will overshadow the living areas of the adjoining property.

The proposed roof design has been assessed against Council’s DCP with regards to overshadowing of adjoining properties. The proposed roof is over a single storey addition with the dwelling to the south of the proposal being a one and two storey dwelling. The shadow diagrams and elevations submitted with the application indicate that the proposal will not impact detrimentally on the adjoining premises with regards to overshadowing.

ON-SITE MEETING

An on-site meeting was conducted on 16 February 2008. The following issues were raised:

· Applicant stated that the building was located 830mm from the boundary and that fire shutters are to provided to fire protect.

· Applicant argued that single storey is appropriate for context of the site and that there would be no adverse shadow impacts.

· Applicant further argued that a tiled roof complements the streetscape.

· Height of roof and effect on 22 Central Avenue and lack of light – closure

· No design for retaining wall on north boundary, cliff decomposing.

· Extra access to Central Avenue.

· Tree protected in Central Avenue/boundary.

· No consultation by the owner.

· PCA should not have issued approval.

· Aluminium windows/door – inconsistent features in a heritage area.

· Impacts will be viewed from Central Avenue.

· Change of streetscape in Central Avenue.

· Multiple amendments do not address roof height.

· Amenity impacts.

· Would prefer flat roof than pitched roof.

· Setback greater to side boundary.

· 1 metre height of pitched roof if proposed.

· Compliance with the heritage DCP.

· Needs bedroom with solar access, existing trees block light to living rooms in winter, clothes line shaded – non compliance with DCP.

· Inconsistent with style of existing house.

· Aluminium treatment of windows/door.

· Absence of federation style.

· Started work with no contact to neighbours due to CDC issued by certifier.

· Builder and applicant in June 2007 approached neighbour at 22 Central Avenue at their home and business.

· Issues with accuracy of shadow diagram and survey plans.

· Block house appearance of development, torn down fence – breach of guidelines by PCA should take action and get demolition of building.

· Neighbour harassed at work.

· Appearance out of character.

· High rental for overseas residents.

· Concerned by comments of heritage advisor.

· Council needs to consider impacts and impact on neighbours.

· If building not constructed, Council would look at the matter differently – wall needs to be demolished.

ISSUES

Heritage

14. The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment as the site is located within the Epping/Eastwood Heritage Conservation Area identified in the Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 1996. The comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor include:

‘For the form of the rear addition, the conservation area guidelines recommend use of skillion roofs or linked pavillions behind the original house. However, given the restraints of the already built outline walls, it would not be possible to create the addition in the form of a linked pavillion. Similarily, it might not be possible to create an acceptable result for a skillion roof over the addition with reuse of the current outline walls. This is because the outline wall of the addition would be of varying height, due to the slope of the skillion. The connection between the rear addition and the original house roof would liekly result in a complicated geometrical form and arguable aesthtics whichever way the skillion would drain.

However, the proposed new garage should be located to the rear and detached from the house, as per the Conservation Area guidelines.

Save for the above, in my opinion the proposed solution presents a reasonable compromise in a situation where the applicant has already build the outline wall of the rear addition. It is noted that this was done without approval, but in bona fide that no approval is necessary. While the currently proposed solution is not idealy desirable, it is within the limits of acceptable.’

15. Accordingly there are no objections to the proposal on Heritage grounds.

Side Boundary Setback

16. The existing structure does not comply with the side boundary setback of 900mm as required under the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005. The setback of the building varies from 830mm to 800mm which is a variation of 11%. The alignment of the building is consistent with the existing dwelling and is not considered to impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. BCA fire separation requirements are addressed by the applicant by way of an alternative solution.

Roof Pitch

17. A number of submissions were received regarding the proposed roof pitch. The proposed roof pitch is compatible with the existing dwelling. Shadow diagrams and elevations, a photo montage, and height poles indicate that the roof pitch is acceptable and will not impact on the amenity of the adjoining property.

Jamie Loader

Team Leader Development Control

Attachments:

1View	Plans & Elevations	9 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Photo of Height Poles	6 Pages
4	Photo Montage	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

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

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	100m²each 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

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

1View	Plans and Photos	4 Pages
2View	Updated history of Section 82Areview	1 Page
3View	Locality Map	1 Page
4View	Previous Council Reports	30 Pages

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	Plans and Elevations	3 Pages
3View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	1 Page

1View	Plans/Elevations-4 pages
2View	Colour Schedule- 1 Page
3View	Locality Map- 1 Page
4View	History of application- 1 Page

1View	Plans/Elevation- 3 Pages
2View	Locality Map- 1 Page
3View	History of application- 1 Page