NOTICE OF Regulatory Council MEETING

 

 

 

The Meeting of Parramatta City Council will be held in the Council Chamber, Fourth Floor, 2 Civic Place, Parramatta on Monday, 12 May 2008 at 6:45pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sue Coleman

Acting General Manager

 

 

 Parramatta – the leading city at the heart of Sydney

 

30 Darcy Street Parramatta NSW 2150

PO Box 32 Parramatta

 

Phone 02 9806 5050 Fax 02 9806 5917 DX 8279 Parramatta

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

 

“Think Before You Print”



COUNCIL CHAMBERS

 

 

Clr Paul Barber, Lord Mayor – Caroline Chisholm Ward

Sue Coleman, Acting General Manager - Parramatta City Council

 

 

 

 

Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services

 

 

 

Assistant Minutes Clerk – Michael Wearne

 

 

Stephen Kerr –  Group Manager Corporate

 

 

 

Minutes Clerk – Grant Davies

 

Marcelo Occhuizzi –Acting Group Manager Outcomes & Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clr Omar Jamal – Arthur Philip Ward

 

 

Clr Lorraine Wearne - Lachlan Macquarie Ward

 

Clr Anita Brown – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward

 

 

Clr John Chedid – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward

 

Clr David Borger – Macarthur Ward Elizabeth

 

 

Clr Andrew Wilson – Lachlan Macquarie Ward

 

Clr Paul Garrard – Woodville Ward

 

 

Clr Tony Issa, OAM – Woodville Ward

 

Clr Julia Finn – Arthur Philip Ward

 

 

Clr Brain Prudames – Caroline Chisholm Ward

 

Clr Chris Worthington – Caroline Chisholm Ward

Clr Pierre Esber, Deputy Lord Mayor  Lachlan Macquarie Ward

Clr Maureen Walsh – Wooville Ward

Clr Chiang Lim – Arthur Phillip Ward

Text Box:   Press

 

Staff

 

 

Staff

 

GALLERY

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM                                                         SUBJECT                                              PAGE NO

 

1        CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council - 28 April 2008

2        APOLOGIES

3        DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4        MINUTES OF THE LORD MAYOR

5        PETITIONS

6        PUBLIC FORUM

7        RESCISSION MOTIONS

8        City Leadership and Management

8.1     Adoption of the Draft Management Plan 2008/09 - 2011/12 for Public Exhibition

9        Regulatory Reports

9.1     17-19 Hassall Street Parramatta - Proposed Easement  

10      DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION

11      DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REFERRED FOR ON-SITE MEETINGS

12      DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD

13      Reports - Domestic Applications

13.1   330 Church Street, Parramatta
(Lot 101 DP 1031459, EASE 1043441, Lot 3 DP 788637, Lot 2 DP 788637) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

13.2   3 McArdle Street, Ermington (Lot 3 DP 36752) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

13.3   5 McArdle Street, Ermington
(Lot 4 DP 36752) (
Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

13.4   122 The Trongate Granville (crn Charles Streets) (Lots 5A & 6A DP 159581) ( Woodville Ward)

14      Reports - Development Applications

14.1   47 Barnetts Road, Winston Hills
(Lot 7 DP 221156) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

14.2   92 Bettington Road, Oatlands
(
Lot 1 DP 22016 and Lot D DP 32351)
(Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.3   14 New York Street, Granville
(Lot A DP 318121) (Woodville)

14.4   28 - 30 Carson Street, Dundas
(Lots 4 and 5 DP 31560) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.5   29-31 Garnet Street Merrylands

14.6   3-11 Shirley Street, Rosehill (Lot 2 DP 864567) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.7   70 Ross Street North Parramatta
( Lot 1 DP 778857) (Elixabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.8   15 Gilbert Street, North Parramatta
(
Lot 59 DP 4858) (Arthur Phillip)

14.9   Section 82A Review DA/545/2005 18 Dobson Crescent Dundas

14.10  184-186 Windsor Road and 16 Weemala Street, Winston Hills
(Lot 1 DP 205332,
Lot 2 DP 944363 & Lot 24 DP 230957) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

14.11  66 Ross Street, Parramatta
(Lot A DP 159275) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

14.12  35 Elder Road, Dundas
(Lot 5 DP 30193) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.13  Epping RSL Club, 45-47 Rawson Street, Epping
(
Lot 101 DP 838314) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

14.14  7 Lomond Crescent, WINSTON HILLS
(Lots 775 & 778 DP 235162) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

14.15  16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 2)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur)

14.16  16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 3)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.17  16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 4)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.18  Lot 24, 16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.19  Lot 25, 16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.20  16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 26) (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.21  253 Church Street, Parramatta
(
Lot B DP 380256) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

15      Notices of Motion

15.1   Length of Time for Validity of a Development Application

15.2   Consultants Employed by Council

15.3   Recruitment of Council Staff through Consultants

15.4   Congratulations to the Sydney Turf Club (STC) on the Golden Slipper   

16      QUESTION TIME

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER         8.1

SUBJECT                   Adoption of the Draft Management Plan 2008/09 - 2011/12 for Public Exhibition

REFERENCE            F2007/00392 - D00926151

REPORT OF              Group Manager Corporate Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

Adoption of the Draft Management Plan 2008/09 – 2011/12 for Public Exhibition

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council approve the placing of the Draft Management Plan 2008/09 – 2011/12, Proposed Schedule of Fees and Charges 2008/09 and Pricing Policy 2008/09, as attached to this report, on public exhibition for 28 days subject to the Draft Management Plan being amended to provide for funding the following Projects from Section 94 contributions in lieu of revenue funding by the amounts shown for each of the following projects respectively:

 

Project

000

Library Materials RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) system

$500

Pavillion Improvement Program

$85

Sportsground Program

$95

Playground Replacement Program

$20

Parks Program

$42

Local Bike Facilities

$163

Total

$905

 

 

(b)   Further, that the amount of $905,000 noted in the above recommendation be used to reduce borrowings proposed in 2008/09 from $2,927,000 to $2,022,000 and the Draft Management Plan be amended accordingly, prior to exhibition.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Pursuant to section 402 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council is required to prepare a Draft Management Plan each year. The Local Government Act and Regulations set out the matters that must be included within the draft Plan.

 

Over the past 5 months, the development process of the draft Management Plan has included a series of workshops for Councillors to consider Council’s current and forecast financial position, to develop operational and budgetary strategies and to review and determine priorities for future services and projects expenditure. The seven Program Panels have also met to review the purposes, objectives, proposed projects, performance measures and targets for each Program.

 

The Draft Management Plan is now presented to Council for determination. Once determined it will be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days from 14 May to 11 June 2008. The exhibition period will be advertised and comments on the draft Plan invited from the community. Copies of the draft Plan will be available at Council’s libraries and the Customer Contact Centre. A copy will also be placed on Council’s website. A public forum is also planned for 20 May 2008 to discuss the draft Management Plan with members of the Residents’ Panel and the general community.

 

Following the exhibition period it is proposed to bring the Plan back to Council on 23 June to consider any submissions from the community and to formally adopt the Management Plan for 2008/09 to 2011/12.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

Presentation format

 

The Draft Management Plan has been prepared in the same format as last year based on Council’s seven Program areas. Each Program section includes details of the Program’s purpose, objectives, service activities, project highlights, proposed income and expenditure on services and projects and the Program’s performance measures and targets. The second section of the Draft Plan sets out details of the draft 2008/09 Budget, forward financial estimates for 2009/10 to 2011/12, proposed rates and annual charges for 2008/09 and the proposed income and expenditure from these proposed rates and charges. Other required statutory information is also contained in this second section. The schedule of proposed Fees and Charges and Pricing Policy for 2008/09 is contained under separate cover.

 

Performance Measures and Targets

 

As noted above, the Program Panels have reviewed performance measures and targets previously, and some new measures are included as a result of this process.  We have also included for the first time reporting frequencies for these measures.

 

2008/09 Budget and Forward Estimates

 

The 2008/09 Budget has proposed a balanced budget in terms of the operating result for 2008/09. Revenue from continuing operations will match operating expenditure, including interest on loans and depreciation. General rates income has been increased by 3.2% in line with the State Government’s permissible maximum increase. The Domestic Waste Management Charge has been increased by 4%. The Stormwater Management Service Charge has not been increased.

 

Council is required to revalue its assets to fair value commencing with land, buildings, plant and equipment at June 2008 and roads, bridges, footpaths and drainage infrastructure assets as at June 2009. This revaluation exercise has not yet been completed but will have ramifications for future depreciation costs.   Pending the completion of these revaluations, an estimate of the impact, of about $1 million has been included in the 2008/09 Budget for increased depreciation on buildings, plant and equipment. The forward estimates 2009/10 to 2011/12 include this impact but do not include any impact from a revaluation of roads, bridges, footpaths and drainage assets. The increase in depreciation expense in those years takes into consideration only the effect of new capital expenditure. The operating result for the forward estimates period shows a deteriorating position primarily due to the following factors:

 

·    impact of increased depreciation

·    employee costs increasing faster than income

·    the reduction of special rates income in 2010/11 due to the finalisation of the ten year special rate variation that was approved in 2000/01 and

·    Some Civic Place commitments resulting from the Development Agreement. These commitments are restricted to the three years of the forward estimates and the costs are forecast to be recouped through project cash flows in future years.

 

The Resources Advisory Committee has been formed to examine means by which Council can address the unfavourable trend in the operating result and achieve the objective of sustaining a balanced operating result in future years. 

 

Projects

 

The draft Management Plan proposed expenditure of $30.105 million on Projects in 2008/09. A detailed list of the Projects is contained at page 77 to 82 of the Draft Management Plan. The Draft Management Plan shows Projects expenditure to be funded by general revenue funding of $9.4 million from the Services Budget and the balance from special rates, loans, reserves, grants and section 94 contributions. These projects and associated funding sources were advised to Councillors following the Projects Prioritisation Workshop on March 27.

 

Section 94 contributions

 

Recent changes to the Section 94 Plan have meant that Council has greater flexibility in how it can expend Section 94 contributions. A review of these changes and of proposed Projects shows that of the $9.4 million of general revenue currently proposed to fund Projects in the 2008/09 budget, $905,000 could instead be funded from Section 94 Reserves. Using Section 94 funds to fund the following project expenditure would free up General Revenue funds totalling $905,000:

 

 

Project

000

Library Materials RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) system

$500

Pavillion  Improvement Program

$85

Sportsground Program

$95

Playground Replacement Program

$20

Parks Program

$42

Local Bike Facilities

$163

Total

$905

 

These general revenue funds could be used to fund Projects previously funded from loans. Council could then reduce its borrowings in 2008/09 by $905,000 and reduce future debt servicing costs. Such an action utilising the additional funding from section 94 is recommended, with the relevant projects identified in the recommendations of this report.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

The Draft Management Plan has been developed through collaboration between Councillors and staff in a series of Workshops and Program Panel meetings. Feedback obtained through the Residents’ Panel and general community input has also been taken into consideration.

 

The exhibition of the Draft Plan for 28 days together with the planned public forum will give the community the opportunity to make their views known to Council prior to the Plan being adopted by Council on 23 June.

 

Stephen Kerr

Group Manager – Corporate Services

1 May 2008

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Draft Management Plan 2008/09 – 2011/12

110 Pages

 

2View

Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2008/09

120 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Draft Management Plan 2008/09 – 2011/12

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Adoption of the Draft Management Plan 2008/09 - 2011/12 for Public Exhibition

 

 

 

Draft Management Plan 2008/09 – 2011/12

 

110 Pages

 

 PLEASE NOTE:-

 

tHIS COLOUR A4 ATTACHMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO COUNCILLORS AND SENIOR STAFF ONLY UNDER separate COVER.

 

iF YOU REQUIRE A COPY OF THIS ATTACHMENT, PLEASE CONTACT GRANT DAVIES ON 9806 5314 OR MICHAEL WEARNE ON 9806 5325

 


Attachment 2

Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2008/09

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 2

 

 

 

Adoption of the Draft Management Plan 2008/09 - 2011/12 for Public Exhibition

 

 

 

Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2008/09

 

120 Pages

 

PLEASE NOTE:-

 

tHIS COLOUR A4 ATTACHMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO COUNCILLORS AND SENIOR STAFF ONLY UNDER separate COVER.

 

iF YOU REQUIRE A COPY OF THIS ATTACHMENT, PLEASE CONTACT GRANT DAVIES ON 9806 5314 OR MICHAEL WEARNE ON 9806 5325

 

  


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER         9.1

SUBJECT                   17-19 Hassall Street Parramatta - Proposed Easement

REFERENCE            DA/787/2004 - D00925453

REPORT OF              Property Program Manager       

 

PURPOSE:

 

The report seeks a resolution of the Council to create an easement in favour of the adjoining development to allow an encroachment of shop awning and an electricity substation over the Council land (Lot 2 DP 632003) at Charles Street Parramatta.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council resolve to create an easement over the Council land (Lot 2 DP 632003) as shown on the plan at Attachment 3 in favour of 17-19 Hassall Street Parramatta (Lot 100 DP 1123072) with the condition that the easement at Council’s sole discretion shall cease and be extinguished when the Council land is dedicated for public road use.

 

(b)     Further, that the Lord Mayor and General Manager be authorised to execute under seal the linen plan and Section 88B instrument for creation of the easement.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      The subject development at the south eastern corner of Hassall Street and Charles Street is a 9 storey residential / commercial building with DA/787/2004 approved on 30 March 2005 and amended on 8 February 2007.

 

2.      The building work for the development is almost completed and the developer is seeking to register a strata title plan for the development at the Land and Property Information of the Department of Lands.  The strata title plan has been rejected due to the shop awning along Charles Street being taken as an encroachment over Lot 2 DP 632003 owned by the Council for Charles St extension.

 

3.      The survey for the strata title plan has also revealed a minor encroachment of 0.05 metre for the electricity substation onto the Council land behind the concrete panel sound barrier.

 

4.      A detailed submission and a location plan are at Attachments 1 and 2.

 

ISSUES / OPTIONS / CONSEQUENCES

 

5.      The road on Lot 2 DP 632003 being an extension of Charles Street has been built with pavement, line markings, road signs and kerb and gutter though for the time being it is only open for north bound traffic pending completion of an intersection at Charles Street, Parkes Street and Wigram Street. 

 

6.      The Council's Development Services Unit in approving DA/787/2004 had taken Lot 2 DP 632003 as public road and approved among others an awning for the shop and fire exit over and to this section of road.  Such has created difficulties for the developer, as Lot 2 DP 632003 though being accepted for public road use in approving the DA has not been legally dedicated as public road hence the awning is taken as an encroachment over the Council land.

 

7.      For information, the Council land Lot 2 DP 632003 is classified operational in Council’s Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.28.  Accordingly, Council is free to dispose of the land including creation of interests in manners it sees fit.

 

8.      Council has the option of dedicating Lot 2 DP 632003 for public road use now to allow the shop awning.  This is not preferred, as Council on 25 February 2008 (DSU 40/2008) agreed in principle to lease / license the closed portion of Charles Street on Lot 2 DP 632003 to the RTA for a bus layover.  The Council’s solicitors Storey & Gough have confirmed that such leasing / licensing arrangement with the RTA would be upset if the land were to be dedicated for public road use now.  For reference, the Council report (DSU 40/2008) and resolution are at Reference Material.

 

9.      Council has also the option to create an easement for the shop awning over Lot 2 DP 632003 on the basis that Lot 2 DP 632003 is a privately owned lot of the Council. 

 

10.    This option is recommended, as the shop awning through no fault of the developer has become an encroachment over the Council land due to the Council not able to dedicate the land in time for public road use. 

 

11.    The minor encroachment of the electricity substation of approximately 0.33 sq m is normally tolerated for the life of the structure.  The encroachment mainly the brick foundation is not obstructive, as it sits behind the concrete panel sound barrier erected along the pavement.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

12.    The Council’s Infrastructure Unit, Capital Projects Unit and Traffic and Transport Unit have been consulted and have no objections to the proposed easement over the Council land.

 

 

 

 

Kwok Leung                                                      Paul Burne

Property Program Manager                         Acting Strategic Asset Manager

 

Attachments:

1View

Attachments 1 to 3

3 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council report (DSU 40/2008) and resolution


Attachment 1

Attachments 1 to 3

 



  


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         13.1

SUBJECT                   330 Church Street, Parramatta
(Lot 101 DP 1031459, EASE 1043441, Lot 3 DP 788637, Lot 2 DP 788637) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Fitout of Shop G21 and use of Shops G13, G14, G15 & G21 for the purpose of a restaurant, associated cooking classes and retailing of associated goods. Location Map - Attachment 3

REFERENCE            DA/69/2008 - Submitted 5 February 2008

APPLICANT/S           Sydney Technical Institute

OWNERS                    Riverbank Trustee Pty Limited & Sandhurst Trustees Limited

REPORT OF              Senior Development Assessment Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 69/2008 which seeks approval to the  fitout of Shop G21 and the use of Shops G13, G14, G15 & G21 for the purpose of a restaurant, ancillary cooking classes and retailing of associated goods.

 

This application is being referred to Council as the subject site is listed as an item of heritage significance under Parramatta City Centre Plan LEP.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 69/2008 subject to standard conditions.

 

 

SITE AND LOCALITY

 

1.         The subject site is known as 330 Church Street, Parramatta and is located on the eastern side of Church Street between Phillip Street and the Parramatta River. The site is irregular in shape and has an area of approximately 6764m². The site has a main frontage to Church Street. 

                                                                                  

2.         The site contains a multi storey shopping centre within the former David Jones department store building. The site is surrounded by retail, commercial, a carpark and residential development. The Parramatta River adjoins the site to the north.

 

BACKGROUND

 

3.         A number of development applications have been received for the site and the shops within the shopping centre.

 

4.         Development Application DA/1410/2004 dated 10 February 2005 approved an application to carry out alterations and additions to Shops G14 and G15 to change the use to a restaurant and erect advertising signage and awnings.

 

 

PROPOSAL

 

5.         Approval is sought to use Shops G13, G14, G15 and G21 within the existing shopping centre and carry out the following:

 

Shops G13 and G14

These shops have previous approval for a restaurant (DA/1410/2004) which operated between noon to 10pm Sundays and Thursdays and noon to 11pm Fridays and Saturdays. It is proposed to continue the use of these premises as a restaurant, however extend the hours of operation from 7am to 11:30pm Mondays to Sundays. Cooking classes will also be held within the restaurant.

 

Shop G15

This shop is to be fitted out and used as a retail cooking shop with a display area for cooking videos, utensils, cook books and uniforms used in the hospitality industry.

 

Shop G21

This shop is to be fitted out and primarily used for student cooking classes for theory work, with a small retail area at the front of the shop.

 

Shops G15 and G21 will operate during the core operating hours of the shopping centre, being 8am to 9pm Mondays to Sundays. All shops will be used in conjunction with each other. 

 

6.         The proposed restaurant will specialise in Asian cuisine. Ancillary “one off” cooking lessons will be available to the public. Formal cooking classes will be held for hospitality students wanting to enter the hospitality industry with the long term ambition of becoming qualified chefs. A maximum of 10-15 employees will be on site at any one time.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta City Centre Plan Local Environmental Plan 2007

 

7.         The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use under PLEP 2007 and the use for a restaurant, retail outlet and educational establishment is permissible with consent. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone.

 

8.         The site is identified in Schedule 5 of PLEP 2007 as a heritage item. The site contains the former David Jones building. The significance of this Inter War department store building is that it is a substantial commercial building which makes a notable contribution to the townscape.

 

9.         The heritage provisions of PLEP 2007 seek to conserve existing significant fabrics and settings associated with the heritage significance of heritage items and to ensure that any development does not adversely affect the heritage significance of heritage items and their settings.

 

Parramatta City Centre Plan Development Control Plan

 

10.       The provisions of the Parramatta City Centre Plan DCP have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal achieves compliance with the requirements of the DCP and is also consistent with the aims and objectives of the DCP.

 

CONSULTATION

 

11.       In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised and notified to adjoining property owners/occupiers between 5 March and 26 March 2008. No submissions were received.

 

ISSUES

 

Heritage

 

12.       The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment as the site is listed as a heritage item in Schedule 5 of PLEP 2007. The site contains the former David Jones building. The significance of this Inter War department store building is that it is a substantial commercial building which makes a notable contribution to the townscape. The comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor are as follows:

 

“Having reviewed the application, I deem the impact of works on the heritage fabric to be negligible given that it includes only the renewal of fitout and change of use of the existing shops in the building.  Both proposed new uses are deemed "light" on fabric in that they do not require any permanent changes to the structure.”

 

13.      Accordingly, there are no objections to the proposed development on heritage grounds.

 

Other Issues

 

14.      Shops G13 and G14 have previous approval for a restaurant (DA/1410/2004) which operated between noon to 10pm Sundays and Thursdays and noon to 11pm Fridays and Saturdays. An acoustic report was submitted at that time demonstrating that the proposed use would not impact upon the amenity of the residential properties across Parramatta River (from the terrace area of the restaurant). No noise complaints have been received to date with respect to the operation of that restaurant. It is proposed to continue the use of these shops as a restaurant, however extend the hours of operation to 7am to 11:30pm Mondays to Sundays. The earlier opening hours are unlikely to impact on the amenity of the residents as the terrace area will not be used at this time. The restaurant will primarily be used for cooking classes in the morning. The outdoor terrace area which faces the residential properties across the Parramatta River will not be used after 11pm at night.

 

15.      The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer who raises no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of standard health and amenity conditions.

 

16.      There are no other undue impacts relative to noise or privacy associated with the proposed development.

 

 

 

Kate Lafferty

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Table of Compliance

1 Page

 

2View

Plans

3 Pages

 

3View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Table of Compliance

 

 


Attachment 2

Plans

 



 


Attachment 3

Locality Map

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         13.2

SUBJECT                   3 McArdle Street, Ermington (Lot 3 DP 36752) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Change of use from dwelling house to boarding house. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE            DA/435/2007 - Submitted 12 June 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mr Z J Chen

OWNERS                    Mr Z J Chen

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 435/2007 which seeks approval for the change of use from dwelling house to boarding house.

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 435/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

 

1) The site management plan submitted with the application, is to be made available to adjoining properties prior to the occupation of the boarding house. The site management plan must include the contact details, a phone number of the site manager and suitable contact hours. In the event that a complaint is made where an activity has occurred that is inconsistent with the site management plan, the site manager is to respond and rectify the problem in accordance with the site management plan. A register/record of the complaints is to be kept by the site manager to assist if future concerns are to be investigated by Council.

 

2) The maximum number of lodgers permitted to reside within the dwelling must not exceed five (5) at any one time as each lodger is to be allocated individual bedrooms.

 

3) As there is a change in the building use (classification), the building must comply with the Category 1 fire safety provision applicable to the proposed new use.

 

Note:     The obligation under this subclause to comply with the Category 1 fire safety provision may require building work to be carried out even though none is proposed or required in the relevant development consent.  In this clause, Category 1 fire safety provision has the same meaning as it has in Part 7B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations. In this regard you are required to comply with provisions of the Building Code of Australia 2007 part 3.7.2.4 & 3.7.2.5. All bedrooms are required to be fitted with a smoke alarm which activates a system of lighting to assist with the evacuation of occupants. In addition a fire extinguisher or fire blanket must be provided within the kitchen.

 

4) The boarding house must provide 2 off-street parking spaces on the subject site.

 

5) The use of the premises shall comply in all respects with the definition of ‘boarding house’ as provided in the Dictionary to Clause 10 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, vis-à-vis:

 

“boarding house means a building or part of a building let in lodgings or a hostel which provides lodgers with a principal place of residence, but does not include backpackers accommodation, a guest house, serviced apartment, or (in the Table to Clause 16) any other building defined in this dictionary”.

 

That any advertising of the premises shall clearly state that the premises provides a principal place of residence and tariffs shall not be depicted on a daily basis.

 

6) A 24-hours phone number shall be supplied to each occupant so that contact may be made with the manager.

 

7) The manager shall ensure that a notice is placed near the entrance to the property in a visible position to the public advising of his name and contact number.

 

8) The premises shall require licensing pursuant to the Youth and Community Services Act 1973 should two or more occupants be diagnosed as having a disability.

 

9) That each occupant shall be furnished with a set of house rules and a copy of this consent and that no variation shall be permitted without the further approval of Council.

 

10) That the manager shall maintain a computer record and hard copy logbook of all residents with details of their names, length of stay, number of persons in each room, and that such record shall be submitted to Council annually.

 

11) All residents in the boarding house are to sign a lease or licence agreeing to comply with the boarding house rules, with the length of the lease to be determined by the management on the explicit understanding that accommodation is not to be provided on a temporary basis to persons on recreational pursuits. The length of lease considered appropriate is to be not less than 3 months.

 

12) The manager, upon signing of the lease or licence agreement, shall provide boarders with a key to their individual room and common areas.

 

13) Additional house rules shall be prepared by the manager of the premises and furnished to Council, in relation to such matters as the keeping of pets, noise, cleaning of outdoor areas and general use of outdoor areas.

 

14) The individual rooms and common areas are to be maintained in a clean and tidy state and individual’s rubbish is to be placed in the appropriate receptacles.

 

15) No fire, candles or naked flames are permitted within individual rooms

 

16) The kitchen shall be made available for residents 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and the applicant shall ensure that basic facilities in good working order are provided, including, but not limited to:

 

·         a large refrigerator;

·         a regular and a microwave oven;

·         dishwashing facilities;

·         waste disposal;

·         personal hygiene (soap, paper towels and the like);

·         food storage space;

·         a bench top for food preparation.

 

17) Doors to the kitchen and common areas are to be clear glazed.

 

18) Dining shall be encouraged within the common areas, so as not to isolate residents.

 

19) The door to a fully enclosed sanitary compartment  must open outwards or slide or be readily removable from the outside of the compartment, unless there is a clear space of at least 1.2 metres between the closet pan within the sanitary compartment and the nearest part of the doorway.

 

 

20) The boarding house is to be used as a principal place of residence for  long term residents and is not to be used for tourist purposes such as a private hotel or backpacker hostel.

 

21) A copy of the house rules shall be placed in prominent locations on the site, including in all communal areas, behind doors in bedrooms, and upon the rear façade of the dwelling, in order to familiarise residents of the boarding house with acceptable activities.

 

22) In addition to the above, the applicant shall also ensure that each room is  provided with the following basic facilities:

 

·        Wardrobe;

·        Mirror;

·        Table & Chair;

·        Small bar fridge;

·        A night light or other approved illumination device for each bed;

·        Coffee and tea making facilities;

·        Microwave oven (no other cooking facilities to be provided in the      bedrooms);

·        Waste container;

·        An approved latching device on the door;

·        Curtains, blinds or similar privacy device;

·        A phone line.

 

       All room furnishings shall be detailed in the Plan of Management.

 

23) The premises shall comply with fire safety regulations pertinent to a Class 1b building, being a boarding house with 12 or fewer occupants.

 

24) The applicant/developer shall contact Council’s Waste Unit to discuss the provision of a 240 litre bin for the collection of waste and the provision of a 240 litre bin for recycling. Services over and above the frequency and volume provided by Council shall require a private contracting service.

 

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

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      Development Application No. 435/2007 for the change of use from a dwelling house to a boarding house was lodged 12 June 2007 for 3 & 5 McArdle Street Ermington.

 

2.      Application was notified from 22 June 2007 to 6 July 2007. Five (5) submissions were received.

 

3.      An additional information letter was sent to the applicant on 25 July 2007 requesting a separate development application be lodged for 5 McArdle Street Ermington, given that the proposed use was to be located over two separate allotments.

 

4.      DA/435/2007 has been modified to assess the proposed use at 3 McArdle Street, Ermington

 

5.      Comments received from Councils Environmental Health Unit on 27 August 2007.

 

6.      Comments received from Councils Traffic Unit on 3 September 2007

 

7.      A further additional information letter was sent to the applicant on 16 October 2007 requesting a BASIX certificate

 

8.      Information submitted to Council on 12 December 2007

 

9.      An on site meeting was held on 8 March 2008 attended by Councillors, residents, the applicant and council staff

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

10.    The subject site is located on the western side of McArdle Street and is an irregular shaped allotment that contains a single storey dwelling. The dwelling comprises of 5 bedrooms and shared facilities including a kitchen, laundry and bathroom. The site has a frontage of 13.71 metres and a depth ranging from 41 metres to 41.76 metres. The development pattern within McArdle Street consists of a mixture of single detached dwellings, multi unit dwellings and residential flat buildings. Development surrounding the site also includes a variety of local shops and a primary school.

 

PROPOSAL

 

11.       Development Application No. 435/2007 seeks approval for the following:

 

11.1       Change of use from a single storey dwelling house to a boarding house comprising of 5 bedrooms with shared facilities including a kitchen, laundry and bathroom.

 

11.2       The proposed boarding house will accommodate 5 lodgers

 

11.3       No construction work is proposed to the existing dwelling, including no internal layout changes from the existing dwelling floor plan.

 

11.4       Tandem/stacked parking will be provided on site for two cars.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

12.       The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and boarding houses are permissible within the Residential 2(b) zone with the consent of Council. The proposed use satisfies the definition of a boarding house and is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

13.       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

 

14.       In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 22 June to 6 July 2007. In response, five submissions were received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

The proposed use will affect traffic movement and parking within the street

 

15.      The proposed change of use from a dwelling house to a boarding house capable of accommodating 5 lodgers will in the worse case scenario require off street parking for 5 lodgers. The comments received from Council’s Traffic Engineer states that 2 off street parking spaces are required on site in accordance with Council’s parking provisions. Two on site spaces will be required as a condition of consent. Therefore the existing site conditions will suitably manage the proposed use in regard to on-street parking.

 

 

 

Proposed use will generate excessive noise

 

16.    The site management plan submitted with the development application outlines terms and conditions for the lodgers of the boarding house in relation to noise and curfews. The site management plan will also include the contact details of the site manager and in the event that lodgers create excessive noise, the residents will have the ability to contact the site manager to address the problem. However it is considered that the use will have a minimal impact on noise levels within the area and will be consistent with a residential use.

 

Proposed use will compromise fire safety

 

17.    Council’s Senior Building Surveyor has inspected the subject site and requires that smoke alarms be interconnected with the lighting system in accordance with provisions of the Building Code of Australia 2007 part 3.7.2.4 & 3.7.2.5. Therefore all bedrooms are required to be fitted with a smoke alarm which activates a system of lighting to assist with the evacuation of occupants, ensuring the building provides adequate fire safety measures.

 

Management of the site will not be enforced

 

18.      A site management plan has been submitted with the application. The site management plan addresses the following issues:

 

§ Management of communal facilities

§ Noise control & curfews

§ Management of waste

§ Parking

§ House rules

§ Proposed maximum number of residents

 

A site management plan will be distributed to adjoining residents and in the event of an activity occurring that is inconsistent with the site management plan, the site manager can be contacted in order to address the problem. It is considered that the site management plan is suitable for the proposed use.

 

 

On-site Meeting

 

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

 

 

20.      An on-site meeting was on Saturday 8 March 2008 commencing at 11:30am. The on site meeting also dealt with Development Application No. 632/2007 which is seeking consent for the same use at 5 McArdle Street. Present at the meeting were Councillor Chedid, Councillor Wilson, Team Leader Danielle Woods, Assessment Planner James McBride, 5 residents and the applicant. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Traffic

 

21.      Several adjoining neighbours were concerned about traffic movement and access within McArdle Street. In particular concern was raised in relation to the generation of additional on street parking and the impact on egress through the bend on McArdle Street. A resident raised issues with parking on an unnamed laneway which runs parallel to Bartlett Street in proximity to the subject site. The resident was concerned that the proposal would exacerbate parking within the laneway.

 

22.      In response to this concern Council advised the residents present, that the lodgers, generally are students, and are not likely to own vehicles. Furthermore it was advised that the traffic unit supported the proposal subject to a condition which required the applicant to enforce off street parking in a tandem arrangement. In addition Council resolved that a service request be made on behalf of a resident to assess the parking regulations on the unnamed laneway. A service request was created (CRM 383300).

 

Notification

 

23.      The residents raised concern in regard to the notification of the on site meeting for 3 McArdle Street.

 

24.      In response it appears that since there are 2 development applications running concurrently for No. 3 and No. 5 for the same use, residents were unsure that the on site meeting related to both development applications. In addition all neighbours were notified of both development applications in accordance with the Notification DCP.

 

Site Management

 

25.      The residents were concerned about the management of the site and enforcement, in particular residents were concerned about noise generation and the lack of care in relation to tidiness and behaviour of lodgers.

 

26.      In comment the attending residents were advised that a site management plan was submitted by the applicant which addressed these issues and a copy of the plan with the contact details of the site manager would be available to all adjoining residents through the imposition of a condition. The residents were satisfied with the resolution. A condition will be imposed requiring the applicant to distribute a site management plan with contact details to adjoining residents

 

REFERRALS

 

27.      The application was referred to Councils Environmental Health Officer who has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the incorporation of conditions

 

28.      The application was referred to Councils Traffic Engineer who has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the incorporation of conditions.

 

CUMALATIVE IMPACT

 

29.       The proposed use of 3 & 5 McArdle Street as boarding houses will not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties. Each dwelling will accommodate a maximum of 5 lodgers and in conjunction with the implementation of the site management plan will not give rise to undue acoustic, privacy or traffic impacts. In addition each dwelling contains a significant area of communal private open space and is adequately separated from adjoining properties.

 

 

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

1 May 2008

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans

1 Page

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

3View

Site Management Plan

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Plans

 

 


Attachment 2

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 3

Site Management Plan

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         13.3

SUBJECT                   5 McArdle Street, Ermington
(Lot 4 DP 36752) (
Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Change of use from dwelling house to boarding house. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE            DA/632/2007 - Submitted 14 August 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mr Z J Chen

OWNERS                    Mr Z J Chen

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 632/2007 which seeks approval for the change of use from a dwelling house to a boarding house.

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 632/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

 

1) The site management plan submitted with the application, is to be made available to adjoining properties prior to the occupation of the boarding house. The site management plan must include the contact details, a phone number of the site manager and suitable contact hours. In the event that a complaint is made where an activity has occurred that is inconsistent with the site management plan, the site manager is to respond and rectify the problem in accordance with the site management plan. A register/record of the complaints is to be kept by the site manager to assist if future concerns are to be investigated by Council.

 

2) The maximum number of lodgers permitted to reside within the dwelling must not exceed five (5) at any one time as each lodger is to be allocated individual bedrooms.

 

 

3) As there is a change in the building use (classification), the building must comply with the Category 1 fire safety provision applicable to the proposed new use.

 

Note:     The obligation under this subclause to comply with the Category 1 fire safety provision may require building work to be carried out even though none is proposed or required in the relevant development consent.  In this clause, Category 1 fire safety provision has the same meaning as it has in Part 7B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations. In this regard you are required to comply with provisions of the Building Code of Australia 2007 part 3.7.2.4 & 3.7.2.5. All bedrooms are required to be fitted with a smoke alarm which activates a system of lighting to assist with the evacuation of occupants. In addition a fire extinguisher or fire blanket must be provided within the kitchen.

 

4) The boarding house must provide 2 off-street parking spaces on the subject site.

 

5) The use of the premises shall comply in all respects with the definition of ‘boarding house’ as provided in the Dictionary to Clause 10 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, vis-à-vis:

 

“boarding house means a building or part of a building let in lodgings or a hostel which provides lodgers with a principal place of residence, but does not include backpackers accommodation, a guest house, serviced apartment, or (in the Table to Clause 16) any other building defined in this dictionary”.

 

 

That any advertising of the premises shall clearly state that the premises provides a principal place of residence and tariffs shall not be depicted on a daily basis.

 

 

6) A 24-hours phone number shall be supplied to each occupant so that contact may be made with the manager.

 

7) The manager shall ensure that a notice is placed near the entrance to the property in a visible position to the public advising of his name and contact number.

 

8) The premises shall require licensing pursuant to the Youth and Community Services Act 1973 should two or more occupants be diagnosed as having a disability.

 

9) That each occupant shall be furnished with a set of house rules and a copy of this consent and that no variation shall be permitted without the further approval of Council.

 

10) That the manager shall maintain a computer record and hard copy logbook of all residents with details of their names, length of stay, number of persons in each room, and that such record shall be submitted to Council annually.

 

 

11) All residents in the boarding house are to sign a lease or licence agreeing to comply with the boarding house rules, with the length of the lease to be determined by the management on the explicit understanding that accommodation is not to be provided on a temporary basis to persons on recreational pursuits. The length of lease considered appropriate is to be not less than 3 months.

 

 

12) The manager, upon signing of the lease or licence agreement, shall provide boarders with a key to their individual room and common areas.

 

 

13) Additional house rules shall be prepared by the manager of the premises and furnished to Council, in relation to such matters as the keeping of pets, noise, cleaning of outdoor areas and general use of outdoor areas.

 

 

14) The individual rooms and common areas are to be maintained in a clean and tidy state and individual’s rubbish is to be placed in the appropriate receptacles.

 

15) No fire, candles or naked flames are permitted within individual rooms

 

16) The kitchen shall be made available for residents 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and the applicant shall ensure that basic facilities in good working order are provided, including, but not limited to:

 

·         a large refrigerator;

·         a regular and a microwave oven;

·         dishwashing facilities;

·         waste disposal;

·         personal hygiene (soap, paper towels and the like);

·         food storage space;

·         a bench top for food preparation.

 

17) Doors to the kitchen and common areas are to be clear glazed.

 

18) Dining shall be encouraged within the common areas, so as not to isolate residents.

 

19) The door to a fully enclosed sanitary compartment  must open outwards or slide or be readily removable from the outside of the compartment, unless there is a clear space of at least 1.2 metres between the closet pan within the sanitary compartment and the nearest part of the doorway.

 

 

20) The boarding house is to be used as a principal place of residence for  long term residents and is not to be used for tourist purposes such as a private hotel or backpacker hostel.

 

21) A copy of the house rules shall be placed in prominent locations on the site, including in all communal areas, behind doors in bedrooms, and upon the rear façade of the dwelling, in order to familiarise residents of the boarding house with acceptable activities .

 

 

22) In addition to the above, the applicant shall also ensure that each room is  provided with the following basic facilities:

 

·        Wardrobe;

·        Mirror;

·        Table & Chair;

·        Small bar fridge;

·        A night light or other approved illumination device for each bed;

·        Coffee and tea making facilities;

·        Microwave oven (no other cooking facilities to be provided in the      bedrooms);

·        Waste container;

·        An approved latching device on the door;

·        Curtains, blinds or similar privacy device;

·        A phone line.

 

       All room furnishings shall be detailed in the Plan of Management.

 

23) The premises shall comply with fire safety regulations pertinent to a Class 1b building, being a boarding house with 12 or fewer occupants.

 

24) The applicant/developer shall contact Council’s Waste Unit to discuss the provision of a 240 litre bin for the collection of waste and the provision of a 240 litre bin for recycling. Services over and above the frequency and volume provided by Council shall require a private contracting service.

 

 

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

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      Development Application No. 632/2007 for the change of use from an existing five bedroom dwelling house to a boarding house was lodged on 14 August 2007

 

2.      Application was advertised from 5 September to 26 September 2007 with a site sign being erected. Five (5) submissions & 1 petition with 6 signatures were received.

 

3.      Comments received from Councils Environmental Health Unit on 27 August 2007.

 

4.      Comments received from Councils Traffic Unit on 3 September 2007

 

5.      An on-site meeting held on 8 March 2008 attended by Councillors, residents, applicant and council staff

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

6.      The subject site is located on the western side of McArdle Street and is an irregular shaped allotment that contains a single storey dwelling. The dwelling contains 5 bedrooms and shared facilities including a kitchen, laundry and bathroom. The site has a frontage of 14.04 metres and a depth ranging from 41 metres to 49 metres. Development within McArdle Street consists of a mixture of single detached dwellings, multi unit dwellings and residential flat buildings. The development pattern surrounding the site also includes a variety of local shops and a primary school.

 

PROPOSAL

 

7.         Development Application No. 632/2007 seeks approval for the following:

 

7.1         Change of use from a single storey dwelling house to a boarding house comprising of 5 bedrooms with shared facilities including a kitchen, laundry and bathroom.

 

7.2         The proposed boarding house will accommodate 5 lodgers

 

7.3         No construction work is proposed to the existing dwelling, including no internal layout changes from the existing dwelling floor plan.

 

7.4         Tandem/stacked parking will be provided on site for two cars.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

8.         The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and boarding houses are permissible within the Residential 2(b) zone with the consent of Council. The proposed use satisfies the definition of a boarding house and is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

9.         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

 

10.       The proposal was advertised between 22 June to 6 July 2007. In response, four submissions & 1 petition with 6 signatures were received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

The proposed use will affect traffic movement and parking within the street

 

11.      The proposed change of use from a dwelling house to a boarding house capable of accommodating 5 lodgers will in the worse case scenario require off street parking for 5 lodgers. The comments received from Council’s Traffic Engineer states that 2 off street parking spaces are required on site in accordance with Council’s parking provisions. Two on site spaces will be required as a condition of consent. Therefore the existing site conditions will suitably manage the proposed use in regard to on-street parking.

 

 

Proposed use will generate excessive noise

 

12.      The site management plan submitted with the development application outlines terms and conditions for the lodgers of the boarding house in relation to noise and curfews. The site management plan will also include the contact details of the site manager and in the event that lodgers create excessive noise, the residents will have the ability to contact the site manager to address the problem. However it is considered that the use will have a minimal impact on noise levels within the area and will be consistent with a residential use.

 

 

Proposed use will compromise fire safety

 

13.    Council’s Senior Building Surveyor has inspected the subject site and requires that smoke alarms be interconnected with the lighting system in accordance with provisions of the Building Code of Australia 2007 part 3.7.2.4 & 3.7.2.5. Therefore all bedrooms are required to be fitted with a smoke alarm which activates a system of lighting to assist with the evacuation of occupants, ensuring the building provides adequate fire safety measures.

 

 

Management of the site will not be enforced

 

14.      A site management plan has been submitted with the application. The site management plan addresses the following issues:

 

§ Management of communal facilities

§ Noise control & curfews

§ Management of waste

§ Parking

§ House rules

§ Proposed maximum number of residents

 

A site management plan will be distributed to adjoining residents and in the event of an activity occurring that is inconsistent with the site management plan, the site manager can be contacted in order to address the problem. It is considered that the site management plan is suitable for the proposed use.

 

 

On-site Meeting

 

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

 

 

16.      An on-site meeting was on Saturday 8 March 2008 commencing at 11:30am. The on site meeting also dealt with Development Application No. 435/2007 which is seeking consent for the same use at 3 McArdle Street. Present at the meeting were Councillor Chedid, Councillor Wilson, Team Leader Danielle Woods, Assessment Planner James McBride, 5 residents and the applicant. The following issues were discussed at the meeting. 

 

Traffic

 

17.      Several adjoining neighbours were concerned about traffic movement and access within McArdle Street. In particular concern was raised in relation to the generation of additional on street parking and the impact on egress through the bend on McArdle Street. A resident raised issues with parking on an unnamed laneway which runs parallel to Bartlett Street in proximity to the subject site. The resident was concerned that the proposal would exacerbate parking within the laneway.

 

18.      In response to this concern Council advised the residents present, that the lodgers, generally are students, and are not likely to own vehicles. Furthermore it was advised that the traffic unit supported the proposal subject to a condition which required the applicant to enforce off street parking in a tandem arrangement. In addition Council resolved that a service request be made on behalf of a resident to assess the parking regulations on the unnamed laneway. A service request was created (CRM 383300).

 

 

Notification

 

 

19.      The residents raised concern in regard to the notification of the on site meeting for 3 McArdle Street.

 

 

20.      In response it appears that since there are 2 development applications running concurrently for No. 3 and No. 5 for the same use, residents were unsure that the on site meeting related to both development applications. In addition all neighbours were notified of both development applications in accordance with the Notification DCP.

 

 

Site Management

 

21.      The residents were concerned about the management of the site and enforcement, in particular noised generated and the lack of care by lodgers having regard to the site conditions.

 

 

22.      In comment the attending residents were advised that a site management plan was submitted by the applicant which addressed these issues and a copy of the plan with the contact details of the site manager would be available to all adjoining residents through the imposition of a condition. The residents were satisfied with the resolution. A condition will be imposed requiring the applicant to distribute a site management plan with contact details to adjoining residents

 

REFERRALS

 

23.      The application was referred to Councils Environmental Health Officer who has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the incorporation of conditions

 

24.      The application was referred to Councils Traffic Engineer who has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the incorporation of conditions.

 

 

CUMALATIVE IMPACT

 

25.       The proposed use of 3 & 5 McArdle Street as boarding houses will not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties. Each dwelling will accommodate a maximum of 5 lodgers and in conjunction with the implementation of the site management plan will not give rise to undue acoustic, privacy or traffic impacts. In addition each dwelling contains a significant area of communal private open space and is adequately separated from adjoining properties.

 

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

30 April 2008

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans

1 Page

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

3View

Site Management Plan

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Plans

 

 


Attachment 2

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 3

Site Management Plan

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         13.4

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, addition of a sliding gate to the fence fronting Charles Street and installation of windows and door to the northern elevation.

REFERENCE            DA/603/2007 - Submitted 7 August 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mrs A Khoury

OWNERS                    Mrs A Khoury

REPORT OF              Development Assessment Officer       

 

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, addition of a sliding gate to the fence fronting Charles Street and installation of windows and door to the northern elevation; and to provide a summary of the issues discussed at the onsite meeting held on 22 April 2008.

 

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 for 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

 

The original application proposed alterations to the existing hairdressing salon to incorporate a sliding door along the northern elevation for access to Charles Street. However, as a result of the on-site meeting, written correspondence from the applicant has been received 1 May 2008 requesting the withdrawal of the proposed sliding door along the northern elevation servicing the hairdresser salon. The plans are to be amended accordingly, in red, to reflect this written request.

 

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.

 

ON SITE MEETING

 

20.      Council, at its meeting of 14 April 2008, resolved that consideration of this matter be deferred for an on-site meeting with interested Councillors, the applicant and objectors to be held on Tuesday 22 April 2008 at 5.00 pm.

 

21.      In accordance with the above resolution an on site meeting was held on Tuesday 22 April 2008, commencing at 5.00pm.

 

22.      Present at the meeting were Clr Gerrad (chairperson), Clr Walsh, 6 residents, the owner and Danielle Woods (Team Leader Development and Certification). The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Traffic/speeding motorists and Parking

 

23.      The residents raised concerns that the existing area and feeder streets experience heavy traffic delays and speeding motorists including inadequate parking being available on the street .The proposed sliding door to the existing hairdresser  will generate additional customers and increase parking within Charles street

 

24.      In response to these issues the following comments were made:

           The report submitted to Council indicates the intention of the door is to provide access for female customer wanting to utilise the shop and therefore would have a minimal increase in traffic or parking.

The issue of speeding needs to be considered at a community level and contact is to be made with the local Police and Council for investigation.

Further to this response and the difficulty with the AVO in place, an inspection of the existing shop and the perusal of the approved plans for the Hairdresser shop including comments from the lease of the existing shop, revealed that the intention of the applicant is to possibly create an additional shop within the existing hairdressers, which is not consistent with the previous approval nor permissible.

 

Dividing Fences

 

25.    The resident at No 2 Charles raised concerns in regard to the location of the existing colorbond fence and could it be removed if it is encroaching on their land.

 

26.    The Councillors advised that dividing fences are private matters not Council matters, and as such to remove portion of fencing would require a survey by a registered surveyor and discussions with the relevant parties. If they need further assistance due to the history and the AVO, it was suggested that seek legal advice and mediation with the court.

 

Potential dual occupancy

 

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

 

28.      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.

 

Existing Easement on the subject site

 

29.    There appears to history at the creation of the subdivision of the land and the purchase of the land at No.2 Charles Street that the easement was not available or known to the purchases before they settled.

 

30.    In response the Clrs advised that the solicitor acting on your behalf with the purchase should have completed all appropriate checks and balances including legal restrictions and easement affecting or burdening the property.

In addition the proposed development in particular the awning is not impacting on the easement as the structure is setback approx. 4 metres to the boundary. Furthermore it was explained that the owner of No. 122 the Trongate has the benefit of the easement, and any further enquiries should be directed to legal representations, not Council.

 

Noise impacts from the awning

 

31.     The residents are concerned that the awning roof being colourbond will transfer noise to their dwelling.

 

32.     The proposed awning is not inconsistent with surrounding development or materials of construction utilised on neighbouring properties and given the setback from the boundary should have a minimal impact on the neighbour’s amenity. Drainage will be connected to the existing drainage system.

 

Site coverage

 

33.    Clr Walsh raised the issue of site coverage, in which it was resolved that the report discusses numerical compliances. The applicant provided comment that the amended plans reduced the size of the awning to provide additional grass areas.

 

Notification of the meeting

 

34.     Residents raised that they were not all notified of the onsite meeting, in which the Council resolution for the onsite meeting was explained ,in that only the applicant and objectors are to be advised of the meeting, therefore if no submissions were raised than these residents were not formally invited to the meeting.

 

35.     Meeting closed with all issues being summarised at 6.20pm with the residents, applicant and Clrs being advised that they will be notified in writing of the date in which the DA will be further presented at a Council meeting.

 

36.   Further to the site meeting and a perusal of the previous approval it was discussed that the intention of the applicant is too possible provide an additional shop within an existing shop. Therefore the assessing officer was advised to request an explanation of the intended use and the need for the additional sliding door.

 

37.    1/5/08 the applicant advised via email to delete the additional sliding door to the hairdressers which is further discussed in the report to Council.

 

 

Nicholas Clarke

Development Assessment Officer

1 May 2008

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

2View

Application history

1 Page

 

3View

Plans and elevations

4 Pages

 

4

On-Site Meeting Summary

4 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 2

Application history

 

 


Attachment 3

Plans and elevations

 




 


Attachment 4

On-Site Meeting Summary

 

 

 

M E M O

 

 

 

Folder Number:  DA/685/2006

 

 

 

To

File

 

Date

22/4/08

 5.00pm

From

Danielle Woods

Through

Mark Leotta

Subject

 

Proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising of an awning, installation of an ensuite and additional toilet, sliding gate within the existing brick fence, installation of new windows and door along the northern elevation. In addition the applicant proposes alterations to the existing hairdressing shop to incorporate a sliding door along the northern elevation for access to Charles street.

Property

 

122 The Trongate Granville

 

Present at the meeting were:

 

Councillors:,   Clr Gerrad(chairperson), Clr Walsh   

Apologies: Clr Worthington

 

 

Present-Residents, Applicant, Owner

Council staff- Danielle Woods.-Team Leader

 

Prior to the formal commencement of the on site meeting the existing neighborhood disputes in regard to the AVO orders that are currently in place between the owner of the subject site and the adjoining neighbour were discussed.

Therefore the issue of the physical location to hold the onsite meeting was resolved, with the most appropriate management being to discus all issues with the neighbours on the opposite side of the street and then relay the issues to the applicant across the street.

 

The site meeting opened with the proposal description being identified including the amendments made to address issues raised by Council staff and residents.

The following issues were discussed which have either been answered on the site meeting or warrant further explanation/clarification.

 

 

ISSUES

 

Traffic/speeding motorists and Parking

 

The residents raised concerns that the existing area and feeder streets experience heavy traffic delays and speeding motorists including inadequate parking being available on the street .The proposed sliding door to the existing hairdresser  will generate additional customers and increase parking within Charles street

 

Comment

In response to these issues the following comments were made:

The report submitted to Council indicates the intention of the door is to provide access for female customer wanting to utilise the shop and therefore would have a minimal increase in traffic or parking.

The issue of speeding needs to be considered at a community level and contact is to be made with the local Police and Council for investigation.

Further to this response and the difficulty with the AVO in place, an inspection of the existing shop and the perusal of the approved plans for the Hairdresser shop including comments from the lease of the existing shop, revealed that the intention of the applicant is to possibly create an additional shop within the existing hairdressers, which is not consistent with the previous approval nor permissible.

 

Dividing Fences

 

The resident at No 2 Charles raised concerns in regard to the location of the existing colorbond fence and could it be removed if it is encroaching on their land.

Comment

 

The Councillors advised that dividing fences are private matters not Council matters, and as such to remove portion of fencing would require a survey by a registered surveyor and discussions with the relevant parties. If they need further assistance due to the history and the AVO, it was suggested that seek legal advice and mediation with the court.

 

Potential dual occupancy

 

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

 

Comment

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.

 

Existing Easement on the subject site

 

There appears to history at the creation of the subdivision of the land and the purchase of the land at No.2 Charles Street that the easement was not available or known to the purchases before they settled.

 

Comment

In response the Clrs advised that the solicitor acting on your behalf with the purchase should have completed all appropriate checks and balances including legal restrictions and easement affecting or burdening the property.

In addition the proposed development in particular the awning is not impacting on the easement as the structure is setback approx. 4 metres to the boundary. Furthermore it was explained that the owner of No. 122 the Trongate has the benefit of the easement, and any further enquiries should be directed to legal representations, not Council.

 

Noise impacts from the awning

 

The residents are concerned that the awning roof being colourbond will transfer noise to their dwelling.

 

Comment

The proposed awning is not inconsistent with surrounding development or materials of construction utilised on neighbouring properties and given the setback from the boundary should have a minimal impact on the neighbour’s amenity. Drainage will be connected to the existing drainage system.

 

Site coverage

Clr Walsh raised the issue of site coverage, in which it was resolved that the report discusses numerical compliances. The applicant provided comment that the amended plans reduced the size of the awning to provide additional grass areas.

 

Notification of the meeting

 

Residents raised that they were not all notified of the onsite meeting, in which the Council resolution for the onsite meeting was explained ,in that only the applicant and objectors are to be advised of the meeting, therefore if no submissions were raised than these residents were not formally invited to the meeting.

 

Meeting closed with all issues being summarised at 6.20pm with the residents, applicant and Clrs being advised that they will be notified in writing of the date in which the DA will be further presented at a Council meeting.

 

Further to the site meeting and a perusal of the previous approval it was discussed that the intention of the applicant is too possible provide an additional shop within an existing shop. Therefore the assessing officer was advised to request an explanation of the intended use and the need for the additional sliding door.

 

1/5/08 the applicant advised via email to delete the additional sliding door to the hairdressers which is further discussed in the report to Council.

 

 

For the information of the file

 

 

 

Danielle Woods

Team Leader- Development and Certification

 

 

 

 

Blank page


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.1

SUBJECT                   47 Barnetts Road, Winston Hills
(Lot 7 DP 221156) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a detached double garage located at the rear of a heritage listed site.
Location Map - (Attachment 3)

REFERENCE            DA/1088/2007 - 18 December 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mr B J Fitzgerald

OWNERS                    Mr A A Root and Mrs A A Root

REPORT OF              Senior Development and Certification Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No 1008/2007 which seeks approval to construct a detached double garage located at the rear of a heritage listed site.

 

The application has been referred to Council as the subject site is listed as an item of heritage significance (Inv 041 in Schedule 1) under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approve Development Application No 1008/2007 subject to standard conditions of consent.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The subject site is legally identified as Lot 7 in DP 221156 and is located on the southern side of Barnetts Road, Winston Hills. The site is located in the Winston Hills Special Character Area.

 

2.      The site is rectangular in shape having a 15.24m frontage to Barnetts Road, and a side boundary dimension of 39.014m. The area of the site is 594.57m2.

 

3.      The site currently comprises a single dwelling that is identified as being of heritage significance in the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). It is listed as Item 041 in Schedule 1 – Heritage items of State or Regional significance of the PLEP 1996, and is known as ‘Byrock’.

 

4.      Surrounding development comprises of residential dwellings of differing architectural styles and ages.

 

 

PROPOSAL

 

5.      The proposal is for the construction of a detached double garage to be located at the rear of the site.

 

5.1    The garage is proposed to have dimensions of 6m x 7m resulting in a total area of 42m2.

 

5.2    The garage is proposed to be constructed of steel with a concrete slab.

 

5.3    The proposal also involves an extension of the existing driveway on site to be located in front of the new garage.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

PARRAMATTA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2001 (PLEP 2001)

 

6.         The site is zoned Residential 2(a) under the provisions of PLEP 2001. The proposed garage is permissible within this zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

 

PARRAMATTA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

 

7.         The site is identified in Schedule 1 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) as a heritage item (Inv No 041). The site contains a single dwelling and is known as ‘Byrock’.

 

8.         The development is consistent with the objectives of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) which seek to conserve existing significant fabrics and settings associated with the heritage significance of heritage items and to ensure that any development does not adversely affect the heritage significance of heritage items and their settings.

 

PARRAMATTA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN – 2005

 

9.         The provisions of the Parramatta Development Control Plan– 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan and achieves compliance with the requirements of the DCP.

 

PARRAMATTA HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN – 2001

 

10.      The provisions of the Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan– 2001 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal achieves compliance with the requirements of the DCP and is also consistent with the general principles of the plan.

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

11.       In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified to adjoining property owners/occupiers between 21 January 2008 and 4 February 2008. No submissions were received in response to the notification period.

 

12.      In addition Council’s Heritage Committee was notified of the proposal with no response received during the fourteen (14) day notification period.

 

ISSUES

 

Heritage

 

13.      The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment, as the site is listed as a heritage item in Schedule 1 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). The comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor include:

 

14.      “I am of opinion that the proposed addition of a double garage is acceptable in heritage terms.  The garage will be located to the rear of the house, on lower grounds, and partly obscured behind the house.  The design of the garage is relatively simple, and will not compete with the house in visual terms.  The proposal includes extending the existing driveway but this modification is minor from the heritage perspective.

 

I thus have no objection to the application.”

 

15.      In addition to the above, it is noted that the proposed garage is to be constructed of steel in a ‘classic cream’ colour. These external finishes are considered to be compatible and sympathetic with the existing dwelling on the site.

 

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

 

Stormwater Disposal

 

17.      The subject site slopes to the rear and as such Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposal and has no objections subject to the imposition of a condition requiring that stormwater from the garage be connected to a rainwater tank with the overflow being directed to absorption trenches.

 

18.      Details of the pits/trenches are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority, being Council, prior to works commencing on site.

 

Trees

 

19.      The proposal does not require the removal of any trees on the site.

 

20.      The proposed garage is considered to be of a sufficient distance away from the roots of the existing tree located at the rear of the site.

 

21.      There are no other undue impacts relative to noise, privacy, shadowing or bulk associated with the proposed development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maya Sarwary

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Compliance Table

1 Page

 

2View

Plans and Elevations

2 Pages

 

3View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Compliance Table

 

 


Attachment 2

Plans and Elevations

 


 


Attachment 3

Locality Map

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.2

SUBJECT                   92 Bettington Road, Oatlands
(
Lot 1 DP 22016 and Lot D DP 32351)
(Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Section 96 (AA) modification to an approved 56 place childcare centre. The modifications include changes to deferred commencement condition 1b to allow the roundabout that is required to be constructed at the intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street to potentially be constructed at no cost to both Baulkham Hills Shire Council and Parramatta City Council.

REFERENCE            DA/491/2006/A - Submitted: 3 March 2008

APPLICANT/S           Mr J Bechara

OWNERS                    Mr T Bechara

REPORT OF              Development Assessment Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine an application to modify Development Application No. 491/2006, approved by the Land and Environment Court (Appeal No: 10737 of 2006), by modifying condition 1(b) of the deferred commencement consent under Section 96 (AA) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

The application has been referred to Council as the development is a child care centre and for the number of submissions received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council modify Development Consent DA/491/2006 issued by the Land and Environment Court dated 13 February 2007, in the following manner:

 

1.      Condition 1(b) is amended to read as follows:

 

1(b)  A Planning Agreement be entered into pursuant to Section 93F-93L of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 between the applicant, Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hill Shire Council in terms whereof the applicant, in order to facilitate the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Ellis Street and Bettington Road, Oatlands, is to pay whichever is the lower of either a $40,000 contribution to both Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council (total contribution $80,000) or a contribution in equal shares to Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council of half of the cost of construction of the roundabout including design and survey costs, or alternatively, an agreement between the Applicant and Baulkham Hills Shire Council for the construction, to the reasonable satisfaction of Baulkham Hills Shire Council, of the said roundabout at no cost to Baulkham Hills Shire Council or Parramatta City Council, and whereby construction shall commence no later than 12 months from the date of the said agreement and be completed within 18 months of the date of the said agreement.

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The site is known as 92 Bettington Road, Oatlands and the legal description is Lot 1 DP 22016 and Lot D DP 32351. The subject site is located on the southern side of Bettington Road on the boundary of the Parramatta Local Government Area which abuts Baulkham Hills Shire Council. The site is irregular in shape and measures 971sqm in area with a frontage of 21.285m to Bettington Road and depths of 48.62m and 48.59m respectively. Existing improvements on the site include a single storey detached residential dwelling.

 

2.      The site adjoining to the east is the Oatlands Golf Club and sites adjoining to the north, south and west predominately contain single detached residential dwelling houses. Surrounding development comprises similar scale single and two storey residential dwellings.

 

BACKGROUND

 

3.      Development Application No. 468/2005 for demolition and construction of a 2 storey child care centre for up to 75 children with basement car parking was refused by Council staff on 18 November 2005. The application received 23 individual submissions and 1 petition containing 186 signatures objecting to the proposed development during the notification and advertising period.

 

4.      The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal against Council’s deemed refusal of the application in the Land and Environment Court (Appeal No: 11262 of 2005) where the appeal was dismissed and the application was accordingly refused.

 

5.      Development Application No. 491/2006 for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a 2 storey childcare centre (for 64 children) over basement parking was refused by Council staff on 14 September 2006. The application received 31 submissions of objections during the notification and advertising period.

 

6.      The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal against Council’s deemed refusal of the application in the Land and Environment Court on 22 August 2006 (Appeal No: 10737 of 2006) which included a reduction in the number of children from 64 to 56, a reduction in the number of car parking spaces, an amended layout of the car park area and a mandatory contribution to the provision of a roundabout in Bettington Road. The appeal was upheld and the application was accordingly approved by way of deferred commencement subject to conditions. Condition 1b of the deferred commencement reads:

 

6.1.   “A Planning Agreement be entered into pursuant to Section 93F-93L of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 between the applicant, Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hill Shire Council in terms whereof the applicant, in order to facilitate the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Ellis Street and Bettington Road, Oatlands, is to pay whichever is the lower of either a $40,000 contribution to both Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council (total contribution $80,000) or a contribution in equal shares to Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council of half of the cost of construction of the roundabout including design and survey costs.”

 

7.      The proposed roundabout was considered by the Parramatta Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 12 November 2007. A copy of the report is attachment 3. At the meeting, it was resolved:

 

7.1.   ‘That Council approve the proposed roundabout at the intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street, Oatlands subject to statutory advertising being undertaken by Baulkham Hills Shire Council.’

 

7.2.   It is noted that Baulkham Hills Shire Council notified affected properties within their LGA and the Oatlands Golf Course in the Parramatta LGA between 21 December 2007 and 31 January 2008. No submissions were received. It is also noted that Baulkham Hills Shire Council will be responsible for the design of the roundabout due to an existing arrangement that exists between Baulkham Hills Shire Council and Parramatta City Council to take turns in designing roundabouts and other traffic calming devices on common boundaries.

 

PROPOSAL

 

8.      Pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 (AA) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant has lodged an application to modify the deferred commencement consent issued by the Land and Environment Court (the subject application). The application seeks to modify condition 1(b) to allow the construction of the required roundabout to be fully funded by the applicant and at potentially no cost to both Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council.

 

9.      Consent is sought to modify Development Consent DA/491/2006 dated 13 February 2007 by modifying condition 1(b) of the deferred commencement consent to read:

 

9.1.   A Planning Agreement be entered into pursuant to Section 93F-93L of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 between the applicant, Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hill Shire Council in terms whereof the applicant, in order to facilitate the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Ellis Street and Bettington Road, Oatlands, is to pay whichever is the lower of either a $40,000 contribution to both Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council (total contribution $80,000) or a contribution in equal shares to Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council of half of the cost of construction of the roundabout including design and survey costs, or alternatively, an agreement between the Applicant and Baulkham Hills Shire Council for the construction, to the reasonable satisfaction of Baulkham Hills Shire Council, of the said roundabout at no cost to Baulkham Hills Shire Council or Parramatta City Council, and whereby construction shall commence no later than 12 months from the date of the said agreement and be completed within 18 months of the date of the said agreement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

10.    Section 96 AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 allows applicants to make an application to modify consents granted by the Land and Environment Court. 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.

 

11.    The proposed modification is to condition 1(b) of the deferred commencement consent which involves additional wording at the end of the condition to potentially allow the applicant to construct the required roundabout at the intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street at full cost with no contributions by both Parramatta City and Baulkham Hills Shire Councils. The proposed modification will result in substantially the same development as that originally approved and can be dealt with pursuant to S96 AA of the EP&A Act.

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

12.    The site is zoned 2A Residential pursuant to the zoning provisions of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. PLEP 2001 does not incorporate any minimum development standards for the proposed modification and accordingly, the proposal is consistent with the objectives of PLEP 2001.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

13.    The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005.

 

Parramatta Child Care Centres Development Control Plan 2007

 

14.    The development was approved prior to the Child Care Centres DCP coming into effect and this Section 96 modification application does not alter the approved children numbers or car parking as approved by the Land and Environment Court. Given this, the provisions of the Child Care Centres DCP are not considered relevant.

 

CONSULTATION

 

15.    In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was advertised between 26 March and 9 April 2008. In response, one submission was received. The issues raised in the submission are discussed below.

 

Proposed Roundabout Construction

 

16.    Concern was raised over the construction of a roundabout for a private commercial premises.

 

17.    The construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street was imposed as a condition of consent by the Land and Environment Court. The application seeks to modify condition 1(b) of the deferred commencement consent issued by the Court to potentially allow the roundabout to be constructed at full cost by the applicant with no contribution from both Parramatta City and Baulkham Hills Shire Council’s. The decision to construct a roundabout as part of the development as a child care centre was a decision made by the Land and Environment Court.

 

PROPOSED MODIFICATION

 

18.    In December 2007, the following comments were provided by Council’s Traffic and Transport Services Manager for the proposed roundabout construction:

 

18.1. A roundabout at the intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street, Oatlands was initially proposed in the late 1990's as part of more extensive works on Bettington Road. This scheme was jointly developed by Baulkham Hills Shire Council and Parramatta Council. The file indicates that some Councillors were aware of the proposal however, no works were formally approved at this time. The scheme became the basis for funding applications and as a result the southern half of the works have been installed. These works include median islands on bends and 2 roundabouts. Some of the works have benefited the residents of one Council more than the other, however all works have had an equal contribution from each Council.

 

18.2. The proposed roundabout at the intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street, Oatlands is likely to give a greater benefit to residents of Baulkham Hills Shire Council. However, the greatest single beneficiary will be Oatlands Golf Club. Residents on Bettington Road will benefit from reduced traffic speeds. This will ensure it is safer to cross the road and enter or exit from driveways.

 

18.3. The developer has offered to fully fund the design and construction of the roundabout. On this basis, it is recommended that the roundabout be approved. It is intended that Baulkham Hills Shire Council undertake the design and statutory advertising for the roundabout.

 

19.    It is noted that previous roundabout constructions have generally cost approximately $120,000. Condition 1(b), as imposed by the Land and Environment Court, could potentially result in Parramatta Council providing additional funding for the construction of the roundabout, if design and construction costs exceeded $80,000. It is further noted that the proposed modification to condition 1(b) is not likely to result in any traffic impacts and the roundabout construction has been supported by the Parramatta Traffic Committee. It is considered reasonable to accept the applicants’ suggestion to pay for the cost of construction of the roundabout.

 

ON-SITE MEETING

 

20.    In accordance with Council’s resolution, an on-site meeting is scheduled for the proposed development on 3 May 2008 as the development is for a child care centre and a submission has been received.

 

21.    At the time of preparing this report, the on-site meeting has not been held. As a result, the issues raised at the on-site meeting will be provided to Councillor’s in a further memo prior to the Council meeting of 12 May 2008.

 

 

 

 

Ali Hammoud

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

2View

Schedule of Changes

1 Page

 

3View

Report to Parramatta Council Traffic Committee Regarding Roundabout at the Intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street, Oatlands

4 Pages

 

4View

Concept Plan for the Proposed Roundabout at the Intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street, Oatlands

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 2

Schedule of Changes

 

 

 


Attachment 3

Report to Parramatta Council Traffic Committee Regarding Roundabout at the Intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street, Oatlands

 




 

 


Attachment 4

Concept Plan for the Proposed Roundabout at the Intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street, Oatlands

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.3

SUBJECT                   14 New York Street, Granville
(Lot A DP 318121) (Woodville)

DESCRIPTION          Alterations and additions to an existing heritage listed dwelling. Location Map - Attachment 3

REFERENCE            DA/99/2008 - Submitted 18 February 2008

APPLICANT/S           Mr G Maalouf and Mrs L Maalouf

OWNERS                    Mr G Maalouf and Mrs L Maalouf

REPORT OF              Senior Development and Certification Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No 99/2008 which seeks approval to carry out alterations and additions to a heritage listed dwelling, including the construction of a garage.

 

The application has been referred to Council as the subject site is listed as an item of heritage significance (Inv No 404 in Schedule 2) under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council grant consent to Development Application No/99/2008 subject to standard conditions of consent.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The subject site legally identified as Lot A in DP 318121 and is located on the southern side of New York Street in Granville.

 

2.      The site is essentially rectangular in shape having a 20.115m frontage to New York Street, a 19.9m rear boundary dimension, a western side boundary dimension of 31.18m and an eastern side dimension of 30.055m. The area of the site is 621.5m2.

 

3.      The site currently comprises a single storey weatherboard dwelling and forms part of a group of cottages that are identified as being of heritage significance in the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). There are three (3) sheds and a detached WC also located on the site.

 

4.      Surrounding development comprises of residential dwellings of differing architectural styles and ages.

 

PROPOSAL

 

5.      The proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing heritage listed dwelling, including the following:-

 

5.1    Demolition of an existing ‘lean-to’ addition and outbuildings at the rear of the site;

 

5.2    Demolition of internal walls within the rear of the dwelling in order to ‘open up’ the internal space and reconfigure rooms, including enlarging the existing bathroom, dining room and kitchen;

 

5.3    Construction of a single storey addition at the rear of the dwelling, comprising of a living room, laundry and patio; 

 

5.4    Construction of a detached garage at the rear of the site;

 

5.5    Construction of a new ‘tyre track’ driveway to access the rear garage;

 

5.6    Removal of existing hardstand area and side concrete path along the eastern side of the site, and replacement with turf; and

 

5.7    The proposal also involves the removal of a tree, being a Ficus rubiginosa located at the rear of the property. This tree is less than 5m in height and is therefore exempt from Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

PARRAMATTA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2001 (PLEP 2001)

 

7.         The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under the provisions of PLEP 2001. Alterations and additions to dwelling houses are permissible within this zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

PARRAMATTA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

 

8.         The site is identified in Schedule 2 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) as a heritage item (Inv No 404). The site contains a weatherboard cottage, which forms one of part of a group of cottages with heritage significance, being Nos 12-14, 18-24, and 13 New York Street.

 

9.         The development is consistent with the objectives of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) which seek to conserve existing significant fabrics and settings associated with the heritage significance of heritage items and to ensure that any development does not adversely affect the heritage significance of heritage items and their settings.

 

PARRAMATTA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN – 2005

 

10.      The provisions of the Parramatta Development Control Plan– 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan and achieves compliance with the requirements of the DCP, apart from the rear setback and distribution of deep soil area controls. These non-compliances are discussed later in this report.

 

PARRAMATTA HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN – 2001

 

11.      The provisions of the Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan– 2001 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal achieves compliance with the requirements of the DCP and is also consistent with the general principles of the plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

12.       In accordance with Table 4 of Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised to adjoining property owners/occupiers for a period of twenty-one (21) days, from 5 March until 26 March 2008. The proposal was also advertised in the local newspaper and a site notice was placed on the subject site, in accordance with the DCP. In addition Council’s Heritage Committee was notified of the proposal.

 

13.       No submissions were received in response to the notification of the application.

 

ISSUES

 

Heritage

 

13.      The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment, as the site is listed as a heritage item in Schedule 2 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). The dwelling house forms one of part of a group of cottages with heritage significance, being Nos 12-14, 18-24, and 13 New York Street, Granville, which are all listed as heritage items. The comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor include:

 

14.      “The site is listed as a heritage item, part of the group of cottages at 12-14, 18-24, and 13 New York Street, Granville.  The current proposal is for rear additions only, and has been modified further to my discussions with the designers of the project.

The current form of the proposed additions satisfies the requirements of the Parramatta Heritage DCP 2001.  The proposal does not affect the notable front of the house.  The additions are located to the rear of the existing house, and utilise forms compatible to the original front of the building, including single storey configuration and a skillion roof.  Materials proposed include corrugated iron roofing and weatherboard cladding similar to that of the existing house.  The proposed colour scheme appears suitable.  The garage is detached from the house and located to the rear….

Under these conditions, I would have no objection to the proposal.”

 

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

 

Rear Setback

 

16.      Parramatta Development Control Plan – 2005 requires that the proposed development be setback a minimum of 9.3m from the rear boundary of the site. The development however, is proposed to be setback 6.7m from the rear boundary.

 

17.      The proposed alterations are generally consistent with the existing dwelling on site in respect of setbacks. Further, the alterations are generally in line with the rear of the adjoining dwelling at No 12 New York Street.

 

18.      In addition to the above, it is noted that, given the heritage significance of the site, a rear extension is the preferred solution as opposed to a first floor addition, or an extension to the side of the dwelling.   The proposed alterations are located behind the dwelling with no modifications made to the front façade of the dwelling, thereby minimising any impact on the streetscape and heritage significance of the dwelling on the site.

 

19.       Given the heritage constraints of the site, and the fact that the development does not unduly impact on the amenity, the adjoining properties or the bulk and scale of the dwelling, the non-compliance with the rear setback is supported.

 

Deep Soil Zone (provision of 50% at rear)

 

20.      Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires that 186m2 of deep soil area be provided on the site with 15% (28m2) of this area being located at the front of the site, and 50% (93m2) being located at the rear.

 

21.      The proposal provides 300.5m2 of deep soil area, with 42m2 provided at the front of the site, and only 42m2 provided at the rear.

 

22.      The heritage constraints of the site, and the preferred option of extending at the rear of the dwelling restricts the amount of area available at the rear for deep soil planting.

 

23.      The proposal however, involves the removal of an existing hardstand area and concrete path located within the eastern side setback of the site, and will be replaced with turf. This results in an additional 168m2 of deep soil area, contributing to the development complying with the overall requirement for deep soil area to be provided on the site, and ensuring that it meets the objectives of the deep soil area control stipulated in the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005.

 

24.      In addition to the above, it is noted that the development provides for 104m2 of private open space area, complying with the minimum 100m2 required by the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005.

 

25.      Given the above, no objection is raised to the development’s non-compliance with the provision of deep soil area located at the rear of the site.

 

26.      There are no other undue impacts relative to noise, privacy, shadowing or bulk associated with the proposed development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maya Sarwary

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Compliance Table

1 Page

 

2View

Plans and Elevations

2 Pages

 

3View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Compliance Table

 

 


Attachment 2

Plans and Elevations

 


 


Attachment 3

Locality Map

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.4

SUBJECT                   28 - 30 Carson Street, Dundas
(Lots 4 and 5 DP 31560) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          A Section 82A Review of Determination to review the determination (refusal) of DA/632/2006 for demolition, tree removal and the construction of 9 townhouses and basement car parking.

REFERENCE            DA/632/2006 - 5 September 2007

APPLICANT/S           Designeffect P/L

OWNERS                    Mr S Xing, Mr L Qi and Mr Y Han

REPORT OF              Senior Development Assessment Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To review Council’s determination of Development Application No. 632/2006 pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The development application seeks approval for demolition, tree removal and construction of 8 townhouses and basement car parking.

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination, in accordance with Council delegations as the original development application was refused on 4 May 2007 under delegated authority.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council uphold the previous determination of refusal of Development Application 632/2006, subject to the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposed development is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the 2B Residential Zone. In this regard, the proposed development does not enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area. In addition, the proposed built form and in particular the proposed building height, bulk, scale and vertical proportions are not sympathetic to the surrounding built environment;

 

2.    The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4) as the roof form has not minimised the appearance of bulk and scale of the building. The proposal does not ensure that the building mass and form reinforces, compliments and enhances the visual character of the street (particularly in relation to the streetscape). The proposed building height does not respond to the topography and shape of the site. In addition, the development has not minimised the extent of shadows that it casts on the private open space and habitable room windows of the adjoining dwellings;

 

3.    The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.3.4), which requires development to provide dwellings within the development site with a minimum of 3 hours sunlight in at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The proposal does not provide townhouses 2 and 3 with a minimum of 3 hours sunlight in at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.3.4 of DCP 2005 have not been satisfied. In this regard, the proposed development will unreasonably diminish sunlight to dwellings within the development site. Further, the proposed development will reduce the amenity of townhouses 2 and 3 for the reason that their private open space areas will not be capable of serving as an extension of the dwelling for relaxation, entertainment and recreation;

 

4.    The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.2.4), which requires development to provide dwellings with a building frontage and entry that has a sense of address and visual interest. The proposal does not provide townhouses 1 – 3 (front row) with a front entry door and pedestrian access pathway. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.2.4 of DCP 2005 have not been satisfied. In this regard, the proposed development does not ensure that the appearance of the building compliments the streetscape character and that an attractive building façade has not been provided to establish identity;

 

5.    The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.4.3), which requires multi unit development with less than 10 dwellings to provide one adaptable dwelling within the development. The proposal does not provide details regarding how disabled access can be provided to one of the townhouses. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.4.3 of DCP 2005 have not been satisfied. In this regard, the proposed development does not promote the design of buildings that are adaptable and flexible in order to suit a disabled resident or visitor;

 

6.    The proposed development will not be in the public interest in that the development will be in contrast to the existing character and desired future character of the area.

 

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

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The subject site is known as 28 – 30 Carson Street Dundas (Lots 4 and 5 DP 31560, has a site area of 1908sqm and a frontage to Carson Street of 46.9 metres. The site is currently occupied by 2 dwellings. The locality generally consists of dwellings and multi unit housing.

 

BACKGROUND

 

2.      Development Application No. 632/2006 which sought consent for the demolition, tree removal and construction of 9 townhouses over basement car parking with strata title subdivision, was refused by Council under Delegated Authority on 4 May 2007 for the following reasons:

 

“1.     The proposed development is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the 2B Residential Zone. In this regard, the proposed development does not enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area. In addition, the proposed built form is not sympathetic to the surrounding built environment. In this regard, the proposed building height, bulk, scale and vertical proportions are not sympathetic to the surrounding built environment;

 

2.      The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 3.1), which requires townhouses to have a minimum rear setback of 15% of the site length. The proposal provides a minimum of 13.6% rear setback. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the general principles for development (contained in Part 4 of DCP 2005) have not been satisfied. In this regard, insufficient space has been set aside for ancillary structures, deep soil areas for existing mature trees and privacy to the adjoining properties. Further, the private open space areas for the rear row of townhouses that are located within the rear setback receive poor solar access;

 

3.         The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 3.1), which requires townhouses to be contained within a building envelope that is determined by projecting a plane at 45o from the ceiling level of the uppermost storey. The proposal provides parts of the front row and rear row of townhouses that project outside of the building envelope. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the general principles for development (contained in Part 4 of DCP 2005) have not been satisfied. In this regard, the roof form has not minimised the appearance of bulk and scale of the building. Also, the proposal does not ensure that the building mass and form reinforces, compliments and enhances the visual character of the street (particularly in relation to the streetscape). Further, the proposed building height does not respond to the topography and shape of the site. In addition, the development has not minimised the extent of shadows that it casts on the private open space and habitable room windows of the adjoining dwellings;

 

4.         The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.1.10), which requires townhouses to have a minimum 3% communal landscaped open space. The proposal provides no areas of communal landscaped open space. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.3.1 (Private and Communal Open Space) have not been satisfied. In this regard, the development does not provide low maintenance communal open space areas for residents that facilitate opportunities for recreational and social activities, passive amenity, landscaping and deep soil planting. Further, any communal open space areas that are provided on site should be designed with an integral role in the development, with uses such as circulation, BBQ or play areas;

 

5.         The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.3.4), which requires development to provide dwellings within the development site with a minimum of 3 hours sunlight in at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The proposal does not provide townhouses 1 – 5 and 7 with a minimum of 3 hours sunlight in at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.3.4 of DCP 2005 have not been satisfied. In this regard, the proposed development will unreasonably diminish sunlight to dwellings within the development site. Further, the proposed development will reduce the amenity of townhouses 1 – 5 and 7 for the reason that their private open space areas will not be capable of serving as an extension of the dwelling for relaxation, entertainment and recreation;

 

6.         The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.2.4), which requires development to provide dwellings with a building frontage and entry that has a sense of address and visual interest. The proposal does not provide townhouses 1 – 4 (front row) with a front entry door and pedestrian access pathway. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.2.4 of DCP 2005 have not been satisfied. In this regard, the proposed development does not ensure that the appearance of the building compliments the streetscape character and that an attractive building façade has been provided that establishes identity;

 

7.      The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.5.1), which requires car parking areas to be located so that they do not visually dominate either the development or the public domain surrounding the development. The proposed central location of the car parking access way increases its visual dominance along the street over the pedestrian entry and overall address of the development. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.5.1 of DCP 2005 have not been satisfied. In this regard, the proposed car parking access way has a detrimental visual impact on the streetscape;

 

8.      The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.4.3), which requires multi unit development with less than 10 dwellings to provide one adaptable dwelling within the development. The proposal does not provide details regarding how disabled access can be provided to one of the townhouses. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.4.3 of DCP 2005 have not been satisfied. In this regard, the proposed development does not promote the design of buildings that are adaptable and flexible in order to suit a disabled resident or visitor;

 

9.      The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.1.10), which requires development to conserve significant natural features of the site. The proposal does not retain eight existing trees along the rear boundary. In this regard, the proposal includes retaining walls at the rear of the site with landscaped garden beds that are located within 2.1 metres of the rear boundary. To ensure that the eight existing trees along the rear boundary are retained, and that they survive during construction, it is recommended that the retaining walls be located no closer than 3.3 metres from the rear boundary. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.1.10 of DCP 2005 have not been satisfied. Specifically, the proposed development does not retain mature vegetation on the site; and

 

10.    The proposed development will not be in the public interest in that the development will be in contrast to the existing character and desired future character of the area.”

 

3.      An application to review the above determination pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, was lodged with Council on 5 September 2007.

 

4.      The Section 82A review is based on revised plans. Revisions include the reduction of the number of units from 9 to 8, relocation of the driveway to the western boundary and minor modifications resulting from the reduction of yield and driveway relocation. The revised plans are considered to be substantially the same as previously assessed.

 

PROPOSAL

 

5.      Approval is sought for demolition of the existing dwellings, tree removal and construction of 8 townhouses and basement car parking.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

6.      The site is zoned 2B Residential under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and multi unit housing is permissible in the zone with the consent of Council. The proposal fails to achieve compliance with the objectives of the zone as the proposal does not enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

7.      The provisions of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal fails to achieve compliance with controls within the DCP, including solar access provision, bulk and scale of the development and provision of disabled access to the site.

 

CONSULTATION

 

8.      In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised and notified to surrounding property owners and previous objectors between 26 September 2007 and 10 October 2007. A total of 13 written submissions were received.

 

9.      The submissions raised the following issues:

 

Concerns the development will adversely impact upon the existing traffic network

 

10.    The proposed vehicular access for the development complies with Australian Standards for Parking Facilities (AS2890.1:2004) for on site parking dimensions. Concerns however are raised by Council’s Traffic Engineer that vehicle access into and from the development site is dangerous due to insufficient sight distance problems and cannot be achieved without changes occurring to the existing street. It is considered existing access and traffic arrangements from Marsden Road will be detrimentally affected if the application is approved.

 

 

 

The proposal is out of character due to the bulk, scale, height of the proposed townhouses and does not respond to the slope of the land

 

11.    It is agreed that the bulk and scale of the proposal when viewed from the street and adjoining properties is excessive. In addition the proposal does not respond to the sloping nature of the site and fails to integrate into the existing and desired streetscape. The front row of dwellings are unnecessarily elevated above natural ground level. The proposal has not been designed to respond to the constraints of the site or the existing streetscape. The excessive bulk and scale of the proposal forms part of the recommended grounds of refusal.

 

The front setbacks are not consistent with the prevailing setbacks

 

12.    Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires the front setback to be between 5 – 9 metres and consistent with the prevailing setbacks. The front setback is 6.5 metres and is considered to be consistent with the existing setbacks within the street.

 

Privacy to adjoining dwellings will be reduced due to height of dwellings and provision of attics

 

13.    The townhouses have not been designed to take into consideration the existing sloping nature of the site, thus resulting in townhouses which are excessively bulky and elevated when viewed from the street. Given this, privacy will be diminished to adjoining properties.

 

The proposal will lead to an increase in on street parking

 

14.    Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires the development to have a minimum of 12 car parking spaces. The proposal provides 15 spaces which is considered sufficient parking for the development and will limit the need for on street parking.

 

Lack of footpaths

 

15.    It is acknowledged the street has limited footpaths. Should approval be granted for the current application, a standard condition would be imposed requiring a footpath to be constructed for the full width of the property.

 

Concerns regarding the stormwater and potential impacts on adjoining properties

 

16.    The applicant submitted Stormwater Concept Plans. These plans have been reviewed by Council’s Drainage Engineers who raised no objections to the proposed on site detention methods and advise that minimal impacts will occur to adjoining properties and the on site detention tank will connect to the existing stormwater pits in Carson Street.

 

Concerns over the loss of existing trees

 

17.    The proposal seeks approval for the removal of 10 trees due to the trees being located within the building platform. Previously the applicant sought approval to remove significant trees within the rear setback. As a result of the Section 82A Review, these significant trees are to be retained. Should approval be granted, no objections are raised to the removal of the trees and it is considered sufficient landscaping is proposed to maintained the existing streetscape.

 

The proposal is not considered to be consistent with Parramatta Development Control Plan

 

18.    The proposal has been assessed against the provisions for multi unit housing as contained in PDCP 2005. The proposal is inconsistent in relation to bulk and scale, solar access and access for all. These issues are incorporated into the reasons for refusal.

 

Property values will be decreased

 

19.    It is also noted that this is not a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Concerns the basement excavation will impact upon adjoining properties

 

20.    If the application was to be approved, standard conditions of consent would be imposed to ensure that a dilapidation report of the neighbouring properties is submitted prior to work commencing in order to document and preserve the existing condition of adjoining properties. A post construction report would also be required to be provided prior to the issue of an occupation certificate. A geotechnical report will also be required to identify any rock beneath the site and the protective measures needed to prevent any damage to the adjoining properties.

 

Concerns the development will overshadow adjoining properties

 

21.    The proposal does not comply with the minimum provision for solar access to private open space areas of the dwellings within the development. In this regard the non compliance with solar access to the private open space of the units is a reason for refusal. The development provides sufficient levels of solar access to adjoining dwellings.

 

Concerns regarding the zoning of the area

 

22.    The site is zoned Residential 2B and multi unit housing is a permissible form of development subject to approval by Council. Multi unit housing is encouraged when the development relates appropriately to the site constraints and is deemed to be consistent with the existing and desired streetscape. In this instance the proposal fails to achieve compliance with the objectives of the zone.

 

On site meeting

 

23.    Council at its meeting of 9 July 2007, resolved that all Section 82A Review of Determinations be subject to a site inspection prior to being determined at a Regulatory meeting.

 

24.    In accordance with the above resolution, an on site meeting was held on 28 February 2008. Present at the meeting were Councillors Lorraine Wearne (Chairperson) and Maureen Walsh, Brad Delapierre Team Leader Development Assessment, 35 residents and 2 representatives of the applicant. The following issues were discussed:

 

Increased Traffic in the area

 

25.    Objectors raised concern that this townhouse development would increase traffic problems in the vicinity of the site. Residents advised that they experience great difficulty accessing Marsden Road from Miller Avenue and that this development may increase accidents in the area. Objectors advised that accessing Marsden Road during the morning and afternoon peaks currently detracts from the residential amenity of the area. The additional traffic generated by this development is unacceptable and concern is raised about the potential for vehicles and pedestrian accidents in local streets if the development is approved, especially taking into account that Carson Street does not have any concrete footpaths.

 

26.    The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer who raises concerns with the proposal in regards to traffic generation and impacts on Carson Street. It is considered existing access and traffic arrangements from Marsden Road will be detrimentally affected if the application is approved.

 

Parking

 

27.    Residents expressed concern that this development will lead to an increase in parking along Carson Street. Residents advised that 12 resident and 3 visitor spaces are inadequate to cater for the demand that the development will generate. Further, taking into account that the parking is within a basement car park and it is difficult to access, residents and visitors are more likely to park in Carson Street.

 

28.    Residents advised that vehicles parking for Lauriston House Reception Centre exacerbate traffic and parking problems in Miller Avenue.

 

29.    Parramatta DCP 2005 requires the development to have a minimum of 12 car on site parking spaces, 15 spaces are provided. It is considered sufficient parking is provided to cater for the development to minimise impacts on street parking. In addition, it is acknowledged at times the surrounding streets may be impacted by functions held at Lauriston House Reception Centre. This is a considered to be a management issue for the reception centre to ensure patrons do not adversely impact on residents.

 

Bulk and Scale

 

30.    Concern was raised that the bulk and scale of the building is excessive and that it is out of character with other buildings in the area.  It was indicated that a development that was all single storey would be compatible with surrounding residences.

 

31.    It is agreed that the bulk and scale of the proposal when viewed from the street and adjoining properties is excessive. The excessive bulk and scale forms part of the recommended grounds of refusal.

 

 

 

Townhouse development in the area

 

32.    Residents advised that the area has enough townhouses and that this development would be another unwanted development in the area.

 

33.    The zoning of 2B Residential allows multi unit housing. The zone objectives encourage multi unit housing where the proposal does not compromise amenity. The current proposal fails to achieve compliance with the objectives of the zone.

 

Driveway Location

 

34.    An objector asked to be advised of the location of the driveway as it was likely to require the removal of endangered vegetation. It was explained that as there is an existing transmission line easement, all trees located adjacent to the boundary with No. 26 Carson Street are able to be retained.

 

35.    Residents on the other side of Carson Street raised concern about headlight glare into their properties from the site. It is not considered the multi unit housing development will generate significant levels of headlight glare resulting in adverse impacts on adjoining properties.

 

36.    Concerns are raised about the location of the driveway with regards to sight distances and the associated impacts on the existing street conditions. In this regard approval of the development would result in adverse impacts on the existing road network.

 

Construction Damage

 

37.    Adjoining property owners raised concerns that their properties may be damaged whilst excavation and construction is occurring.

 

38.    Council’s standard conditions require a dilapidation report to be prepared, both prior to excavation occurring and prior to the occupation of the development for adjoining properties. These standard conditions would be imposed on a development consent notice.

 

Privacy and Overlooking

 

39.    Concern was raised about the opportunity to look into adjoining properties from this development. It was indicated that their level of residential amenity would be reduced.

 

40.    The townhouses have not been designed to take into consideration the constraints of the site including the sloping topography. Given this, it is agreed that privacy will be diminished.

 

Flooding

 

41.    Residents indicated that after periods of heavy rain Carson Street often floods and this development will exacerbate the problem. It was also indicated that water from above is likely to penetrate the basement car park causing damage to goods stored within.

 

42.    It was explained that the provision of on-site detention may reduce flooding within Carson Street after heavy rain. It is noted that Council’s Development Engineer raises no concerns relative to stormwater management, subject to standard conditions of consent.

 

Architectural Appearance

 

43.    Residents indicated that the development lacked architectural merit especially the first floor of townhouse 4, which extends over the driveway to the basement car park.

 

44.    Concerns are raised with regards to the bulk and scale of the development when viewed from the street. In addition the first floor of unit 4 cantilevered over the driveway reiterates the obtrusive nature of the development. It is agreed the design lacks architectural merit. 

 

Contrary to Planning Controls

 

45.    An objector read out the objectives for the Residential 2B zone contained in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan and indicated that it was clear from the reviewing the plans that this development was contrary to these objectives.

 

ISSUES

 

Solar access

 

46.    Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires development to provide dwellings within the development site with a minimum of 3 hours sunlight in at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The proposal does not provide townhouses 2 and 3 with a minimum 3 hours sunlight in at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

 

47.    This is considered unacceptable as the proposal does not achieve compliance with the objectives for solar access; the design of the multi unit housing development unreasonably diminishes solar access for all dwellings and results in reduced amenity of townhouses 2 and 3 in that their private open space areas will not be capable of serving as an extension for the dwelling for relaxation, entertainment and recreation.

 

Bulk and scale

 

48.    The proposal is not considered to relate appropriately to the existing topography of the site resulting in increased bulk and scale of the first row of townhouses. The first floor level is approximately 1.1 metres above existing natural ground level.

 

49.    The raised grass areas, and access stairs to these areas are not considered to be an appropriate design response given the topography of the site. The stairs at the highest point at 1.5 metres above existing natural ground level.

 

50.    The streetscape appearance is considered to be unsatisfactory. Council’s Urban Designer has reviewed the proposal and provides the following comments:

 

          Overall, it is considered that the proposed townhouse development would result in a poor urban design outcome, with the built form design ignoring the site’s context/characteristics and disregarding the fundamental characteristics of terrace design. The efforts to reduce the bulk, scale and mass of the development are unsuccessful.”

 

51.    It is considered the proposal results in a development which adds bulk and scale to the streetscape and is not in keeping with the existing or desired streetscape.

 

Access and Adaptable housing

 

52.    Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires multi unit development with less than 10 dwellings to provide one adaptable dwelling within the development, in addition all ground floor dwellings in buildings must be visitable by people with a disability. This means that there must be a continuous accessible path of travel from the street and any visitor parking to and from dwellings.

 

53.    The applicant in their submission states “due to the site topography and the provision of steps throughout the development effectively negate full compliance with disabled access requirements, particularly from the street”.

 

54.    The proposal fails to achieve compliance with providing housing for persons with a disability, due to the design of the dwellings and the extensive provision of steps. The proposal is not considered to promote the design of buildings that are adaptable and flexible in order to suit a disabled resident or visitor.

 

Section 82A Review of Application

 

55.    The application is substantially the same as previously assessed. It is considered the reduction of 1 unit can be assessed under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. An assessment of the Section 82A Review application against the outstanding reasons of refusal of the original DA is provided below.

 

56.    The proposed development is inconsistent with the 2B residential zoning objectives as the proposal fails to respond appropriately to the sloping nature of the site. The proposed building height, bulk, scale and vertical proportions are not sympathetic to the surrounding built environment.

 

57.    The proposed development fails to achieve full numerical compliance with solar access to all dwellings, dwellings 2 and 3 do not receive adequate levels of solar access between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. This results in reduced amenity for future residents.

 

58.    The proposed development has not been sufficiently amended in design to provide and promote an active street frontage. The raised grass areas to dwellings 1 through to 4, and associated access stairs to these areas are not considered to be an appropriate design response given the topography of the site. The stairs at the highest point at 1.5 metres above existing natural ground level.

 

59.       Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires multi unit development with less than 10 dwellings to provide one adaptable dwelling within the development, in addition all ground floor dwellings in buildings must be visitable by people with a disability. This means that there must be a continuous accessible path of travel from the street and any visitor parking to and from dwellings.

 

60.       The applicant in their submission states “due to the site topography and the provision of steps throughout the development effectively negate full compliance with disabled access requirements, particularly from the street”.

 

61.      The proposal fails to achieve compliance with providing housing for persons with a disability, due to the design of the dwellings, the extensive provision of steps. The proposal is not considered to promote the design of buildings that are adaptable and flexible in order to suit a disabled resident or visitor.

 

62.      The issues raised in the resident’s submissions remain and have not been adequately resolved though the amendments made in the Section 82A Review of Determination.

 

63.      The proposal is not considered to be in the public interest for the reasons stated above and is not deemed to be compatible with the existing and likely character of the area. The proposal is not considered to meet the objectives of the 2B Residential zone having regard to the matters raised in this report.

 

 

 

 

Sara Matthews

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Table of Compliance

6 Pages

 

2View

Plans and Elevations

7 Pages

 

3View

Locality Plan

1 Page

 

4View

History of DA

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Table of Compliance

 






 


Attachment 2

Plans and Elevations

 







 


Attachment 3

Locality Plan

 

 


Attachment 4

History of DA

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.5

SUBJECT                   29-31 Garnet Street Merrylands

DESCRIPTION          Demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a multi-unit housing development containing 6 dwellings

REFERENCE            DA/755/2007 - Submitted 12 September 2007

APPLICANT/S           Resitech

OWNERS                    NSW Department of Housing

REPORT OF              Senior Development Assessment Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 755/2007 that seeks approval for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a multi unit housing development containing 6 dwellings.

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Development Application No. 1025/2007 be approved subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions subject to the concurrence of the applicant or the Minister being provided as required by Section 116C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

1.      The Pinus radiata (Monterey Pine) tree located at the front of the site within Lot DP 35056 shall be removed. Two (2) Tristaniopsis laurina (Water Gum) trees shall be planted on the nature strip prior to occupation of the development and maintained until mature.

Reason:   To enhance the streetscape.

 

2.      A revised version of landscape plan drawing No. L-01 prepared by Ray Fuggle and Associates shall be prepared prior to the commencement of construction. The landscape plan shall be revised in accordance with the approved site plan and the development shall be completed in accordance with the revised landscape plan.

Reason:   To ensure that a revised landscape plan is provided.

 

3.      The following engineering requirements are to be shown on the stormwater concept plans:

3.1    Control pit in the on-site detention shall be a high early discharge control pit in accordance with Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust, on-site Stormwater Detention Handbook, in this case Figure 7.10 - 7.11 (3rd edition).

3.2    Provide 5.5m wide vehicular footpath crossing with a transition zone narrowed to the width of the internal driveway.

3.3    Provide minimum 200mm gap beneath dividing fence within the on-site detention area in courtyards of unit 1, unit 2 and unit 3.

3.4    Surrounding retaining wall in the on-site detention shall be water tight.

3.5    No loose mulch within the On-site detention area.

Reason:   To provide efficient civil design

 

 

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

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The site is located on the eastern side of Garnet Street. The site comprises two allotments which each containing a single storey fibro dwelling. The site has a frontage of 32.7m to Garnet Street, depth of 45.7m and overall site area of 1500.48m2. The site has a gradual fall from the rear to the front. Garnet Street is characterised by a mix of single storey and 2 storey dwellings of varying age and styles. A multi unit housing development is located on the south-western corner of Garnet Street and Lavinia Street. The site is within walking distance of several shops located on the corner of Excelsior Street and Constance Street.

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.      The proposal is for the demolition of the existing dwellings and the construction of a multi-unit housing development containing 6 X 2 bedroom dwellings. A central driveway is proposed with vehicular access to each dwelling being provided from this driveway. The four dwellings to the front of the site have a height of 2 storeys and the two dwellings to the rear of the site have a height of one storey. A total of 8 car parking spaces are provided, including 2 visitor spaces.

 

3.      The applicant for the development application is a Crown authority as determined by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Section 166C of the Act states that a consent authority cannot refuse an application by the Crown without the approval of the Minister or impose a condition of consent without the approval of the Minister or the applicant. In this regard the applicant has agreed to the imposition of the non-standard conditions contained in the recommendation.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

4.      The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta LEP 2001 and the proposed development is permissible within the zone, subject to the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of PLEP 2001.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

5.      Parramatta DCP 2005 applies to the subject development. The proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the DCP, the development does not comply with three of the numerical requirements of the DCP being solar access, privacy separation and ceiling height. These non compliances are discussed in the ‘ISSUES’ section of this report.

 

CONSULTATION

 

6.      In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was advertised and notified between 3 October and 24 October 2007. One submission and two petitions, with a total of 20 signatures were received. Amended plans were advertised and notified between 12 March and 2 April 2008. No submissions were received. The matters raised in the submissions are addressed below.

 

Townhouses are too small for families or sole parents

 

7.      Parramatta DCP 2005 does not contain a minimum size for a townhouse. Each of the single storey townhouses has a floor area of 82m2 and the 2 storey townhouses have a floor area of 102m2. In the absence of a minimum floor area requirement in Parramatta DCP 2005, it is useful to refer to the minimum requirements for apartments contained within the Department of Planning’s document the Residential Flat Design Code. This code suggests that the minimum floor area for a 2 bedroom affordable housing unit should be 70m2. The development exceeds this standard with the smallest townhouse being 82m2 and therefore the size of the townhouses is considered acceptable.

 

No areas on site for children to play and children will be forced to play in the street which is not safe

 

8.      Parramatta DCP 2005 requires 10% of the deep soil area on the site to be communal landscaped open space. This control requires 45m2 of communal landscaped open space to be provided in this particular case. A review of the plans indicates that 135m2 of communal landscape open space is provided. The development exceeds the private open space and communal open space requirement of Parramatta DCP 2005.

 

No provision has been made for increases to Medical Services and Schooling

 

9.      This is not a matter relevant to the consideration of this development application. The site is zoned Residential 2(b) and multi-unit housing developments are permissible in this zone.

 

Allowing further medium density housing into the street would result in further difficulties with traffic and parking

 

10.    The development has provided resident and visitor car parking in accordance with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005. As the development complies with the parking requirements, does not exceed the floor space ratio and multi-unit housing is a permissible form of development, the application could not be refused due the potential for increased on street parking. Council’s Traffic Engineer has not raised any concerns with the impact of the development on the efficient operation of Garnet Street.

 

The townhouses are of simple design and not in keeping with the design of the houses in the street

 

11.    Garnet Street is characterised by a mix of dwelling types, including simple single storey fibro cottages and recently constructed 2 storey brick dwellings. The proposed development utilises a face brick wall finish and a skillion roof covered in colorbond. The development will integrate with the streetscape and is considered appropriate for the site and surrounds.

 

The development would result in decreased property values

 

12.    The impact of development on property values is not a matter for consideration pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

On-Site Meeting

 

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

 

14.       In accordance with the above resolution, an invitation to Councillors, Council officers, the applicant and the objectors was sent in relation to the inspection to be held on Saturday 29 March 2008, commencing at 12.00pm.

 

15.       Present at the site meeting were Councillor Barber (Chairman), Councillor Maureen Walsh, Councillor Omar Jamal, Councillor Anita Brown, Council’s Team Leader Development & Certification, the applicant and 9 residents. The following issues were discussed at the meeting:

 

Children will have to play on the street

 

16.    Residents raised concern that the proposed development does not allow opportunity for children to play within the site without the need to utilise the road. Furthermore, the residents are concerned with speeding vehicles and having children playing in the street would be a potential danger, as the development site has minimal area dedicated as private open space.

 

17.    The proposed private open space and communal open space provision are in accordance with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005. Existing issues with regard to speeding vehicles are not relevant to the assessment of the development application. 

 

Inadequate services within the locality 

 

18.    Residents raised concern that existing services such as schools, medical centres and infrastructure are already at the maximum capacity. In particular the local medical centre will not allow any new patients and existing patients are forced to wait extensive times for appointments, due to the number of customers utilising the service. In addition, the local primary school is also at a capacity with the strands of grades being increased to manage student levels.

 

19.    As the zoning of the site allows multi unit housing developments, these issues do not warrant the refusal of the application. It is noted that the proposal attract a financial contribution under Section 94, which is a local infrastructure levy.

 

Use of air-conditioning systems within the site

 

20.    The residents questioned the ability to provide cooling to the development as the first floor will be hot for the residents.

 

21.    A BASIX certificate was submitted with the application. Appropriately designed eaves and insulation to the walls and ceiling are provided to the development. This will ensure that the dwellings are energy efficient and achieve an appropriate level of thermal comfort.

 

Maintenance of Department of Housing site

 

22.    Residents raised concern that nearby Department of Housing sites are overgrown and require numerous telephone calls to both Council and the DOH before the situation is rectified.

 

23.    This issue is not relevant to the assessment of the development application.

 

Tree Removal

 

24.    Concern was raised that the Pinus radiata tree located within the front setback area of the site should be removed to allow construction of the development and the footpath.

 

25.    Council’s Landscape Officer has reviewed the application and supports removal of the tree because it has a significant surface root system and its health will be affected by the proposed development.

 

Streetscape

 

26.    Residents raised concern that the two storey element presenting to Garnet Street would detract from the streetscape and therefore the design should be modified to single storey.

 

27.    The street comprises a mixture of single storey development and new two storey development. The development is sympathetic to the streetscape and the 2 storey height is permitted by Parramatta DCP 2005.

 

ISSUES

 

Privacy

 

28.    Part 4.3.2 of Parramatta DCP 2005 requires a separation of 12m between habitable rooms within a development site.

 

29.    The separation between the kitchen windows of unit 1 and the dining room window of unit 6 is 9.3m. The separation between the kitchen windows of unit 2 and the dining room window of unit 5 is 9.4m. The separation between the bedroom window of unit 3 and the bedroom window of unit 4 is 11.2m.

 

30.    The non compliance with the 12m requirement is considered acceptable because screening trees are proposed within the planter beds on both sides of the driveway. The screening trees will prevent any significant overlooking between the dwellings within the development site. Further, there are no direct views from high use habitable rooms into another high use habitable room in another unit.

 

Solar Access

 

31.    Part 4.3.4 ‘Solar Access and Cross Ventilation’ of Parramatta DCP 2005 requires that 50% of private open space areas receive 3 hours of solar access on the winter solstice. Part 4.3.1 ‘Private and Communal Open Space’ of DCP 2005 states that the minimum private open space area for multi unit housing is 40m2.

 

32.    The courtyard to unit No. 5 has an area of 53.7m2. The courtyard will receive 18m2 of solar access at 11am, 12m2 at midday and 5m2 at 1pm. For the remainder of the day the entire area of the courtyard will be shaded by the building.

 

33.    The courtyard to unit No. 6 has an area of 53.8m2. The courtyard will receive 1.8m2 of solar access at 11am, 9.7m2 at midday, 9m2 at 1pm, 14m2 at 2pm and 18m2 at 3pm. For the remainder of the day the entire area of the courtyard will be shaded by the building.

 

34.    The living area of each unit within the development has a northerly aspect. Habitable rooms will receive at least 3 hours of solar access as required by the DCP. The solar orientation of the courtyard of units 5 and 6 is not ideal. However, the density of the development is 35% less than the maximum permitted and the courtyards are 32% larger than required. Having regards to the site constraints and the FSR of the proposal, the non compliance with the DCP solar access control is considered acceptable and will not unduly impact on the amenity of future residents.

 

Ceiling Height

 

35.       The ceiling height of the first floor levels of the two storey units is 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.

 

36.       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.

 

37.       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.

 

38.       The proposed townhouses are a BASIX affected development and the 2.7m minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect.

 

 

Jonathan Goodwill

Senior Development Assessment Officer

30 April 2008

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

2View

Development Application History

1 Page

 

3View

Multi Unit Housing Checksheet

5 Pages

 

4View

Plans and Elevations

5 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Attachment 1

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 2

Development Application History

 

 


Attachment 3

Multi Unit Housing Checksheet

 





 


Attachment 4

Plans and Elevations

 





 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.6

SUBJECT                   3-11 Shirley Street, Rosehill (Lot 2 DP 864567) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of an awning to be located on the second floor of the Capral Aluminium building. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE            DA/86/2008 - Submitted 13 February 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mr D Ferrier

OWNERS                    ING Industrial Custodian Pty Ltd

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No 86/2008 which seeks approval for the construction of an awning to be located over part of the proposed rooftop outdoor area on the Capral Aluminium building.

 

The application has been referred to Council as the property is listed as a heritage item in Schedule 6 Part 2 of the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 86/2008 subject to standard conditions.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The site is located on the corner of Unwin & Shirley Street Rosehill and has an approximate area of 201,600 square metres. The site has been identified as a master plan site under the provisions of SREP 28 and has been identified as a potentially contaminated site and is flood prone. The subject building is located on the north west corner of the site and is two storey in height with a third storey element at the mid section. The building is currently used for commercial purposes and is listed as a heritage item under Schedule 6 Part 2 of SREP 28. Surrounding development comprises of a variety of industrial uses, the Parramatta Speedway & Rosehill Racecourse.

 

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.      Development Application No. 86/2008 seeks approval for the following:

 

2.1         The proposal seeks approval for the construction of an awning which is to be located on the second floor (roof level) of the heritage listed building, opening out from the existing kitchen & tearoom areas.

 

2.2         The proposed roof area of the awning will be 10m x 7.5m, open on two sides and setback from the prominent face of the building.

 

2.3         The proposal will involve the removal of the bitumised felt roofing finish and replace with light weight anti slip tiles to form an outdoor area for the use of office workers of the Capral Aluminium building.

 

2.4         The existing access structure for the air-conditioning system will be remodelled to form a permanent seating area with a revised access hatch.

 

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55

 

3.      The site has been identified as being potentially contaminated due to the previous history, in particular the past industrial uses on the subject site.

 

4.      The proposal will not involve any excavation or soil disturbance of the site as all works are proposed on the second floor level of the building therefore the development application is satisfactory having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under SEPP 55.

 

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28

 

5.      The site is zoned Regional Enterprise & Environmental Protection under the provisions of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta. A portion of the site which abuts Duck Creek is zoned Environmental Protection zone. The Capral Aluminium building is located wholly within the Regional Enterprise zone and will have no impact on the area that is zoned Environmental Protection zone. The proposal is permissible within the zone and is consistent with the applicable standards & objectives set out within Part 8 ‘Camelia Precinct’ of SREP 28.

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

6.      In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between the 25 February 2008 and 10 March 2008. No submissions were received.

 

 

ISSUES

 

Heritage

 

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

 

          The building is listed as a local item in SREP 28. It comprises of a two-storey building with three storey central portion, facing Unwin and Shirley Streets, near the corner of the two streets.  The proposal is located on the rooftop area, above the second storey, and set back from the street to avoid visibility from the public domain. The impact on fabric is relatively small, in the context of the overall building. The design of the proposal is simple and utilitarian; however, this is acceptable given its low visibility and light character. The spatial organization of the building will not be affected. 

 

          I am thus of opinion that the proposal is acceptable in the context of ongoing use of the building.

 

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

 

9.      The rooftop area will be utilised by workers within the Capral Aluminium building and will not give rise to any undue acoustic or privacy impacts.

 

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

30 April 2008

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans

2 Pages

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Plans

 


 


Attachment 2

Locality Map

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.7

SUBJECT                   70 Ross Street North